U A As and Other Tools
for Managing Designated Uses
-,- . •"
L
March 2006
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
(4503T)
EPA 821-R-07-001
March 2006
-------
Use Attainability Analyses
and Other Tools for Managing
Designated Uses
March 2006
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASMiNGTO'N, DC
MAR I 3
MEMORANDUM •****
SUBJECT, Impiovmg the Effectiveness of the I Jsc Auuinubiliiy Analysis (IIAA) Process
«-r_3 /_/ 4
FROM: Ephrntm S. King, Director /' /t_-t-~<—7-
Office of Science arid Technology "~"~"" /
/
TO: Regional Water Division Directors. [
Regions 1-10
I am writing you to reinforce ihe of vutrkmp wilts uui Mate and
partners 10 the UAA process operate effectively. As you know , appiopnatc and
defensible water quality standards (WQS) are essential for achieving the Clean Water Act
fCWA) p,onl<% nf maintaining and restoring water quality — and getting WQS nght starts with
gelling designated uses right.
Wilh this inurno, i am aliadimg a set of case studies which demonstrate a number of
UAAs that ;ae a^oaated with a designated use change. Thesic cnsc studies illustrate the breadth
wild viinety of successful UAAs in terms of the types of wuterbodies and uses addressed, the
factors involved f i.e., natural, human caused, or economic conditions), and the complexity and
depih of analysis. You can expect to receive additional UAA-relaled materials from the Office
of Science arid Technology COST) this calendar year, such as sets of frequently asked questions
and answers alx»ut UAAs, to help support implementation of the 1 'A A process in your Region.
OISF »>ki;il !» T»I make the WQS program work better. Oui piiutiH ^ tu m»pio\c clant\ in
the WQS procet.s including bet let cottmiutiuMiuHi. undei Bunding, efficiency, and mcrcased
public awaieiiej> \!akm«4 fi.e I AA pieces* operate eiTecinch is. an tmponanf ^4-p io\uird'",
achieving these priorities.. Once *utcs and irtbes deo^niite the appropnare uses, the nghi water
c{ualil\ ciitetT.t. permits and t:»r^ej> for Total \la\jmum Daily Loadi (TMDl.si will tulltm to
move us towards improving water qualit).
I iippreciate your continued suppun in this atea and ask thai you shaic and reinforce with
our co regulators and siukdiuldcis (lie following live key points.
•
-------
» A credible IJAA can result in a change in designated use in either direction. A
credible UAA can lead to refinements or changes in use thai lead to either more or less
protective criteria. The goal is that the new use is more accurate.
• There is nothing wrong with changing designated uses after completion of a credible
UAA. It is an expected part of the process. If a credible and defensible UAA indicates a
need for a WQS change, then a change to WQS is appropriate to effectively
implementing the WQS program. Sometimes these changes are on ihe critical path to
making real environmental progress,
« The UAA process should be better integrated with TMDL development. We need to
work together wtlh states and tribes to ensure that as we develop TMPI.s. we also
coordinate on issues related to use attainability as needed. In practice, ttie information
gathered to develop a TMDL, and the allocations in a TMDL. may point 10 Hie need to
pursue a UAA. While in some cases it may be more effective to ensure that the right uses
are in place prior to completing the TMDL, it is also impuriiuit nut lu lei uncertainty
about a sperifir water quality cndpoim delay implementation of needed water quality
improvements. Scarce resources should he directed where they will be most effective
and avoid dupliealivc efforts. Wu should eoiiliituc to slmic ideas/examples, develop and
promote best practices.
* Improved public communication leads to improved public acceptance. It is critical
for EPA, states and tribes to engage the public in meaningful discussions regarding the
importance and value of getting uses right in maintaining and restoring water quality.
WQS that reflect the best available data and information should be used to direct the
process of managing water quality. They are essential to informed derision making, lust
as important, public understanding and acceptance of WQS is central To broader
community support for addressing potentially difficult pollution control management
decisions.
In the long run, water quality programs will be most successful if the public understands
their underlying goals, the process by which those goals are set, and is engaged and able to
effectively contribute to that process. Getting the uses right is on the critical path to effective
water quality standards implementation. Accomplishing this can be u significant challenge but it
is also an essential need, 1 look forward to continuing to address these issues with you.
Attachment
ce: Regional Water Quality Standards Branch Chiefs. Regions 1-10
Diane Regas, OWOW
Lcc Sthroer, OGC
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Preface iii
Overview of Case Studies: UAAs and Other Tools for Managing Designated Uses v
Case Studies
Kansas and New York UAA Worksheets 1
Suspension of Recreational Beneficial Uses in Engineered Channels during Unsafe Wet
Weather Conditions 6
Valley Creek, Alabama UAA 11
New York Harbor Complex UAA 16
Red Dog Mine UAA 21
Montana's Temporary Water Quality Standards—New World Mining District 25
Chesapeake Bay UAAs 30
Tables
Table 1. Differences between F&W and LWF Uses 12
Table 2. Classification and Best Use Specification of Waterbodies Not Meeting CWA
Section 101(a)(2) Goals and Recommended Classification Upgrades 19
Table 3. Designated Uses for Alaska 22
Table 4. Original and Modified Numeric Criteria 27
Figures
Figure 1. Crosby Creek UAA: Basic site information 3
Figure 2. Crosby Creek UAA results 4
Figure 3. New York UAA worksheet 5
Figure 4. High-flow conditions inBallona Creek 6
Figure 5. Red Dog Area 21
Figure 6. New World Mining District 26
Figure 7. Chesapeake Bay watershed 30
Figure 8. Conceptual illustration of the five Chesapeake Bay tidal water designated
use zones 32
Appendices
Appendix A: Kansas and New York UAA Worksheets
Crosby Creek Worksheet
Antelope Creek Worksheet
New York Worksheet
Appendix B: Suspension of Recreational Beneficial Uses
Los Angeles Draft Staff Report
Appendix C: Valley Creek UAA
ADEM Use Attainability Analysis, Valley Creek
EPA 821-R-07-001 i March 2006
-------
Table of Contents
Appendix D: New York Harbor Complex UAA
Use Attainability Analysis of the New York Harbor Complex
Appendix E: Red Dog Mine UAA
Red Dog Use Attainability Analysis Aquatic Life Component
Appendix F: Chesapeake Bay UAAs
Use Attainability Analysis for Tidal Waters of the Chesapeake Bay Mainstem and its
Tidal Tributaries Located in the State of Maryland
Use Attainability Analysis for the Federal Navigation Channels Located in Tidal Portions
of the Patapsco River
Appendix G: Case Studies (March 2005)
EPA 821-R-07-001 n March 2006
-------
Preface
Preface
Setting water quality goals through assigning "designated uses" is best viewed as a process for
states and tribes to review and revise over time rather than as a one-time exercise. A key concept
in assigning designated uses is "attainability," or the ability to achieve water quality goals under
a given set of natural, human-caused, and economic conditions. The overall success of pollution
control efforts depends on a reliable set of underlying designated uses in water quality standards.
EPA's water quality standards regulation provides a process for reviewing and revising
designated uses, described as a "use attainability analysis," as well as several rationales or factors
that may be invoked as the reason for changing a use. In implementing the regulation, EPA
provides outreach and support to states and tribes to assist them in working through this process.
The goal is for every waterbody to have a designated use that is scientifically and legally
defensible and supported by the local community.
In recognition of the strong role that designated uses have in driving monitoring, assessments,
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and permits, EPA has been promoting public dialogue
on designated uses and UAAs. In 2002, EPA held a Designated Use Symposium. Participants
generally agreed that it is important to have the right uses designated to each waterbody segment,
and we also learned that states needed to invest in putting in place more refined use designations
along with differentiated criteria to protect those uses. From this symposium, we realized that
states and EPA need a credible and efficient process for making use decisions in a timely manner
that allows progress toward the best water quality possible. After making designated uses a
priority, we issued our Plan for Supporting States and Tribes on Designated Use Issues in 2004,
which called for:
• More outreach, training, workshops, and other support for states and tribes on critical
issues regarding designating appropriate uses; and
• Continued discussions with stakeholders on designated use issues.
Over the past year, EPA has facilitated several workshops with our state, inter-state, and tribal
partners. EPA Regional Offices have been heavily involved and invested in these efforts. We
have heard about some innovative and successful approaches, as well as some common
frustrations. In addition, EPA has co-sponsored multi-stakeholder public meetings to obtain
views from interested parties. Overall, we heard a desire to reduce debate and to make progress
toward reaching attainable goals. We heard a desire for EPA to provide more precise and specific
answers to what are in some cases some pretty generic questions about how we interpret certain
provisions of our regulations.
Over the course of implementing the WQS program, many designated use changes have occurred
as a result of informative and compelling demonstrations provided by UAAs. The enclosed case
studies display the breadth and variety of UAAs. In some cases, such as the one provided for
Chesapeake Bay, the UAA is extensive and resource-intensive. However, we have also seen
effective UAAs that are much simpler, for example by conveying the appropriate designated use
expectations principally through a set of photographs documenting the physical characteristics of
the waterbody.
EPA 821-R-07-001 m March 2006
-------
Preface
The most significant misperception about designated uses and UAAs is that UAAs need only
address the current condition of a waterbody: that a designated use may be removed simply by
documenting that protective criteria are exceeded. However, it is the prospective analysis of
future attainability of designated uses that provides the demonstration necessary to support a use
change. A related misconception is that UAAs are only a means to remove a designated use. In
fact, UAAs have supported both removing uses and adding uses. The program experience and
future direction reflects a growing practice of "sub-categorizing" or "refining" designated uses;
that is, making them more specific and precise as opposed to removing them.
Often, we are confronted with the fundamental question of why we should promote refining
designated uses, particularly if the current designated uses are "fishable/swimmable." Our intent
is to help the public act to improve water quality. We believe that setting attainable water quality
goals is important in stimulating action to improve water quality. We do not believe that setting
unattainable uses advances actions to improve water quality.
The WQS program is intended to protect and improve water quality beyond what is provided for
through technology controls under the effluent guidelines program. WQS are supposed to guide
actions to reduce pollutant releases regulated under the CWA. WQS are supposed to help us
decide what needs to be done. The reality is that as more assessments are being done and
TMDLs are being contemplated, we are facing attainability questions with current standards.
This is in part related to the evolution of the WQS Program; in the early days, use attainability
analyses were not usually performed when uses were originally designated. We are encountering
more difficult issues, such as how to address the recreational use issue during wet weather events
(CSOs) and how to address aquatic life uses in effluent dependent and ephemeral waters. These
attainability questions can contribute to delays in achieving pollutant reductions (especially for
nonpoint source control) because people often believe that the water quality goals are incorrect
and perceive that revising WQS is a complex process. This is why we have been investigating
the best ways to utilize UAAs and related tools, like variances, to make progress in getting
designated uses right.
Many of our waters do not meet the water quality goals envisioned by the Clean Water Act.
Many of the problems have been produced over many years and may take many years to resolve.
Some problems may take substantial changes in resource management to implement solutions. A
process of setting incremental water goals through refined designated uses, that in turn advances
progress toward an ultimate goal, can help us achieve our long term goals faster. One way to
achieve efficiency in the process of assigning attainable designated uses is to better synchronize
UAA analyses with the TMDL process. In practice, UAAs may be conducted prior to,
concurrently with, or after the development and implementation of a TMDL. In many cases, the
data generated during a TMDL could well serve as the foundation for deciding whether a change
in a use is warranted.
Finally, whenever we contemplate a use change, there should be thoughtful and informed public
involvement in the process and throughout the process. States should communicate to the public
about use changes early in the process and EPA should publicly support the states' actions to
engage the local community in these discussions of what is attainable. These are important
decisions, and the best decisions reflect consideration of all perspectives.
EPA 821-R-07-001 iv March 2006
-------
Overview of Case Studies
Overview of Case Studies: UAAs and Other Tools for Managing
Designated Uses
What is a UAA and what are the 40 CFR 131.10(g) factors?
A Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) is a structured scientific assessment of the factors
affecting the attainment of uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act (the
so called "fishable/swimmable" uses). The factors to be considered in such an analysis
include the physical, chemical, biological, and economic use removal criteria described in
EPA s water quality standards regulation (40 CFR 131.10(g)(l)-(6)).
Under 40 CFR 131.10(g) states may remove a designated use which is not an existing use,
as defined in § 131.3, or establish sub-categories of a use if the State can demonstrate that
attaining the designated use is not feasible because:
1. Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use; or
2. Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the
attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the
discharge of sufficient volume of effluent discharges without violating State water
conservation requirements to enable uses to be met; or
3. Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use
and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct
than to leave in place; or
4. Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original
condition or to operate such modification in a way that would result in the
attainment of the use; or
5. Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the
lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated
to water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or
6. Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act
would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
EPA 821-R-07-001 v March 2006
-------
Overview of Case Studies
UAAs and Other Tools for Managing Designated Uses
Selection of Case Studies
Case Study
(State, EPA Region)
Kansas & New York UAA
Worksheets: Crosby Creek
(Kansas, EPA Region 7)
Kansas & New York UAA
Worksheets: Antelope Creek
(Kansas, EPA Region 7)
Kansas & New York UAA
Worksheets: Tributary of
Seneca River
(New York, EPA Region 2)
Suspension of Recreational
Beneficial Uses in Engineered
Channels During Unsafe Wet
Weather Conditions
(California, EPA Region 9)
Valley Creek UAA
(Alabama, EPA Region 4)
New York Harbor Complex
UAA
(New York, EPA Region 2)
Red Dog Mine UAA
(Alaska, EPA Region 10)
Montana' s Temporary Water
Quality Standards — New World
Mining District
(Montana, EPA Region 8)
Chesapeake Bay UAAs and
Restoration Variance
(Maryland, EPA Region 3)
Complexity
very simple
very simple
very simple
simple
simple
medium
medium
complex
very
complex
Type of Action
Assign primary contact
recreational use
Redefined as ephemeral
stream
Aquatic life use support
Temporary suspension
of recreational use
Assign limited warmwater
fishery use
Assign aquatic life &
recreational uses
Removal of aquatic life
uses & development of
site-specific criterion
Temporary standards for
multiple uses
during remediation
Refined aquatic life uses
and restoration variance
131.10(g)
Factor(s)
n/a
2
2
2,4
3,5
3
1,3
3
1,3,6
EPA 821-R-07-001
VI
March 2006
-------
Overview of Case Studies
Case Studies
Brief Descriptions
KANSAS AND NEW YORK UAA WORKSHEETS: CROSBY CREEK IN KANSAS
Complexity: Very simple Type of Action: Assign primary contact recreational use
Region: 7 131.10(g) Factors: n/a
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has developed a worksheet to
conduct many simple use attainability analyses (UAAs). The worksheet provides reviewers with
information such as the name, location, and description of the waterbody; an assessment of its
current recreational uses; and observations of aquatic life. Users can evaluate this information
and develop a justification for retaining or changing designated uses. One example of using this
worksheet is the Crosby Creek UAA conducted in 2001. In the UAA KDHE proposed primary
contact recreation use for Crosby Creek, an upgrade from the secondary contact recreation use
designated previously. KDHE also proposes to maintain the current aquatic life use designation.
Kansas adopted this change their water quality standards and EPA approved it.
KANSAS AND NEW YORK UAA WORKSHEETS: ANTELOPE CREEK IN KANSAS
Complexity: Very simple Type of Action: Redefined as ephemeral stream
Region: 7 131.10(g) Factors: 2
KDHE's UAA worksheet was used for the Antelope Creek UAA conducted in 2001. In that
UAA, KDHE did not recommend primary contact recreation as a designated use for this water
because of the low flow conditions in the stream (131.10(g) factor 2). The segment fits Kansas'
definition of an ephemeral stream, grass or vegetative waterway, culvert, or ditch. Photos are
provided with the worksheet to show the dry conditions in the streambed. This change was
adopted into Kansas' water quality standards and approved by EPA.
KANSAS AND NEW YORK UAA WORKSHEETS: TRIBUTARY OF THE SENECA
RIVER IN NEW YORK
Complexity: Very simple Type of Action: Aquatic life use support
Region: 2 131.10(g) Factors: 2
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has used a simple
worksheet to document UAAs for aquatic life use support. These worksheets were developed as
part of an overall 1985 State "Water Quality Standards Attainability Strategy," which included
specific guidance for field biologists on assessing fish propagation for various habitats. The
worksheet contains the name and location of the waterbody, a checklist of reasons why the
waterbody cannot attain full aquatic life designated uses, and space for additional comments or
recommendations. One example is a 1992 UAA for a tributary of the Seneca River in New York.
Some segments were changed from Class D to Class C (supportive of both aquatic life and
recreational uses), and others were determined incapable of attaining Class C on the basis of
EPA 821-R-07-001 vn March 2006
-------
Overview of Case Studies
131.10(g) factor 2. The worksheet documents the Department's proposed changes to the
designated uses.
SUSPENSION OF RECREATIONAL BENEFICIAL USES IN ENGINEERED
CHANNELS DURING UNSAFE WET WEATHER CONDITIONS
Complexity: Simple Type of Action: Temporary suspension of recreational use
Region: 9 131.10(g) Factors: 2, 4
The Los Angeles Region has many rivers and streams that have been straightened, concrete-
lined, or both to move floodwaters from urban areas to the ocean. These channels transport large
volumes of water that might not be of adequate quality to support Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 101(a) uses (i.e., "fishable/swimmable"). The water quality goals set forth in the Los
Angeles Region's Basin Plan specify that all waters in the state should be "fishable/swimmable."
Under certain conditions recreational uses are inappropriate for these channels. During high flow
flood conditions, it is not safe to swim in the waters. The Los Angeles Region has opted to issue
a suspension of recreational use during periods of high flow. Through a revision to its water
quality control plan, the Los Angeles Region established that during high flow events, when it is
not safe to be in the modified channels, these waterbodies do not have to meet bacteria criteria.
The suspension of recreational uses applies under the rainfall conditions that trigger the Region's
swift-water protocols (i.e., rescue squads are on alert if someone should happen to enter the
water). With this use attainability analysis (UAA), EPA approved the revision to the Water
Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region.
VALLEY CREEK UAA
Complexity: Simple Type of Action: Assign limited warmwater fishery use
Region: 4 131.10(g) Factors: 3, 5
In this 2001 use attainability analysis (UAA), the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) provided evidence to support the proposed change for the upper segment
of Valley Creek from Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply (A&I) to Limited Warmwater
Fishery (LWF). The corresponding water quality criteria are more stringent for waters classified
as LWF than for A&I waters. The key element of the LWF classification establishes seasonal
uses and water quality criteria for waters that otherwise cannot maintain the more protective Fish
& Wildlife (F&W) classification year-round. The LWF classification does not fully meet the
water quality uses and criteria associated with the "fishable/swimmable" goal, and therefore a
UAA was necessary. In the UAA, ADEM provided information on the physical, biological, and
chemical characteristics of Valley Creek; water quality data from sampling stations; discharge
monitoring reports from the point source dischargers; and water quality modeling results. EPA
approved the revision to Alabama's water quality standards to reclassify Upper Valley Creek for
LWF and Lower Valley Creek for F&W.
EPA 821-R-07-001 VIM March 2006
-------
Overview of Case Studies
NEW YORK HARBOR COMPLEX UAA
Complexity: Medium Type of Action: Assign aquatic life & recreational uses
Region: 2 131.10(g) Factors: 3
A 1985 use attainability analysis (UAA) documents the assessment of waters in the New York
Harbor Complex that were not thought to meet Clean Water Act (CWA) section 101(a)(2) goals.
In the UAA the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
presents historical data on total and fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen, as well as the results of
steady-state modeling. The segments considered are effluent-limited waters (i.e., the technology-
based effluent limitations required by the CWA are inadequate to meet the water quality
standards), with impairment from urbanization, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and other
point and nonpoint source discharges. In the UAA NYSDEC recommends that several segments
should be assigned both aquatic life and recreational uses. NYSDEC also recommends that some
uses be retained and proposes future monitoring and assessment.
RED DOG MINE UAA
Complexity: Medium Type of Action: Removal of aquatic life uses & development of site-
specific criterion
Region: 10 131.10(g) Factors: 1, 3
A use attainability analysis (UAA) was performed on Red Dog Creek, which runs through the
site of Red Dog mine, the largest zinc mine in the world. Red Dog Creek flows only 3-4 months
of the year. Several parts of the creek are affected by mining discharges and some acid rock
drainage. In addition, the area contains natural ore bodies, resulting in naturally high
concentrations of cadmium, lead, zinc, aluminum, and other metals. Pre-mining surveys done in
this area indicated that aquatic life uses were not present because of the toxic concentrations of
metals, as well as naturally low pH. The UAA for Red Dog Creek demonstrated that aquatic life
uses should be removed because of the naturally occurring pollutants. Because of the natural
conditions, the criteria for cadmium, lead, zinc, aluminum, and pH cannot be met without human
intervention, precluding that aquatic life uses being met. However, treatment of mine wastewater
had led to the presence of Arctic grayling that should be protected. A site-specific criterion for
total dissolved solids (TDS) was developed to protect the grayling when spawning. EPA
approved these changes to Alaska's water quality standards.
MONTANA'S TEMPORARY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS—NEW WORLD
MINING DISTRICT
Complexity: Complex Type of Action: Temporary standards for multiple uses
during remediation
Region: 8 131.10(g) Factors: 3
Montana's Water Quality Act allows for application of temporary modification of water quality
standards where a waterbody is not meeting its designated use. The ultimate goal of the
temporary modification is to improve water quality to the point where designated uses are fully
supported. As such, temporary standards play a key role in the remediation of damaged water
EPA 821-R-07-001 ix March 2006
-------
Overview of Case Studies
resources, because the underlying designated uses and criteria are established as goals which
drive water quality improvements. The duration of temporary standards is set based on an
estimate of the time needed for remediation at a specific site, and because the clean up of legacy
pollutants often takes time, temporary standards can be and are issued for multiple years. The
state uses 20 years as its time horizon for estimating future watershed remediation opportunities,
and therefore, temporary standards could be issued for as much as 20 years. The New World
Mining District is an example of a well-funded and successful project. The waters were
classified as suitable for a number of uses, including drinking water, recreational, and aquatic life
uses.
CHESAPEAKE BAY UAAS AND RESTORATION VARIANCE
Complexity: Very complex Type of Action: Refined aquatic life uses and restoration variance
Region: 3 131.10(g) Factors: 1, 3, 6
Chesapeake Bay waters have been impaired by nutrients and sediment from point and nonpoint
sources. These impairments have led to low levels of dissolved oxygen and inability to meet
designated uses. Two use attainability analyses (UAAs) were conducted, with several states
involved, to evaluate three of the 131.10(g) factors: natural conditions, human-caused conditions,
and economics. Maryland collected a significant amount of monitoring data and developed a
model to use the data to assess whether the bay's waters were meeting their designated uses. One
result of the UAAs was the decision to refine the aquatic life uses. Five designated uses were
identified, and the seasonality of each was considered. Maryland promulgated these designated
uses in its water quality standards, and EPA approved the new standards in 2005.
In addition, restoration variances were added to Maryland's proposed water quality standards as
refinements to proposed criteria. These variances can be applied over an entire segment of the
Bay, rather than directed at a specific discharger or group of dischargers. The temporary
modifications allow for realistic recognition of current and attainable conditions while retaining
the designated use and setting full attainment as a future goal. In addition, the variance allows for
incremental improvements in water quality goals.
EPA 821-R-07-001 x March 2006
-------
Kansas and New York UAA Worksheets
Kansas and New York UAA Worksheets
Abstracts
Crosby Creek, Kansas
Complexity: Very simple Type of Action: Assign primary contact recreational use
Region: 7 131.10(g) Factors: n/a
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has developed a worksheet to conduct many simple
use attainability analyses (UAAs). The worksheet provides reviewers with information such as the name, location,
and description of the waterbody; an assessment of its current recreational uses; and observations of aquatic life.
Users can evaluate this information and develop a justification for retaining or changing designated uses. One
example of using this worksheet is the Crosby Creek UAA conducted in 2001. In the UAA KDHE proposed primary
contact recreation use for Crosby Creek, an upgrade from the secondary contact recreation use designated
previously. KDHE also proposes to maintain the current aquatic life use designation. Kansas adopted this change
their water quality standards and EPA approved it.
Antelope Creek, Kansas
Complexity: Very simple Type of Action: Redefined as ephemeral stream
Region: 7 131.10(g) Factors: 2
KDHE's UAA worksheet was used for the Antelope Creek UAA conducted in 2001. In that UAA, KDHE did not
recommend primary contact recreation as a designated use for this water because of the low flow conditions in the
stream (131.10(g) factor 2). The segment fits Kansas' definition of an ephemeral stream, grass or vegetative
waterway, culvert, or ditch. Photos are provided with the worksheet to show the dry conditions in the streambed.
This change was adopted into Kansas' water quality standards and approved by EPA.
Tributary of the Seneca River, New York
Complexity: Very simple Type of Action: Aquatic life use support
Region: 2 131.10(g) Factors: 2
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has used a simple worksheet to
document UAAs for aquatic life use support. These worksheets were developed as part of an overall 1985 State
"Water Quality Standards Attainability Strategy," which included specific guidance for field biologists on assessing
fish propagation for various habitats. The worksheet contains the name and location of the waterbody, a checklist of
reasons why the waterbody cannot attain full aquatic life designated uses, and space for additional comments or
recommendations. One example is a 1992 UAA for a tributary of the Seneca River in New York. Some segments
were changed from Class D to Class C (supportive of both aquatic life and recreational uses), and others were
determined incapable of attaining Class C on the basis of 131.10(g) factor 2. The worksheet documents the
Department's proposed changes to the designated uses.
Background
Use attainability analyses (UAAs) can vary in terms of complexity. Some assessments are
complex and require extensive data collection and complex UAAs, whereas others are simple
and straightforward and require simple UAAs. Kansas and New York are two states that have
developed UAA worksheets for use in simple, straightforward assessments of designated uses.
EPA 821-R-07-001 1 March 2006
-------
Kansas and New York UAA Worksheets
Kansas UAA Reports
In 2001 Kansas conducted many UAAs using the expedited stream recreational use UAA
protocol (http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/befs/uaas/UAAGuidance.pdf). The Kansas UAA Guidance
was developed through an extensive stakeholder process and provides consistent methodologies
for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) or third parties to follow in
assessing designated uses. To present the results of these UAAs, Kansas developed a simple
formatted worksheet. For an individual stream segment, the assessment team documents a
variety of information such as the name, location, and description of the waterbody; an
assessment of its current uses; and observations of existing conditions. Users evaluate this
information and develop a justification for retaining or changing designated uses. Photos of the
site are also attached to visually document the conditions of the waterbody. KDHE is required to
evaluate the classification status of stream segments against the criteria for classification of
stream segments provided in state law.
Kansas maintains a Surface Water Registry, which lists specific waters that carry specific
designated uses with numeric criteria in addition to general narrative criteria. These are called
"classified" streams in Kansas, and generally include stream segments that have the most recent
10-year median flow of equal to or in excess of 1 cubic foot per second, among other
considerations. Waters that are not "classified" in this manner are afforded protection through
narrative criteria, including: "Hazardous materials derived from artificial sources, including toxic
substances, radioactive isotopes, and infectious microorganisms derived directly or indirectly
from point or nonpoint sources, shall not occur in surface waters at concentrations or in
combinations that jeopardize the public health or the survival or well-being of livestock,
domestic animals, terrestrial wildlife, or aquatic or semiaquatic life."
A committee reviews the information collected to assist in making decisions about use
classification changes. KDHE may recommend refining the designated use within the state water
quality standards. For recreational UAAs, the state determines whether the stream is swimmable
(primary contact recreation) or fishable/wadable (secondary contact recreation).1 If a stream has
no water or is an ephemeral stream, the review committee recommends removing primary
contact recreation by removing the stream from the list of "classified" streams. This term is not
related in any way to jurisdiction as a "water of the United States;" it merely refers to the
designated uses and type of criteria that apply, as well as the manner in which Kansas keeps
records of its waters. If changes to designated uses are subsequently approved, the classifications
of individual stream segments are updated in the Kansas Surface Water Register. Any revisions
to the Kansas Surface Water Register are subject to approval for Clean Water Act purposes by
the U.S. EPA Region 7 office.
One example of use of the Kansas worksheet is the Crosby Creek UAA conducted in 2001. In
this UAA, evaluators documented several pieces of information (Figure 1):
' The state has subclasses of primary and secondary contact recreation for classified stream segments.
EPA 821-R-07-001 2 March 2006
-------
Kansas and New York UAA Worksheets
Site Dcwrlntlnn
twsoots
iSSn is tonjj*- nw
Stream DcHcriiition
D
A. Site Description:
The exact location
of the site and the
date and time of
the assessment
were included.
B. Stream
Description: The
dimensions of the
runs, both upstream
and downstream of
the site, were
given, and the
substrate type was
listed as silt.
C. Aquatic Life
Observed:
Information about
aquatic life
observed in the
streambed. No
aquatic life was
documented, but
the evaluator
indicated that the
stream was
perennial. Other
observations were not included.
On the basis of the data collected in the Crosby Creek UAA, KDHE proposed a change to the
designated uses set in 1999 (Figure 2). KDHE recommended primary contact recreation for
Crosby Creek, an upgrade from the secondary contact recreation use designated previously.
Specifically, the analysis proposed primary contact recreation "where full body contact
recreation is infrequent during April 1-October 31, and secondary contact recreation use class b
November 1-March 31." The UAA also proposed that the 1999 aquatic life use designation,
"expected aquatic life use water," should be maintained. These changes were adopted in the
Kansas Surface Water Register.
A second example of the use of Kansas' UAA worksheet was the Antelope Creek UAA
conducted in 2001. In that UAA KDHE concluded that the stream was ephemeral and provided
photos to document the dry conditions. Notations in the UAA added that some ephemeral pools
existed but that terrestrial vegetation covered the channel. Additional notes indicated that the
channel was poorly defined in some places. On the basis of the assessment, KDHE did not
recommend primary contact recreation as a designated use for this water, due to the low flow
Figure 1. Crosby Creek UAA: Basic site information.
EPA 821-R-07-001
March 2006
-------
Kansas and New York UAA Worksheets
conditions in the stream (131.10(g) factor 2). The segment fit Kansas' statutory definition of an
ephemeral stream, grass or vegetative waterway, culvert, or ditch.
KtWSKS USB afTAIMftBIUtY AMAIY5CS (U*M) COtlltfTEP IN 2001
EECHSNTNUMBER
STRiAM NAMS
CLAtilMlB IN KANSAS Sy WAGE
•VilFR SFGiSTER (KM)
DtLEHON PROPOSED
if «fwla*y ^nnrsrt ftworalgnn
OmnKk WMntnu
itir Snooty
tt t, UMttK I'l
Figure 2. Crosby Creek UAA results.
EPA 821-R-07-001
March 2006
-------
Kansas and New York DM Worksheets
Si! tre» S',t.tr.-.t Vi.TII.1
Ybr/r Worksheets
The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) has used a brief
worksheet to document UAAs for
aquatic life uses (Figure 3). These
worksheets were developed as part
of an overall 1985 State "Water
Quality Standards Attainability
Strategy," which included specific
guidance for field biologists on
assessing fish propagation in various
habitats. The worksheet contains the
name and location of the waterbody,
a checklist of reasons why the
waterbody is not attaining its
designated uses, and space for
additional comments or
recommendations. The worksheet
documents the NYSDEC's proposed
changes to the designated uses.
One example of use of this
worksheet is a 1992 UAA for a
tributary of the Seneca River in New
York. NYSDEC used the assessment
to find that a portion of the stream
was not in attainment due to CFR
131.10(g) factor 2, natural ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water levels.
NYSDEC proposed that this segment in non-attainment retain the Class D designation; however,
one segment was proposed for an upgrade from Class D to Class C.2
Conclusion
The Kansas and New York worksheets are two examples where states have streamlined their
documentation for UAAs. These types of rapid-reporting worksheets might allow states to
quickly document simple assessments that do not require complex evidence.
Supporting materials for this case study are available in Appendix A.
Figure 3. New York UAA worksheet.
2 The best usage of Class C waters is fishing. Water quality should be suitable for fish propagation and survival as well as for
primary and secondary contact recreation. Other factors, however, might limit the use for these purposes. The best usage of Class
D waters is fishing. Because of such natural conditions as intermittency of flow, water conditions not conducive to propagation of
game fishery, or streambed conditions, the waters will not support fish propagation. These waters shall be suitable for fish
survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors might limit the
use for these purposes.
EPA 821-R-07-001
March 2006
-------
Suspension of Recreational Beneficial Uses
Suspension of Recreational Beneficial Uses in Engineered
Channels during Unsafe Wet Weather Conditions
Abstract
Complexity: Simple
Region: 9
Type of Action: Temporary suspension of recreational use
131.10(g) Factors: 2. 4
The Los Angeles Region has many rivers and streams that have been straightened, concrete-lined, or both to move
floodwaters from urban areas to the ocean. These channels transport large volumes of water that might not be of
adequate quality to support Clean Water Act (CWA) section 101(a) uses (i.e., "fishable/swimmable"). The water
quality goals set forth in the Los Angeles Region's Basin Plan specify that all waters in the state should be
"fishable/swimmable."
Under certain conditions recreational uses are inappropriate for these channels. During high flow flood conditions, it
is not safe to swim in the waters. The Los Angeles Region has opted to issue a suspension of recreational use during
periods of high flow. Through a revision to its water quality control plan, the Los Angeles Region established that
during high flow events, when it is not safe to be in the modified channels, these waterbodies do not have to meet
bacteria criteria. The suspension of recreational uses applies under the rainfall conditions that trigger the Region's
swift-water protocols (i.e., rescue squads are on alert if someone should happen to enter the water). With this use
attainability analysis (UAA), EPA approved the revision to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles
Region.
Background
Currently, all waterbodies in the
Los Angeles Region include use
designations for water contact
recreation (REC-1) and, in most
cases, for non-contact water
recreation (REC-2). There are no
seasonal restrictions on
recreational uses in Los Angeles.
The uses apply at all times,
regardless of weather conditions
or any other condition that might
make recreational activities
unsafe or infeasible. Figure 4
Figure 4. High-flow conditions in Ballona Creek (DeShazo, 2005).
shows high-flow conditions in a creek in the Los Angeles Region.
Current conditions physically prevent full attainment of the recreational beneficial uses during
high-flow or high-velocity conditions. Many waterbodies in the Los Angeles Region have been
straightened, concrete-lined, or both to reduce the occurrence of flooding in urbanized areas by
moving stormwater from those areas to the ocean (or an alternative outfall). These channels
transport large amounts of water that might not be of adequate quality to support Clean Water
Act (CWA) section 101(a) uses. This condition does not meet the water quality goals set forth in
California's Basin Plan, which specifies that all waters in the state should be designated for
recreational use and should be "fishable/swimmable."
Designating recreational uses for highly modified channels in the Los Angeles Region is
complicated by the fact that under certain conditions recreational uses are not appropriate for
EPA 821-R-07-001
March 2006
-------
Suspension of Recreational Beneficial Uses
some waterbodies. Channel modifications can create life-threatening conditions during and
immediately following storm events. The steep-sided slopes of the channels also make them very
difficult to exit when the water if slowing swiftly. During high-flow conditions, it is not safe to
swim in the channels.
Approach
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) opted to issue a temporary
suspension of the designated use (recreation) during and immediately after defined storm events
(periods of high-flow). By suspending recreational uses during high-flow conditions, the
RWQCB acknowledges the danger of recreating in the channels during wet weather conditions.
Through a revision to its water quality control plan, the Region indicated that during high-flow
events (when it is unsafe to be in the channels) waterbodies do not have to meet bacteria criteria.
The aquatic life standards for these channels have not been revised, although subcategories of
aquatic life uses might be developed in the future. This approach—using revisions to the basin
plan to further specify designated uses—is a flexible means to establish water quality goals.
The high-flow suspension applies only to water contact recreation activities regulated under the
REC-1 use, non-contact water recreation involving incidental water contact regulated under the
REC-2 use, and the associated bacteriological criteria set to protect those activities. The
suspension of uses is applied when there is rainfall greater than or equal to 1A inch and remains in
effect during the 24 hours following the rain event, which is consistent with the Los Angeles
County Level 1 Alert threshold.
The inherent danger of recreating in engineered channels during and immediately after storm
events is widely recognized and has already been addressed by Los Angeles and Ventura
counties through county policies. Los Angeles County's Multi-Agency Swift Water Rescue
Committee has set protocols for locking access gates to flood control channels and preparing for
possible swift-water rescues in the channels during defined storm events. In Ventura County,
access gates to such channels are always locked, which prevents people from engaging in
recreational activities in the channels during swift-water conditions.
The RWQCB's suspension would apply to inland, flowing, engineered channels where it is
possible to restrict access during the defined conditions. Water quality criteria set to protect other
recreational uses associated with the fishable goals, as expressed in CWA section 101(a)(2) and
regulated under the REC-1 use and other REC-2 uses (e.g., uses involving the aesthetic aspects
of water) still remain in effect.
Downstream REC uses must continue to be protected. Suspension of portions of the REC-1 and
REC-2 uses during swift-water conditions reflects the current conditions in certain engineered
channels; it does not relieve or diminish obligations to reduce bacteria loading at the beaches.
The RWQCB remains committed to reevaluating the attainability of the REC-1 and REC-2 uses
in the future, supporting efforts to reclaim engineered channels as natural watercourses, and
supporting the beneficial reuse of stormwater. Within 3 years of the amendment's effective date,
the RWQCB will reconsider the continued appropriateness of the suspension of recreational uses
in engineered channels during and immediately following the defined storm events.
EPA 821-R-07-001 / March 2006
-------
Suspension of Recreational Beneficial Uses
Data Collection and Analysis
To support the suspension of the recreational uses, the RWQCB conducted a use attainability
analysis (UAA) for each waterbody where the suspension would apply. The RWQCB used two
of the 40 CFR 131.10(g) factors as the basis for the UAA:
Factor 2: Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water levels prevent
the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the
discharge of sufficient volume of effluent discharges without violating state water
conservation requirements to enable uses to be met.
Factor 4: Dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original
condition or to operate such modification in a way that would result in the attainment of
the use.
RWQCB staff evaluated whether to conduct waterbody-by-waterbody UAAs or a categorical
UAA covering all waterbodies meeting certain criteria. For this situation, the staff proposed a
regional approach because all waterbodies subject to the suspension of recreational uses had
similar features. The waterbodies to which the suspension would apply (during the defined
conditions) include inland waterbodies, flowing waterbodies, engineered channels, and
waterbodies where access can be restricted or prohibited (through fencing or signs).3
The staff first identified all inland, flowing waterbodies listed in Table 2-1 of the Basin Plan for
which the REC uses were qualified due to restricted or prohibited access. They then circulated
the list internally to confirm that each of the waterbodies met the criteria for inclusion in the
proposed amendment. Where necessary, the staff followed up with field surveys of the candidate
waterbodies to confirm physical characteristics and access restrictions. They specifically noted
GPS coordinates, channel flow, the geometry and construction materials of the channel bottom
and sides, and the presence of restricted access in terms of gates and signage.
The staff evaluated several possible triggers for the suspension of REC uses in engineered
channels with restricted or prohibited access. These included (1) flow and velocity (e.g., swift
water conditions); (2) depth (e.g., outside low flow channel); and (3) rainfall (e.g., total daily
rainfall).
On the basis of their evaluation, the staff concluded that rainfall is the most appropriate trigger
for the temporary suspension of recreational uses. The RWQCB outlined three reasons for this
decision. First, the Los Angeles County, California, Multi-Agency Swift Water Rescue
Committee uses rainfall prediction as the basis for routinely locking access gates to county flood
control channels and putting swift-water rescue personnel on alert. Written guidance outlines
protocols to prepare for and provide swift-water rescues for county personnel and other involved
agencies. Under the "Water Rescue Pre-Deployment Section," three storm levels are defined
based on storm warnings with an 80 percent prediction of specified levels of rain over 24 hours.
The three alert levels are as follows:
3 Although not adequate alone to trigger a suspension of recreational uses, restricted or prohibited access to the channels is
proposed as a requirement for the suspension to ensure that people cannot access a waterbody during the defined wet weather
period.
EPA 821-R-07-001 8 March 2006
-------
Suspension of Recreational Beneficial Uses
• Level 1: 1 inch of rain if unsaturated ground or 1A inch if saturated ground
• Level 2: ll/2 inches of rain if unsaturated ground or 1 inch if saturated ground
• Level 3: rainfall/saturation levels exceeding those listed for Level 2; generalized flash
floods, urban flooding, or mud and debris flows; urban flooding with possible life hazards.
At the Level 1 Alert threshold, Los Angeles county personnel routinely lock all access gates to
flood control channels for at least 24 hours after the storm event.
Second, there are numerous rain gauges throughout Los Angeles and Ventura counties that can
provide precipitation data. Flow is not used because velocity and depth data are not available for
all candidate channels.
Third, rainfall is an adequate proxy for high flows and high velocities that result in unsafe
conditions, given the reliance on rainfall prediction by the Multi-Agency Swift Water Rescue
Committee. To confirm this, the staff used 5 years of data (water years 1998-2002) to match
days above the Level 1 Alert rainfall thresholds of 1A inch or 1 inch with corresponding flow,
velocity, and depth data in several local channels and compared these data with swift water
rescue data from the same channels, as well as other agencies' protocols for evaluating when
conditions in the channels are unsafe. The staff specifically relied on a protocol used by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and Orange County, in which in-stream conditions are evaluated
using the following calculation to determine whether it is safe for monitoring personnel to be in a
stream or channel: peak depth (in feet) multiplied by peak velocity (in feet per second). If the
result is greater than or equal to 10, conditions are considered unsafe.
The results of the analysis show that 63 percent of unsafe days followed days with more than 1A
inch of rainfall. Therefore, using days with greater than /^ inch of rainfall and the 24 hours
following the event provides protection by suspending recreational use during 63 percent of
unsafe days. This trigger appears appropriate and justifiable because, on average, 82 percent of
the days on which the preceding day's rainfall was greater than 1A inch were considered unsafe.
On the basis of the data analysis described above, the staff proposed to use the Level 1 Alert
threshold (rainfall greater than or equal to 1A inch as measured at the closest rain gage with
saturated conditions) as the trigger for suspending the REC uses assigned to a particular
engineered channel. This fits with Los Angeles' policy to keep all access gates locked for at least
24 hours following the specified rain event.
In the UAA the RWQCB showed that recreation is not an existing use because the channels were
modified before 1965 and the swift water conditions existed before this the present. In addition,
the study showed that the use would not be attained through effluent limits or best management
practices (BMPs) because the physical characteristics of the waterbody, rather than the water
quality, preclude the use.
Conclusion
Following this UAA, EPA approved the revision to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los
Angeles Region.
EPA 821-R-07-001 9 March 2006
-------
Suspension of Recreational Beneficial Uses
Supporting materials for this case study are available in Appendix B.
References
DeShazo, R. 2005. Summary: Basin Plan Amendment to Suspend the Recreational Beneficial
Uses in Engineered Channels during Unsafe Wet Weather Conditions (Los Angeles Region).
Presented at the Designated Use Co-Regulator Workshop, San Francisco, July 2005.
EPA 821-R-07-001 10 March 2006
-------
Valley Creek UAA
Valley Creek, Alabama UAA
Abstract
Complexity: Simple Type of Action: Assign limited warmwater fishery use
Region: 4 131.10(g) Factors: 3, 5
In this 2001 use attainability analysis (UAA), the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
provided evidence to support the proposed change for the upper segment of Valley Creek from Agricultural and
Industrial Water Supply (A&I) to Limited Warmwater Fishery (LWF). The corresponding water quality criteria are
more stringent for waters classified as LWF than for A&I waters. The key element of the LWF classification
establishes seasonal uses and water quality criteria for waters that otherwise cannot maintain the more protective
Fish & Wildlife (F&W) classification year-round. The LWF classification does not fully meet the water quality uses
and criteria associated with the "fishable/swimmable" goal, and therefore a UAA was necessary. In the UAA,
ADEM provided information on the physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of Valley Creek; water quality
data from sampling stations; discharge monitoring reports from the point source dischargers; and water quality
modeling results. EPA approved the revision to Alabama's water quality standards to reclassify Upper Valley Creek
for LWF and Lower Valley Creek for F&W.
Background
The Valley Creek watershed is in north-central Alabama. Valley Creek originates in Birmingham
and flows west to Bankhead Lake, an impoundment of the Black Warrior River. Valley Creek is
46 miles long and has a total drainage area of 257 square miles. Its tributaries include Blue
Creek, Fivemile Creek, and Opossum Creek; all of which are designated for Fish and Wildlife
(F&W) use with the exception of Opossum
Creek, which is designated for Agricultural
JTJ i-i ™ 7-4. c i /-APT\ irngation, livestock watenng, mdustnal cooling, and
and Industrial Water Supply (A&I) use. 6 ' , , ' , . i. ,.
FF J v y process water supply, and any other use except fishing,
The best uses of LWF waters include: agricultural
bathing, recreational activities, or as a source of water
supply for drinking or food-processing purposes.
The best uses of F&W waters include: fishing,
propagation offish, aquatic life, and wildlife, and any
In August 2000 the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management's (ADEM's)
Environmental Management Commission
1,1 , 1-4.4-jj other use except swimming and water-contact sports or as
adopted new water quality standards ~ \ , f * • , • f *
r n. J a source of water supply for dnnkmg or food-processing.
regulations that eliminated the Industrial
Operations use classification. At that time
the use designation of Valley Creek was changed to A&I. In 2001 ADEM conducted a use
attainability analysis (UAA) to provide evidence to support a proposed use classification change
for Upper Valley Creek from A&I to limited warmwater fishery (LWF). Because LWF is not a
"fishable/swimmable" use as defined in Clean Water Act (CWA) section 101(a)(2), the proposed
change requires a UAA. At that time ADEM also proposed that Lower Valley Creek be
classified for the F&W use, which meets the goals of CWA section 101(a)(2).
Attainment of the F&W use in Upper Valley Creek is precluded by two of the 40 CFR 131.10(g)
factors:
Factor 3: Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the
use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than
to leave in place.
EPA 821-R-07-001 11 March 2006
-------
Valley Creek UAA
Factor 5: Physical conditions related to the natural features of the waterbody, such as the
lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to
water quality, preclude the attainment of aquatic life protection.
Limited Warmwater Fishery Classification
ADEM developed the LWF use classification in 2000 to establish seasonal uses and water
quality criteria for waters that otherwise could not maintain the F&W criteria year-round. All
provisions of the F&W use apply to the LWF use, with the exception of the criteria for dissolved
oxygen (DO), bacteria, and chronic aquatic life. Table 1 provides the key differences between
the F&W and LWF uses.
Table 1. Differences between F&W and LWF Uses
Classification
F&W
LWF
Criteria
Dissolved
oxygen
>5.0 mg/L
>3.0mg/La
Bacteria
(fecal)
For freshwater
Geometric mean: < 1000/1 00 mL
For freshwater
Geometric mean: <200/100 mL
(Incidental water contact
and recreation, June through
September)
For Freshwater
Geometric mean: < 1000/1 00 mLb
Chronic aquatic life
7-day, 10-year (7Q10) low flow used to
establish the chronic aquatic life criteria
for point source discharges
7-day, 2-year (7Q2) low flow used to
establish the chronic aquatic life criteria
for point source discharges
a Criterion applies May-November. Dissolved oxygen criterion associated with F&W classification is used
December-April.
b Bacteriological criteria for incidental water contact and recreation during June-September are not required.
Water Quality Impairment and Pollutant Sources in the Upper Valley Creek
The Opossum Creek watershed is one of the most highly industrialized areas of Birmingham,
and it contributes point source and nonpoint source pollutants to Valley Creek. In addition, a
number of land uses in the Valley Creek watershed have the potential to degrade water quality.
In Upper Valley Creek, industrial and commercial activities and residential land uses adversely
affect water quality. The upper segment exhibits characteristics
typical of an urban stream, including poor habitat, degraded
water quality, and stressed biological communities due to the
large amounts of impervious landscape. In addition, much of
the stream has been concrete-lined, adding to algae production
and fluctuations in DO.
Key Characteristics of Upper
Valley Creek
Poor DO levels
High pathogen levels
Elevated BOD
Elevated nutrient concentrations
This segment has poor DO levels, high pathogen levels, and elevated biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and nutrient concentrations.
Three point sources operating under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits are located in the Valley Creek watershed. The Valley Creek wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) is on Valley Creek, and two other point sources are on Opossum Creek.
EPA 821-R-07-001
12
March 2006
-------
Valley Creek UAA
Conditions in Lower Valley Creek
In the lower segment, the area is primarily rural, with silvicultural, agricultural, and mining land
uses. The lower segment has improved chemical, physical, and biological conditions suitable for
classification as F&W use.
Data Collection and Analysis
ADEM, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and EPA conducted water quality monitoring. In a
1989 study, EPA examined biological conditions in Village, Valley, Opossum, and Fivemile
creeks. Opossum Creek was cited as having poor habitat and deposits of tar-like substances, with
growth impairment to the fathead minnow. In addition, the study showed mortality to daphnia at
two sampling points on Valley Creek. A biological survey conducted by EPA in 1997
documented degraded habitat at two of three sampling stations in Upper Valley Creek (habitat
scores of 66 and 64 versus 118 in the reference F&W stream), and fewer fish species were
reported than in the lower segment. On the basis of this information, EPA suggested that Upper
Valley Creek would need significant enhancements to improve stream habitat and removal of
excess nutrients to be able to achieve the F&W designated use.
USGS data from the Birmingham Watershed Project confirmed the water quality impacts that
EPA and ADEM had found. Sampling at several locations from 1998 to 2001 showed that sewer
overflows, leaking sewer lines, and other regulated and nonregulated stormwater runoff were
contributing the high pathogen loads. EPA, USGS, and ADEM data showed that conditions
improved downstream such that F&W uses could be met in Lower Valley Creek. USGS benthic
macroinvertebrate data from 1999-2000 showed poor taxa richness in Upper Valley Creek,
consistent with the degraded physical and chemical characteristics. These data exhibited:
• Poor Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, or Trichoptera (EPT) family richness and poor total taxa
richness at both sampling sites
• Low benthic invertebrate diversity and low fish community diversity (Shannon's index of
diversity)
• Absence of sculpin (intolerant of contaminated waters) and spotted sucker (intolerant of
turbid or silty waters)
In a review of these data, EPA concluded that the aquatic community structure showed degraded
water quality, negatively affected by anthropogenic impacts in the watershed over an extended
period.
In another study, USGS monitored DO at three stations on Valley Creek. One station was
monitored continuously, and DO concentrations at that site ranged from 3.8 to 19.6 mg/L. The
daily minimum concentrations at the site were between 4 and 5 mg/L for 39 days between June
25, 2000 and February 22, 2001, with concentrations less than 4 mg/L on one day. Dissolved
oxygen measurements at two other sampling sites reached as low as 3.3 and 4.3 mg/L. In a 1998
survey, EPA and ADEM found DO concentrations less than 5 mg/L at a sampling gauge 5 miles
upstream from the Valley Creek WWTP. This station was downstream of a channelized stream
segment, which provides an ideal surface for periphytic and other microbial growths that produce
a large diurnal swing in DO through photosynthesis and respiration.
EPA 821-R-07-001 13 March 2006
-------
Valley Creek UAA
ADEM conducted water quality modeling for the three point sources to predict the effluent limits
needed to meet the various use classifications (A&I, LWF, and F&W). Modeling showed that
LWF would be achievable in Upper Valley Creek through effluent limits on the three point
sources (with the most stringent limits on the Valley Creek WWTP). ADEM also considered
discharge monitoring report data from the facilities and found that at the time of the UAA, the
Valley Creek WWTP was operating at very efficient levels and providing a high degree of
treatment. ADEM concluded that the Valley Creek WWTP would be able to achieve effluent
limits for the LWF, and that the F&W designation would require much more stringent limits for
the summer months. With the LWF classification, each facility would be required to conduct
chronic toxicity biomonitoring.
ADEM also provided an analysis that showed highly elevated bacteria levels and demonstrated
correspondence of bacteria levels with the patterns of precipitation in the Valley Creek
watershed. This pattern indicates a strong relationship to nonpoint sources.
Conclusion
The biological health of Valley Creek is dependant on good physical and hydrological
characteristics, including proper flow, adequate zones, and diverse substrate. The urbanization of
the watershed has fostered habitat destruction through erosion, channelization, concrete
substrate, and excessive light and heat penetration.
In their UAA document, ADEM concluded, in part:
Leaking sewer lines, domestic animals and wildlife populations, and leaking septic tanks are
nonpoint sources of both nutrients and bacteria to Valley Creek. Sewer overflows are also a source
of both nutrients and bacteria to Village Creek that is driven by precipitation. The Valley Creek
WWTP currently achieves an extremely high level of treatment. Jefferson County is estimated to
expend $800 million to resolve sewer overflows and replace leaking sewer lines. It is anticipated
that this substantial capital investment will improve water quality.
It is not currently possible to determine the percent contribution from the known categories of
nonpoint sources, nor is it possible to project the degree of success in terms of measurable water
quality improvements that will result from ongoing efforts to resolve sewer overflows and replace
leaking sewer lines. The available information suggests that the magnitude of nutrient and bacteria
levels, the variety of sources, and the physical characteristics of the waterbody indicate that the
F&W use classification is not attainable, and the highest attainable use is LWF. Therefore, F&W
is not designated at this time as a result of a combination of human-caused conditions (that may
not be feasible to fully remedy) and natural physical conditions of the watershed unrelated to
water quality (e.g., high water table). However, as new information becomes available that
pertains to attainability of the F&W use classification, it will be considered and water quality
standards revised accordingly.
EPA approved the revision of Alabama's water quality standards to include the new
classification of LWF for Upper Valley Creek and F&W for Lower Valley Creek. This is an
example of a UAA for both aquatic life and recreational uses for an urbanized stream, where
significant investment is being made to improve water quality, and the results are anticipated to
reach certain goals but may still fall short of a full "fishable/swimmable" designated use.
Supporting materials for this case study are available in Appendix C.
EPA 821-R-07-001 14 March 2006
-------
Valley Creek UAA
References
ADEM. 2001. Use Attainability Analysis: Valley Creek. Alabama Department of Environmental
Management.
USEPA. 2002. Section 303(c) Review of State-adopted Use Classifications. Memorandum from
Gail Mitchell to James Giatanna. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, GA.
EPA 821-R-07-001 15 March 2006
-------
New York Harbor Complex UAA
New York Harbor Complex UAA
Abstract
Complexity: Medium Type of Action: Assign aquatic life & recreational uses
Region: 2 131.10(g) Factors: 3
A 1985 use attainability analysis (UAA) documents the assessment of waters in the New York Harbor Complex that
were not thought to meet Clean Water Act (CWA) section 101(a)(2) goals. In the UAA the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) presents historical data on total and fecal conform and
dissolved oxygen, as well as the results of steady-state modeling. The segments considered are effluent-limited
waters (i.e., the technology-based effluent limitations required by the CWA are inadequate to meet the water quality
standards), with impairment from urbanization, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and other point and nonpoint
source discharges. In the UAA NYSDEC recommends that several segments should be assigned both aquatic life
and recreational uses. NYSDEC also recommends that some uses be retained and proposes future monitoring and
assessment.
Background
The New York Metropolitan Area, with its dense population and development, severely affected
the marine ecosystems of the Hudson, the East River, and other waterbodies in the New York
Harbor System. Historically, these waters were forced to assimilate large discharges of municipal
and industrial waste, as well as intermittent waste from wet weather discharges. A large portion
of the waste had not been treated prior to discharge. In addition to conventional pollutants, the
discharges contained a wide assortment of toxic substances that polluted the water and sediments
in the harbor.
Sources of pollution in the New York Harbor System included stormwater discharges, combined
sewer overflows (CSOs), discharges from water pollution control plants, untreated sewage
discharges, urban runoff, wastewater treatment plant and sewer leaks, and bypasses on both sides
of the river. In 1985 New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
conducted a use attainability analysis (UAA) to further identify the sources of pollution and
water quality conditions. In the UAA the NYSDEC found impairment from total and fecal
coliforms, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and
sediment.
Applicable New York Water Quality Standards
Marine waters in New York are classified on a best use basis. The best uses are ranked according
to the water quality requirements of the use. Four designated uses are considered in the
classification scheme—shellfishing (SA), bathing/primary recreation (SB), fishing (SC), finfish
propagation (I), and fish survival (SD). General aquatic uses (e.g., aesthetic enjoyment and
maintenance offish and wildlife) are assumed in all classifications. A best use classification
includes all the uses in the lower classifications and excludes the uses specified in the higher
classifications. For example, a primary recreation classification would show all uses except the
taking of shellfish for market purpose, which is a higher use specified in the shellfishing
classification. The classification system also precludes a higher use if the standards of a lower
use are being used. For example, if the waterbody is not suitable for fishing, it is also unsuitable
for swimming.
EPA 821-R-07-001 16 March 2006
-------
New York Harbor Complex UAA
For best use classification, the state has water quality standards that must be met to protect and
preserve the intended use of the water, and criteria for DO, coliform bacteria, pH, temperature,
dissolved solids, turbidity, color, taste and odor, floating materials, oil, and toxic wastes apply.
Because all waters in New York are intended for general uses, such as aesthetic enjoyment and
maintenance offish and wildlife, most criteria apply to all the marine waterbodies regardless of
classification. Only the DO, coliform bacteria, and toxic waste criteria vary among different
classifications.
Data Collection and Analysis
In 1985 NYSDEC performed a UAA because several portions of the Harbor did not meet the
section 101(a)(2) goals of the CWA (fishable/swimmable). The UAA used data from the New
York City 208 planning process, as well as an environmental impact statement from the North
River Pollution Control Project, a final report for the Red Hook Water Pollution Control Project,
New York State Department of Health pre-classified studies of the Lower Hudson and Lower
East River, a NYSDEC study of water quality and waste assimilative capacity of the Hudson
River, a water quality assessment of marine CSO abatement along the New Jersey shore, surface
water quality standards for New Jersey, facility plans for the Coney Island and Owls Island water
pollution control plants, a New York Harbor Complex UAA performed by New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection in 1985, and the New York State Water Quality
Standards Attainable Strategy.
In the 1985 UAA, the authors estimated wastewater flow to the New York Harbor Complex from
sources such as CSOs, untreated sewage discharges (point sources), other urban nonpoint
sources, and treated effluent (not disinfected in winter) from New York and New Jersey. The
goal of the UAA was to refine water classifications, create new criteria, and modify standards.
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection assessed attainable uses in each of
the waterbodies and evaluated various water quality alternatives to determine the amount of
treatment necessary to attain the objectives of each alternative. In some cases, it was determined
that treatment would allow the classification and use to be upgraded.
Various treatment alternatives were examined for each waterbody in an effort to upgrade each
waterbody's classification and use when possible. Such alternatives included the secondary
treatment alternative (all water pollution control plants achieve secondary treatment of waste)
and the zero discharge alternative (zero discharge of pollution with 90 percent CSO control).
Hudson River and Upper New York Bay
On the basis of its analysis, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection did not
believe that there were potentially exploitable commercial shellfish populations in the Hudson
River within New York City and Westchester and Rockland counties. The assessment was based
on a review of biological data collected by a number of institutions and consultants documenting
that there was not an extensive population of commercially important shellfish species in the
area. At the time of the study, it was not clear whether the absence of shellfish was due to
pollutants or to physical or environmental reasons.
For the Hudson River and Upper New York Bay (classified as I), the authors assessed shellfish
and bathing potential. Designation of the swimming use for the Hudson River and Upper New
York Bay depended on attaining the coliform standard of 200 most probable number (MPN)
EPA 821-R-07-001 17 March 2006
-------
New York Harbor Complex UAA
fecal coliforms per 100 mL. At the time of the UAA, significant bacterial pollution was present
in most of the metropolitan Hudson, especially below its confluence with the Harlem River. The
principal sources of bacterial pollution were heavy discharges of untreated and inadequately
treated sewage from New York and New Jersey. Other sources of coliforms might have included
CSOs, urban runoff, treatment plant and sewer leaks, and bypasses on both sides of the river. It
was estimated that with the secondary treatment level alternative (all plants at the secondary
level), fecal coliform levels in the Hudson River between the state line and its confluence near
the Harlem River would fall below the criterion for SB classification (swimmable). On the basis
on anticipated future improvements, it was recommended that the Hudson River segment
between the state line and its confluence with the Harlem River be upgraded to SB classification.
For the Hudson River segment between the Harlem River junction, the Battery, and the Upper
New York Bay, secondary treatment was predicted to lower the fecal coliform level to less than
the existing Class I criterion, but not enough to meet the SB classification. Only the zero
discharge alternative with 90 percent CSO control was predicted to reduce coliforms to achieve
swimmable goals (but not enough to attain shellfish goals).
East River and Harlem River
The East River (classified as SD) was assessed for fish passage. At the time of the UAA, the
river had strong tidal currents and a deep hard substrate, which provided a limited and harsh
environment. River encroachment by a landfill, dredging, blasting, and pollution had caused
severe physical changes to the river. However, several studies indicated that fish, benthic
organism, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and periphyton populations existed in the East River. In
fact, the community in 1985 was similar to that which had existed 200 years before and consisted
of species that can tolerate a harsh environment. On the basis of this information, the authors
concluded that the classifications for the East River and Harlem River should be upgraded to
Class I for fish propagation.
The principal sources of bacterial pollution in the East River were discharges of untreated
sewage from the Red Hook drainage area in Brooklyn. Other sources of coliforms might have
included CSOs, urban runoff, plant and sewer leaks, and bypasses on both sides of the river.
Analyses showed that with the secondary treatment alternative (all plants at the secondary
treatment level), fecal coliform would not fall below the criterion for SB classification. Even the
zero discharge alternative with 90 percent CSO control was not predicted to achieve sufficient
reduction of coliforms to meet swimmable or shellfishing goals.
Jamaica Bay
At the time of the UAA, Jamaica Bay was classified for swimming (SB). It was noted that hard
clams existed in the bay. For the bay to be designated SA (direct shellfish harvesting), a coliform
standard of 70 MPN total coliform per 100 mL had to be met. The principal sources of bacterial
pollution in Jamaica Bay were attributed to CSOs. Various treatment alternatives were
considered in the analysis. The secondary treatment alternative was not predicted to lower total
coliform levels below the criterion for direct shellfishing (SA). In addition, the zero discharge
alternative with 90 percent CSO control was not predicted to achieve sufficient coliform
reduction to meet swimmable or shellfishing goals.
EPA 821-R-07-001 18 March 2006
-------
New York Harbor Complex UAA
Lower New York Bay
Lower New York Bay was classified for swimming (SB). As in Jamaica Bay, hard clams were
present. For the bay to be designated SA (direct shellfish harvesting), a coliform standard of 70
MPN total coliform per 100 mL had to be met. The principal source of bacterial pollution in
Lower New York Bay was carry-over discharges of untreated and inadequately treated sewage
from New York and New Jersey. Other sources of coliforms might have included CSOs, urban
runoff, plant and sewer leaks, and bypasses on both sides of the river. The secondary treatment
alternative was not predicted to lower total coliform levels below the criterion for direct
shellfishing (SA). However, the zero discharge alternative with 90 percent CSO control was
predicted to achieve sufficient coliform reduction to meet direct shellfishing goals.
Table 2 describes classifications pre-UAA and recommended classifications post-UAA, based on
water quality in the waterbodies and anticipated future improvements.
Table 2. Classification and Best Use Specification of Waterbodies Not Meeting CWA Section 101(a)(2) Goals
and Recommended Classification Upgrades (from the 1985 UAA)
Waterbody
Hudson River
From the Harlem River confluence to the
New Jersey /New York border
From the Harlem River to Battery
Upper New York Bay
Lower New York Bay
Jamaica Bay
East River (from the Battery to Flushing Bay)
Harlem River
East River to Washington Bridge
Washington Bridge to Hudson River
Classification
(pre-UAA)
I (Fishing)
I (Fishing)
I (Fishing)
SB (Bathing)
SB (Bathing)
SD (Fish Passage)
SD (Fish Passage)
I (Fishing)
Recommended
classification
(post-UAA)
SB (Bathing)
I (Fishing)
I (Fishing)
SB (Bathing)
SB (Bathing)
I (Fishing)
I (Fishing)
I (Fishing)
Change
Use upgrade
No change
No change
No change
No change
Use upgrade
Use upgrade
No change
Assessment of Alternatives
In assessing possible alternatives, only the zero discharge alternative with 90 percent CSO
control was predicted to achieve sufficient coliform reduction to achieve the
shellfishing/swimming goals for most of the New York Harbor Complex. In some cases, the zero
discharge alternative was not predicted to produce sufficient coliform reductions to achieve
shellfishing goals. However, the New York City 208 report, from which data were taken for the
1985 UAA, concluded that environmental, technical, and institutional factors made this
alternative unfeasible. If the alternative were implemented, projected improvements in water
quality might not occur because the precision of the model used to predict the improvements was
not demonstrated for total and fecal coliforms. In addition, the remaining 10 percent of CSOs not
controlled by the alternative would still affect the Lower New York Bay. The estimated
reductions in coliforms (from chlorination of primary-treated captured CSOs) might also have
been overestimated. The New York City 208 report also noted that the applicability of steady-
state models to CSO and coliform bacteria analysis is limited.
EPA 821-R-07-001
19
March 2006
-------
New York Harbor Complex UAA
To meet the fishable/swimmable water quality goals of the CWA, CSO abatement in the New
York Harbor area was found to be crucial. The zero discharge alternative would entail in-line
(sewer) and off-line storage, followed by primary treatment and disinfection. The total cost of
this control method was found to be significant, and the engineering feasibility had not yet been
established at the time of the 1985 UAA. A detailed study throughout the harbor was deemed
necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of the control option.
Conclusions
The 1985 UAA had several conclusions. First, NYSDEC recommended an upgrade of
classification and best use for several waterbodies analyzed in the UAA. NYSDEC concluded
that a CSO abatement program might be necessary to comply with current water quality
standards and to protect the designated uses. A more detailed evaluation of CSO problems and
abatement alternatives for the New York Harbor Complex was deemed necessary. Finally, the
study showed that additional research should be performed because other treatment/abatement
alternatives for CSOs, which had not been evaluated in the New York City 208 planning process,
might result in the goal of water quality suitable for swimming and shellfishing. EPA approved
the changes to designated uses as part of a water quality standards review.
Supporting materials for this case study are available in Appendix D.
References
NYNYSDEC. 1985. Use Attainability Analysis of the New York Harbor Complex. New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water.
EPA 821-R-07-001 20 March 2006
-------
Red Dog Mine UAA
Red Dog Mine UAA
Abstract
Complexity: Medium
Type of Action: Removal of aquatic life uses & development of site-
specific criterion
131.10(g) Factors: 1,3
A use attainability analysis (UAA) was performed on Red Dog Creek, which runs through the site of Red Dog mine,
the largest zinc mine in the world. Red Dog Creek flows only 3-4 months of the year. Several parts of the creek are
affected by mining discharges and some acid rock drainage. In addition, the area contains natural ore bodies,
resulting in naturally high concentrations of cadmium, lead, zinc, aluminum, and other metals. Pre-mining surveys
done in this area indicated that aquatic life uses were not present because of the toxic concentrations of metals, as
well as naturally low pH. The UAA for Red Dog Creek demonstrated that aquatic life uses should be removed
because of the naturally occurring pollutants. Because of the natural conditions, the criteria for cadmium, lead, zinc,
aluminum, and pH cannot be met without human intervention, precluding that aquatic life uses being met. However,
treatment of mine wastewater had led to the presence of Arctic grayling that should be protected. A site-specific
criterion for total dissolved solids (TDS) was developed to protect the grayling when spawning. EPA approved these
changes to Alaska's water quality standards.
Background
Red Dog Mine, in the DeLong Mountains of northwestern Alaska (Figure 5), is the largest zinc
mine in the world. The mine discharges treated water into Red Dog Creek, a tributary to
Ikalukrok Creek, which feeds the Wulik River. The Wulik River drains into the Chukchi Sea and
is the drinking water source for Kivalina, a native village 54 miles southwest of the mine.
Several parts of Red Dog Creek are affected by mining discharges and some acid rock drainage.
Figure 5. Red Dog Area (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2005).
EPA 821-R-07-001
21
March 2006
-------
Red Dog Mine UAA
In addition, the area contains natural ore bodies with naturally high concentrations of cadmium,
lead, zinc, aluminum, and other metals. Pre-mining surveys performed in the early 1980s
indicated that aquatic life uses were not present because of the toxic concentrations of metals, as
well as naturally low pH.
Data Collection and Analysis
By default, Alaska designates all waters for all uses (Table 3). A use attainability analysis (UAA)
was performed on Red Dog Creek to assess whether its aquatic life uses were being met. In 1997
Alaska submitted the UAA to EPA for review. On the basis on the information presented in the
UAA, EPA approved the removal of the aquatic life uses for Red Dog Creek in February 1998.
A site-specific criterion for total dissolved solids (TDS) was applied to the main stem of the
creek to protect Arctic grayling when spawning. The entire process of performing the UAA
through EPA approval of changes to Alaska's water quality standards took 3 years.
Table 3. Designated Uses for Alaska
Fresh water uses
Water supply
Water recreation
Drinking, culinary, and
food processing
Agriculture, including
irrigation and stock
watering
Aquaculture
Industrial
Contact recreation
Secondary recreation
Growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other
aquatic life, and wildlife
Marine water uses
Water supply
Water recreation
Aquaculture
Seafood processing
Industrial
Contact recreation
Secondary recreation
Growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other
aquatic life, and wildlife
Harvesting for consumption of raw mollusks or
other raw aquatic life
The aquatic life use removal was based on naturally occurring pollutant concentrations, 40 CFR
131.10(g) factor 1. Water quality and biological data collected during baseline studies were used
to describe pre-mining conditions. Many of the same monitoring stations that had been used in
the original studies were used to conduct monitoring after the development of Red Dog Mine.
These studies showed toxic concentrations of cadmium, zinc, lead, aluminum, and other metals.
Poor water quality resulted from the natural chemical breakdown of sulfide minerals, a process
that contributes to acid rock drainage. The observed reddish-orange color of the creek water
indicated a metal sulfide deposit.
In the Red Dog Creek UAA, aquatic life was defined to include all aspects of the aquatic
community, including fish, macroinvertebrates, microinvertebrates, periphyton, and
macrophytes. Pre- and post-mining surveys done at this location indicated limited aquatic life in
Red Dog Creek due to the toxic concentrations of metals and the naturally low pH. Fish use of
Red Dog Creek was limited to migration to the North Fork Red Dog Creek, upstream of Red
Dog Creek, during spring high flows. Fish experienced high mortalities in Red Dog Creek during
downstream migration because of the high levels of metals and low pH. There are also few
subadult-age grayling in the North Fork Red Dog Creek, which is hypothesized to be the result
of the poor conditions in Red Dog Creek, in which migrating adults must swim.
EPA 821-R-07-001
22
March 2006
-------
Red Dog Mine UAA
Site-specific Criterion for TDS
Red Dog Mine discharges into the Lower Middle Fork of Red Dog Creek. Mine drainage water
is collected in the tailings pond, treated with lime to remove harmful heavy metals, and
discharged in the summer. Although this treatment is appropriate to keep heavy metals out of
surface waters, it results in higher concentrations of dissolved solids that are discharged into the
creek. High levels of TDS can affect some aquatic species, particularly salmonids, during critical
life stages such as spawning. As a result of the treatment to reduce metals in the effluent from the
mine, the TDS levels exceed the current water quality criterion of 500 mg/L. Lowering the TDS
in the effluent would reduce the effectiveness of the wastewater treatment and cause higher metal
concentrations and higher toxicity in the mine wastewater discharge and downstream waters.
Discharge from the mine has led to more consistent (non-ephemeral) flows in the main stem of
Red Dog Creek and has allowed aquatic life to develop in the segment. In the absence of the
effluent from the mine, the main stem would flow only 3-4 months of the year. If the discharge
were to be discontinued, the aquatic productivity in the stream would decrease. Ten years of
aquatic surveys have demonstrated that aquatic productivity in the main stem has increased from
pre-mining conditions due to effective water management practices and treatment. Arctic
grayling spawn in the main stem of the creek from late May to mid-June. Because TDS has been
shown to adversely effect fish fertilization, a fish barrier was constructed across the main stem of
Red Dog Creek to block the passage offish up the Middle Fork of Red Dog Creek, which leads
to the point of discharge of the mine.
In January 2001 a site-specific criterion was proposed for the main stem of Red Dog Creek to
allow higher levels of TDS during most of the year while limiting TDS and protecting the
grayling while they spawn. A site-specific criterion is a water quality limit that pertains to only a
specific area in a stream, lake, or bay. In this case it applies to only the main stem of Red Dog
Creek. Studies showed that Arctic grayling were the only salmonids spawning in Red Dog
Creek. Because fertilization was observed to be the most critical and vulnerable life stage for
salmonids, a site-specific TDS criterion of 500 mg/L during spawning was proposed. A criterion
of calcium-dominated TDS of 1500 mg/L was proposed for all other times. Calcium-dominated
TDS contain calcium greater than 50 percent by weight of all cations. Although studies showed
that 1500 mg/L was protective of salmonids and aquatic invertebrates, there were no data on
protective levels for fertilization.
Conclusion
The site-specific criterion for TDS was adopted into the Alaska Water Quality Standards in June
2003 and submitted to EPA for approval. EPA approved the 1500 mg/L TDS during non-
spawning but requested additional testing on the effects of TDS on the spawning success of Artie
grayling. Additional studies were developed in consultation with EPA, the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources' Office of Habitat Management and Permitting, the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. In 2004 and 2005
studies were conducted on site at the Red Dog Mine. The results indicated that calcium-
dominated TDS levels up to 1500 mg/L would be protective during Arctic grayling spawning. A
change to Alaska's water quality standards is in progress to incorporate the 1500 mg/L TDS
level for Red Dog Creek at all times. Water quality monitoring data indicated that setting the
EPA 821-R-07-001 23 March 2006
-------
Red Dog Mine UAA
1500 mg/L TDS level in the main stem of Red Dog Creek would be protective of all downstream
uses in Ikalukrok Creek and the Wulik River as well.
Supporting materials for this case study are available in Appendix E.
References
ADEC. 2005. Basis for Total Dissolved Solids Site Specific Criterion Update in Main Stem Red
Dog Creek. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water.
Sonafrank, N. 2005. Red Dog and Ikalukrok Creeks Use Attainability Analysis. Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
EPA 821-R-07-001 24 March 2006
-------
Montana's Temporary Water Quality Standards
Montana's Temporary Water Quality Standards—New World
Mining District
Abstract
Complexity: Complex Type of Action: Temporary standards for multiple uses during
remediation
Region: 8 131.10(g) Factors: 3
Montana's Water Quality Act allows for application of temporary modification of water quality standards where a
waterbody is not meeting its designated use. The ultimate goal of the temporary modification is to improve water
quality to the point where designated uses are fully supported. As such, temporary standards play a key role in the
remediation of damaged water resources, because the underlying designated uses and criteria are established as
goals which drive water quality improvements. The duration of temporary standards is set based on an estimate of
the time needed for remediation at a specific site, and because the clean up of legacy pollutants often takes time,
temporary standards can be and are issued for multiple years. The state uses 20 years as its time horizon for
estimating future watershed remediation opportunities, and therefore, temporary standards could be issued for as
much as 20 years. The New World Mining District is an example of a well-funded and successful project. The
waters were classified as suitable for a number of uses, including drinking water, recreational, and aquatic life uses.
Background
In the Water Quality Act, Montana has adopted a provision for temporary water quality
standards (75-5-312, Montana Code Annotated, MCA). The standards allow the Board of
Environmental Review (the Board) to temporarily modify a water quality standard for a specific
waterbody or segment on a parameter-by-parameter basis. The goal of this tool is to "improve
water quality to the point at which all the beneficial uses designated for that waterbody or
segment are supported."
Establishment of Temporary Water Quality Standards
To obtain a temporary modification of the water quality standards, a petitioner must submit
supporting documentation that shows that the waterbody or segment is not supporting its
designated use. This documentation must consider (1) the chemical, biological, and physical
condition of the waterbody; (2) the specific water quality-limiting factors affecting the
waterbody; (3) the existing water quality standards that are not being met; (4) the temporary
modifications of the existing water quality standards being requested; (5) the existing beneficial
uses; and (6) the designated uses considered attainable in the absence of the water quality-
limiting factors.
In addition, the petitioner must provide a preliminary implementation plan that outlines what the
petitioner will do to return the waterbody back to full support of the original water quality
standards. The implementation plan must contain (1) a description of the proposed actions that
will eliminate the water quality-limiting factors identified to the extent achievable and (2) a
schedule for implementing the proposed actions that ensures that the current water quality
standards for the parameter or parameters at issue are met as soon as reasonably practicable.
After the petition is submitted, the Board goes through a public process and decides whether to
move forward and the appropriate length of time the new standards will be in effect. If the Board
adopts the temporary water quality standards, then the petitioner must modify the preliminary
implementation plan as instructed by the Board and develop a detailed work plan each year until
EPA 821-R-07-001 25 March 2006
-------
Montana's Temporary Water Quality Standards
remediation is complete. The statute sets a maximum of 20 years for the temporary standards.
The Board reviews the temporary standards and implementation plan—including progress made
toward water quality improvements—at least every 3 years until the waterbody reaches full
support of the designated use or the standards expire.
Temporary standards may be terminated if the values for the modified parameter or parameters
improve to conditions that support all designated uses for the classification, the water for which
the temporary standards were adopted is reclassified, or the plan submitted in support of the
temporary water quality standards is not being implemented according to the plan's schedule or
modifications to that plan or schedule made by the Board or by the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Example: The New World Mining District
One example of temporary
standards in Montana is for the
New World Mining District,
approximately 4 miles
northeast of Yellowstone Park
(Figure 6). Three rivers flow
through this area—the Clarks
Fork of the Yellowstone, the
Stillwater, and the Lamar. The
site covers approximately 40
square miles. This area has
hard rock mining wastes and
acidic discharges that contain
elevated levels of heavy
metals. U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service is Figure 6. New World Mining District (USDA, 2002).
conducting remediation with
oversight by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
\
\
j"
Data Collection and Analysis
Streams in the District have been classified B-l, with the following designated uses: the water
quality is to be maintained suitable for drinking, culinary and food processing (after conventional
treatment), bathing, swimming and recreation, growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and
associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers, and agricultural and industrial water supply.
For class B-l waters, standards have been set for Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria, dissolved
oxygen, pH, turbidity, temperature, sediment or floating solids, color, and toxic, carcinogenic, or
harmful parameters. Some stream segments in the mining district have not been able to achieve
some designated uses due, in part, to historical mining activities.
The major sources of water quality impairment at the site include heavy metals present in mine
waste pits, acidic water discharging from mine openings, and underground sulfide ore deposits
that have been exposed to the atmosphere. Metal-laden mine wastes are transported to surface
waters through mechanisms such as erosion, infiltration, dissolution of contaminants in runoff,
EPA 821-R-07-001
26
March 2006
-------
Montana's Temporary Water Quality Standards
and groundwater discharge. Since 1977 state and federal agencies have conducted several
investigations to determine the nature and extent of metal impacts on surface waters in the
District. Earlier studies have shown that metal loadings in streams are derived from groundwater
inflow, adit (a nearly horizontal passage from the surface in a mine) discharges, tributary inputs,
and leachate from waste dumps. Waste sources, however, are widely scattered throughout the
District, and contributions from individual sources are difficult to quantify.
In 1996 the United States and Crown Butte Mining, Inc. (CBMI) signed a Settlement Agreement
under which the United States would purchase the company's holdings in the District. Under the
agreement, all proposed mining operations were ended, and $22.5 million was provided to clean
up the historical mining impacts. A consent decree was signed in 1998 by all interested parties to
finalize the terms of the Agreement and make the funds for cleanup activities available. Of the
total amount provided, $2.5 million was earmarked for remediation of natural resource damage
in this area. The consent decree specified that "performance of response and restoration actions
will initially address release of hazardous substances, natural resources lost, and conditions
affecting water quality and natural resources that are related to District Property." The Forest
Service was designated as the lead agency in charge of administering the cleanup.
The Forest Service and CBMI completed supporting documentation and petitioned for temporary
standards for Fisher Creek, Daisy Creek, and a portion of the upper Stillwater River on
January 22, 1999. The accompanying support document provided the necessary information
required by the Montana Water Quality Act. The Board approved and adopted the temporary
standards for the petitioned stream segments following public comment in July 1999. These
standards are in effect for 15 years. The goal of using the temporary standards is to allow
remediation activities to have time to yield water quality improvements that will result in all
waters supporting B-l uses. Modified criteria were established for aluminum, cadmium, copper,
iron, manganese, zinc, and pH for Daisy Creek and for aluminum, copper, iron, lead, manganese,
zinc, and pH for Fisher Creek and a portion of the upper Stillwater River (Table 4).
Table 4. Original and Modified Numeric Criteria (Montana DEQ, 2005)
Waterbody
Daisy Creek
Stillwater River
Fisher Creek
Original criteria
Al
750
Cd
1.05b
Cu
7.3b
Fe
1000
Mn
--
Pb
82C
Zn
67b
pH
d
Modified criteria3
Al
9510
670
470
Cd
4
n/a
n/a
Cu
3530
200
110
Fe
6830
1320
750
Mn
1710
86
82
Pb
n/a
13
2
Zn
540
49
44
pH
>4.6
>5.5
>5.7
a All criteria except pH are shown as micrograms per liter ([ig/L); pH is measured in standard units (su).
b At 50 mg/L hardness.
0 At 100 mg/L hardness.
d Induced variation of hydrogen ion concentration (pH) within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 must be less than 0.5 pH unit. Natural pH
outside this range must be maintained without change. Natural pH above 7.0 must be maintained above 7.0.
As required by the Board for approval of temporary standards, a work plan was developed and
approved under the direction of the Forest Service. The work plan described existing conditions
at the site, set forth the goals and objectives of cleanup activities, and established an 8-year
schedule under which activities would be completed.
Project activities in the District began in 1999 under the direction of the Forest Service. The
general schedule was to finalize the site characterization work in 1999, begin cleanup activities
in 2000 and 2001, and complete active cleanup activities by 2002. Years five through eight were
EPA 821-R-07-001
27
March 2006
-------
Montana's Temporary Water Quality Standards
dedicated to monitoring surface water quality, groundwater quality, and revegetation at the
reclaimed sites and to performing any necessary maintenance. Annual work plans have been
developed to reflect changing remediation activities.
Triennial Review of Temporary Standards
Water quality monitoring is ongoing and is conducted several times each year at numerous
monitoring stations. The monitoring is done to detect and measure improvements that result from
cleanup actions and to comply with the rules in place for water quality standards related to the
project. The 2002 Progress Report results include the following:
1. Monitoring on Fisher Creek showed that water quality had been in compliance with the temporary
standards since 1999 and several criteria associated with the B-l standards were being met. Zinc
concentrations were below the chronic and acute aquatic standards for B-l, and copper concentrations
had fallen below chronic aquatic standards during winter base flow conditions since 1999 at one
monitoring location. However, copper exceeded acute and chronic aquatic standards during spring
runoff at this station, when flows increase and scoured sediments with high metals concentrations
significantly affect water quality. During base flow conditions in the fall, only copper exceeded acute
or chronic aquatic standards. Aluminum exceeded chronic aquatic standards during high-flow
conditions in 1999 but did not exceed these standards in 2000 or 2001. Zinc exceeded the narrative
standard on only two occasions since the standard was established; both exceedences occurred during
low-flow periods (May 1999 and October 2000). Water quality in Fisher Creek generally improved
downstream, as shown in the lower concentrations measured at several downstream monitoring
locations.
2. No temporary standards have been exceeded at the monitoring station on the Stillwater River since
the standards became effective in 1999. For the B-l standards, copper exceeded chronic and acute
aquatic standards at this station during each of the three high-flow events monitored since 1999.
Copper fell below the chronic aquatic standard generally during low-flow conditions. Aluminum
exceeded the chronic aquatic standard during each of the high-flow events and one of the winter base
flow events. Zinc concentrations were lower than the acute/chronic aquatic standard at this station
since monitoring began in 1990, and iron concentrations were lower than the chronic aquatic standard
since the early 1990s. During fall base flow at this station, there were no exceedences of aquatic
criteria.
3. Monitoring at two locations on Daisy Creek showed that all metal concentrations measured since
1999 were below both temporary and narrative water quality standards for the majority of the
sampling events conducted and the parameters analyzed, with only two exceptions. In terms of the B-
1 standards, aluminum, copper, and zinc exceeded the acute and chronic aquatic standards during all
monitoring events (except zinc in April 2000) since 1999. Iron exceeded the chronic aquatic standard
consistently at one location, and lead exceeded the chronic aquatic standard on one occasion in the
past 3 years. At one location, copper exceeded aquatic standards for all events. Iron exceeded the
chronic aquatic standard all the time, and lead exceeded the chronic aquatic standard on most
sampling events. Metal concentrations at both stations have declined since 1996.
As of the 2005 project summary, water quality monitoring results show that improvements are
beginning to be realized at the farthest downstream stations on Fisher Creek and the Stillwater
River, and additional water quality improvements are expected to be measured in the near future
as the major cleanup projects are completed. Some improvements are also beginning to be
realized in the most upstream stations in the headwaters of Fisher Creek and Daisy Creek. The
full impact of this comprehensive cleanup project on water quality will not be evident for several
years.
EPA 821-R-07-001 28 March 2006
-------
Montana's Temporary Water Quality Standards
Conclusion
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has found the use of temporary
modifications of water quality standards and the associated implementation plan to be a very
useful tool to restore water quality. The requirement for an implementation plan with progress
reports is an important incentive to attaining the goals initially set out. The cleanup activities
were initially scheduled to be completed in 8 years, but this process is iterative. Once
remediation activities outlined in the project work plan are completed, analysis and monitoring
will determine whether Fisher Creek, Daisy Creek, and the portion of the upper Stillwater River
meet the B-l classification. The 2005 project summary prepared by the Forest Service indicates
that work will be completed in 2007, with additional monitoring in 2008. After monitoring,
USFS and Montana DEQ will decide what further work needs to be done to complete the
cleanup within the 15 year timeline set forth in the temporary standards.
Use of temporary standards for the New World Mining District has been successful, in part,
because adequate funding was available for remediation efforts. Resource availability and
jurisdictional complexities associated with the Upper Blackfoot Mining Complex have lessened
the effectiveness of using temporary water quality standards in that case.
References
Bukantis, B. 2005. Montana's Temporary Water Quality Standards. Presentation at the
Designated Use Co-Regulator Workshop, Denver, CO, October 2005.
Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. Water Quality Standards and
Classifications. http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/Standards/Index.asp. Accessed January 2005.
USDA Forest Service. 2002. Progress Report: Temporary Water Quality Standards 3-Year
Review, New World Mining District Response and Restoration Project. USD A Forest Service,
Missoula, MT. http://www.maximtechnologies.com/newworld. Accessed January 2005.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Project Summary 2005: New World Mining District Response and
Restoration Project. USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT.
http://www.maximtechnologies.com/newworld. Accessed January 2005.
EPA 821-R-07-001 29 March 2006
-------
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
Abstract
Complexity: Very complex
Region: 3
Type of Action: Refined aquatic life uses and restoration variance
131.10(2) Factors: 1, 3, 6
Chesapeake Bay waters have been impaired by nutrients and sediment from point and nonpoint sources. These
impairments have led to low levels of dissolved oxygen and inability to meet designated uses. Two use attainability
analyses (UAAs) were conducted, with several states involved, to evaluate three of the 131.10(g) factors: natural
conditions, human-caused conditions, and economics. Maryland collected a significant amount of monitoring data
and developed a model to use the data to assess whether the bay's waters were meeting their designated uses. One
result of the UAAs was the decision to refine the aquatic life uses. Five designated uses were identified, and the
seasonality of each was considered. Maryland promulgated these designated uses in its water quality standards, and
EPA approved the new standards in 2005.
In addition, restoration variances were added to Maryland's proposed water quality standards as refinements to
proposed criteria. These variances can be applied over an entire segment of the Bay, rather than directed at a specific
discharger or group of dischargers. The temporary modifications allow for realistic recognition of current and
attainable conditions while retaining the designated use and setting full attainment as a future goal. In addition, the
variance allows for incremental improvements in water quality goals.
Background
Over the past 22 years, since the creation of the
Chesapeake Bay Program, progress has been
made toward restoring the Chesapeake Bay
(Figure 7), but a number of problems remain.
Portions of the bay and its tidal tributaries are
listed as impaired primarily because of low
dissolved oxygen levels, which do not support
the living resources of the bay. Nutrients
emanate from many activities—agriculture,
urbanization, septic systems, deforestation and
removal of streamside buffers, air deposition,
and point sources (e.g., wastewater treatment
plant discharges). Many of the nutrients
entering the bay are dissolved in runoff; some
are associated with sediment in runoff. The
result of the excessive nutrients in the bay are
increased algae growth (measured as
chlorophyll a), decreased water clarity
(measured as turbidity), and decreased
dissolved oxygen levels.
Viayflnw
Figure 7. Chesapeake Bay watershed (USEPA, 2003b).
Through the collaboration of the Chesapeake Bay Program, states, the District of Columbia,
citizens, and EPA are striving to develop strategies, tools, and activities to reduce nutrient and
sediment pollution inputs to the bay. The Chesapeake 2000 agreement sets an aggressive goal of
reducing nutrients and sediment inputs to the Chesapeake Bay to levels that will support the
restoration of the bay's living resources by 2010. An indicator for meeting this goal is the
EPA 821-R-07-001
30
March 2006
-------
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
removal of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries from the list of impaired waters required
under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) (i.e., the 303(d) list).
EPA Guidance
In April 2003 EPA Region 3 issued Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen,
Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries (Regional
Criteria Guidance) as technical guidance to help the jurisdictions surrounding the Chesapeake
Bay to better achieve and maintain the water quality conditions necessary to protect the existing
uses in the bay. This Regional Criteria Guidance provides states with two important mechanisms
to help them implement an overall nutrient reduction strategy. First, it defines the water quality
conditions for nutrients called for in Chesapeake 2000 through the development of Chesapeake
Bay-specific water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and chlorophyll a. EPA
intended the Regional Criteria Guidance to assist the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions in adopting
revised state water quality standards for these critical parameters. Second, the Regional Criteria
Guidance provides states with suggestions for revised tidal water designated uses within the
Chesapeake Bay. The water quality criteria and refined designated uses presented in the Regional
Criteria Guidance represent the collaboration of the various partners and stakeholders of the
Chesapeake Bay region.
EPA developed the Technical Support Document for Identifying Chesapeake Bay Designated
Uses and Attainability (Technical Support Document) to help the states document and justify the
recommended refined designated uses for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The Technical
Support Document outlined the following objectives:
• Document why current aquatic life designated uses are not protective and are unattainable in
all parts of the Chesapeake Bay system because of natural and human-caused conditions that
cannot be remedied.
• Document the rationale and scientific basis for the proposed refined designated uses.
• Document that the refined designated uses are attainable.
• Provide technical background information for Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and the District
of Columbia to develop UAAs in support of changing their respective current designated uses
(as of 2003).
EPA 821-R-07-001 31 March 2006
-------
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
The Regional Criteria Guidance and Technical Support Document identify five designated uses
that, if adequately protected, will lead to the improvement and protection of the living resources
of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Figure 8 illustrates these five designated uses,
which are coupled with the three water quality criteria (dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and
chlorophyll a) to form the basis of the Chesapeake Bay Program's strategy to safeguard the bay
from nutrient pollution. To protect the bay's
aquatic resources, program managers must
accurately delineate locations to apply these
tidal-water designated uses, which are the
following:
A. Cr Ms-Section
Buy ar Tidal Tributary
9. Ct-ltqo* Vi«v« of tho Ch«sspveil» im and ft® Tidal Trfbu1art*e
Figure 8. Conceptual illustration of the five Chesapeake
Bay tidal water designated use zones (USEPA, 2003b).
• Migratory fish spawning and nursery
designated use protects migratory and
resident tidal freshwater fish during the late
winter to late spring spawning and nursery
season in tidal freshwater to low-salinity
habitats. Located primarily in the upper
reaches of many bay tidal rivers and creeks
and the upper main stem Chesapeake Bay,
this use will benefit several species,
including striped bass, perch, shad, herring,
sturgeon, and largemouth bass.
• Shallow-water bay grass designated use
protects underwater bay grasses and the
many fish and crab species that depend on
the vegetated shallow-water habitat provided
by underwater grass beds.
• Open-water fish and shellfish designated use focuses on surface water habitats in tidal creeks, rivers,
embayments, and the main stem Chesapeake Bay and protects diverse populations of sport fish,
including striped bass, bluefish, mackerel and sea trout, as well as important bait fish such as
menhaden and silversides.
• Deep-water seasonal fish and shellfish designated use protects animals inhabiting the deeper
transitional water column and bottom habitats between the well-mixed surface waters and the very
deep channels. This use protects many bottom-feeding fish, crabs and oysters, and other important
species such as the bay anchovy.
• Deep-channel seasonal refuge designated use protects bottom sediment-dwelling worms and small
clams that bottom-feeding fish and crabs consume naturally. Low to occasional no dissolved oxygen
conditions occur in this habitat zone during the summer.
Water Quality Criteria
The Regional Criteria Guidance reflects EP A's National Strategy for the Development of
Regional Nutrient Criteria by establishing waterbody-specific (estuarine) and nutrient eco-region
specific criteria. The three Chesapeake Bay criteria—dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and
chlorophyll a—should be viewed as an integrated set of criteria applied to their respective sets
of designated use habitats and addressing similar and varied ecological conditions and water
quality impairments. The criteria provide the basis for defining the water quality conditions
necessary to protect the five essential Chesapeake Bay tidal-water designated uses.
EPA 821-R-07-001
32
March 2006
-------
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
Dissolved Oxygen Criteria. In the Chesapeake Bay's deeper waters, there is a natural tendency
toward reduced dissolved oxygen conditions because of the bay's physical morphology and
estuarine circulation. The Chesapeake Bay's highly productive shallow waters, coupled with
strong density stratification, long residence times (weeks to months), low tidal energy, and a
tendency to retain, recycle, and regenerate nutrients from the surrounding watershed, set the
stage for low dissolved oxygen conditions. Specifically, three dissolved oxygen criteria were
established for the five designated uses:
• Criteria for the migratory fish spawning and nursery, shallow-water bay grass, and open-water
fish and shellfish designated uses were set at levels to prevent impairment of growth and to
protect the reproduction and survival of all organisms.
• Criteria for deep-water seasonal fish and shellfish designated use habitats during seasons
when the water column is significantly stratified were set at levels to protect juvenile and
adult fish, shellfish, and the recruitment success of the bay anchovy.
• Criteria for deep-channel, seasonal-refuge designated use habitats in summer were set to
protect the survival of bottom sediment-dwelling worms and clams.
Water Clarity Criteria. The water clarity criteria establish the minimum level of light penetration
required to support the survival, growth, and continued propagation of underwater bay grasses.
The decline of underwater bay grasses is mainly attributed to nutrient over-enrichment and
increased suspended sediments in the water, as well as associated reductions in light availability.
Other factors such as climatic events and herbicide toxicity might also have contributed to the
loss of bay grasses. To restore these critical habitats and food sources, enough light must
penetrate the shallow waters to support the survival, growth, and repropagation of diverse,
healthy underwater bay grass communities. The water clarity criteria are applied only during the
bay grass growing seasons.
Chlorophyll a. From a water quality perspective, chlorophyll a is the best available, most
direct measure of the amount and quality of phytoplankton and the potential to lead to reduced
water clarity and low dissolved oxygen impairments. The Chesapeake Bay's ability to produce
and maintain a diversity of species depends in large part on how well phytoplankton meet the
nutritional needs of their consumers. Chlorophyll a is the primary photosynthetic pigment in
algae and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), a measure of photosynthesis, and a measure of the
primary food source of aquatic food webs. Chlorophyll a also plays a direct role in reducing light
penetration in shallow-water habitats, which has a direct impact on underwater bay grasses.
Uneaten by zooplankton and filter-feeding fish or shellfish, excess dead algae are consumed
by bacteria, and in the process they remove oxygen from the water column.
Phytoplankton assemblages can become dominated by single species that represent poor
food quality or even produce toxins. States are encouraged to adopt numerical chlorophyll a
criteria for application to tidal waters in which algae-related designated use impairments are
likely to persist even after the applicable dissolved oxygen and water clarity criteria are attained.4
4 The technical information supporting states' quantitative interpretation of the narrative chlorophyll a criteria is published in the
body of the Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria document.
EPA 821-R-07-001 33 March 2006
-------
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
Maryland UAAs
Maryland's Designated Uses and Water Quality Criteria
Maryland's designated uses for the Chesapeake Bay included aquatic life, commercial shellfish
harvest, and water contact recreation uses. To protect the aquatic life uses in the bay and its tidal
tributaries, Maryland set its dissolved oxygen criteria at 5 mg/L applied year-round throughout
all tide-influenced waters. Caps on nitrogen and phosphorus loads were established through the
1992 Amendment to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and were allocated to each of the 10 major
tributary basins in Maryland. In 1996 Maryland listed all portions of the Chesapeake Bay and
most of its tidal tributaries as impaired by nutrients or sediment on the state's 303(d) list. With
the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, Maryland had committed to "correct the
nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries
sufficiently to remove the bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list of impaired
waters (303(d) list) under the Clean Water Act."
In 2004 Maryland published two documents, the Use Attainability Analysis for Tidal Waters of
the Chesapeake Bay Mainstem and Its Tributaries Located in the State of Maryland and Use
Attainability Analysis for the Federal Navigation Channels Located in Tidal Portions of the
Patapsco River, to aid in this process. Prior water quality criteria were based on the assumption
that all areas in the bay were identical, and they did not take into account the natural variability
of the bay's waters. These documents provide the technical background and scientific data used
to develop new water quality standards.
The Use Attainability Analysis for Tidal Waters of the Chesapeake Bay Mainstem and Its
Tributaries Located in the State of Maryland explains why the current designated uses cannot be
attained in all parts of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay and associated tidal tributaries. Maryland
used natural conditions, human-caused conditions, and hydrologic modifications (40 CFR
131.10(g) factors 2, 3, and 4, respectively) to demonstrate that attaining the designated uses was
not feasible. The document also provides scientific data indicating that refined designated uses
are attainable and would continue to protect existing uses. Finally, the document summarizes
economic analyses, including cost estimates for implementing the appropriate control scenarios.
Data Collection and Analysis
When Maryland was assessing attainability, it considered natural conditions by examining
paleological evidence and using water quality monitoring data. Water quality models were used
to determine bay water quality under forest and pristine conditions. Biological and chemical
studies conducted over the past 10 years offered a wealth of data that showed a greater frequency
and duration of seasonal anoxic conditions beginning in the 1930s. Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) personnel documented that extensive land clearance during the 18th and 19th
centuries had led to dissolved oxygen depression in the Chesapeake Bay below dissolved oxygen
levels characteristic of the previous 2000 years. Although better than present conditions, pre-17th
century dissolved oxygen proxy data suggested that dissolved oxygen levels in the deep channel
of the bay were not above 5 mg/L all the time. The modeling showed that even under pristine
conditions, the designated uses set for the bay would not be met.
EPA 821-R-07-001 34 March 2006
-------
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
Human-caused conditions were also examined by modeling theoretical levels of best
management practice (BMP) implementation. MDE scientists were able to establish that
anthropogenic impacts, such as all forms of nutrient enrichment caused by agriculture, urban
nonpoint sources, and other nonpoint sources, could not be remedied. The theoretical levels of
implementation tested in the water quality models included new technologies, management
programs, and best practices not currently part of the state or local jurisdictional pollutant control
strategies. Three scenarios were considered:
1. All-forest
2. Pristine
3. Everything, everywhere by everyone5
The results of these modeling scenarios demonstrated that, even under pristine conditions, the
desired dissolved oxygen criteria could not be attained in the deep channels and deep waters of
the Chesapeake Bay during the summer. For the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay that is
affected by hydrologic modification (i.e., deep water segments of the Patapsco River), MDE
scientists collected and analyzed the following data:
• Data from the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model
• Data from the Maryland Department of the Environment and Department of Natural
Resources Core Monitoring Programs
• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) data gathered 1992-1997
The results showed 77 percent non-attainment in this segment due to federally authorized
hydrologic modification under the Rivers and Harbors Act and a complex pattern of tidal
circulation that moves hypoxic and anoxic waters within the Chesapeake Bay system.
Three types of economic analyses were performed in conjunction with developing revised water
quality criteria for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters. An analysis was undertaken to
estimate the costs of implementing the hypothetical control scenarios. The same type of
economic analysis was performed on the implementation plan for meeting the new bay water
quality standards. An analysis was also performed to consider the substantial and widespread
economic and social impacts if controls that were more stringent than those required by CWA
sections 301 and 306 were implemented.
The total projected cost, including capital and operating costs, is approximately $10 billion
through 2010. This is the statewide evaluation of sewage treatment upgrades and BMP
implementation levels necessary to attain the water quality standards in the bay and tidal
tributaries. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the cost estimates, the effectiveness
Both the "all-forest" and the "pristine" scenarios were designed to represent pre-European settlement conditions to capture
natural pollutant levels. The "all-forest" scenario incorporates nutrient and sediment loads reflecting pre-colonial land clearance,
an atmospheric deposition reduced to 10 percent of current load, nitrogen soil storage that is elevated and incorporates some
delivery to the Bay, and shoreline erosion at current levels. The "pristine" scenario is similar to the "all-forest" scenario except
that the nitrogen storage level does not incorporate delivery to the bay and the shoreline erosion is set at 10 percent of current
levels to account for pre-settlement distribution of Bay grasses. The "everything, everywhere by everyone," or E3, scenario
represents the boundary of what is considered physically implausible. It represents BMP implementation with no cost factors and
few physical limitations. It also includes new technologies and management programs and practices not currently part of the state
or local jurisdictional pollutant control strategies.
EPA 821-R-07-001 35 March 2006
-------
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
of the BMPs, and the level of implementation that will actually be needed. It is anticipated that
as innovative and more effective management practices are developed, the implementation will
evolve and affect the costs.
The potential economic benefits of improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
tributaries were considered to determine whether controls more stringent than those required by
CWA sections 301(b)(l)(A) and (B) and 306 would result in substantial and widespread
economic and social impacts. To estimate the potential economic benefits, a regional forecasting
model and an economic impact model were used. Results indicated that the regional economy
should expand as a result of restoration efforts. Although there is no comprehensive estimate of
the benefits, data suggest that the bay affects industries that generate approximately $20 billion
and 340,000 jobs.
Use Refinement
Because Maryland determined that the designated uses for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
tributaries did not fully reflect natural conditions, MDE opted to refine the uses. Through the
refinement of Maryland's tidal-water designated uses, the state hopes to replace nonattainable
uses and general criteria with specific uses and criteria based on the actual needs of the
biological community. Maryland engaged stakeholders early in the process and used the
Chesapeake Bay Program's Regional Criteria Guidance and Technical Development Document
as a basis for analyses and decision-making. As a result, Maryland was able to upgrade
designated uses on some waters and downgrade designated uses on others (from the current bay-
wide general aquatic life designation) as needed. Maryland set designated uses for segments of
the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries so that the state would be able to assess and delist
(from the 303(d) list of impaired waters) appropriate individual segments.
The first step MDE took in deriving attainable designated uses was delineating of areas where
different uses exist. The refined uses were based on habitats of living resources that have
different dissolved oxygen requirements and tolerance. In addition, some of the refined uses
were based on water clarity requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation. Designated uses can
be multi-dimensional in space and time. Temporal variation results in a seasonal application that
occurs because of different living resources' life history requirements. For example, the seasonal
spawning and early life habitat requirements of American shad would not require spawning and
early life stage habitats year-round but only during the spring when shad spawn in the tributaries.
Spatial variation occurs in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the bay. Horizontal
components are based on bathymetry and geography; vertical components are based on
bathymetry and pycnocline6 delineation. The five designated uses outlined in the EPA Regional
Criteria Guidance and Technical Support Document were proposed to reflect the habitat of an
array of recreationally, commercially, and ecologically important species and biological
communities.
MDE and its state partners, in collaboration with the Chesapeake Bay Program, took explicit
steps to ensure that existing uses would continue to be protected. For the migratory spawning and
6 The pycnocline is a natural zone of rapid salinity increase that marks the boundary between fresh river water flowing toward the
ocean and "salty" ocean water flowing into the bay. The pycnocline acts as a barrier to mixing of surface waters and the deeper
waters below (Beaman, 2005a).
EPA 821-R-07-001 36 March 2006
-------
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
nursery use, deep-water seasonal use, and deep-channel seasonal uses, the application of new
dissolved oxygen criteria will result in improvements to existing water quality conditions. The
refined open water fish and shellfish designated use will continue to provide a level of protection
equal to that under the current state water quality standard. The shallow-water bay grass
designated use will ensure protection of existing uses through the application of the single best
year methodology that MDE developed. The single best year methodology is based on historical
data starting in the 1930s and more recent underwater bay grass distributions. This method goes
beyond the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
The Chesapeake Bay Program and Maryland assessed attainability for the refined designated
uses by collecting a significant amount of monitoring data and developing a mathematical model
to assess the bay's waters to determine whether they were meeting their designated uses.
Biologically based reference curves were also established for each designated use to allow for
scientifically defensible assessments that considered the natural variability of the waterbody.
The attainability of these uses was based on dissolved oxygen criteria for the migratory and
spawning, open-water, deep-water, and deep-channel designated uses. Attainability for the
shallow-water designated use was assessed based on historical and recent data on the existence
of underwater bay grass acreage. The attainability for the chlorophyll a criteria was not assessed
because this criterion is expressed in narrative terms and does not provide numeric values on
which to perform analyses.
Restoration Variance
Even after achievement of nutrient and sediment cap load allocations, portions of the Chesapeake
Bay mainstem were found to be unable to meet their designated uses. On the basis of
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model simulations and analysis of existing water quality data,
the deep-water and deep-channel uses in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay mainstem were
shown to be unattainable. Maryland officials recognized that partial attainment would be
possible, but making this change to the water quality standard was not politically or publicly
palatable. In addition, the state did not believe that traditional approaches such as use removal,
specific discharger variance, or establishment of less protective criteria would be consistent with
the state's long-term water quality goals. To solve this problem, a restoration variance was added
to Maryland's proposed water quality standards as a refinement to proposed criteria.
A restoration variance allows dissolved oxygen criteria to slightly exceed the requirement up to
7% in a couple of the deepest areas of the Bay. This modification to the Bay water quality
standards was necessary because in those few deep areas, we may not meet the dissolved oxygen
requirements. Even after spending billions of dollars to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and
sediment pollution to clean up the rest of the Bay, essentially doing everything we know how to
do at this time, the deep areas still could not attain the dissolved oxygen standard. This is a
better, more protective alternative than lowering the standard based on current understanding.
The information will be updated periodically to keep the water quality standard focused on
protecting living resources, rather than proposing something less protective. The State is required
to review the restoration variances at least every three years (based on EPA regulations), and
adjust it accordingly. (Note: this paragraph was taken from MDE's website
EPA 821-R-07-001 37 March 2006
-------
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
http://www.tnde.state.tnd.us/progratns/waterprogratns/ttndl/wqstandards/faqs.asp on March 9,
2006)
An example of how this appears in Maryland's adopted and approved water quality standards is:
"For the dissolved oxygen criteria restoration variance for Chesapeake Bay Mainstem Segment 4
mesohaline (CB4MH) seasonal deep-water fish and shellfish subcategory, not lower for
dissolved oxygen in segment CB4MH than the stated criteria for the seasonal deep-water
seasonal fish and shellfish use for more than 7 percent spatially and temporally (in combination),
from June 1 to September 30."
A restoration variance is a temporary modification that allows for the realistic recognition of
current conditions, while retaining the designated use and setting attainment as a future goal. The
variance allows for iterative refinements using quantified implementation, measured reductions,
and monitoring data during triennial reviews. The restoration variance is applied to a designated
use over an entire waterbody segment, rather than directed at a specific discharger or group of
dischargers. Segments of the Chesapeake Bay that require variances are the Chesapeake Bay
Mainstem under the deep-water seasonal fish and shellfish and deep-channel seasonal refuge use
and the Patapsco River under the deep-water seasonal fish and shellfish use.
In addition to a restoration variance, MDE has also proposed a subcategory for the Patapsco
River section of the Chesapeake Bay. An analysis of existing water quality data indicates that the
dissolved oxygen criteria for the deep-channel seasonal refuge use cannot be met in this segment,
even with projected nutrient reductions from point sources and the application of the Tributary
Strategies reduction for nonpoint sources. Maryland developed a UAA to support this proposed
subcategory.
The Use Attainability Analysis for the Federal Navigation Channels Located in Tidal Portions of
the Patapsco River describes a number of federally authorized hydrologic modifications under
the Rivers and Harbors Act and a complex pattern of tidal circulation that has caused
nonattainment of existing designated uses in the Patapsco River. MDE ran six sensitivity
scenarios of the Chesapeake Bay Model to estimate the influence of the different loading sources
and estimate the extent of impairments due to natural- and human-caused conditions. Results
showed 77 percent nonattainment, even at a simulated point source reduction level of
"everything, everywhere, by everybody," or E3. Due to this significant nonattainment, MDE
proposed that there be further refinement of water quality criteria in this segment with the
applicable dissolved oxygen criteria being 0 mg/L from June 1 to September 30, inclusively.
Both the restoration variance and the limited use designation for the navigation channel will be
revised in the next Maryland triennial Water Quality Standards review in 2007. Maryland will
promulgate adjustment to these new portions of the water quality standards, as appropriate.
Conclusion
Maryland promulgated new water quality standards that included refined aquatic life uses. In
2005 EPA approved the changes to the state's water quality standards.
Supporting materials for this case study are available in Appendix F.
EPA 821-R-07-001 38 March 2006
-------
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
References
Beaman, J. 2005a. Chesapeake Bay Segments WQS Designated Uses Refinement: Process,
Utility and Lessons Learned. Maryland Department of the Environment, Designated Use Co-
Regulators Workshop, Philadelphia, PA, February 2005.
Beaman, J. 2005b. Regulatory Options for Chesapeake Bay Segments that Will not Attain New
WQS Even After Proposed Nutrient Reductions Targets ate Achieved. Maryland Department of
the Environment, Designated Use Co-Regulators Workshop, Philadelphia, PA, February 2005.
Beaman, J. 2005c. UAA Factors: Natural Conditions, Human Caused Conditions, and Economic
Factors. Maryland Department of the Environment, Designated Use Co-Regulators Workshop,
Philadelphia, PA, February 2005.
Chesapeake Executive Council. 2000. Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Chesapeake Bay
Program, Annapolis, Maryland, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/agreement.htm. Accessed
January 2006.
Maryland Department of the Environment. 2004a. Use Attainability Analysis for the Federal
Navigation Channels Located in Tidal Portions of the Patapsco River.
http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/wqstandards/UAA_patapsco.pdf Accessed
January 2006.
Maryland Department of the Environment. 2004b. Use Attainability Analysis for Tidal Waters of
the Chesapeake Bay Mainstem and Its Tributaries Located in the State of Maryland.
http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/wqstandards/UAA_tidalbayandtribs.pdf Accessed
January 2006.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries. EPA 903-R-03-002. USEPA, Region 3.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/baycriteria.htm. Accessed January 2006.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003b. Technical Support Document for
Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability. USEPA Region 3,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/uaasupport.htm Accessed
January 2006.
EPA 821-R-07-001 39 March 2006
-------
Appendix A:
Kansas and New York UAA
Worksheets
-------
Crosby Creek UAA Worksheet
-------
Site Description
Stream ISnmc
Crosby Creek
A ! rrnon 16250016 HHHH 7?
Legal Description
iNW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec: 3 Town: 1 S Range: 6 W
7/10/01~]
Stream Description
Upstream KilTle
Upslresim Kun
•width: 23' 0" length: 0' 0" depth avg.: 0' 28" depth max: 0' 30"
Upstream Pool
Downstream Rillle
Downstream Run
width: 25' 0" length: 0' 0" depth avg,: 0' 28" depth max: 0' 30"
Dmvnstmim Pool
Flow Present? (describe)
None detected.
Pri'domirnmt Siihstratu T\pe
ISilt
Aquatic Life Observed
D
D
D
D
D
DescrilK*:
D
liileriuittent (permaiu'iil water
Dl
rtl (si".»snmil w.Uvr)
Observation
-------
KANSAS USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES (UAAs) COMPUTED IN 2001 |
BASIN:
HUC 8 NUMBER:
SEGMENT NUMBER:
STREAM NAME:
KR
10250016
77
Crosby Creek
CLASSIFIED IN KANSAS SURFACE
WATiR REGISTER (1999)
RETAIN:
DELETION PROPOSED1
USE DESIGNATIONS:
2
Aquatic Life Use Support
Primary Contact Recreation 3
4
Secondary Contact Recreation
Food Procurement
Irrigation Watering
Livestock Watering
Domestic Water Supply
Industrial Water Supply
Groundwater Recharge
1999 REGISTER
E
PROPOSED
Stream segment not classified due to
statutory definition as an ephemeral stream, grass or
vegetative waterway, culvert, or ditch.
median flow less than one cubic foot per second. Cost of
classifying stream outweighs the benefits of classification,
UAA survey documented no aquatic resource.
E= expected aquatic life use water
SB special aquatic life use water
R= restricted aquatic life use water
Primary contact recreation use classes;
A = designated public swimming area during April 1 - October 31 and secondary contact recreation use class a
November 1 - March 31
B = where moderate full body contact recreation is expected during April 1 - October 31 and secondary contact recreation
use class a November 1 - March 31
C « where full body contact recreation is infrequent during April 1 - October 31 and secondary contact recreation use
class b November 1 - March 31
Secondary contact recreation use classes:
a = capable of supporting secondary recreational activities and is open to and accessible by the public by law or written
permission of the landowner
b = capable of supporting secondary recreational activities and is not open to and accessible by the public under
Kansas law
Secondary contact recreation was not delineated in 1999 Register. Per 1999 Kansas Surface Water Quality
Standards (KSWQS), classified surface waters where no UAA had been completed were designated for secondary
contact recreational use by default.
-------
Antelope Creek UAA Worksheet
-------
HUG: 11040008 Seg: 16 Stream: Antelope Creek Site: A Date: 5/15/01
Downstream View
-------
Stream Name Antelope Creek
Site A HUC8 11040008 Segment 16
Count
Clark
Legal Description SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec: 21 Town: 33 S Range: 24 W
Date
5/15/01
Time
10:55:00 AM
Stream Description
Upstream Riffle
Upstream Run
Upstream Pool
width: 2' " length: ' " depth avg.: ' " depth max: ' 2"
Downstream Riffle
Downstream Run
Downstream Pool
Flow Present? (describe)
No. Channel is dry downstream.
Predominant Substrate Typ
Silt
Aquatic Life Observe
Describe:
n
n
n
Stream type: Perennial (permanent flow)
n
Intermittent (permanent water
Ephemeral (seasonal water)
Observation
Ephemeral pool in channel upstream. Very poorly defined, dry channel downstream with terrestrial vegetation spanning
channel.
-------
HUG: 11040008 Seg: 16 Stream: Antetope Creek Site: B Date: 5/15/01
Downstream View
-------
Stream Name Antelope Creek
Site B HUC8 11040008 Segment 16
Count
Clark
Legal Description SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec: 7 Town: 33 S Range: 24 W
Date
5/15/01
Time
11:10:00 AM
Stream Description
Upstream Riffle
Upstream Run
Upstream Pool
Downstream Riffle
Downstream Run
Downstream Pool
Flow Present? (describe)
No. Completely dry.
Predominant Substrate Typ
Aquatic Life Observe
n
n
n
Describe:
Stream type: Perennial (permanent flow)
n
Intermittent (permanent water
Ephemeral (seasonal water)
Observation
Terrestrial grasses and forbs span width of channel. Channel very pooly defined/absent.
-------
HUC: 11040008 Seg: 16 Stream: Antelope Creek Site: C Date: 5/15/01
Downstream View
-------
Stream Name Antelope Creek
Site C HUC8 11040008 Segment 16
Count
Clark
Legal Description SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec: 1 Town: 33 S Range: 25 W
Date
5/15/01
Time
11:15:00 AM
Stream Description
Upstream Riffle
Upstream Run
Upstream Pool
Downstream Riffle
Downstream Run
Downstream Pool
Flow Present? (describe)
No. Completely dry.
Predominant Substrate Typ Silt
Aquatic Life Observe
Describe:
n
n
n
Stream type: Perennial (permanent flow)
n
Intermittent (permanent water
Ephemeral (seasonal water)
Observation
Rain puddle upstream is not on channel. Terrestrial vegetation spans channel. Windmill and stock tank in very poorly
defined channel downstream.
-------
KANSAS USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES (UAAs) COMPLETED IN 2001 |
BASIN:
HUC 8 NUMBER:
SEGMENT NUMBER:
STREAM NAME:
CLASSIFIED IN KANSAS SURFACE
WATER REGISTER (1999)
CIMARRON RIVER BASIN
11040008
16
Antelope Cr
RETAIN:
DELETION PROPOSED
X
1999 REGISTER
E
PROPOSED
X
USE DESIGNATIONS:
Aquatic Life Use Support2
Primary Contact Recreation 3
Secondary Contact Recreation
Food Procurement
Irrigation Watering
Livestock Watering
Domestic Water Supply
Industrial Water Supply
Groundwater Recharge
1 Stream segment not classified due to X Statutory definition as an ephemeral stream,
grass or vegetative waterway, culvert, or ditch.
Zero flow with pooling. Cost of classifying
stream outweigh the benifts of classification.
UAA survey documented no aquatic resource.
2
E= expected aquatic life use water
S= special aquatic life use water
R= restricted aquatic life use water
3
P means primary contact recreation.
4 Q means secondary contact recreation. Secondary contact recreation was not delineated in
1999 Register. Per 1999 Kansas Water Quality Standards (KSWQS), all classified surface waters
where no UAA had been completed were designated for secondary contact recreational use
by default.
-------
New York UAA Worksheet
-------
York State Department of Environmental ConMrvatlon
50 Wolf Ro»d, Albany, N«w York 12233-0001
USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS FOR SURFACE WATERS
Henry G. Williams
Commissioner
The following water body or stream segment has been assessed considering the
"Technical Guidance and Criteria for Fish Propagation in Various Habitats",
available data on the site developed by.the Department or .other sources such as
universities, museum, etc., and other -references, and has been found to not meet
the minimum criteria for fish propagation. Specific raason(s) is (are) below.
Kame _Tr1b. of Seneca River
Sub-basin Finger Lakes
Drainage Basin Os_W6_QO River
Index No. ONT-66- Item No. 224
ReasonCs) for not1.—attainment:
1. Naturally occurring
pollutants
2. Natural, ephemeral, inter-
mittent, or low flow
conditions or water levels
3.
12-57
[~~] chronic toxicfty from
r~~[ temperature exceeds
r~j other
\
STCR-R Sef. 898.4
•&—-:*£?' :-
f£2 stream: ititermittentr and no habitat available-.
to survive low flow events V.
[ j ephemeral ponded water: no standing water for
part of the year, DO outlet or tribs to escape
drought, and no fish collected surviving
drought
[— j other _ __
[""I waterfall prohibits migration to this upstream
intermittent segment
other
Dam: fish propagation prevented because
I—I
j I Diversion: fish propagation'prevented because
1| other
Physical conditions related
to the natural features of
the water body
Dams, diversions or other
types of hydrologic modi-
fications (if checked
see attached airalysis)
concluding that it is not
feasible to restore the
water body to its original i i
condition or to operate
the facility in a way that
would result in conditions
suitable for fish
propagation
Additional comments or references The stream -should retain the Class "D" designation
from i.t_s_crossing -of Routes 5 'and 2Q_to the source of both tri_but.a_r:i_es_T
From Routp 5 and 20 downstream to the mouth where It enters the Cavuqa-Seneca Can^l it
should be Class "C"
Signed:_
Signed: ^
Title: Regional Fisheries Manager Date: 04/10/92
Regional Vlater Engineer Date: 04/10/92
-------
Appendix B:
Suspension of Recreational
Beneficial Uses
-------
Draft Staff Report
Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles
Region to Suspend the Recreational Beneficial Uses in Engineered
Channels during Unsafe Wet Weather Conditions
Prepared by
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region
May 15, 2003
-------
Photo on cover of Ballona Creek storm conditions on March 15, 2003
(Courtesy of Culver City)
-------
Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Background 2
A. Designation of Beneficial Uses 2
B. Recreational Use Designations in the Los Angeles Region 2
C. Historical Basis for Recreational Use Designations in the Los Angeles Region 3
D. Regional and National Developments Regarding Recreational Use Designations 4
III. Proposed Actions 5
A. Water Bodies Covered by Amendment 5
B. Conditions Triggering Suspension of REC Use(s) 6
IV. Legal Justification for Suspension of REC Use(s) 9
A. Legal Requirements for Removal of Designated Uses 9
B. Legal Justification for Suspension of REC Use(s) during Defined Rain Events 11
V. Discussion of Alternatives 14
A. To Which Recreational Uses Should the Suspension Apply? 14
B. Which Trigger Should Be Used to Initiate Suspension? 15
C. To Which Water Quality Objective Should the Suspension Apply? 16
D. No Action 16
VI. Other Considerations 17
A. Protection of Downstream Recreational Uses 17
B. Antidegradation Requirements 17
C. Anti-Backsliding Requirements 18
D. Future Uses 18
VII. Recommended Alternative 19
VIII. Implementation Provisions 21
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
The Regional Board is proposing to amend its Basin Plan to acknowledge the inherent
danger of recreating in engineered flood control channels during unsafe conditions
characterized by high velocities and deep water. Specifically, the Regional Board
proposes to suspend the recreational beneficial use(s) in engineered flood control
channels where access can be restricted during and immediately following significant
storm events to address the physically unsafe conditions in these channels. At present, the
recreational beneficial uses (Water Contact Recreation or REC-1 and Non-contact Water
Recreation or REC-2) assigned to these channels apply at all times, regardless of weather
conditions or any other condition that could make recreational activities unsafe or
infeasible. The proposed amendment would revise the recreational beneficial use
designations (REC uses) for these engineered channels to reflect recreational use(s) that
are temporarily suspended during and immediately following defined storm events.
Engineered flood control channels are constructed to reduce the incidence of flooding in
urbanized areas by conveying stormwater runoff to the ocean or other discharge point as
efficiently as possible. To accomplish this, the channels are usually lined, on the sides
and/or bottom, with rip-rap or concrete. This modification creates "swiftwater"
conditions during and immediately following storm events (see Exhibit 1, Photo 1). The
vertical walls or steep-sided slopes of these channels in conjunction with restrictive
fencing limit direct access to channelized creeks and streams for the purpose of
recreational use (see Exhibit 1, Photos 2, 3, and 4).
The inherent danger of recreating in these channels during and immediately following
storm events is widely recognized and is already addressed by Los Angeles and Ventura
Counties through county policies. In Los Angeles County, protocols for locking access
gates to flood control channels and preparing for possible swift-water rescues in these
channels during defined storm events have been set by the Los Angeles County,
California Multi-Agency Swift Water Rescue Committee. In Ventura County, access
gates to these channels are kept locked at all times.
Since the suspension of the REC use(s) during defined storm events reduces the level of
protection for the water body, the USEPA requires the Regional Board to conduct a use
attainability analysis (UAA) for each water body to which the suspension would apply
(USEPA, 2002, 1998, 1994). To meet these requirements, the Regional Board has
developed this categorical UAA for all engineered flood control channels during defined
storm events.
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 2
II. BACKGROUND
A. Designation of Beneficial Uses
According to 40 C.F.R. § 131.3(f), designated uses are those uses specified in water
quality standards for each water body or segment whether or not they are being attained.
Section 101(a)(2) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) says, "it is the national goal that
wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the
water be achieved by July 1, 1983."
40 C.F.R. §131.10 directs States on the designation of uses:
(a) Each State must specify appropriate water uses to be achieved and protected.
The classification of the waters of the State must take into consideration the use
and value of water for public water supplies, protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, agricultural, industrial and
other purposes including navigation. In no case shall a State adopt waste
transport or waste assimilation as a designated use for any waters of the United
States.
(b) In designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses,
the State shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream
waters and shall provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality
standards of downstream waters.
(c) States may adopt sub-categories of a use and set the appropriate criteria to
reflect varying needs of such sub-categories of uses, for instance, to differentiate
between cold water and warm water fisheries.
(d) At a minimum, uses are deemed attainable if they can be achieved by the
imposition of effluent limits required under sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act
and cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source
pollution.
B. Recreational Use Designations in the Los Angeles Region
Existing and potential uses of inland surface waters in the region are listed in Table 2-1 of
the Basin Plan (CRWQCB, 1994). The Basin Plan defines recreational uses as follows:
Water Contact Recreation (REC-1): "Uses of water for recreational activities
involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably
possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-
skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, or use of
natural hot springs." (CRWQCB, 1994, p. 2-2)
-------
Draft Staff Report-High Flow UAA Page:
Non-contact Water Recreation (REC-2): "Uses of water for recreational activities
involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water,
where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not
limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating,
tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in
conjunction with the above activities." (CRWQCB, 1994, p. 2-2)
Per 40 C.F.R. 131.3(f), existing beneficial uses refer to those beneficial uses that have
been attained for a water body on, or after, November 28, 1975. Potential use
designations are based on a number of factors, including:
a) plans to put the water to such future use,
b) potential to put the water to such future use,
c) designation of a use by the Regional Board as a regional water quality goal, or
d) public desire to put the water to such future use (CRWQCB, 1994).
C. Historical Basis for Recreational Use Designations in the Los Angeles Region
As stated earlier, section 101(a)(2) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) states that, "it
is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which
provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides
for recreation in and on the water will be achieved by July 1, 1983." This formed a broad
basis for the beneficial use designations for surface waters of the State.
In addition to this consideration, a comprehensive review of existing data and solicited
input from stakeholders was conducted in the early 1970s to determine the existing and
potential beneficial uses for the waters of the Los Angeles Region. These were the bases
for the beneficial uses as designated in the 1975 Water Quality Control Plans for the Los
Angeles River Basin and Santa Clara River Basin (Basin Plans). Data and reports for this
assessment were obtained from the California Departments of Health, Fish and Game,
Conservation, and Water Resources, as well as the Southern California Association of
Governments, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and
various regional and local water agencies. Comments received from public agencies,
public utilities, industrial organizations, water companies and private citizens were also
considered (CRWQCB, 1975). Beneficial uses identified included existing or potential
water contact recreation (REC-1) for virtually all waters in the region, and non-contact
water recreation (REC-2) for most waters in the region.
Prior to the 1994 update of the Basin Plans, researchers at California State University,
Fullerton conducted a comprehensive review of the Region's beneficial uses under a
contract with the Regional Board (Saint, Prem K., et a/., 1993). The review included an
evaluation of existing data, detailed field investigations and surveys of agencies and
interest groups. Over 350 sites were surveyed as part of the field investigations and 50
agencies and interest groups were contacted and asked to provide input to the study.
Based on the study results, the researchers recommended the addition of 126 rivers, 44
lakes and reservoirs, 45 groundwater basins, 9 coastal features and 108 wetlands and
-------
Draft Staff Report-High Flow UAA Page 4
accompanying beneficial uses to the revised Basin Plan. On the basis of field surveys and
interviews, "existing", "intermittent" or "potential" REC-1 and REC-2 uses were
proposed for many of these newly included water bodies.
D. Regional and National Developments Regarding Recreational Use
Designations
The 1994 Basin Plan preserved these recreational beneficial uses. Recently, however, the
validity and appropriateness of the REC use(s) assigned to engineered flood control
channels where access is restricted or prohibited due to public safety concerns has been
questioned by public agencies such as the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works (LACDPW) (County of Los Angeles DPW, 2001, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). In light
of these concerns and similar concerns expressed by the State Water Resources Control
Board (State Board), the Regional Board submitted a letter to the State Board outlining
possible alternatives for re-evaluating the REC beneficial use(s) assigned to these
engineered channels (LARWQCB, 2002).l One of these alternatives was to conduct a
categorical UAA for the REC use(s) of all engineered flood control channels with
restricted or prohibited access during defined storm events corresponding to physically
unsafe conditions.
The USEPA has also recently recognized potential circumstances where REC use(s) may
be inappropriate due to high wet weather flows that result in dangerous conditions
physically precluding recreation (USEPA, 2002). Specifically, USEPA states in its
Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, May 2002
Draft, that "an intermittent REC-1 use may be appropriate when the water quality criteria
[referred to in State terminology as "objectives"] associated with REC-1 are not
attainable for all wet weather events" (p. 32). One example used by USEPA is high wet
weather flows that result in dangerous conditions physically precluding recreation such as
arroyo washes in the arid west. In light of this type of situation, USEPA suggests that
meeting the REC-1 bacteriological objectives may be suspended during defined periods
of time, usually after a specified hydrologic or climatic event, or for a specified number
of events or days per year.
1 Most recently, during a public hearing to consider approval of a Basin Plan amendment updating the
Region's bacteria objectives set to protect the REC-1 use, State Board expressed concerns about the
appropriateness of assigning recreational beneficial uses to engineered flood control channels where access
is restricted or prohibited (see State Board Resolution No. 2002-0142).
-------
Draft Staff Report-High Flow UAA Page 5
III. PROPOSED ACTION
The Regional Board proposes to suspend the REC use(s) assigned to engineered flood
control channels during and immediately after defined storm events where access to the
channel can be restricted during the defined conditions. The rationale for this suspension
is, first, that these storm events result in high flows/velocities that create physically
unsafe conditions that cannot be remedied. Second, during these storm events, it is the
policy of Los Angeles County to lock the access gates to these channels due to the
inherent danger of recreating in these channels during wet weather, thus preventing
individuals from engaging in recreational activities in the channel. The policy of Ventura
County is to keep access gates to these flood control channels locked at all times.
A. Water Bodies Covered by Amendment
Staff evaluated whether to conduct water body-by-water body UAAs or a categorical
UAA covering all water bodies meeting certain criteria. For this limited circumstance,
staff proposes a regional approach, since all water bodies subject to the suspension of
REC use(s) have similar features that justify it. Specifically, water bodies to which the
suspension of the REC use(s) would apply during the defined conditions include those
meeting all of the following criteria:
a) inland water bodies
b) flowing water bodies
c) engineered channels
d) water bodies where access can be restricted or prohibited (through fencing/signs)
See Appendix 1 for a list and map of the 61 inland, flowing water body segments in Los
Angeles and Ventura Counties to which the suspension would apply.2
A categorical suspension of REC use(s) during and immediately following defined storm
events for inland, flowing engineered channels where access is restricted or prohibited is
a practical approach and does not reduce public health protection in these channels, since
the recreational use(s) do not exist under the proposed conditions for the suspension.3
Furthermore, as discussed in section VIA, downstream REC uses must continue to be
protected. As described earlier, engineered channels are designed to convey water rapidly
out to a discharge point, making conditions unusually unsafe for recreational activities
during high flows/velocities associated with storm events. While not sufficient alone to
2 These water bodies were selected using a two-step approach. First, staff identified all inland, flowing
water bodies listed in Table 2-1 of the Basin Plan where the REC use(s) were qualified due to restricted or
prohibited access. Second, staff circulated this list internally among staff knowledgeable about the
proposed water bodies to confirm that each of the water bodies met the criteria for inclusion in the
proposed amendment. Staff will follow-up with field surveys of the candidate water bodies where
necessary to confirm physical characteristics and access restrictions.
3 The recreational uses do not exist because (1) during the defined wet weather conditions, the velocity and
depth of the water in these channels renders them unsafe for recreation and (2) under the defined wet
weather conditions, Los Angeles County routinely locks all access gates to these flood control channels and
Ventura County keeps access gates to flood control channels locked at all times.
-------
Draft Staff Report-High Flow UAA Page 6
trigger a suspension of the REC uses, restricted or prohibited access to these channels is
also proposed as a complementary prerequisite for the suspension to ensure that people
cannot access a water body during the defined wet weather periods.4
Staff evaluated, but does not recommend applying the suspension of REC use(s) to all
inland water bodies for the following reasons.5 Inland water bodies include those that
would not be subject to the high flows/velocities that occur in engineered channels. For
example, lakes obviously are not characterized by high flows/velocities during storm
events that would result in unsafe conditions. As for other inland, flowing water bodies,
they may have neither (1) conditions of an engineered channel that would make
recreation unsafe during storm events nor (2) restricted or prohibited access.
B. Condition Triggering Suspension of REC Use(s)
Staff evaluated several possible triggers for the suspension of REC use(s) in engineered
channels with restricted or prohibited access. These included:
a) flow and velocity (e.g., "swiftwater" conditions),
b) depth (e.g., outside of low flow channel), and
c) rainfall (e.g., total daily rainfall).
A summary of staffs evaluation regarding the feasibility and appropriateness of using
each of these triggers is provided in Appendix 2.
Based on this evaluation, staff concludes that rainfall is the most appropriate trigger. The
reason for this is three-fold. First, the Los Angeles County, California Multi-Agency
Swift Water Rescue Committee uses rainfall prediction as the basis for routinely locking
access gates to County flood control channels and putting swiftwater rescue personnel on
alert. Written guidance for County personnel and other involved agencies is provided by
the Committee in the "Operational Standards and Guidelines Document" (dated
December 10, 1999). This document outlines the protocols used by the City of Los
Angeles Fire Department, County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Sheriffs Department,
Lifeguards and Department of Public Works to prepare for and provide swift-water
rescues. Under the "Water Rescue Pre-Deployment Section" (Sec. 6.00, p. 13), three
storm levels are defined (Levels 1-3) based on storm warnings with an 80% prediction of
specified levels (e.g., Vz inch, 1 inch, \Vz inches) of rain over 24 hours.6 The following are
the three alert levels:
4 USEPA states, "For states and authorized tribes using this [high-flow cutoff] approach, EPA encourages
the development of an plan to communicate to the public the conditions under which recreation should not
occur" (USEPA, 2002, p. 34).
5 Furthermore, staff evaluated, but does not recommend applying the suspension to coastal water bodies,
since there is use during and immediately following storm events (e.g. surfing) and access is not restricted.
6 According to LA County Flood Control, these protocols are implemented in the following way. There are
12 superintendents who are responsible for closing gates to flood control channels in LA County when they
deem appropriate. Each superintendent looks at Doppler information generally and estimates for their
geographic region whether they should close the gates.
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 7
Level 1 1 inch of rain (if unsaturated ground) or 1A inch (if saturated ground)
Level 2 1 1A inch of rain (if unsaturated ground) or 1 inch (if saturated ground)
Level 3 Rainfall/saturation levels exceeding those listed for Level 2
Generalized flash floods, urban flooding and/or mud and debris flows
Urban flooding with possible life hazards.
Other factors that the agencies consider when determining deployment levels include:
1) The effect of major wildland and interface burn areas. Large burn areas result in
increased runoff and high potential for mud and debris flows and flash floods.
2) Flood watches and flood warnings.
3) Real time effects of the storm, which may differ from weather forecasts, resulting in
severe conditions in particular geographic areas.
4) Releases in the flood control channels.
At the Level 1 Alert threshold, County personnel routinely lock all access gates to flood
control channels. Access gates are kept locked for at least 24 hours after the storm event
(Burke, J., 2003, personal communication).
The second reason that rainfall is selected as the most appropriate trigger is because there
are numerous rain gages throughout Los Angeles and Ventura Counties making
precipitation data readily available whereas flow, velocity and depth data are not
available for all candidate channels (see Appendix 2 for more details). Third, rainfall is
an adequate proxy for high flows/velocities resulting in unsafe conditions, given the
reliance on rainfall prediction by the Multi-Agency Swift Water Rescue Committee. To
confirm this, staff used five years of data (water years 1998-2002) to match days above
the Level 1 Alert rainfall thresholds of /^ inch or 1 inch with corresponding flow, velocity
and depth data in several local channels and compared this data to swift-water rescue data
from these same channels as well as other agencies' protocols for evaluating when
conditions in these channels are unsafe. Specifically, staff relied upon a protocol used by
the USGS and the County of Orange in which in-stream conditions are evaluated using
the following calculation to determine whether it is safe for monitoring personnel to be in
a stream or channel. The calculation is the peak depth (in feet) multiplied by the peak
velocity (in feet/second). If the result is greater than or equal to 10, then it is considered
unsafe (Caldwell, A., 2003, personal communication; County of Orange, 2001).
The results of this analysis demonstrate that a significant percentage (63% on average
and as much as 83%) of unsafe days (as determined using the USGS protocol described
above) occur on days where the preceding day's rainfall was greater than /^ inch,
regardless of whether ground conditions were saturated or unsaturated.7 See Appendix 3,
Table 1. (The counterpoint to this is that on average 37% of unsafe days occur on days
7 In the data analysis, staff compared the preceding day's rainfall to conditions on the target day. Staff
chose this approach due to the lag time associated with storm flows. See Appendix 3, Figures 1 to 3, for an
example of this lag time. Had staff compared both the preceding day's rainfall as well as rainfall on the
target day to conditions on the target day, the percentages above may have been slightly higher.
-------
Draft Staff Report-High Flow UAA Page 8
outside of the defined wet weather conditions.) Additionally, 36 percent of documented
swift-water rescues from 2001 to 2002 occurred on days with rainfall greater than or
equal to Vz inch, while 71% occurred on days considered "unsafe".8 See Appendix 3,
Table 2. Finally, our analysis shows that, on average, 82% of days and as high as 100%
of days where the preceding day's rainfall was greater than 1A inch were considered
unsafe per the USGS protocol, regardless of whether the ground was saturated. See
Appendix 3, Table 1. (Again, the counterpoint to this is that on average 18% of days
where the preceding day's rainfall was greater than 1A inch were not considered unsafe.)
The results of this analysis show that using days with greater than 1A inch of rainfall and
the following day will provide protection by suspending the use during 63% of unsafe
days. Additionally, this trigger appears appropriate and justifiable based on this analysis,
since on average 82% of days where the preceding day's rainfall was greater than 1A inch
were considered unsafe. See Appendix 3 for a more detailed discussion and presentation
of this analysis.
On the basis of the detailed data analysis described above and in Appendix 3, staff
proposes to use the Level 1 Alert (with saturated conditions) threshold [rainfall greater
than or equal to /^ inch as measured at the closest rain gage] as the trigger for suspension
of the REC use(s) assigned to a particular engineered channel.9 Staff proposes to use the
Level 1 Alert (with saturated conditions) threshold because rainfall in Southern
California tends to be concentrated over a short "wet season" during November to March
and, in particular, from January to March, leading to a greater likelihood of saturated
conditions as compared to unsaturated conditions. Furthermore, staffs analysis indicates
that days deemed "unsafe" based on other agencies' protocols are more likely to occur on
days where the preceding day's rainfall is between 1A to 1 inch than on days where the
preceding day's rainfall is greater than 1 inch, regardless of ground conditions (i.e.
saturated vs. unsaturated).10 See Appendix 3, Table 1. Therefore, it is more protective of
public safety to use the 1A inch rain threshold than the 1 inch rain threshold (i.e., the
recreational use(s) will be suspended on a greater number of unsafe days if the 1A inch
threshold is used as compared to the 1 inch threshold). In addition, due to the lag time
associated with storm flows, staff proposes to apply the suspension for 24 hours after the
specified rain event. (See Appendix 3, Figures 1 to 3.) This comports with the policy of
Los Angeles County to keep all access gates locked for a minimum of 24 hours following
the specified rain event (Burke, J., 2003, personal communication).
Eighty-two percent of swift-water rescues from 2001 to 2002 occurred on days with rainfall greater than
0.1 inch or days following rainfall of greater than 0.1 inch.
9 Staff evaluated several methods for identifying the precipitation corresponding to a particular engineered
channel. These included using one centralized rain gage per county, one gage per watershed, or the closest
gage to the engineered channel. Due to the variability in rainfall in the region, as confirmed by our analysis
of these different methods, staff concluded that the closest rain gage to the engineered channel should be
used. Consideration should be given to the completeness and quality of the data from that gage. If the data
are incomplete or of poor quality, the next closest gage should be used.
10 This can be explained by the fact that there tend to be more days with rainfall between i/2 to 1 inch than
days with rainfall greater than 1 inch. However, it is also insightful that the percentage of unsafe days
where the preceding day's rainfall was between i/2 inch and 1 inch (32%) is similar to the percentage of
unsafe days where the preceding day's rainfall was greater than 1 inch (26%).
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 9
IV. LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF REC USE(S)
A. Legal Requirements for Removal of Designated Uses
Per 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(g), States may remove a designated use that is not an existing use,
as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 131.3, or establish subcategories of use if the State can
demonstrate that attaining the designated use is not feasible for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use,
2. Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels
prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated
for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent discharges without
violating State water conservation requirements to enable uses to be met;
3. Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the
use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to
correct than to leave in place;
4. Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its
original condition or to operate such modification in a way that would result
in the attainment of the use;
5. Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as
the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like,
unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses;
or
6. Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) [Effluent
Limitations] and 306 [National Standards of Performance] of the Act would
result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
1. Restrictions on Removal of Use: 40 C. F. R. § 131.10
Federal regulations restrict States from removing designated beneficial uses. Specifically
40 C.F.R. § 131.10 (h) prohibits States from removing designated uses if:
1. They are existing uses, as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 131.3, unless a use requiring
more stringent criteria is added; or
2. Such uses will be attained by implementing effluent limits required under
sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act and by implementing cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices.
Furthermore, 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(i) states that where existing water quality standards
specify designated uses less than those which are presently being attained, the State shall
revise its standards to reflect the uses actually being attained.
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 10
2. Use Attainability Analyses: 40 C.F.R. § 131.3(g)
40 C.F.R. § 131.3(g) defines a use attainability analysis (UAA) as a structured scientific
assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of the use which may include physical,
chemical, biological, and economic factors as described in § 131.10(g).
Under section 40 C.F.R. § 131.10Q) of the Water Quality Standards Regulation, States
are required to conduct a UAA whenever a State wishes to remove a designated use that
is specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act or adopt subcategories of uses specified in
section 101(a)(2) that require less stringent criteria.
USEPA (2002) provides guidance on conducting UAAs for recreational uses and
provides the following factors that may be addressed:
a) physical analyses considering the actual use (as of November 28, 1975),
public access to the water body, facilities promoting the use of recreation,
proximity to residential areas, safety considerations, and substrate, depth,
width, etc. of a water body;
b) chemical analyses of existing water quality ;
c) potential for water quality improvements including an assessment of nutrients
and bacteriological contaminants; and
d) economic/affordability analyses.
This reaffirms previous USEPA guidance in which USEPA suggested that, when
evaluating recreational uses, States look at a suite of factors such as whether the water
body is actually being used for primary contact recreation, existing water quality, water
quality potential, access, recreational facilities, location, proximity to residential areas,
safety considerations, and physical conditions of the water body in making any use
attainability decision (USEPA, 1994).
On the subject of physical analyses, USEPA has previously stated that, "physical factors,
which are important in determining attainability of aquatic life uses, may not be used as
the basis for removing or not designating a recreational use consistent with the CWA
section 101(a)(2) goal" (US EPA, 1994). This precludes States from relying upon either
factor 2 (low flows) or factor 5 (physical factors in general) as the sole basis for
determining attainability of recreational uses. The reason for this preclusion is that States
and USEPA have an obligation to do as much as possible to protect the health of the
public. In certain instances, people will use whatever water bodies are available for
recreation, regardless of the physical conditions (USEPA, 1994).
USEPA is in the process of considering whether the regulation or Agency guidance
should be amended to allow consideration of physical factors, alone, as the basis for
removing, or not designating primary contact recreational uses (USEPA, 1998). As part
of this process, USEPA has convened a national workgroup to discuss recreational use
designations. A key topic being vetted by the workgroup is Use Attainability Analyses
for recreational uses.
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 11
B. Legal Justification for Suspension of REC Use(s) during Defined Rain
Events
Suspension of REC use(s) in engineered channels with restricted or prohibited access
during rainfall of greater than or equal to /^ inch and the 24 hours following the rain
event is legally justified for three reasons. These are:
(1) During the defined wet weather events, recreation is not an existing use in
engineered channels,
(2) Under the defined wet weather conditions during which the suspension
would apply, recreational uses in these channels are not attainable through
effluent limitations under CWA section 301(b)(l)(A) and (B) and section
306 or through cost effective and reasonable best management practices,
and
(3) These water bodies meet two of the six conditions listed in 40 C.F.R.
131.10(g) during the defined wet weather conditions.
The logic underlying each of these reasons is discussed in detail below.
1. During the defined wet weather events, recreation is not an
existing use in engineered channels.
During the defined wet weather conditions, recreation is not an existing use in engineered
flood control channels with restricted access, for two related reasons.11 First, during the
defined wet weather conditions, the rate of flow, velocity and depth of the water in
engineered channels renders them unsafe for individuals to engage in recreational
activities. This is particularly true for REC-1 activities because REC-1 involves body
contact recreation. As presented earlier, the definition of REC-1 is:
"Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with
water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses
include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and
scuba diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing or use of natural hot
springs. " (CRWQCB, 1994, p. 2-2)
While REC-2 does not normally involve body contact with water, it does involve
recreational activities in close proximity to water. As a result, REC-2 activities may result
in accidental contact with water. Due to the extreme danger associated with recreation in
or near these channels during the defined wet weather conditions, REC-2 activities,
which may involve accidental contact with the water, are also unsafe. This is because if
someone recreating near the water body fell into the water, they could be quickly swept
downstream due to the high velocities, flow rates, and depths characterizing the defined
1: Note that while some of the water bodies proposed for inclusion in this amendment have "existing" REC
uses assigned to them, these uses have never been "existing" during the defined wet weather conditions for
the reasons discussed below.
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 12
wet weather conditions. Furthermore, the geometry of these flood control channels (i.e.
vertical or steeply sloped sides) makes it extremely difficult to get out of the channel
during these conditions. See section III.B and Appendix 3 for a detailed analysis of
unsafe conditions. (See Exhibit 1, Photos 4 and 5.)
Second, under the defined wet weather conditions including the 24 hours after the rain
event, Los Angeles County routinely locks all access gates to these flood control channels
per the protocols outlined in the "Operational Standards and Guidelines Document"
(December 10, 1999) prepared by the Multi-Agency Swift Water Rescue Committee.
Access gates to engineered flood control channels in Ventura County are always locked.
Therefore, recreational activities are prohibited in these channels under the defined wet
weather conditions. (See Exhibit 1, Photos 6 and 7.)
2. Under the defined wet weather conditions during which the
suspension would apply, recreational uses are not attainable through
effluent limitations under CWA section 301(B)(1)(A) and (B) and
section 306 or through cost effective and reasonable best
management practices.
Due to the design of the engineered flood control channels, recreational uses are not
attainable during the defined wet weather conditions that would trigger the suspension
even if water quality was adequate to support the uses. In other words, it is not water
quality that ultimately precludes attainment of the REC uses, but rather the physical
conditions during the defined wet weather conditions in hydrologically modified
(engineered) channels. This is because, as described earlier, engineered flood control
channels are constructed to reduce the incidence of flooding in urbanized areas by
conveying stormwater runoff to the ocean or other discharge point as efficiently as
possible. To accomplish this, the channels are usually lined, on the bottom and sides, with
rip-rap or concrete. Furthermore, the channel sides are usually vertical or steeply sloped.
These modifications, necessary for flood control, create "swiftwater" conditions during
and immediately following storm events. Due to the need for flood control during storm
events, these channels cannot be modified to eliminate the physical danger associated
with recreation in or near these channels during wet weather conditions.
3. These water bodies meet two of the six conditions listed in 40
C.F.R. 131.10(g).
As described earlier, there are six factors that may be used to justify removal of a
designated use that is not an existing use or the establishment of sub-categories of a use.
Federal regulation (40 C.F.R. 131.10(g)) requires that at least one of these six factors be
met. These six factors are as follows:
1. Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use;
or
2. Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels
prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 13
for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent discharges without
violating State water conservation requirements to enable uses to be met; or
3. Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the
use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to
correct than to leave in place; or
4. Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its
original condition or to operate such modification in a way that would result
in the attainment of the use; or
5. Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as
the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like,
unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses;
or
6. Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the
Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
The suspension of the REC use(s) in engineered flood control channels with restricted
access is justified by factors 2 and 4 above. Regarding factor 2, southern California
streams are naturally flashy systems due to the predominantly dry climate and short,
concentrated wet season. These natural flashy conditions result in intermittent dangerous
flow volumes and velocities after rain events that prevent the attainment of the use during
and for the 24 hours after a %-inch rain event.12
In addition, the natural conditions in the factor 2 analysis are further exacerbated in
engineered flood control channels, which are designed to contain and convey water
rapidly to a discharge point. This results in the use being unattainable under factor 4 as
well. These hydrologic modifications, made for the purpose of flood control, in
combination with natural conditions (i.e., characteristically flashy systems during wet
weather) physically preclude the attainment of the recreational use during and
immediately following a %-inch or greater storm event. Further, it is not feasible to
restore the water body to its original condition or operate the modifications in such a way
as to attain the use during the defined wet-weather events.
12 Furthermore, regarding factor 2, because the natural conditions of concern are high flow/velocity
conditions, these conditions cannot be compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent
discharges to enable uses to be met.
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 14
V. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
Below staff presents four sets of alternatives, including (1) which recreational uses to
suspend, (2) which trigger to use to identify periods subject to the suspension, (3) which
associated water quality objectives to suspend, and (4) a "no action" alternative.
Alternatives within each set are mutually exclusive, but alternatives between sets 1, 2 and
3 are intended to be considered in combination.
A. To Which Recreational Uses Should the Suspension Apply?
1. REC-1 Use Only
Due to the inherent danger of recreating in the water during high flow, velocity and depth
conditions associated with storm events and the fact that the access gates are locked
during these conditions, there is little likelihood that REC-1 uses could occur in these
circumstances. Under this recommendation, the REC-2 use and the associated objectives
set to protect the REC-2 use would still apply during periods when the REC-1 use was
suspended.
2. REC-1 and REC-2 Uses
Suspending both REC-1 and REC-2 uses is reasonable and can be justified by the
inability of the channels to support REC-2 activities under the defined conditions. To
examine whether REC-2 uses are supported under these conditions, it is useful to
examine again the definition of REC-2.
Uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not
normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is
reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to picnicking,
sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and marine life
study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above
activities. (CRWQCB, 1994, p. 2-2)
The REC-2 use involves activities in proximity to water bodies and, therefore, may
involve accidental contact with water, which under the defined wet weather conditions is
unsafe. As discussed earlier, this is because if someone recreating near the water body
fell into the water, they could be quickly swept downstream due to the high velocities,
flow rates, and depths characterizing the defined wet weather conditions. Furthermore,
the geometry of these flood control channels (i.e. vertical or steeply sloped sides) makes
it extremely difficult to get out of the channel during these conditions. See section III.B
and Appendix 3 for a detailed analysis of unsafe conditions. Furthermore, it is unlikely
that any of the REC-2 activities are possible where access to the water is barred by
fencing and locked access gates during the defined wet weather conditions. On the other
hand, where access is prohibited, individuals could come in proximity to a channel (i.e.,
as close as the fencing would allow). This proximity may result in the incidental
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 15
ingestion of water (e.g., from splashing). It is the incidental/accidental ingestion of water
that is being protected against with the REC-2 use.
B. Which Trigger Should Be Used to Initiate the Suspension?
1. Days of Rainfall greater than or equal to 1A inch plus the 24 Hours
Following the Rain Event (Level 1 Alert threshold).
Analysis showing that a trigger of greater than or equal to /^ inch of rainfall, including
the 24 hours following the rain event, will capture 63% of "unsafe days" supports this
alternative. From another standpoint, analysis showing that 82% of days with rainfall
greater than /^ inch were followed by "unsafe" days also supports this alternative. Due to
the lag time associated with storm flows, continuing to apply the suspension for 24 hours
after the specified rain event is reasonable and justified. This also comports with the
Level 1 Alert threshold used by Los Angeles County and its policy to keep all access
gates locked for a minimum of 24 hours following the specified rain event.
Under this alternative, the suspension would typically apply 16 to 22 days per year (or 4
to 6% of the year) based on an evaluation of historical rainfall data from LAX and three
representative rain gages in Ventura County.13 See Appendix 3, Table 4.
2. Days of Rainfall greater than 1 inch plus the 24 Hours Following the
Rain Event (Level 1 Alert threshold with antecedent unsaturated
conditions).
This approach is less conservative from the public safety standpoint than Alternative B.I
in that the recreational use(s) would still apply on a number of days with rainfall of !/2
inch to 1 inch when conditions would be deemed "unsafe." (It is, however, more
conservative from a water body protection standpoint.) As discussed earlier, the average
percentage of unsafe days occurring on days where rainfall of 1A to 1 inch fell on the
preceding day (32%) was nearly the same as the average percentage of unsafe days where
rainfall of greater than 1 inch fell on the preceding day (26%). Using the more
conservative /^ inch trigger captures 63% of unsafe days, on average, while using the less
conservative 1 inch trigger only captures 29% of unsafe days, on average. Furthermore,
looking at the data from another standpoint, the majority (69%) of days where rainfall of
l/2 to 1 inch fell the preceding day were deemed unsafe.
Under this alternative, the suspension would typically apply 6 to 12 days per year (or 2 to
3% of the year) based on an evaluation of historical rainfall data from LAX and three
representative rain gages in Ventura County.14 See Appendix 3, Table 5.
13 This may be an overestimate because staff has assumed that no day with rainfall greater than or equal to
!/2 inch was followed by a second consecutive day of rainfall greater than or equal to 1A inch. If one or more
days of rainfall greater than or equal to l/i inch were followed consecutively by a day(s) of rainfall greater
than or equal to l/i inch, these numbers would be smaller.
14 This may be an overestimate because staff has assumed that no day with rainfall greater than or equal to
1 inch was followed by a second consecutive day of rainfall greater than or equal to 1 inch. If one or more
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 16
C. To Which Water Quality Objectives [Set to Protect Recreational Uses]
Should the Suspension Apply?
Under either Alternative A.I or A.2, the associated objectives set to protect the REC
use(s) that should be concurrently suspended should only include those that satisfy the
following conditions:
1) The constituents should degrade over a relatively short period of time; conversely,
those that are stable or bioaccumulate should not be exempted due to the potential for
extended and cumulative downstream impacts beyond the period of the suspension.
2) High levels of these constituents should be of concern to those partaking in only those
recreational activities where ingestion of water is possible, for these are the uses that
are precluded by the defined wet weather events. Conversely, constituents that could
have an effect on other beneficial uses that still occur during wet weather events,
should not be suspended, e.g. fish consumption.
3) High levels of these constituents should not in any way affect the non-proximal
aesthetic enjoyment of the water body.
Therefore, the bacteria objectives set to protect the REC use(s) are the only objectives
that should be concurrently suspended along with the REC use(s). This comports with
USEPA guidance, which only envisioned applying a "high flow/velocity" exemption to
recreational uses and the associated bacteriological criteria (USEPA, 2002).
D. No Action
Another alternative would be to do nothing and, as such, continue to apply the REC
use(s) to all water bodies at all times. Recreational uses would be fully protected;
however, the beneficial use designations will not reflect the actual or potential use of
these channels under the defined wet weather conditions. Some stakeholders may view
this alternative as unreasonably protective.
days of rainfall greater than or equal to 1 inch were followed consecutively by a day(s) of rainfall greater
than or equal to 1 inch, these numbers would be smaller.
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 17
VI. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A. Protection of Downstream Recreational Uses
40 C.F.R. Part 131.10(b) states that "in designating uses of a water body and the
appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall take into consideration the water quality
standards of downstream waters and shall provide for the attainment and maintenance of
the water quality standards of downstream waters." Many of the candidate channels in
this proposed amendment flow directly, or indirectly as tributaries to other water bodies,
to coastal water bodies and beaches. Many of these coastal water bodies (e.g. beaches)
are currently listed as impaired due to bacteria. The Regional Board must ensure that the
downstream coastal recreational uses are protected during wet weather events (subject to
any other pertinent implementation procedures for the bacteria objectives) and that the
recreational uses of the candidate channels are protected when normal/safe conditions
return.
On the coast, in Santa Monica Bay, a reference system approach15 is employed as the
regulatory mechanism to protect the REC-1 use of the Bay's beaches. Tables 4 and 5 in
Appendix 3 provide estimates of the number of days on which a suspension of the REC
use(s) would apply. Because the number of allowable exceedance days under the
reference system approach will be re-evaluated in four years based on data from the wave
wash (the point of compliance for the TMDL), staff cannot draw definitive conclusions as
to whether the recommendations here conflict with the reference system approach. It
appears that Alternative A. 1 to suspend the REC-1 use only would not be in conflict with
the reference system approach under most conditions. It is not clear whether Alternative
A.2 to suspend both the REC-1 and REC-2 uses would be in conflict with the
downstream reference system approach or not. To assess this, staff would need better
information on bacterial degradation rates and transport times from each of the
engineered channels to which the suspension would apply.
B. Antidegradation Requirements
Per the State Anti-degradation Policy (State Board Resolution 68-16), there may be no
lowering of water quality from that currently attained. The policy states, "Whenever the
existing quality of water is better than the quality established in policies as of the date on
which such policies become effective, such existing high quality shall be maintained until
it has been demonstrated to the State that any change will be consistent with maximum
benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated
beneficial use of such water and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed
15 Under this approach, a reference system is selected on the coast, which is influenced less than any other
area in the watershed by human activities. The number of exceedances for that coastal area is considered to
be a result of natural or background conditions. That number is then set as the allowable exceedance days
for the rest of the coast unless a particular location has fewer exceedance days than the reference site, in
which case antidegradation provisions apply.
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 18
in the policies" (SWRCB, 1968). In other words, existing water quality must be
maintained even after the effective date of the proposed amendment.
C. Anti-backsliding Requirements
When the Regional Board reissues NPDES permits, the effluent limitations generally
must be as stringent as the prior permit. This concept is known as anti-backsliding and it
is codified in federal Clean Water Act section 402(o) and separately in 40 C.F.R.
§ 122.44(1). There are several exceptions to the anti-backsliding provisions of Federal
law. In general, the relaxation water quality objectives, as permitted by the proposed
Basin Plan amendment, does not exempt a discharger from the anti-backsliding
provisions of the federal Clean Water Act. The Regional Board must evaluate NPDES
permits on a case-by-case basis when the permits are reissued to determine whether an
applicable anti-backsliding exception applies.
D. Future Uses
Suspending the recreational use(s) of the candidate engineered channels does not
preclude a lifting of this suspension should conditions within these channels change in
the future. While such changes seem unlikely in most cases due to the necessary use of
these channels for flood control, none of the alternatives would preclude a return to fully
protecting all recreational uses at all times, if warranted.
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 19
VII. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The Regional Board recommends suspending the water contact recreational activities
associated with the swimmable goal as expressed in the federal Clean Water Act section
101(a)(2) and regulated under the REC-1 use, non-contact water recreation involving
incidental water contact regulated under the REC-2 use, and the associated
bacteriological objectives set to protect those activities, using as a trigger days of rainfall
greater than or equal to 1A inch and the 24 hours following the rain event, which comports
with the Los Angeles County Level 1 Alert threshold with antecedent saturated
conditions. This alternative is justified by the unsafe conditions in engineered flood
control channels during storm events of greater than or equal to !/2 inch, regardless of
ground conditions (i.e. saturated or unsaturated). Furthermore, the candidate channels are
routinely locked by Los Angeles County under these conditions, while Ventura County
keeps its access gates locked at all times, preventing individuals from engaging in
recreational activities in these channels during these conditions.16 The suspension would
apply to inland, flowing, engineered channels where it is possible to restrict access during
the defined conditions. Water quality objectives set to protect (1) other recreational uses
associated with the fishable goal as expressed in the federal Clean Water Act section
101(a)(2) and regulated under the REC-1 use and (2) other REC-2 uses (e.g., uses
involving the aesthetic aspects of water) shall still remain in effect.
In making this recommendation, staff has considered all factors set forth in §13241 of the
Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act:
a) Past, present and probable future beneficial uses of the candidate engineered
channels have been, are and will be limited by the hydrologic modifications
and other physical factors (i.e. natural conditions).
b) Bacteriological water quality objectives set to protect recreational uses are not
being met in 62 percent of the assessed candidate water bodies, however,
TMDLs will rectify this in the future, taking into account any suspension of
the recreational uses per this amendment.
c) Stormwater is the primary source of bacterial contamination in these channels,
particularly during the wet weather conditions under which the suspension
would apply. Historically, Stormwater has been difficult to control,
particularly during wet weather conditions. Furthermore, given the role these
channels serve for flood control, it will be particularly difficult to control
flows during and immediately following large storm events.
d) With regard to economic considerations, the recommended alternative is not
expected to impose any additional cost and will likely reduce future costs by
16 Regional Board staff recognizes a potential gap between current Los Angeles County policies and the
proposed amendment on days with between !/2 inch and 1 inch of rainfall where there are unsaturated
ground conditions. On these days, current Los Angeles County policies would not require locking access
gates, though our analysis shows conditions to be unsafe on the majority of these days. Ways of addressing
this gap are discussed in section VIII "Implementation Provisions".
-------
Draft Staff Report - High Flow UAA Page 20
suspending the recreational uses and associated bacteria objectives during
some wet weather events.
e) The recommended alternative will have no impact on the need for developing
housing within the region.
f) The need to develop and use recycled water will not be affected by the
proposed modifications and, in fact, the ability to reuse stormwater may be
facilitated by this amendment by providing flexibility as to where stormwater
controls must be implemented.
-------
Draft Staff Report-High Flow UAA Page 21
VIII. IMPLEMENTATION PROVISIONS
The Regional Board is proposing to suspend REC-1 and REC-2 uses in engineered
channels on days of greater than or equal to /^ inch of rain and the 24 hours following in
acknowledgement of the inherent danger of recreating in these channels during these
periods. Staffs recommendation is based on analysis presented in section III.B and
Appendix 3, which shows that in general rainfall greater than /^ inch results in unsafe
conditions (based on velocity and depth considerations) regardless of whether there are
saturated or unsaturated conditions.
The current protocols used in Los Angeles County for locking access gates to engineered
channels during storm events provide an effective mechanism for preventing access to
these channels when conditions are unsafe. However, staff recognizes a potential gap
between current County policies and the proposed amendment on days with between 1A
inch and 1 inch of rainfall where there are unsaturated ground conditions. On these days,
current County policies would not require locking access gates, though our analysis
shows conditions to be unsafe on the majority of these days.
To address this gap, the Regional Board proposes to work in coordination with Los
Angeles County Flood Control as well as the Multi-Agency Swift-Water Rescue
Committee to identify a mechanism for letting the public know that conditions in these
channels are unsafe on days of greater than or equal to 1A inch of rain and the 24 hours
following and, therefore, recreational use of these channels is being suspended in the
interest of public safety. Potential mechanisms may include permanent signage, press
releases, and public outreach in coordination with other public education programs (e.g.,
the municipal storm water permit public outreach program).
-------
Draft Staff Report-High Flow UAA Page 22
IX. REFERENCES
1. Burke Jerry, Staff of the Los Angeles County Flood Maintenance Division. Personal
communication. 2003.
2. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (CRWQCB-
LA), Letter from Dennis Dickerson to Art Baggett, Chair of State Water Board, dated
July 10, 2002.
3. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (CRWQCB-
LA) Total Maximum Daily Load to Reduce Bacterial Indicator Densities during Dry
Weather at Santa Monica Bay Beaches. January, 2002.
4. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, 1996
California Water Quality Assessment - 305(b) Report, Supporting Documentation for
Los Angeles Region.
5. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). Basin Plan for the
Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. 1994.
6. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). Water Quality
Control Plan Report. Los Angeles River Basin (4A). Part I. March 1975.
7. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). Water Quality
Control Plan Report. Los Angeles River Basin (4B). Parts I, II, III, IV, V. March
1975.
8. County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Letter to the California State
Water Resources Control Board dated April 29, 2002.
9. County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Letter to the California State
Water Resources Control Board dated May 13, 2002.
10. County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Letter to the California State
Water Resources Control Board dated July 15, 2002.
11. County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Letter to the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board dated September 18, 2001.
12. County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Department. Program
Development Division. Environmental Resources Section. Water Quality Unit.
"Water Quality Sampling Manual for the NPDES Stormwater Permit Program."
Revised March 6, 2001.
-------
Draft Staff Report-High Flow UAA Page 23
13. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Water Resources Division
(Records), hydrologic and meteorological data.
14. Los Angeles County Fire Department, National Fire Incident Reporting System Unit,
Information Management Division. Swift Water Rescue Data.
15. Los Angeles County Multi-Agency Swift Water Rescue Committee (LACMSWRC)
Operational Standards & Guidelines. December 10, 1999.
16. Saint, Prem K., Hanes, Ted L., Lloyd, William J., Waterbodies, Wetlands, and their
Beneficial Uses in the Los Angeles Region (4). Volume 1. Waterbodies and their
Beneficial Uses. California State University, Fullerton. July 1993.
17. State Water Resources Control Board, State Board Resolution 68-16, Statement of
Policy With Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters in California. October 28,
1968.
18. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) "Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Bacteria - 1986". Report No. EPA 330/5-84-002. January 1986.
19. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)."Water Quality Standards
Handbook: Second Edition". Report No. EPA-823-8-94-005a. August 1994.
20. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Federal Register, 40 CFR
Part 131. "Water Quality Standards Regulation; Proposed Rules". Tuesday, July 7,
1998.
21. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). EPA-833-R-01-002.
"Guidance: Coordinating CSO Long Term Planning with Water Quality Standards
Reviews." July 31,2001.
22. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) "Implementation Guidance
for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria". May 2002 Draft.
-------
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE CONDITIONS
TRIGGERING SUSPENSION OF REC USE(S)
The Regional Board proposes to suspend the REC-1 beneficial uses for those water
bodies where high velocities and deep water create unsafe conditions that preclude
individuals from partaking in REC-1 activities. Various implementation options were
evaluated with respect to this action.
Water Bodies to be Covered
Water bodies to be covered by a high-flow suspension could include any of the following
criteria:
a) inland water bodies
b) flowing water bodies (not lakes)
c) engineered channels
d) water bodies where access is restricted or prohibited (through fencing/signs)
Criteria (a) and (b) must be met for water bodies to be covered by this suspension, but
alone they are not enough. Inland water bodies include those that may not be subject to
the unsafe conditions that occur in engineered channels. For example, clearly lakes are
not subject to high velocities that would cause unsafe conditions. Additionally, access to
many lakes cannot be restricted during storm events. Flowing water bodies also could
include those that flow more slowly (e.g. due to natural meanders and vegetation). Slow
flowing water bodies do not necessarily have the conditions of an engineered channel
that make recreation inherently dangerous during storm events.
Therefore, in addition to criteria (a) and (b), criteria (c) and (d) must also be met.
Engineered channels are designed to convey water rapidly out to a discharge point,
making conditions unusually unsafe for recreation. Therefore, engineered channels
(criterion c) should be categorically exempt. Restricted or prohibited access to the
engineered channels (criterion d) should also be a complementary prerequisite for
employing the suspension because only then is there an assurance that people cannot
access a water body in order to engage in recreational activities. See Appendix 1 for a
list of engineered water bodies in the region to which access is restricted or prohibited.
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's "Basin Plan" contains a list of
inland surface water bodies where access is restricted or prohibited in Los Angeles and
Ventura Counties. Staff conducted a search for readily available flow data for each of
the inland flowing water bodies where access is restricted or prohibited.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works maintains comprehensive
information on facilities by channel type. This enabled Regional Board staff to confirm
our list of candidate water bodies with the County's to isolate those water bodies to
which this amendment would apply.
The Ventura County Flood Control District (VCFCD) does not have a comprehensive list
of facilities by channel type. The County currently has a GIS coverage showing channel
location and length with basic information (drawing number, project name, year of
construction, etc.) of all VCFCD facilities. The County is currently developing a
database that would break the list of channels down by channel type and dimensions,
but it was not available for use in developing the proposed amendment. There is no
May 15, 2003
Page 1
-------
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE CONDITIONS
TRIGGERING SUSPENSION OF REC USE(S)
record provided by the VCFCD as to which channels are engineered or have restricted
access. Therefore, Regional Board staff cannot confirm our list with the County's to
isolate those water bodies to which this amendment would apply.
Conditions Triggering Suspension
The possible triggers for a suspension include:
1) Velocity-basis (requires flow and area data) (e.g., "swift water" conditions).
Velocity can be calculated by dividing the flow by the area (V=Q/A).
Area can be calculated by multiplying the depth by the cross-sectional area
(A=D*(Cross-Sectional Area)).
2) Depth Basis
3) Rainfall-basis (e.g., total daily rainfall).
The following section analyzes the feasibility of each of these three options for Ventura
County and Los Angeles County, given readily available data.
Ventura County
1). Velocity Data (flow and area)
a). Flow Data
The Ventura County Flood Control District (VCFCD) provides peak flow data over the
most current 24-hour period at http://www.ventura.org/vcpwa/fc/fws/ for a limited number
of water bodies. Real-time data is recorded at the county offices. Ventura County is in
the process of developing Internet access to historical rainfall and hydrologic data. Also
the USGS web-site (http://water.usgs.gov) is helpful for gages in Ventura County as it
has real-time as well as historical flow data.
Of the list of 61 water bodies to be covered by this amendment, none are in Ventura
County. There may be other water bodies that should be on the list. However, Ventura
County's effort to break the list of channels down by channel type and dimensions was
not available at the time of writing. There is no record provided by the VCFCD as to
which channels are engineered or have restricted access. Therefore, Regional Board
staff cannot confirm our list of candidate water bodies with Ventura County's inventory.
b). Area Data (Depth and Cross-Sectional Area)
The VCFCD web-site (listed above) provides peak depth data for the most current 24-
hour period. The USGS web-site (listed above) provides annual maximum
instantaneous peak stream flow and gage heights. Ventura County is in the process of
developing Internet access to historical rainfall and hydrologic data. Cross-sectional
area data can be found on as-built plans via request from VCFCD.
2). Depth Data
Depth data is described above.
May 15, 2003
Page 2
-------
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE CONDITIONS
TRIGGERING SUSPENSION OF REC USE(S)
3). Rainfall Data
The VCFCD web-site (listed above) provides rainfall totals over various time intervals,
i.e. last hour, last 3 hours, last 6 hours, last 12 hours, last day and last 2 days. Ventura
County is in the process of developing Internet access to historical rainfall and
hydrologic data. Historical data was obtained for three representative gages in the
county.
Los Angeles County
1). Velocity Data (flow and area)
a). Flow Data
Regional Board Staff has a list of facilities by channel type for Los Angeles County. Staff
conducted a search for available flow data for each of the inland flowing water bodies
where access is restricted or prohibited. Flow data is available from the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) web site at:
http://www.ladpw.com/wrd/report/9899/runoff/discharge.cfm. In looking at this web-site,
staff concluded that less than 1/4 of the 61 candidate water bodies in Los Angeles County
where access is restricted or prohibited have corresponding flow data. Therefore, it is
not feasible to rely upon this data as a trigger to determine when to begin the
suspension.
b). Area Data (Depth and Cross-Sectional Area)
In most cases depth data is used to determine the flow rate. Therefore, in most
channels where a county has flow data, depth data also exists. Cross-sectional area
data can be found from looking at particular as-built plans via request from LACDPW.
2). Depth Data
Depth data is described above.
3). Rainfall Data
Los Angeles County displays real-time data for 62 rain gages located throughout the
county for 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48-hour increments and for the last 30 days on their
web-site. The web-site is updated every 10 minutes. This rain data can be viewed at:
http://ladpw.org/wrd/precip/.
Existing Protocol for Restricting Access
In Ventura County, there are no water rescue pre-deployment criteria that result in the
closing of flood control access gates. All access gates to flood control channels and
access roads are always locked. There are a few exceptions, where Ventura County
Flood Control District (VCFCD) has a specific written agreement with a city for joint use
of a VCFCD right-of-way. For these few areas where the public has access (most often,
bike paths), the access road is not in an area that is at risk for flooding.
In Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County, California Multi-Agency Swift Water
Rescue Committee has published an "Operational Standards and Guidelines Document"
(dated December 10, 1999). This guidance provides a framework for the City of Los
May 15, 2003
PageS
-------
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE CONDITIONS
TRIGGERING SUSPENSION OF REC USE(S)
Angeles Fire Department, County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Sheriffs Department,
Lifeguards and Department of Public Works to provide water rescue. Under the "Water
Rescue Pre-Deployment Section" (Sec. 6.00 on page 13), three storm levels are defined
(Levels 1-3) based on storm warnings with an 80% prediction of certain quantities of rain
over 24-hours. The following are the three alert levels:
Level 1 1 inch of rain (unsaturated ground) or 1/4 inch (saturated ground)
Level 2 1 1/4 inch of rain (unsaturated ground) or 1 inch (saturated ground)
Level 3 Rainfall/saturation levels exceeding those listed for Level 2
Generalized flash floods, urban flooding and/or mud and debris flows
Urban flooding with possible life hazards.
Other factors LA County considers when determining deployment levels include:
1) The effect of major wildland and interface burn areas. Large burn areas result in
increased runoff and high potential for mud and debris flows and flash floods.
2) Flood Watches and Flood Warnings.
3) Real time effects of the storm (may differ from weather forecasts, resulting in severe
conditions in particular geographic areas).
4) Releases in the Flood Control Channels.
Rainfall as Most Practical Trigger for Suspension
Velocity is probably the best direct measure, followed by depth, of unsafe conditions.
However, from a practical standpoint, rainfall is the easiest to implement in a region-wide
manner and is an adequate proxy for flow as indicated by the reliance on rainfall
prediction by the Swift Water Rescue Committee. Rainfall is the factor that determines
when Los Angeles County closes its access gates to many engineered channels.
Ventura County has its access gates closed at all times, precluding access to channels.
Rainfall data is readily available to county personnel and is measured by the county
agencies among others. Los Angeles County has staff allocated and funded to close the
gates that are county property using rainfall prediction as the basis for closure. In
addition, as discussed earlier, flow meters or depth gages are not available for all
engineered channels with restricted or prohibited access. Finally, based on our analysis,
rainfall appears to correlate well with unsafe conditions as further described in Appendix
3.
Appendix 3 provides a description of the analysis staff conducted to determine that rain
was an adequate proxy for unsafe conditions. In sum, unsafe conditions were estimated
using a "rule of thumb" employed by USGS and also adopted by Orange County
personnel, where if peak velocity * peak depth >= 10, then it is "unsafe." Unsafe days
were compared to the preceding day's rainfall (i.e. rain >0.5 or >1.0 inch) to determine
whether rainfall was an appropriate implementation trigger.
May 15, 2003
Page 4
-------
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE CONDITIONS
TRIGGERING SUSPENSION OF REC USE(S)
Rainfall Estimation Methods
There are multiple methods for determining the amount of rainfall at any particular
location. All are based on using rain gage data. Three methods are as follows:
1) Use of one centrally located gage per county.
2) Use of one centrally located gage per watershed (one gage per watershed with
location within watershed to be determined based on availability of automatically
recording rain gages and other factors).
3) Use of the nearest rain gage.
Staff analysis indicated that rainfall is highly variable and that the nearest rain gage
should be used to estimate rainfall for particular water body segments.
May 15, 2003
Page 5
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Correlation between Unsafe Conditions and Rainfall at Select Locations in Three Watersheds
Staff conducted an analysis of the correlation between "unsafe conditions" (using velocity and depth) and
daily rainfall amounts to determine whether rainfall is an adequate proxy for unsafe conditions.
Specifically, staff used five years of data (water years 1998-2002) to match days above the Level 1 Alert
rainfall thresholds of 1/4 inch or 1 inch (depending on local antecedent moisture condition) with
corresponding physical conditions in several local channels. The physical conditions examined were
those that could result in "unsafe" conditions, i.e. velocity and depth.
The results of this analysis demonstrate that a significant percentage (63% on average and as much as
83%) of unsafe days (as determined using the USGS protocol 1) occur on days where rainfall the prior
day was greater than Vz inch.2 (The counterpoint to this is that on average 37% of unsafe days occur on
days outside of the defined wet weather conditions.) Finally, the analysis shows that on average 82% of
days and as high as 100% of days with rainfall greater than 1/4 inch were followed by "unsafe" days.
(Again, the counterpoint to this is that on average 18% of days with rainfall greater than 1/4 inch were not
followed by unsafe days.) See Table 1 below.
This analysis supports the use of rainfall events of greater than 1/2 inch, regardless of ground conditions
(saturated vs. unsaturated) as a reasonable proxy for "unsafe" conditions in engineered channels the day
following the rain event.
To compare the benefit of using a 1/2-inch rain event versus the 1-inch event, it is important to compare
the respective statistics using both rain events. Both statistics are important:
• % "Unsafe" Days Preceded by Rain Days > X inch
• % Days with Rain > X inch that were Followed by "Unsafe" Days
Regarding the first bullet, the results of this analysis show that 63% of days that were considered unsafe
occurred when greater than 1/4 inch of rain fell the preceding day. This statistic drops to 29% when
rainfall was greater than 1 inch on the preceding day. Regarding the second bullet, on average 82% of
days with rain greater than 1/4 inch were followed by "unsafe" days. This statistic rises to 94% for days
with rainfall greater than 1 inch. Since both statistics listed are important, it is clear that using a 1/2 inch
of rain as a trigger for the suspension results in higher percentages when considered cumulatively than
the cumulative statistics for 1 inch. Therefore, it is more appropriate to use 1/2 inch of rain as a proxy
for unsafe conditions; that is, a significant number of unsafe days would not be captured using 1 inch of
rainfall as a proxy for unsafe conditions. While it is necessary to use a prediction of rain to allow time to
prepare for unsafe conditions, the implementation of the suspension would be based on actual rainfall
data from the closest rain gage with adequate data.
1 The USGS uses the following calculation as a "rule of thumb" for determining whether it is safe for monitoring personnel to
be in a channel (Al Caldwell, USGS, San Diego office, personal communication, 2003). The calculation is the peak depth (ft) *
peak velocity (ft/sec). If the result is greater than or equal to 10 then it is considered unsafe. The County of Orange,
Environmental Resources Division, has adopted this "rule of thumb" into their practices (County of Orange, 2001).
2 In the data analysis, staff compared the preceding day's rainfall to conditions on the target day. Staff chose this approach due
to the lag time associated with storm flows. See Figures 1 through 3 for examples of this lag time. Had staff compared both the
preceding day's rainfall as well as rainfall on the target day to conditions on the target day, the percentages above may have
been slightly higher.
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Table 1: High Flow Conditions at Select Stations in Three Watersheds In Region 4 (Water Years 1998-2002)
*
0
'TO
W
F34
F342
F285
F37
AVG
F274
F304
F312
AVG
F38
AVG
T3
CD
.C
2
«
£
LAR
LAR
LAR
LAR
LAR
SGR
SGR
SGR
SGK
B
ALL
w
CD
Q
CD
W
c
Z>
i
19
45
35
39
35
30
25
21
25
56
34
c
CD
o:
.c
CD if)
3k A
25
32
30
21
27
23
23
20
22
23
25
c
CD
o:
.c
CD^o
* A
11
11
13
7
11
9
8
7
8
8
9
w
>. c
Q ^ 2
Q) ~n r~ r—
\l\^
2 CD O
fl: Q.T3 A
13
29
29
20
23
17
20
12
16
23
20
w
7n
Q C
"0 *~
*•— T7 C~ (~
l%%\
^ 0) „ —
P o w^io
^p 2 CD 0
o^ Q.T3 A
68%
64%
83%
51%
67%
57%
80%
57%
65%
41%
63%
w
P" _- ^^
^ LO "^
l|!|
^K£?
52%
91%
97%
95%
84%
74%
87%
60%
74%
100%
82%
w
>. c
Q ^ 2
CD ~n f~ ^~
Ifrs
-§ o w^o
fl: Q.T3 A
10
11
13
7
10
8
8
5
7
8
9
w
7n
Q C
= ^ 2
•| -^-J (— ,_
-^ , ro"
^ o -°
Ip!
^K£?
91%
100%
100%
100%
98%
89%
100%
71%
86.7%
100%
94%
Notes: *See Table 1A for a description of each station.
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Table 1 A. Description of Stream Gaging Stations used in Data Analysis
Station Watershed
Name
Channel Dimensions*
Assumptions
F34D-R
LAR
LOS ANGELES RIVER below
Firestone Blvd
Concrete, with rip-rap side slopes,
trapezoidal in section, with
trapezoidal low flow channel. Top
width is 265 feet. Height is 17
feet. Side slopes not given nor
bottom width.
Low flow channel is 28 feet wide,
no height given. Assumption that
flows will not go out of low flow
channel except during extreme
events, none of which occurred
during this five-year period. So
treated cross section as a
rectangle with width of 28 feet.
F342-R
LAR
BRANFORD STREET CHANNEL
below Sharp Avenue
Trapezoidal, 10 feet wide at
bottom and 7.5 feet deep with 1.5
to 1 side slopes.
No assumptions needed.
F285-R
LAR
BURBANK WESTERN STORM
DRAIN at Riverside Dr.
Concrete rectangular section with
60 feet width and 12 feet in
height.
No assumptions needed.
F37B-R
LAR
COM PTON CREEK near
Greenleaf Drive
Concrete rectangular section, 60
feet wide by 13 feet deep.
No assumptions needed.
F274B-R
SGR
DALTON WASH at Merced
Avenue
Concrete rectangular section, 60
feet wide, 14.5 feet tall.
No assumptions needed.
F304-R
SGR
WALNUT CREEK above Puente
Avenue
Concrete rectangular section, 50
feet wide, 13.5 feet tall.
No assumptions needed.
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Station
Watershed
Name
Channel Dimensions*
Assumptions
F312B-R
SGR
SAN JOSE CHANNEL below
Seventh Avenue
Grouted rip-rap side slopes with
natural bottom, trapezoidal
section.
225 feet wide as the upper width,
16 and 17 feet as the maximum
height on two sides. No
dimensions for channel base or
side slopes given. Assumed that
side slope was 1.5:1 with base of
175 feet.
F38C-R
Ballona
BALLONA CREEK above
Sawtelle Blvd.
Concrete ruble, trapezoidal in
section
95 feet wide as the upper width,
23 feet tall in middle of channel.
No base width given nor side
slopes given. Assumed that side
slope was 1.5:1 with base of 26
feet.
"Channel dimensions obtained from the Los Angeles Department of Public Works web site at http://www.ladpw.org/wrd/runoff/.
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Illustration of Lag Time between Rainfall and Runoff
Figure 1: Ballona Creek above Sawtelle Blvd.
Rain and Flow - F38C
14000
I
11/23/01 11/24/01 11/25/01
Date
11/26/01
Figure 2: San Jose Channel below Seventh Ave.
Rain and Flow - F312
(A
0)
O
co
a:
Date
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Figure 3: Burbank Western Channel at Riverside Dr.
1.2 -i
"3T 1
•§ 0.8
= 0.6
c" 0.4
co 02
0
^
Rain and Flow - F285
, /innn
.IA
\^N ^ A^ A^ A^
X N^ X /
- 3500
3000 «T
- 2500 o
2000 T ^•R.iin
- 1500 § ^MKdiri
1000 E Flow
- 500
0
Date
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Rescue Dates, Locations and Conditions for 2001 and 2002
In Los Angeles County, protocols for locking access gates to flood control channels and preparing for
possible swift-water rescues in these channels during defined storm events have been set by the Los
Angeles County, California Multi-Agency Swift Water Rescue Committee. This committee is made up of
the County and City Fire Departments, the Sheriff's Department, Lifeguards and the Department of Public
Works. The Los Angeles County Fire Department is the chair of the committee and retains records of the
locations, dates and times of historic swift-water rescues.
Staff analyzed two years of rescue data (water years 2001-2002) to match days on which there were
swift-water rescues with corresponding flow, depth, velocity and rainfall data in several local channels.
Staff concluded that 71 percent of the rescues occurred on days that were considered "unsafe".3 Thirty-
six percent of swift-water rescues from 2001 to 2002 occurred on days when the rainfall on that day or
the preceding day was greater than 1/4 inch, while 27 percent occurred on days when the rainfall on that
day or the preceding day was greater than 1 inch.4 See Table 2 below. Table 3 provides minimum,
maximum and mean statistics for the flow, velocity and depth values associated with the rescue data.
3 Staff could not evaluate all rescue dates with respect to the USGS rule-of-thumb, since in some cases the necessary flow data
was not recorded.
4 Eighty-two percent of swift-water rescues from 2001 to 2002 occurred on days when rainfall on that day or the preceding day
was greater than 0.1 inch.
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Table 2: Rescue Dates, Locations5 and Conditions for 2001 and 2002
Rescue
Date
01/11/01
01/12/01
03/05/01
03/06/01
04/07/01
04/27/01
04/30/01
12/21/01
11/30/01
11/30/01
12/16/02
Nearest
Stream -
gage
F354
F354
F34D-R
F34D-R
F34D-R
F274B-R
F262-R
F64R
F274B-R
F274B-R
F354
Water Body
Coyote
Creek
Coyote
Creek
LA River
LA River
LA River
San Dimas
Wash
San Gabriel
R.
Rio Hondo
San Dimas
Wash
San Dimas
Wash
Coyote
Creek
Water-
shed
SGR
SGR
LAR
LAR
LAR
SGR
SGR
LAR
SGR
SGR
SGR
Total
Daily
Rain
1.02
0.32
0.39
0.31
0.71
0
0
0.27
.078
.078
1.41
Rain
Day
B/F
1.30
1.02
0.039
0.39
0
0
0
0.08
0.24
0.24
0
"Unsafe"
V*D>10
Peak Flow
Peak
Depth
Peak
Velocity
not recorded
not recorded
81.82
543.45
8.42
3.77
2290.98
15216.62
235.70
226.47
3.13
5.14
2.13
0.84
26.14
105.73
3.95
4.49
not recorded
Gage taken off-line in 1996.
63.33
63.33
11.05
3800
3800
16200
3.83
3.83
7.81
16.54
16.54
34.57
SGR = San Gabriel River
LAR = Los Angeles River
' Exact locations were provided by the LACFD but are not included on this table.
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Flow, Velocity and Depth Conditions during "Unsafe" Conditions, Rescues and Specified Rain
Events
Staff analyzed some basic hydrologic parameters associated with select channels of concern during
various weather and safety conditions. These hydrologic conditions included flow, velocity and depth.
The minimum, maximum and mean peaks of these three parameters were recorded.
It is interesting to note that the averages for peak flow, peak velocity and peak depth were similar in
magnitude for the "unsafe" days and for the days following a rain event greater than 1/2 inch, regardless
of ground conditions (i.e. saturated vs. unsaturated). This seems to support the idea that rain events
greater than 1/2 inch are a good proxy for "unsafe conditions."
The correlation between these parameters for days with rescues and days following rain events greater
than 1/2 inch is not so strong. While the ranges are comparable, the averages for peak flow, peak
velocity and peak depth are approximately 1.5-2 times larger during rescue conditions as compared to
events where rain the day prior is greater than 1/2 inch. In other words, most rescue days seem to have
conditions that are far more dangerous than those associated with the average 1/2-inch rain event.
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Table 3: Flow, Velocity and Depth Conditions during "Unsafe" Events, Days with Rescues and Specified Rain Events (Los
Angeles River, San Gabriel River and Ballona Creek Sites)
Condition
Days "unsafe"
Days w/
rescues
Days following
rain>0.5
Days following
rain >1.0
Peak flow (range & average)
(117.31 - 12,483.72)
2,143.29
(226.47 - 16,200.00)
5,967.11
(27.02 - 12,483.72)
2,150.59
(27.02 - 12,483.72)
3059.68
Peak velocity (range &
average)
(4.06- 121.31)
13.15
(3.95- 105.73)
28.90
(0.42 - 58.83)
12.44
(0.42 - 58.83)
15.34
Peak depth (range & average)
(0.19-9.33)
2.59
(0.26-7.81)
3.37
(0.37 - 9.33)
2.57
(0.37 - 9.33)
3.10
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Summary of Days of Rainfall >1/2 inch and >1 inch plus the 24-hours following based on
Historical Records
At each of four rain gage stations in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, rainfall greater than or equal to
1/2 inch occurred an average of 18 days per year over the periods of record. This number drops to 7.75
days, where the rainfall criterion is greater than or equal to 1 inch. In percentages, 4.75% of the 365
days per year were days over the rain criterion of 1/2 inch. The percentage drops to 2.25% when using
the criterion of 1.0 inch of rainfall.
The ranges and medians are broken down by station in the two tables below. Table 4 applies to the 1/2-
inch threshold. Table 5 applies to the 1-inch threshold.
The significance of these tables is that they indicate the number of days per year that the high flow
suspension of the REC-1 and REC-2 beneficial uses would apply.
-------
APPENDIX 3: DATA ANALYIS RESULTS
Table 4: Summary of Days of Rainfall > 7z Inch plus the 24 Hours Following
Based on Historical Records6
Rain Gage
LAX7
Ojai - Stewart
Simi
VD
Max No. of
Days / year (%
of Year)
48 (13%)
64(18%)
56(15%)
34 (9%)
No. of Days in
1993(%of
Year)
26 (7%)
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Min No. of Days
/ year (% of
Year)
2 (0.5%)
0 (0%)
2 (0.5%)
0 (0%)
Median No. of
Days / year (%
of Year)
16 (4%)
22 (6%)
18(5%)
16 (4%)
Notes: The Max, Min, and Median numbers may be overestimates because staff has assumed that no
day with rainfall greater than or equal to 1/4 inch was followed by a second consecutive day of rainfall
greater than or equal to 1/4 inch. If one or more days of rainfall greater than or equal to 1/4 inch were
followed consecutively by a day(s) of rainfall greater than or equal to 1/4 inch, these numbers would be
smaller. The number of days in 1993 is an exact calculation.
Table 5: Summary of Days of Rainfall > 1 Inch plus 24 Hours Following Based on Historical
Records8
Rain Gage
LAX9
Ojai - Stewart
Simi
VD
Max No. of
Days / year (%
of Year)
24 (7%)
38(10%)
30 (8%)
18(5%)
No. of Days in
1993(%of
Year)
15 (4%)
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Min No. of Days
/ year (% of
Year)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Median No. of Days
/ year (% of Year)
6 (2%)
12 (3%)
8 (2%)
7 (2%)
Notes: The Max, Min, and Median numbers may be overestimates because staff has assumed that no
day with rainfall greater than or equal to 1 inch was followed by a second consecutive day of rainfall
greater than or equal to 1 inch. If one or more days of rainfall greater than or equal to 1 inch were
followed consecutively by a day(s) of rainfall greater than or equal to 1 inch, these numbers would be
smaller. The number of days in 1993 is an exact calculation.
6 Note that the period of record for the LAX analysis was from 1948 to 2000. For the Ventura Downtown (VD) and Ojai-
Stewart gages the period of record was 1956 to 2001. For the Simi gage the period of record was 1956 to 1971.
7 Note that the water year used for the LAX analysis was from November 1 through October 31st. The rest of the rain gage
analyses were based on a water year that runs from October 1 through September 30th.
8 See Footnote 6 above.
9 See Footnote 7 above.
-------
Appendix C:
Valley Creek UAA
-------
IVl
USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
VALLEY CREEK
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
December 2001
-------
Table of Contents.
i.o Introduction
2.0 Overview of the Limited Warmwater Fishery Classification
3.0 Physical Characteristics of Valley Creek
4.0 Chemical Characteristics of Valley Creek
5.0 Biological Characteristics of Valley Creek
6.0 Point Source Analysis & Water Quality Modeling
7.0 Conclusion
Page
i
3
5
7
10
11
13
Attachment i
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Watershed Maps
> Figure i - Valley Creek Watershed & Point Source Location Map
> Figure 2 - Land Use Delineation Map
Valley Creek Sampling Station & Water Quality Data
> Table 2-1: USGS Sampling Locations
> Table 2-2: ADEM Sampling Locations
> Table 2-3: USGS Water Quality Data
> Table 2-4: ADEM Water Quality Data
Discharge Monitoring Reports
> Valley Creek WWTP, January 1998-June 2001
Current & Predicted Effluent Limits
> Table 4-1: Valley Creek WWTP
> Table 4-2: USX Fairfield Works
> Table 4-3: Koppers Organics
Water Quality Modeling Results
> Schematic of modeled stream reach
> Model outputs (summer)
• Run i: Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply
• Run 2: Fish and Wildlife
> Model outputs (winter)
• Run i: Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply
• Run 2: Fish and Wildlife
Supplemental Recreational Use Attainability Analysis for
Village and Valley Creeks, EPA Region 4
References
-------
i.o Introduction
The purpose of this Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) is to provide evidence that
supports the proposed use classification change for the upper segment of Valley Creek
being upgraded from Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply (AM) to Limited
Warm water Fishery (LWF). More specifically, a UAA is required by EPA when States
assign a use classification to surface waters that is considered less than the
"fishable/swimmable" goal as defined in Section ioi(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act. The
use classification change for Valley Creek is considered an upgrade because the water
uses and corresponding water quality criteria are more stringent for waters classified as
LWF as opposed to AM. However, the LWF classification does not fully meet the water
quality uses and criteria associated with the "fishable/swimmable" goal, therefore a UAA
is necessary. Alabama's Fish and Wildlife (F&W) use classification, is considered a
"fishable/swimmable" designated use by EPA, therefore the objective of this analysis is
to document the conditions that prevent the upper segment of Valley Creek from
attaining Fish and Wildlife status.
On August i, 2000, the Environmental Management Commission adopted new
regulations (effective September 7, 2000) which eliminated the Industrial Operations
(IO) category from the use classification regulations as defined by ADEM's Water
Quality Program. At the same time, a segment of Valley Creek (9.7 miles) and all of
Opossum Creek (8.5 miles) were upgraded from Industrial Operations to Agricultural
and Industrial Water Supply. At that time, a UAA was prepared by ADEM for Valley
Creek and Opossum Creek (October 2000) for the purpose of documenting the reasons
why the streams could not attain F&W status. The October 2000 UAA continues to be
the supporting document for Opossum Creek's current A&I classification. Tables 1-1 &
1-2 below provide a summary of how the rule revisions changed the use classification
structure for Valley Creek and Opossum Creek from their previous classification to their
current classification.
Table i-i-Previous Classification
Stream
Segment
Valley Creek
Valley Creek
Valley Creek
Basin
Black
Warrior
Black
Warrior
Black
Warrior
Geographic Description
from Bankhead Lake (confluence of
Mud Creek) to county road crossing
iJ/2 miles NE of Johns (Jefferson
County Rd. 36)
from county road crossing iJ/2 miles
NE of Johns (Jefferson County Rd. 36)
to Opossum Creek
from Opossum Creek to its source
Total A&I/IO length for Valley Creek =>
Opossum
Creek
Black
Warrior
from Valley Creek to its source
Length
(miles)
24.7
9-7
11.9
46.3
8.5
Previous
Classification
A&I
10
A&I
10
Table i-2-Current Use Classification as of September 7, 2000.
-------
Stream
Segment
Valley Creek
Opossum
Creek
Basin
Black
Warrior
Black
Warrior
Geographic Description
from Bankhead Lake (confluence of
Mud Creek) to its source
from Valley Creek to its source
Length
(miles)
46.3
8.5
Classification
(as of 9/7/00)
A&I
A&I
Table i-3-Proposed Use Classification as of December 23, 2001.
Stream
Segment
Valley Creek
Valley Creek
Basin
Black
Warrior
Black
Warrior
Geographic Description
from Bankhead Lake (confluence of
Mud Creek) to Blue Creek
from Blue Creek to its source
Length
(miles)
22.6
23-7
Proposed
Classification
F&W
LWF
As shown in Table 3 above, the proposed use classification changes of Valley Creek split
the stream approximately in half, with the lower segment of Valley Creek being
proposed for Fish and Wildlife and upper segment of Valley Creek being proposed for
Limited Warmwater Fishery (See Attachment i, Figure i). Blue Creek was chosen as the
geographic boundary between F&W and LWF as a result of ADEM's water quality
modeling. According to the modeling results, Blue Creek was the approximate location
at which dissolved oxygen levels rebounded from the sag to back above 5.0 mg/1, which
is the required criteria for waters designated Fish and Wildlife. (See Attachment 5,
Summer A&I Model Run)
In accordance with the Federal Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.3), a
use attainability analysis is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the
attainment of a use which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic
factors as described in Section i3i.io(g). As indicated below, results of this use
attainability analysis indicate at least two of the six applicable factors as defined in
Section I3i.io(g) are preventing the segment of Valley Creek from attaining ADEM's
Fish and Wildlife use classification.
Applicable Factors for Valleu Creek (AO CFR Part ixi.
(i) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use; or
(2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the
attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge of
sufficient volume of effluent discharges without violating State water conservation
requirements to enable uses to be met; or
(3) Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and
cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in
place; or
-------
(4) Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of
the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to
operate such modification in a way that would result in the attainment of the use; or
(5) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of
a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality,
preclude the attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or
(6) Controls more stringent than those required by Sections 3Oi(b) and 306 of the Act
would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
2.0 Overview of the Limited Warmwater Fishery Classification
On August i, 2000, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted
regulations (effective September 7, 2000) which created a new use classification,
Limited Warmwater Fishery (LWF), within ADEM's Use Classification System
(Administrative Code 335-6-11). On December 23, 2001, ADEM proposed regulations
that would reclassify the upper portion of Valley Creek to LWF. The key element of the
LWF classification is that it establishes seasonal uses and water quality criteria for
waters that otherwise cannot maintain the Fish & Wildlife criteria on a year-round basis.
The following italicized paragraphs provide the specific water quality criteria associated
with the LWF use classification as it appears in ADEM's Water Quality Criteria
(Administrative Code 335-6-10.09(6)).
(6) LIMITED WARMWATER FISHERY
(a) The provisions of the Fish and Wildlife water use classification at
Rule 335-6-10-.09(5) shall apply to the Limited Warmwater Fishery water use
classification, except as noted below. Unless alternative criteria for a given parameter
are provided in paragraph (e) below, the applicable Fish and Wildlife criteria at
paragraph lo-.ogCsXe) shall apply year-round. At the time the Department proposes
to assign the Limited Warmwater Fishery classification to a specific waterbody, the
Department may apply criteria from other classifications within this chapter if
necessary to protect a documented, legitimate existing use.
(b) Best usage of waters (May through November): agricultural
irrigation, livestock watering, industrial cooling and process water supplies, and any
other usage, except fishing, bathing, recreational activities, including water-contact
sports, or as a source of water supply for drinking or food-processing purposes.
(c) Conditions related to best usage (May through November):
i. The waters will be suitable for agricultural irrigation, livestock
watering, and industrial cooling waters. The waters will be usable after special
treatment, as may be needed under each particular circumstance, for industrial
process water supplies. The waters will also be suitable for other uses for which
waters of lower quality will be satisfactory.
-------
2. This category includes watercourses in which natural flow is
intermittent, or under certain conditions non-existent, and which may receive treated
wastes from existing municipalities and industries. In such instances, recognition is
given to the lack of opportunity for mixture of the treated wastes with the receiving
stream for purposes of compliance. It is also understood in considering waters for this
classification that urban runoff or natural conditions may impact any waters so
classified.
(d) Other usage of waters: none recognized.
(e) Specific criteria:
i. Dissolved oxygen (May through November): treated sewage,
industrial wastes, or other wastes shall not cause the dissolved oxygen to be less than
3.0 mg/l. In the application of dissolved oxygen criteria referred to above, dissolved
oxygen shall be measured at a depth of 5 feet in waters lofeet or greater in depth; and
for those waters less than lofeet in depth, dissolved oxygen criteria will be applied at
mid-depth.
2. Toxic substances and taste-, odor-, and color-producing
substances attributable to treated sewage, industrial wastes, and other wastes: only
such amounts as will not render the waters unsuitable for agricultural irrigation,
livestock watering, industrial cooling, and industrial process water supply purposes;
interfere with downstream water uses; or exhibit acute toxicity or chronic toxicity, as
demonstrated by effluent toxicity testing or by application of numeric criteria given in
Rule 335-6-1O-.O7, to fish and aquatic life, including shrimp and crabs in estuarine or
salt waters or the propagation thereof. For the purpose of establishing effluent
limitations pursuant to Chapter 335-6-6 of the Department's regulations, the minimum
7-day low flow that occurs once in 2 years (yQ2) shall be the basis for applying the
chronic aquatic life criteria. The use of the yQ2 low flow for application of chronic
criteria is appropriate based on the historical uses and/or flow characteristics of
streams to be considered for this classification.
3. Bacteria: bacteria of the fecal coliform group shall not exceed a
geometric mean ofiooo/ioo ml; nor exceed a maximum of 2000/100 ml in any
sample. The geometric mean shall be calculated from no less than five samples
collected at a given station over a so-day period at intervals not less than 24 hours.
The above water quality criteria are commensurate with surface waters designated
Limited Warmwater Fishery. In general, the water quality criteria associated with the
Limited Warmwater Fishery classification are the same as the Fish and Wildlife criteria
except for the following:
• Minimum dissolved oxygen requirements are reduced from 5 mg/l to 3 mg/l during
May through November.
-------
The seven-day, two-year (yQ2) low flow instead of the seven-day, ten-year (yQio) low
flow is used to establish the chronic aquatic life criteria for point source discharges.
Bacteriological criteria for incidental water contact and recreation during the months
of June through September are not required.
3.0 Physical Characteristics of Valley Creek
Valley Creek originates in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama and
meanders to the west until it reaches the impounded waters of Bankhead Lake of the
Black Warrior River. The Valley Creek watershed lies within two distinct physiographic
provinces of north central Alabama, namely the Valley and Ridge and the Appalachian
Plateau. The Valley and Ridge drains the eastern portion of Valley Creek (Upper Valley)
and is characterized by parallel ridges and valleys having a wide variety of widths,
heights and geologic materials, including limestone, dolomite, shale, siltstone,
sandstone, chert and marble. The stream primarily exhibits a dendritic drainage
pattern as it flows across gently dipping rocks in the basin. The western portion (Lower
Valley) of the watershed lies within the Cumberland Plateau section of the Southwestern
Appalachian province and is underlain by horizontal sedimentary bedrock layers that
are deeply dissected by streams. The types of geology typically encountered are
interbedded dark-gray shale, siltstone, medium-gray sandstone and numerous coal
seams. The landscape consists of low hills in an irregular pattern, which have broad,
gently rolling summits and steep slopes. Relief is on the order 200 to 250 feet and the
hills are generally capped with massive beds of sandstone.
Valley Creek is a major tributary of the Black Warrior River and has a total drainage
area of 257 square miles and has a total length of approximately 46 miles. The y-day,
lo-year (yQio) and y-day, 2-year (yQ2) low flows of Valley Creek at its mouth are 12.9
cubic feet per second (cfs) and 2y.2 cfs, respectively. Major tributaries of Valley Creek
within the proposed Limited Warmwater Fishery segment include Blue Creek, Fivemile
Creek, and Opossum Creek with drainage areas of 19.3, 16.5, and 13.2 square miles
respectively. Of the tributaries mentioned, Opossum Creek has considerable impact on
Valley Creek due to the major point and nonpoint sources of pollution located within its
watershed. In addition, the Opossum Creek watershed is one of the most highly
industrialized areas of Birmingham and the stream has been on Alabama's 3O3(d) use
impairment list since 1998 for organic enrichment and low dissolved oxygen. Nonpoint
sources are believed to be the most significant source of CBOD in the Opossum Creek
watershed. The overall land use in the Opossum Creek subwatershed is 52% urban, 40%
forested, 8% open area. Opossum Creek originates in Fairfield, Jefferson County,
Alabama and travels 8.5 miles until it enters Valley Creek just upstream of the St.
Louis/San Francisco Railway bridge. The yQio and yQ2 low flows at the mouth of
Opossum Creek are 0.6 cfs and i.y cfs, respectively. See Figure i for the location of
Opossum Creek within the Valley Creek watershed.
The Valley Creek watershed includes a broad spectrum of land-use activities. In general,
the land use transforms considerably from Upper Valley Creek to Lower Valley Creek.
Heavy industrial and commercial activities as well as high/low intensity residential land
-------
uses dominate the landscape within Upper Valley Creek. Upper Valley Creek drains a
major metropolitan area and has typical urban stream characteristics such as poor
habitat and degraded water quality and stressed biological communities. The degraded
condition of Upper Valley Creek is primarily due to the extensive industrial and
commercial land use within its watershed. The urbanized landscape creates dynamic
flow events, reduced riparian zones, increased siltation, and other conditions that
destroy habitat and impair water quality, thus making it difficult to sustain a healthy
aquatic community. In contrast, the Lower Valley Creek watershed is predominantly
rural, with sivicultural, agricultural, and some mining operations comprising the land
use. The less intensive land use activities contribute to the improved chemical, physical
and biological conditions within Lower Valley Creek. Table 3-1 below is a summary of
land use activity within the three subwatersheds that define Valley Creek. The land use
information was obtained from the EPA Region 4 Land Cover Data Set, South Central
Portion, Version i. Figure 2 of Attachment i provides a pictorial representation of the
land uses within the Valley Creek watershed.
Table 3-1 — Land Use Activity within the Valley Creek Watershed
Code
11
21
22
23
31
32
33
41
42
43
81
82
85
91
92
Land Use
Open Water
Low Intensity Residential
High Intensity Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Tran
sport
Bare Rock/Sand
Quarry/Strip Mine/Gravel
Pits
Transitional Barren
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Pasture/Hay
Row Crops
Other Grasses
Forested Wetland
Emergent Wetland
Subwatershed
Upper
Valley
0.54%
19.40%
7.20%
10.46%
—
1.03%
0.58%
20.02%
9.18%
19.90%
4-47%
2.23%
4.99%
0.01%
0.01%
Lower
Valley
0.38%
2.09%
0.22%
0.33%
—
0.70%
0.92%
38.17%
22.75%
29.11%
2.90%
1.69%
0.73%
—
—
Shoal
5.88%
0.15%
0.00%
0.27%
—
1.24%
0.28%
38.84%
22.78%
28.71%
1.06%
0.74%
0.04%
—
0.01%
Total
1-35%
7.32%
2.43%
3-57%
—
0.90%
0.70%
32.46%
18.40%
26.09%
3.10%
1.70%
1.98%
0.00%
0.01%
The overall health of Valley Creek is dependent upon good physical characteristics such
as proper flow, adequate riparian zones, diverse substrate, and other features that offer
good habitat to sustain a healthy aquatic community. Upper Valley Creek is a typical
urban stream, containing large amounts of impervious landscape, which in turn allow
flash floods to easily occur during rain events that destroy habitat via erosion and
-------
sedimentation. Over the years, urbanization of Valley Creek has created many
channelized areas within the stream which offer little, if any, habitat for a healthy
aquatic community. Subsequently, the concrete channels, coupled with high nutrient
loads and excessive light/heat penetration, allow dense periphytic algae and microbial
communities to form, which in turn produce significant fluctuations in dissolved oxygen
levels via photosynthesis and respiration.
When comparing the physical characteristics of Upper and Lower Valley Creek, the
differences that distinguish the two watersheds are primarily land use activity. The less
intensive land uses of Lower Valley Creek lend to its ability to attain a Fish and Wildlife
use classification. In contrast, it is primarily the poor physical characteristics of Upper
Valley Creek that are preventing the stream from attaining a Fish and Wildlife use
classification. For this reason, the proposed Limited Warmwater Fishery classification
is appropriate for Upper Valley Creek.
4.0 Chemical Characteristics of Valley Creek
The chemical characteristics of Upper Valley Creek demonstrate the influence a major
metropolitan area (i.e. heavy industrial, commercial, and residential land use) has on
water quality. When comparing the water quality data and associated land uses between
the Upper and Lower Valley Creek sub watersheds, it can be shown that land use activity
provides a good indication of the types of water quality impacts to be expected within
the stream. Upper Valley Creek is characterized as having significant industrial,
commercial and residential land uses; likewise it has poor dissolved oxygen levels, high
pathogen levels, and elevated biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and nutrient
concentrations. Lower Valley Creek is characterized as having primarily a forested and
low-intensity residential land use; therefore it has healthier dissolved oxygen levels,
lower pathogen and BOD concentrations.
The USGS data collected as part of the ongoing Birmingham Watershed Project
confirms the previous water quality impacts encountered by EPA and ADEM within
Upper Valley Creek. Review of the data indicates the key parameters preventing a Fish
and Wildlife use classification are dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and bacteria. As
illustrated in Table 4-1 below, samples collected at stations VAL-i and VAL-2 reported
dissolved oxygen levels less than 5.0 mg/L, which is the required concentration for
streams classified as Fish and Wildlife. Fecal Coliform levels at these stations were
elevated well above ADEM's required criteria for a Fish and Wildlife stream. Review of
bacteriological data collected, indicate the fecal coliform criteria (200 colonies/ioo ml)
necessary to protect swimming and other whole-body water contact recreation during
the months of June through September would easily be exceeded. These high pathogen
levels can be attributed primarily to sewer overflows, leaking sewer lines, and other
regulated and nonregulated stormwater runoff. See Attachment i, Figure i for sampling
station locations within the Valley Creek subwatershed. See Attachment 2 for a
complete list of field/laboratory data and sampling station descriptions. See
Attachment 6 for a detailed recreational use attainability analysis for Village and Valley
Creeks using data and analysis from Village Creek that is applicable to Valley Creek.
-------
Table 4-1: Selected USGS Water Quality Data, 2000-2001.
Station
ID
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
Date
(yy/mm/dd)
2000/03/01
2000/03/31
2000/06/29
2000/08/02
2000/08/31
2000/10/03
2000/11/09
2000/12/12
2001/01/23
2001/02/12
2000/02/29
2000/03/31
2000/05/16
2000/06/29
2000/08/03
2000/08/29
2000/10/05
2000/11/15
2000/12/13
2001/01/25
2001/02/09
Flow
(cfs)
1.83
1.77
334
2.25
1.12
1.12
37
1.64
2.49
120
13
20.7
9-7
22.6
18.2
6.03
5-2
8-73
7.84
13.98
374
DO
(mg/L)
8.2
7.12
5-1
5-3
5
3-3
8.2
4.2
7-8
10.4
13-1
8
6.8
5-6
7-8
4-3
4-7
9-9
11
9-3
6.1
BOD
(mg/L)
4.9
4-8
1-7
4-8
2.4
4-4
1.2
2.4
0.9
0.9
0.8
Fecal
Coliform
(col/ioo ml)
3700
22OOO
> 33001
64OOOK
4000
21OO
85000K
44OOOE
3800
5900
4iK
1000
400
> 6001
1700
640K
150
i6oooK
720
8oK
Total
Nitrogen
(mg/1)
2.2
2.8
2
2-3
2-5
2.2
1-4
2.6
2.8
0-77
1-4
1.6
0.36
1.2
1.6
0.64
0.57
1.9
1-4
3
2.9
Total
Phosphorous
(mg/1)
0.096
0.158
0.166
0.252
0.244
0.269
0.123
0.162
0.236
0.136
0.034
0.167
0.033
0.093
0.079
0.034
0.058
0.085
0.05
0.057
0.421
Note: shaded areas indicate sample was collected during a rain event. E = non-ideal colony count K=estimated value
As you travel downstream from the headwaters of Upper Valley Creek to Lower Valley
Creek, water quality appears to be improving. As shown in the following Tables 4-2 & 4-
3, samples collected at stations VAL-3, VAi and VC-5 show improvement in dissolved
oxygen, fecal coliform, and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentrations as
compared to Stations VAL-l and VAL-2. Some of the improvement is most likely due to
dilution effects as base flow increases due to the addition of incremental flow between
the upper and lower sampling stations.
Table 4-2: Selected USGS Water Quality Data, 2000-2001.
Station
ID
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
Date
(yy/mm/dd)
00/02/29
00/03/29
00/06/28
00/08/03
00/08/31
00/10/02
00/11/09
00/12/13
Flow
(cfs)
27-3
42
14.7
32.9
11.7
12.3
240
13.67
DO
(mg/L)
10.07
10.4
7
7-2
ll.l
1O.2
6-5
13-9
BOD
(mg/L)
i
8.6
0.5
0.7
Fecal
Coliform
(col/ioo ml)
72K
120
330
1400
7lK
40K
16000
75
Total
Nitrogen
(mg/1)
1.2
1-5
1-3
1.2
0.6
0.41
1.2
0.96
Total
Phosphorus
(mg/1)
0.025
O.O21
0.056
O.O87
0.028
O.O21
0.117
O.OlS
-------
Station
ID
VAL-3
VAL-3
Date
(yy/mm/dd)
01/01/25
01/02/13
Flow
(cfs)
33
960
DO
(mg/L)
11.1
10.1
BOD
(mg/L)
8.4
Fecal
Coliform
(col/ioo ml)
10K
4700
Total
Nitrogen
(mg/1)
2.2
1.2
Total
Phosphorus
(mg/1)
0.027
0.203
Note: shaded areas indicate sample was collected during a rain event. E = non-ideal colony count K=estimated value
Station VAL-3 indicates that sanitary sewer overflows during rain events are a likely
cause of elevated fecal coliform levels. During the 2000-2001 winter season USGS
collected two fecal coliform samples during wet weather conditions. At the time
samples were collected, stream flows were recorded at 240 cfs and 960 cfs and fecal
coliform concentrations of i6,ooo-col/ioo ml and 47OO-col/ioo ml, respectively. These
are high pathogen concentrations considering the large volume of water in the stream.
However, high fecal coliform levels during low flow conditions indicate that leaking
sewers and/or septic tanks coupled with a shallow groundwater table may be the
primary cause of elevated pathogen levels in the upper reaches of the watershed. The
shallow groundwater table is not unexpected due to the proximity of Red Mountain,
which comprises the southeastern portion of the Upper Valley Creek subwatershed.
Table 4-3: Selected ADEM Trend Station Data, 1997-2001.
Station
Number
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
Date
(yy/mm/dd)
97/06/05
97/08/14
97/11/19
98/08/19
98/10/14
99/06/02
99/08/04
99/10/13
00/06/07
00/08/09
00/10/11
01/06/06
01/08/08
97/01/22
97/03/19
97/04/23
97/05/14
97/06/04
97/08/14
97/11/19
98/08/19
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/1)
6-33
6.97
10.20
6.25
7-15
5-82
6.12
6.73
7.00
7-50
9.40
7-25
5-88
5.00
7.00
5-70
8.80
6.50
7-55
8.30
6.15
T-PO4
(mg/1)
0.151
0.089
0.095
0.084
0.005
0.029
0.043
0.004
0.018
0.005
0.07
0.02
O.141
O.1O7
O.1O7
0-457
0.278
0-443
0-474
O.3O2
NO2/NO3
(mg/1)
1-753
0.519
1.069
0-774
0.649
0.624
0.5644
0.052
0.015
0.551
0.68
O.221
0-73
2.846
2.821
4.O61
6.163
3.O22
6.518
6.237
3-957
BOD-5
(mg/1)
1-9
1-9
1-5
1.1
0.5
0.1
0.3
1-5
0-7
0.6
0.8
i
0.4
1.2
2.1
1-7
l.l
0.8
0.9
1-4
1.1
NH3
(mg/1)
0.148
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.878
1-15
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.26
O.1O2
0.123
0.005
Fecal
Coliform
(col/ioo ml)
3600
340
164
114
240
124
240
370
310
124
270
760
116
58
148
500
350
108
-------
Station
Number
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
Date
(yy/mm/dd)
98/10/14
99/06/02
99/08/04
99/10/13
00/06/07
00/08/09
00/10/11
01/06/06
01/08/08
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/1)
7.24
5-8o
5.58
6.30
6. 20
7-50
6.40
6.68
6-57
T-PO4
(mg/1)
0.409
0.115
0.478
0.249
0.45
0.446
0.602
0.37
0.15
NO2/NO3
(mg/1)
5-382
2.009
5-2564
0.107
0.015
5.146
0.618
3.98
1-59
BOD-5
(mg/1)
0.6
O.2
0.9
2
0.9
0.9
1-5
1.2
0-3
NH3
(mg/1)
0.005
0.055
2.166
2.838
0.015
0.3
0.015
0.2
Fecal
Coliform
(col/ioo ml)
27
184
63
240
188
164
44
176
500
In summary, the primary chemical characteristics preventing Upper Valley Creek from
attaining ADEM's Fish and Wildlife use classification are dissolved oxygen and fecal
coliform. Data collected by USGS, EPA and ADEM during the past several years
validate the differences in water quality between Upper and Lower Valley Creek. The
Department believes the fundamental reason for the degraded water quality in Upper
Valley Creek is the widespread and intense urbanization of its watershed. These impacts
are a result of primarily non-point sources of pollution, such as urban runoff and
sanitary sewer overflows/leaks, which typically accompany older metropolitan areas
such as Birmingham.
Jefferson County, the operator of the regional collection and treatment systems, is in the
sixth year of a scheduled activities included in a Consent Agreement with the U.S. EPA.
Mitigation efforts by Jefferson County include rehabilitation of the sewer collection
system and installation of additional treatment facilities for wet weather flows at the
Village Creek and Valley Creek WWTP's, as well as other WWTP's in the Birmingham
Metropolitan area. The overflows from the system are currently a significant source of
nutrients and other pollutants to receiving streams in the watershed, including Village
Creek. Also, the City of Birmingham is currently conducting a flood water control study
with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey. This study should be
completed by December 2002. The aforementioned mitigation activities should result
in improved management of water quality and quantity of the Village Creek watershed.
5.0 Biological Characteristics of Valley Creek
In 1989, the U.S. EPA conducted a comparative study of Village, Valley, Opossum, and
Fivemile Creeks. As a result of the study, EPA reported that Opossum Creek, a tributary
to Upper Valley Creek, appeared to be the most-stressed of the systems examined. Poor
habitat and deposits of tar-like substances were the key factors limiting aquatic life.
Short-term toxicity tests using the fathead minnow revealed growth impairment at one
station on Opossum Creek. The 1989 toxicity tests also revealed significant mortality to
the Daphnid on two of the five stations within Valley Creek.
10
-------
In 1997, a U.S. EPA biological survey of Valley Creek documented significantly degraded
habitat at two of the three sampling stations in Upper Valley Creek with habitat scores of
66 and 64 versus 125 in the reference F&W stream. In addition, there were limited
pollution sensitive species present in the upper two sampling stations as evidenced by
the EPT index scores of o and i. Fewer species of fish were also reported in the upper
watershed versus the lower. EPA biologists recommended not upgrading the segment to
F&W unless significant enhancements could be made to improve the stream habitat and
remove the sources of excess nutrients. Results of the study revealed that Opossum
Creek, scored the lowest, with a o EPT index, in comparison to the reference F&W
stream, which scored a 3.
In 1999-2000, USGS collected benthic macroinvertebrate data at two locations within
Upper Valley Creek. As shown in the following Table 5-1, evaluation of the
macroinvertebrate data collected indicate poor results in both EPT Family Richness and
Total Taxa Richness at stations VAL-i and VAL-2, compared to the reference F&W
stream. USGS Station VAL-i had the worst macroinvertebrate scores with EPT Family
Richness = o and Total Taxa Richness = 10. The USGS Station VAL-2, downstream of
VAL-i, also had degraded benthic macroinvertebrates, with EPT Family Richness = 2
and Total Taxa Richness = 24. The low scores reported at these stations are not
unexpected due to the degraded physical and chemical characteristics as discussed in
previous sections. The recent biological data collected for Upper Valley demonstrate the
significant improvements that will be necessary to improve stream habitat and water
quality to achieve the Fish and Wildlife use classification. The chronic aquatic life
protections required under Limited Warmwater Fishery, even though less restrictive
than F&W requirements, will be difficult to achieve. However, the Department believes
with continued remediation efforts by Jefferson County and the City of Birmingham to
improve stream habitat and water quality, the LWF classification is attainable for the
subject segment of Valley Creek.
Table 5-1: Birmingham Watershed Project, USGS Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Data, 2000-2001
Station ID
VAL-l
VAL-2
Reference
Station Location
Valley Creek at 5th Ave and /th Street
Valley Creek at Cleburne Avenue
Five Mile Creek at Nevel Road
EPT Family
Richness
0
2
8
Total Taxa
Richness
10
24
38
6.0 Point Source Analysis & Water Quality Modeling of Valley
Creek WWTP, USX Fairfield, andKoppers Organics
A total of three point sources operating under NPDES permits are located within the
Valley Creek watershed. Of the three, two are major industrial discharges located on
Opossum Creek, namely USX Fairfield Works and Koppers Organics. Valley Creek
11
-------
WWTP is the third discharge and is located on Valley Creek approximately 1.4 miles
upstream of the Fivemile Creek confluence. Valley Creek WWTP is considered a major
municipal facility and is owned and operated by Jefferson County. Refer to Attachment
i, Figure i for the location of these point sources.
Water quality modeling was conducted for the above mentioned point sources to predict
effluent limits that would be required for the various use classifications, namely, A&I,
LWF, and F&W. The study reach for the model extends from just above the USX outfall
on Opossum Creek to Bankhead Lake of the Black Warrior River. Results of the water
quality modeling indicate that the Limited Warmwater Fishery classification is
achievable. According to the modeling results, Valley Creek WWTP would receive the
most stringent effluent limits as a result of the use classification upgrade of Valley
Creek. However, USX Fairfield Works and Koppers Organics would also receive some
permit modifications as a result of the upgrade due to their close proximity to Valley
Creek. These changes would primarily result in each facility being required to conduct
chronic toxicity biomonitoring at yQ2 flow conditions. USX would also receive a slightly
more stringent BOD limit during the winter season. Water quality modeling shows the
dissolved oxygen sag below the USX and Koppers outfalls to be occurring in the
proposed LWF segment of Valley Creek, therefore the CBOD limit (winter only) for USX
was adjusted slightly to meet the dissolved oxygen concentration of 5 mg/1 during the
winter season. See Attachment 4 for the current and predicted effluent limits of USX,
Koppers, & Valley Creek WWTP. Refer to Attachment 5 for the schematic diagrams and
model runs supporting the predicted limits.
The current design capacity of the Valley Creek WWTP is 65 million gallons per day
(MGD), however they were recently authorized by the Department to expand their
capacity to 85 MGD. The treatment system consists of mechanical screening, aerated
grit removal, pre-aeration and primary clarification. Biological treatment follows with
two stages of aeration and clarification. Effluent is metered, chlorinated and
dechlorinated prior to discharge. Biosolids are treated in the anaerobic digesters prior
to being dewatered by filter belt presses and/or drying beds. Dried biosolids are
blended with lime and then applied at the County's beneficial land use site. According
to Valley Creek WWTP's discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) the plant is operating at
very efficient levels and providing a high degree of treatment. For the period January
1998 through June 2001 the facility had an average wasteflow of 42.3 MGD, and average
effluent carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand-5 day test (CBOD5), ammonia
nitrogen (NH3-N) and dissolved oxygen (DO) values of 2.0, 0.2 and 7.2 mg/1,
respectively (See Attachment 3).
The facility's current treatment performance, demonstrates their capability to meet the
effluent limits necessary to achieve the water quality criteria required for the Limited
Warmwater Fishery classification. The Valley Creek WWTP will be required to conduct
chronic toxicity test based on a yQio flow (F&W requirement) instead of the yQ2 flow
usually required for LWF classified waters. The more stringent chronic toxicity
biomonitoring is required due to the close proximity (i.e. within 24-hour travel time) of
the WWTP's outfall to the downstream F&W segment of Valley Creek. Table 6-1 that
follows provides the current and predicted effluent limits for the Valley Creek WWTP.
12
-------
Table 6-1: Current and Predicted Effluent Limits for Valley Creek WWTP,
Water Quality Modeling, ADEM 2001.
2001 Modeling Results @ 85 MGD
Parameter
CBOD5 (mg/t)
NH3-N (mg/t)
TKN (mg/t)
DO (mg/t)
Current
A&I Limits
Summer Winter
8 14
1 2
3 5
5 5
Predicted
LWF Limits
Summer Winter
8 8
i i
3 3
5 6
Predicted
F&WLimits
Summer Winter
4 8
0.5 i
2-5 3
6 6
7.0 Conclusion
Results of the use attainability analysis indicate the following applicable factors as
defined by EPA are preventing the LWF segment of Valley Creek from attaining ADEM's
Fish and Wildlife use classification.
> Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and
cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to
leave in place; or
> Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of
a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water
quality, preclude the attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or
The use classification upgrade of Upper Valley Creek from Agricultural and Industrial
Water Supply (A&I) to Limited Warmwater Fishery (LWF) will provide the necessary
criteria to protect existing uses within the stream. The Department believes the LWF
classification is appropriate because it adequately characterizes the water quality
conditions that are reasonably attainable for this waterbody.
No currently available information exists that suggests that the F&W use classification is
attainable. Data presented in this document demonstrate nutrient enrichment and
highly elevated bacteria levels from monitoring locations in upper Valley Creek, both
upstream and downstream of permitted discharges. In general, water quality
corresponds to land use patterns in the upper and lower portions of Valley Creek.
Nutrient concentrations (nitrogen and phosphorus) are particularly high in monitoring
locations upstream of permitted discharges in upper Valley Creek. Excess nutrients,
combined with shallow depth, high water table, and increased light and heat penetration
from lack of shading produce dense periphytic algae and microbial communities whose
photosynthesis and respiration result in dissolved oxygen concentrations that frequently
fall below criteria levels for F&W.
In the proposed LWF segment, bacteria levels are consistently elevated above those
required for primary contact recreation, as provided in the F&W use classification
during June-September. The pattern illustrated by the data from Valley Creek show
13
-------
variable levels at monitoring locations at various points along Valley Creek similar to the
variable pattern exhibited by data from nearby Village Creek. The analysis presented in
Attachment 6 demonstrates the correspondence of bacteria levels with the pattern of
precipitation in Village Creek, a pattern that indicates a strong relationship to nonpoint
sources.
Leaking sewer lines, domestic animal and wildlife populations, and leaking septic tanks
are nonpoint sources of both nutrients and bacteria to Valley Creek. Sewer overflows
are also a source of both nutrients and bacteria to Valley Creek that is driven by
precipitation. The Valley Creek WWTP currently achieves an extremely high level of
treatment. Jefferson County is estimated to expend $800 million to resolve sewer
overflows and replace leaking sewer lines. It is anticipated that this substantial capital
investment will improve water quality.
It is not currently possible to determine the percent contribution from the known
categories of nonpoint sources, nor is it possible to project the degree of success in terms
of measurable water quality improvements that will result from ongoing efforts to
resolve sewer overflows and replace leaking sewer lines. The available information
suggests that the magnitude of nutrient and bacteria levels, the variety of sources, and
the physical characteristics of the waterbody indicate that the F&W use classification is
not attainable, and the highest attainable use is LWF. Therefore, F&W is not designated
at this time as a result of a combination of human-caused conditions (that may not be
feasible to fully remedy) and natural physical conditions of the watershed unrelated to
water quality (e.g., high water table). However, as new information becomes available
that pertains to attainability of the F&W use classification, it will be considered and
water quality standards revised accordingly.
14
-------
Attachment i
WATERSHED MAPS
-------
Attachment 2
Valley Creek Sampling Stations & Water Quality Data
-------
O
1
y
O
h-I
I
I
rt
05
°2
O
05
H
'3b S
O C3
-302
S
02
||
a* «
^ «
fe PH
Bfc-
thic
rate,
gal
nity
u
eys
Fish, Ben
Inverteb
and Al
Comm
urv
S
^ £
o 5
H
I
•PM
^u
V>
£
PH
£ rt
Sill
.a fi a ts
- *
S-2
02 &
es es
a
o
Q
§
I
02
a
•|s
35
03
'£
03
PH
-M
LO
^ fl
> 03
13
1
PH
O
01
O)
a>
a>
O
11
01
13
03
PH
q
d
CO
O)
o
CO
•
•d
U
ts
V
r*N
o
<5
a
H
+^ ^.
5^ !n
•^ >
X! £
cs 3
•M ^
$ ™
Fish, Benthic
Invertebrate,
and Algal
Community
Surveys
y 4)
cs ci
In C
3
hH
3
Qj
s
•3
•PH
•Sn
1
h^
CC ^
+^ cs
p^J^ 53 ^rt *S
2 ^ S ^
u *s a H->
.a £ * u
r? M
?l
H tu
02
V
rt rt ^
Q ^
a
.2
PH
•c
U
Q
|
rt
02
a
•2 Q
"3 HH
02
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
^
13
3
'^
CO
^
•3 E"1
00 >
t^
111
III
f
6
fl
fl
fl
PI
PI
PI
^
13
*ci
q
CO
o p7
e £
4H <
^ r>
^ \O '+-<
15^ °
O) JS rt
a) Q a)
O ^
^ 1 I
^ C9T3
(>• W v — '
rH
^
-------
Table 2-3: Birmingham Watershed Project, USGS Water Quality Data, 2000-2001.
Station
ID
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-l
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-2
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
VAL-3
Date
(yy/mm/dd)
2000.03.01
2000.03.31
2000.06.29
2000.08.02
2000.08.31
2000.10.03
2000.11.09
2000.12.12
2001.01.23
2001.02.12
2000.02.29
2000.03.31
2000.05.16
2000.06.29
2000.08.03
2000.08.29
2000.10.05
2000.11.15
2000.12.13
2001.01.25
2001.02.09
2000.02.29
2000.03.29
2000.06.28
2000.08.03
2000.08.31
2000.10.02
2000.11.09
2000.12.13
2001.01.25
2001.02.13
Water
Temp
(C)
17.8
19.03
24.6
25-1
24-3
21.8
21.2
14
13-3
1O.9
18.9
154
18.9
26.6
28.6
30
19.8
8.8
5-5
7-3
15
13.2
15-2
26
24.1
27.9
21.7
21
7
9.8
1O.1
Flow
(cfs)
1.83
1.77
33-4
2.25
1.12
1.12
37
1.64
2-49
120
13
20.7
9-7
22.6
18.2
6.03
5-2
8-73
7.84
13.98
374
27-3
42
14.7
32.9
11.7
12.3
240
13.67
33
960
pH
(s.u.)
8.053
7.764
7-425
7-883
7.878
7.817
7.845
7.576
7-97
7-77
8-497
7-932
8.08
7-155
7.918
8-357
7.905
7.813
7.985
7-9
7-37
7-935
8.179
7.878
7.653
7.828
8.137
7.738
8.209
8.07
7.63
Cond.
(unihos
@25C)
473
674
175
415
421
396
135
415
498
77-7
510
459
509
266
422
416
402
548
485
518
145
431
452
349
279
384
354
168
461
503
110
TOC
(mg/L)
4-124
5-352
16.561
27.07
3.448
3.644
5-88
7-048
4-236
8.211
2.207
2.398
6-979
3.136
4-55
2.705
2.893
3-394
2.816
29.161
5-173
1-935
3-309
5-415
2.634
2.751
5-454
2-34
2.805
9.644
DO
(mg/L)
8.2
7.12
5-1
5-3
5
3-3
8.2
4-2
7.8
10.4
13-1
8
6.8
5-6
7-8
4-3
4-7
9-9
11
9-3
6.1
10.07
10.4
7
7-2
ll.l
1O.2
6-5
13-9
ll.l
10.1
BOD
(mg/L)
4-9
4.8
1-7
4-8
2.4
4-4
1.2
2-4
0.9
0.9
0.8
1
8.6
0.5
0.7
8.4
Fecal
Coliform
(col/ioo ml)
3700
22OOO
> 33OO1
64000K
4000
2100
85OOOK
44000E
3800
5900
4iK
1000
400
> 6001
1700
640K
150
i6oooK
720
8oK
72K
120
330
1400
7iK
40K
16000
75
10K
4700
Total
Nitrogen
(mg/1)
2.2
2.8
2
2-3
2-5
2.2
1-4
2.6
2.8
0-77
1-4
1.6
0.36
1.2
1.6
0.64
0.57
1-9
1-4
3
2-9
1.2
1-5
1-3
1.2
0.6
0.41
1.2
0.96
2.2
1.2
Total
Phosphorous
(mg/1)
0.096
0.158
0.166
0.252
0.244
0.269
0.123
0.162
0.236
0.136
0.034
0.167
0.033
0.093
0.079
0.034
0.058
0.085
0.05
0.057
0.421
0.025
O.O21
0.056
0.087
0.028
O.O21
O.117
O.OlS
O.O27
0.203
-------
Table 2-4: ADEM Trend Station Data, 1997-2001.
Station
ID
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VC-5
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
VAl
Date
(yy/mm/dd)
970605
970814
971119
980819
981014
990602
990804
991013
000607
000809
OO1O11
010606
010808
970122
970319
970423
970514
970604
970814
97iii9
980819
981014
990602
990804
991013
000607
000809
001011
010606
010808
Air
Temp
(C)
22.00
30.00
14.00
30.00
15.00
23.00
27.00
20.00
25.00
12.OO
25.00
23.00
10.00
19.00
12.00
2O.OO
22.OO
30.00
10.10
3O.OO
25.00
24.00
28.00
22.3O
26.OO
14.00
27.OO
23.OO
Water
Temp
(C)
21.80
26.20
11.50
26.00
17.90
23-30
26.10
20.70
21.00
27.OO
11.82
22.7O
24.70
12.OO
18.40
14.50
1940
2O.7O
26.20
13.60
26.OO
17.30
24.10
27.00
21.50
22.OO
27.00
15.18
24.OO
23.52
pH
(su)
7.80
7-90
7.80
8-30
7-90
7-45
7-40
7.60
7-40
7-70
7-61
7-84
7-89
7-40
7-50
7-70
7.80
7-50
6.70
7-30
7.10
7-70
7-50
6.50
7-50
6.60
7.60
7.56
8.09
7-74
Cond.
(umhos
@25C)
385.00
343-00
388.00
343-00
397-00
360.00
324.00
397-00
238.00
427.00
385-00
354-00
319-00
314-00
384-00
382.00
351-00
427.00
377-00
346-00
421.00
379-00
368.00
355-00
314-00
482.00
451-00
331.70
372.00
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/1)
6-33
6-97
10.20
6.25
7-15
5-82
6.12
6.73
7.00
7.50
9.40
7.25
5-88
5-00
7.00
5-70
8.80
6.50
7-55
8.30
6.15
7-24
5-80
5-58
6-30
6.20
7.50
6.40
6.68
6-57
Turb.
(MTU)
3-30
1.70
1.40
l.OO
l.OO
2.40
1.10
1.2O
2.7O
1.80
0.40
4.1O
4-50
3-90
2.2O
2.4O
1.60
4-90
1.6O
1.2O
1.40
1.00
2.7O
1-50
2.40
2-30
1.80
0.80
3-20
10.90
Weather
clear
clear
pc
clear
cloudy
clear
clear
clear
cloudy
cloudy
clear
clear
pc
clear
cloudy
clear
clear
clear
cloudy
cloudy
Velocity
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
TDS
(mg/1)
369
258
309
267
277
234
258
309
219
273
250
257
197
257
280
300
313
251
327
306
274
304
242
291
384
281
308
282
271
217
TSS
(mg/1)
10
i
i
i
i
i
2
3
7
3
2
6
8
i
i
i
i
5
4
i
i
i
4
10
6
4
i
8
15
Cl
(mg/1)
i
5
l
l
1
l
16
4-8
6
6.9
7-77
5.63
20
16.7
29.8
29-9
13
24
1
1
1
1
39
25
29.1
26
32.8
24-54
15-2
T-PO4
(mg/1)
0.151
0.089
0.095
0.084
0.005
0.029
0.043
0.004
0.018
0.005
0.07
O.O2
0.141
O.1O7
O.1O7
0-457
0.278
0-443
0-474
0.302
0.409
0.115
0.478
0.249
0-45
0.446
O.6O2
0-37
0.15
NO2&
N03
(mg/1)
1-753
0-519
1.069
0-774
0.649
0.624
0.5644
0.052
0.015
0.551
0.68
O.221
0-73
2.846
2.821
4.O61
6.163
3.022
6-518
6.237
3-957
5-382
2.009
5-2564
0.107
0.015
5.146
0.618
3-98
1-59
BOD-5
(mg/1)
1-9
1-9
1-5
1.1
0-5
0.1
0.3
1-5
0-7
0.6
0.8
i
0.4
1.2
2.1
1-7
l.l
0.8
0.9
1-4
1.1
0.6
O.2
0.9
2
0.9
0.9
1-5
1.2
0-3
NH3
(mg/1)
0.15
0.01
0.01
O.Ol
O.Ol
0.88
1.15
0.02
0.02
O.O2
0.26
O.I
O.12
0.01
0.01
0.06
2.17
2.84
O.O2
0-3
0.02
0.2
Fecal
Coliform
(col/ 100
ml)
3600
340
164
114
240
124
240
370
310
124
270
760
116
58
148
500
350
108
27
184
63
240
188
164
44
176
500
-------
Attachment 3
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS
-------
Attachment 4
CURRENT & PREDICTED EFFLUENT LIMITS:
JEFFERSON COUNTY-VALLEY CREEK WWTP
USXFAIRFIELD WORKS
KOPPERS ORGANICS
-------
Table 4-1: Jefferson County-Valley Creek WWTP Effluent Limits.
Agricultural and Industrial
Flow:
CBODu:
CBOD5:
NH3-N:
TKN:
D.O.:
May-November
85MGD
24 mg/L
8mg/L
img/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
December-April
85MGD
33 mg/L
11 mg/L
2 mg/L
4 mg/L
5 mg/L
Limited Warmwater Fishery
May-November
Flow:
CBODu:
CBOD5:
NH3-N:
TKN:
D.O.:
85MGD
24 mg/L
8 mg/L
img/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
December-April
85MGD
24 mg/L
8 mg/L
img/L
3 mg/L
6 mg/L
Fish and Wildlife
Flow:
CBODu:
CBOD5:
NH3-N:
TKN:
D.O.:
May-November
85MGD
12 mg/L
4 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
2.5 mg/L
6 mg/L
December-April
85MGD
24 mg/L
8 mg/L
img/L
3 mg/L
6 mg/L
Current Permit Limits
Flow:
CBODu:
CBOD5:
NH3-N:
TKN:
D.O.:
May-November
85MGD
24 mg/L
8 mg/L
img/1
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
December-April
85MGD
42 mg/L
14 mg/L
2 mg/L
5 mg/L
5 mg/L
-------
Table 4-2: USX Fairfield Works Effluent Limits1.
Agricultural and Industrial
May-November
Flow: ll MGD
CBODu: 16 mg/L
CBOD5: 8 mg/L
NH3-N: l mg/L
TKN: 2 mg/L
D.O.: 6 mg/L
December-April
ll MGD
26 mg/L
13 mg/L
2 mg/L
4 mg/L
6 mg/L
Flow:
CBODu:
CBOD5:
NH3-N:
TKN:
D.O.:
Limited Warmwater
May-November
ll MGD
16 mg/L
8 mg/L
img/L
2 mg/L
6 mg/L
Fishery
December-April
ll MGD
20 mg/L
10 mg/L
img/L
3 mg/L
6 mg/L
Fish and Wildlife
Flow:
CBODu:
CBOD5:
NH3-N:
TKN:
D.O.:
May-November
ll MGD
8 mg/L
4 mg/L
0.75 mg/L
1.5 mg/L
6 mg/L
December-April
ll MGD
20 mg/L
10 mg/L
img/L
3 mg/L
6 mg/L
Current Permit Limits
Flow:
CBODu:
CBOD5:
NH3-N:
TKN:
D.O.:
11 MGD
16 mg/L
8 mg/L
img/L
2 mg/L
6 mg/L
11 MGD
26 mg/L
13 mg/L
2 mg/L
4 mg/L
6mg/l
1 The predicted effluent limits for USX are based solely on use classification changes to Valley Creek and leaving
Opossum Creek at A&I. Due to the close proximity of USX's outfall to Upper Valley Creek, their effluent has
influence on instream dissolved oxygen levels within Upper Valley Creek.
-------
Table 4-3: Koppers Organics Effluent Limits.
Agricultural and Industrial
May-November
Flow: 0.036 MGD
CBODu: 37-5 mg/L
CBOD5: 15 mg/L
NH3-N: 20 mg/L
TKN: 50 mg/L
D.O.: 5 mg/L
December-April
0.036 MGD
37-5 mg/L
15 mg/L
20 mg/L
50 mg/L
5 mg/L
Limited Warmwater Fishery
Flow:
CBODu:
CBOD5:
NH3-N:
TKN:
D.O.:
May-November December-April
0.036 MGD 0.036 MGD
37.5 mg/L 37.5 mg/L
15 mg/L 15 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
50 mg/L 50 mg/L
5 mg/L 6 mg/L
Fish and Wildlife
May-November
Flow: 0.036 MGD
CBODu: 27.5 mg/L
CBOD5: ll mg/L
NH3-N: 20 mg/L
TKN: 50 mg/L
D.O.: 6 mg/L
December-April
0.036 MGD
37.5 mg/L
15 mg/L
20 mg/L
50 mg/L
6 mg/L
Current Permit Limits
May-November
CBODu: 37-5 mg/L
CBOD5: 15 mg/L
NH3-N: 20 mg/L
TKN: 50 mg/L
D.O.: 5 mg/L
December-April
37-5 mg/L
15 mg/L
20 mg/L
50 mg/L
5 mg/L
-------
Attachment 5
Water Quality Modeling Results
-------
-------
Valley Creek Use Attainability Analysis
Schematic of Modeled Reach
USX
Koppers Organics
EL 452 ft.
EL 498 ft.
0.47 mi
EL 490 ft.
0.47 mi
EL 480 ft.
0.51 mi
— EL 475 ft.
1.19 mi
EL 455 ft.
0.44 mi
Valley Creek
1.79 mi
EL 435 ft.
0.56 mi
EL 430 ft.
Valley Creek WWTP
EL 412 ft.
Halls Creek
0.98 mi
EL 422 ft.
0.81 mi
-EL 420 ft.
0.63 mi
Fivemile Creek
0.14 mi
Prepared by ADEM
12/18/2001
Page 1
-------
Modeled Stream Reach (continued)
EL411 ft.
EL 410 ft-
EL 380 ft.
Blue Creek
Lick Creek
Rock Creek
EL 258.7 ft.
0.33 mi
4.39 mi
2.04 mi
EL 362 «-
3.05 mi
Proposed LWF Classification
Proposed F&W Classification
-EL 331 ft.
1.67 mi
EL 318 ft.
6.26 mi
-EL 298ft.
0.87 mi
EL 294.3 ft
8.00 mi
-EL 260
2.75 mi
Bankhead Lake
Mud Creek
7.78 mi
EL 255
Proposed F&W Classification
F&W Classification
Prepared by ADEM
12/18/2001
Page 2
-------
Opossum Creek / Valley Creek Waste Load Allocation
May - November / A&I Classification
Confluence of Valley Creek &
Opossum Creek
Confluence of Valley
Creek & Blue Creek
1. USXWWTP
2. Koppers Organics
3. Valley Creek WWTP
Lower Valley Creek
Upper Valley Creek
2.50
0.00 I 5.00
Opossum Creek
10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Distance Downstream of USX, miles
35.00 40.00 45.00
DO Water Quality Criteria
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
tVafcr Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May • November Model
A and I Use Classification
Enter the Number of Sections •
Total Length (miles) •
Headwater Data
Recession Index (O) •
Mean Annual Prec. (P) •
Drainage Aiea |M»2) •
Temp (C'| •
CHL-
Headwater F low (cfi) •
CBODU(mg/l) •
NHjODU (mg/1) -
TONODU (mg/l) •
Headwater D.O.,™,,, •
21.000
45.330
60,000
60.000
0.000
30.000
0.000
0.360
2.000
0.457
4.670
e.oo
Opottum Cnek / Vallty Cr»«k Watte Load Allocation • Summer WLA/AU ClatiHIcatton
FtowMuWpler
1.00
V«t»YCr««tc\nrWTP Effluent ConoMons
DeHjn Flow, MOD CBOD,,mpyi NHrN,mg1 TKN.mjl
89.00 6.0 t.O 3.0
Tributary Rowj (cfe)
0.36
1.69
0.28
072
0.85
1.46
236
Dam Data
Dam Located at Beg
W«
Wle
Dlflarenca
Stream flowe Vafcy aeekWWTP (cfs)
20.0780
D.O, (minimum), m>l
60
Inning of Section"
ter Quality Factor*
r Dam Coefficient •
n Water Level ((!)•
0.00
1,80
0.60
1.00
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) (Opossum Creek) "
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) (Upper Valley Creek) •
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) (Lower Valley Creek) =
CBODu Concentration at End of Modeled Reach (mg/l) •
Use Qoal Seek
3.10
3.20
5.07
2.44
f r^f f rrfbutorv Conditions (If
Sections
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
8.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
10.00
11.00
" 12.60
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
none, lea
a
61000
68.000
68.000
ve blanM
p
68.00
88.00
66.00
TONODU
(mo/I)
4.87
4.67
•1.40
4.87
4.67
4.67
4.67
4.87
CBODU
(mo/I)
2.00
2.00
37.60
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
NH3ODU
(mo/i)
0.4870
0.4670
46.7000
0.4970
0.4870
0.4870
0.4870
04670
DO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.000
0.000
8.000
3.000
0.000
8.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.000
0.000
6.000
0.000
6.000
0.000
6.000
0.000
70 „
(eft)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.88
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.00
0.66
0.00
1.46
0.00
2.38
0.00
remp.
(C'>
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
30.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
30.00
o.oo
Drainage
Ana (M*2)
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.60
0.00
32.70
0.00
61.20
0.00
jntef [rjtjremenul Inflow < UAA x»
Page 1 of 14
-------
Valloy Cn*k WWTP
Opossum/Villey Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May • November Model
A and I Use Classification
Enter tj- fluent Conditions II fn
Sections
1.00
200
3.00
" 4.00
5.00
" 6.06
7.00
6.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.06
15.00
16.00
17.00
16.00
1».60
20.00
21.00
22.00
Enter Section Characteristics
Stcftons
1.06
2.00
3.00
4.00
6.06
6.00
7.06
8.00
6,60
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.60
18.60
18.66 "
17.00
18.00
18.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
CBOD0
(ma/11
16.000
37.800
24.666
Hb/anM
(moffl
4.67
•1.40
0.06
0.00
0.00
1 6.06
0.00 '
0.00
4.67 '
0.00
d.66
6.60
0.06
0.00
6.66 "
6.00
6.60
6.00
--•0.06' '
6.00
0.00
0.00
TONODU
(mg/fl
4.67
137.10
(.14
DO
(ma/I)
8.00
6.00
0,00
0.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.06
0.00
Flow
(cM
17.0170
' 6.0SS>
131.6000
Temp.
CC)
30.000
36.006
30.666
pH
7.00
y.6o
Hlax.tmtnamHHJ
(ma/11
3.08
3.08
The) motl ttrt
two value
tmptomen!
if none, leave blank)
Beginning
Eley.mi
498.660
490.000
460.000
478.006
465.060
462.066
433.000
430.000
422.000
420.000
412.000
411.006
410.000
J86.666
362.000
331.000
318.000
2*8.000
2*4.300
260.000
268.700
fndlng
Etov. (ID
496.00
4(0.00
4T6.00
too
06
00
430.00
422.00
420.00
412.00
411.60
410.00
360.66
WJ.M -
331.66
3(9.00
2*8.00
2*4.30
266.06
48870
2(8.00
Efev.Ctonge
(HI
8.00
10.00
5.00
20.66
3.00
17.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
8.00
1.00
1.00
30.00
18.66
31.00
43.00
20.00
3,70
34.30
1.30
3.70
Length
MM
'6.41
60
04700
0.6
ill
0.44
17i
O:BI
00
66
06
00
66
0.6800
0.8100
0.6300
0.1400
0.3300
4.3I
2.6.
00
00
3.6IKW
i*7o6
6.2600
0.8
roo
8.0000
2.7866
7.8(00
Average
494.0000
486.0000
477.6000
465.0000
453.5000
443.5000
432.6000
426.0000
421.0000
418.0000
411.8000
410.6006
395.0000
371.0000
348.6000
324.8000
30941000
296.1600
2/7.1800
2&.3MO
268.6800
0.6000
Section
Slope (ttAnl)
17.021
21.277
9.804
16.607
6.818
9.4*7
8.929
(.163
2.469
12.699
7.143
3.030
8.834
8.824
10.164
7.7841
3.185
4.253
4.286
0.473
0470
0.000
Avsitge Flow
(eft)
17.38
17.48
1746
17.54
17.84
18.40
18.59
20.00
151.63
151.72
162.46
162.61
152.79
153.15
154.23
164.43
166.61
165.88
167.78
468,16
161.19
0.60
Avenge
Vel. (It/tec)
0.304
0.304
0.305
0.305
0.308
0.304
0.306
0.310
0.486
0.466
6.480
6,461
0.491
0.691
0.6*4
0.6*8
0.699
0.700
0.706
0.740
0.748
0.00
HH3 Toxklty
(ma/1)
3.18
3.84
f
1
\
/^
I /
//
rtfent of the
twlllbt
cdMtfM
• Umtt.
HH3 WQ Limit
(mall)
1.00
6.06
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
_io6
^x^ 0.00
/ 0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
6.60
0.00
6.60
0.00
PrepocedbyADE M
Opo»«um & V«l«y Creek WLA (Suwiwr-L W), Nov 2001 UAA .xH
Pag* 2 ol 14
-------
Valley CroeA WWTP
Opotaum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Staady^State Stream Model
May • November Model
A and I Us* Classification
Sections
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.06
5.00
6.00
7.00
6.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
1400
19.00
16.00
17.00
1«.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
Reaction ftaft»ga 3 el 14
-------
VafMy Crwd WWTP
Opossum/Valley Crstk, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May - November Model
A and I Use Classification
Model Output
Section 1
Distance B
4.2372
4.18081
4,1282
4.0784
NH30DU
(maAl
448*
. -j.^y
4.410
4.373
4.338
4.300
4.284
4,228
4.183
4188
4.124
4.080
£6*8
4.023
3.880
3.997
3.829
3.882
3.881
3.828
3.788
CBOOU
(mail)
18.71
U.58
18.41
19.28
19,11
14.88
K82
1'.«7
1-.93
14.38
14.28
14.11
43.88
13.84
13.71
13.87
13.44
13.31
13.18
13,08
12.83
rONODU
(mo/!/
4.67
4.64
4.62
4.48
4.48
4.44
4.41
4.38
4.36
4.33
4.30
4.28
4.29
4.23
4.20
4.1*
4.19
4.13
4.10
4.08
4.09
Section 2
Mane* MM)
'9.47. ,f,
0.48
0.82
0.84
0.88
0.6*
0.81
0.83
6.86
0.88
O.TI
0.73
0.78
0.7$
0.80
0.82
d.es
0.87
0.88
0.82
0.84
Pb»
(cM
(W
17.443
17.443
17.444
17.444
17.449
<7.44S
17.448
17.448
17.447
17.447
17.448
1T.448
17.448
17448
17.490
11486
17.491
17.491
17.482
17.491
AKIfonrfm*
O.OT
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
4.63
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.08
O.OT
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.0»
0.08
CumuhMn 7V<
3.3
"IS
i3
12
8
81
1
(t
3.3407
3.3328
e238
138
&m
3.2812
3.2788
3.2898
DO
4.0824
4.0T08
4.0812
4M) '
4.0480
4.0441
4.0418
4.0412
4.0421
4.0443
4.0478
4.8§27
4^ivi
4.0887
4.0T37
4.0828
4.0827
4.1038
4.1151
4.1274
4.1409
NHJODU
'?tf
4.078
4.061
4.024
i.'»t
3. 70
1:44
3.818
3.882
3.818
3.840
3.818
3.780
3.789
3.740
3.718
3.881
3.888
3.842
3.818
3.989
J.J71
CBOOU
PM?
Vill
12.88
12.78
12.«3
12.61
12.38
12.27
1116
12.03
11.81
11.80
11.88
11.87
11.48
11.38
H.44
11.13
11.02
10.82
10.81
10.708
TOHODU
"If8
Ut
4.46
4.43
4.40
4.37
4.36
4,32
4.30
4.27
4.24
4.22
4.18
4,17
4.14
4.12
4.10
4.07
4.09
4.02
4.00
3.88
Prepared by A.O EM
11/28/M01
Opotsum & V«tey Crwk WU (Sumnwr-LWF), Nov 2001 UAA Jih
P>ge 4 of 14
-------
Valley Cnek WWTP
Opo»sum/Vetl«y Cr»tk, Jttftnon County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May - November Model
A end I Use Classification
Stcllon3
CMiwto (mff«»J
o.*i
0.9?
0.88
1.02
1.04
1.07
•" i:6'9 ""
i.«
1.14
LIT
1.20
1,«
' 1.28
1.27
1.30
" 1.32
1.38
1.37
1.40
1.42
1.4«
Section 4
£Hll*u:«(m)l«IJ
-l ' ' 1.4T '
1.91
1.67
4.63
1.68
1.78
1.81
1.87
1.83
1.t»
2.09
2.10
2,ie
2.22
2.28
i.M
2.40
2.4<
2.12
2.68
2.64
flow
feW
1T.4M
17.483
17.483
17.4M
17.494
17/499
17.488
17.488
17.4M
17.487
17.4M "
17.498
17.498
17.488
17.4«0
17.460
17.461
17.461
17.462
17.462
17.463
SKllonTIm*
"**/
000
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.09
6.64
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.66
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.10
Row
IcM
17.4M
17.470 "
47.477 "
17.498
17.482
17.900
17.907
17.614
17.922
17.8M
17.617
17.944
\tM\ '"
17.988
17.686
1/.S73
17.981
17.966
17.886
17.603
17.810
SfftfMwirA™
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.14
0.18
6.47
6,46
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.24
CbmutoWv« rim»
»Kf
0.1»
0.18
0.20
0.26
0.21
O.J1
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.38
0.28
0.29
0.26
0,27
0.27
0.28
029
0.28
0.29
Comc.i»»v» Tim*
6.SJ
O.S3
0.34
0.38
0.36
O.W
0.39
0^0
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.46
0.46
6.4?
0.46
0.46
0.91
0.62
0.63
01 Of Kelt
1.H81
i.i4ii
^4249
3.4676
3.8674
3.6339
3.6673
3.7677
3.8192
3.8688
3.62)6
3.9708
4.0)73
4.09*3
41039
41421
41780
4.2116
42481
4.2769
4.3048
OfCMteA
*.' 089
4. 0i
'.'•!<
: .! Si: '
3; 1434
J.7M7
3.6409
3.9493
3.4838
3.i»8l
3.2816
3.2003
3.12U
3.0461
2.8790
2.M24
2.8341
2.7610
2.70J9
2.6418
2.U16
DO
{mtfl
4.1406
4.0608
3.8640
3.8108
3.8412
3.7749
3.7112
3.8808
3.9834
3,9389
3.4670
J.4378
33913
3.3473
3.3057
32669
31286
1.1890
3.1623
3.1321
3,1037
DO
J1037
3.2281
3.3478
34612
3.8884
1,6730
i.77M
3.8673
3.8987
4.6494
4.1308
4.2123
4,2»T
4.ifi s
4.43i 4
4.9100
4.6763
4.6444
4,7084
4.7708
4.8167
HH3OOU
""!&
W
i.948
1620
" 14M
1.470
1.449
1.420
1,366
1.371
3.347
3324
3.300
3276
3.293
3230
3207
3.164
3.162
3.139
3.117
3.098
HH1ODU
2.949
2.827
2.987
2.S47
2.807
2.798
2.730
2.682
2.694
2.617
2.681
2.849
2.806
2.474
2.438
140»
Z371
2.336
CBOOU
M
isii*
10.98
10.49
10.97
10.28
lb.19
10.05
6.84
8.84
8.74
8.83
9.63
8.43
9.33
9.24
9.14
8.04
8.99
8.69
8.76
8.67
TOHODU
(mM
l.tt
3.66
3.82
3.80
3.87
3.88
3.82
3.80
3.77
3.78
3.73
9.70
3.89
3.69
3.63
3.61
3.81
3.S6
3.64
3.92
3.49
CBOOU
(ma*!
i?7
8.46
9.26
8.08
7.89
7.66
7.47
7.28
7.11
6.93
6.76
6.66
6.44
6.28
9.12
f.66
6.63
8.66
6.«9
9.44
9.26
TONODU
(mg»i
*2»
3.44
3.19
3.34
3.29
3.74
3.16
3H*
3.10
1.09
3.01
J.«
t!'2..
2.18
2.84
2.78
2.78
2.71
. 2.67
163
i«8'
Prepared byA DEM
11/J6C001
Opoitun & V«l»y CrMk WU (Sunnw-LWF), Nov 2001 UAAxd
P«g«5 of 14
-------
Vtllty Creek WWTP
Opoatum/Velley Creek, Jefferton County
Water Quality
Steady-Stats Stream Mode/
May - November Model
A and I U«e Classification
Section 6
Dtetanctffm/foaj
2.84
" 2.86 '
2.66
2.f4
2.73
2.76
2,7*
2.7*
2.12
2.84
2.66
2.88
2.»0
2.*3
2.»6
2.67
2.8*
3,01
3.04
3,08
3,0*
Flow
(del
17.610
17.613
17.818
17.81*
17.621
17.624
17.627
17.630
17.632
17.636
17.63*
17.8< 6
7.6.3-
'7.8.6
•7.84*
• 7.«61
17.684
17.687
17.660
17.662
17.6*5
SvcllonTtme
(dtvl
0,00
0.00
0.01
6.6*
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
6.64
0.04
0.04
6.W
0.05
0.6*
6,6*
0.0?
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.0*
Cumulative Time
(day)
0.83
0.83
0.84
6.84
0.88
0.86
6.88
0.86
0.88
6.87
0.67
6.tt
0.68
0.6*
0.6*
0.80
6.66
0.80
6.61
0.61
0.82
02 Deficit
2.6*4*
26229
2.88**
1.6*54
2.72**
2.7633
2,7*88
2,8287
!Li88*
!.8868
!. 138
2,' 408
2. 468
2.8818
9.01*6
3,0382
3.0*14
3.6*28
3.1033
3.1230
3.1418
00
rmg/l)
4.8307
4.7*27
4.788*
4.7202
4.6887
4.U23
4.6201
4.6880
4.688*
" 4.*!
4.8(
«*
4*
4.4' '48
"' 4.44*6
4.4236
4.38*7
4.3766
4.3842
4.3328
4,3123
4.2*27
"" 4.273*
Section t
Distance (milt!)
3.08
3.17
3.2*
3.38
3.44
3.63
3.62
3.71
3.10
3.*8
39*
4.08
4.18
4.24
4.33
4.42
4.J1
4.66
4.8*
4.78
4.17
Flow
(cf'l
1t.265
19.270
16.2*4
44.2W
49.3*3
1t.32«
18.342
18.387
18.371
18.3*6
18.400
10.415
18.429
19444
18.488
18.473
18.467
14.802
18616
1».631
19.643
Section Time
0.00
0.02
0.64
0.06
0.67
0.08
0.11
0.13
0.14
0.1*
0.18
6.26
0.22
0.23
0.26
0.27
0.2*
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.38
Cumulative Time
0.62
6.64
0.68
0.67
0.69
0.71
0.73
0.74
0.7*
0.7*
0.10
0.82
0.83
0.88
0.87
0.8*
0.80
0.62
O.W
0.88
0.88
02 Deffctt
ImoV
3.6*47
jj ii i
2J ITS i
t.1 ft •
2.84*2
If 01
2,4 it
If *t
2.2 00
211*74
2.11*4
2.0427
1.8702
1.8008
1.8344
1.7708
1.7100
1.4817
1.6*60
1.8427
1.4*1*
HHJODU
2.338
2.322
2,307
2.2*1
2.276
2.2*0
2.248
2.230
2.21S
2.200
2.1*6
tiyi
2.186
2.142
2.127
2.113
2.099
2,0*8
2.071
2.08*
2.044
CBODU
6.26
6.23
t.1*
6.14
8,0*
6,04
6.00
4.88
4.81
4.86
4.82
4.77
4.73
4.68
4.68
4.60
4.86
4,82
4.48
4.44
440
DO
(mp/»
»3t
4.4 m
4.S
4,6!
4.*
4. !
4. <
> ,1
.4
4.
111
192
68
1*
! >
J
4
\
|
•ii
1 0
8.8173
8.6*37
8.*
472
S.7080
5.7662
8.8219
5.6762
6.8262
HH30DU
(am/a
1.113
1.*2S
1.731
1.687
1.8*6
1.807
1.438
4.372"
1.310
1.261
1.1*6
1.141
1.0*6
1042
0.997
0.953
0.912
0.873
0.838
6.800
0.767
TONODU
(man)
2.8*
2.68
2.87
2.88
2.84
2.82
2.61
2.60
2.4*
2.47
2,48
144
2,43
2.37
2.36
2,34
2.33
CBODU
(ragjl)
4.]
0
«V 8
4.10
4.08
4.01
3.86
381
4:*»
2
1:8 -
3.73
3.6*
3.65
Ij
3.1
3!
1
*
2
3.4*
3.44
WO
3.3*
3.32
TONODU
1*1
2.64
Z60
2.80
2.49
2.4*
2.4*
2.47
2.47
2.4*
2.46
2.48
2.46
2.44
2.44
x4d
2.43
2.42
2.41
2.41
2.40 1
11/28/2001
Opo» sum & V«Hy Cf«eK WLA (Sunmw-LWF). Nov 2001 UAA Kta
-------
Valley Cr««k WWTP
Opossum/Valley Cn»k, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May • Nov«mb»r Model
A and I Use Classification
Station 7
DMMK* (ntittt)
- «.»!>
4.90
4.63
4.6J
4.66
6.01
«.04
1.07
J.09
8.12
6.16
8.16
5.21
6.21
6.2«
5.28
6.32
8.35
6.37
5.40
6.43
now
Icltf
18.6*6
18.650
16,6*4
18.68*
16.663
16.686
16.673
4*.6>7
19,682
48.688
16.664
16.888
1».«00
16.664
18,608
19.613
1»,618
19.822
49.627
46.632
19.636
SKIIonTIm*
(toy
000
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
6.04
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.10
6.41
0.11
CttfmrbJto* ffrne
[**ti
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.68
1.00
1.00
"IbT "
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.03
1.04
1.04
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.07
1.07
1.08
1.08
1.08
MMfctt
148H
1.4831
U707
1.4664
1.4462
1.4341
" ~ttW '
1.4101
1.SS8S
1.3666
1.3748
1.3633
1.3618
t.MoJ
1.3292
1.3itt
1.3066
1.2668
1.26M
4.2742
1.2636
DO
6.8763
5.6874
' 8.8884 '"
1 .0114
1.63'JJ "
1 .6! 4.1
) & |§
< 6li2
i ,9) M
6.6646
8.0823
6.1035
6.1146
6.1266
6.1366
6.4473
6.1680
HH30DU
0.767
6.766
6.745
0.734
n.714
(714
T704
H.684
0.664
0.674
6.666
0.6M
0.644
6.631
0.628
0.620
0.811
",
0.676
Section 8
D/a(anc« /mW»«)
6.48
6.63
6,88
8.63
J.67
8.73
6.77
6.62
6«7
«.6J
6.67
8.03
«.or
812
e.i«
9.31
829
631
6,58
841
Fteiv
fcfe)
18.816
19.824
19.832
18.846
40.648
18.868
16.864
18.672
18.880
W.B88
16.888
20.003
20.011
20.018
20.027
20.035
20.043
20.061
20.058
20.067
20.076
Section Time
(d*v>
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
6.04
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.18
Cumulative Time
«*v>
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.16
1.16
1.1?
1.18
1.16
1.20
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
US
1.26
1.27
4.28
O! Deficit
w>
1.26M
1.2618
1.2369
4.222< "
1.2074
1.1828
1.1766
1.1642
1.1601
1.1361
1.1223
1.1096
1.0861
1.0818
1,0686
1.0666
1.0427
1.0301
1.0176
1.0012
DO
(mea)
6.1564
6.1714
6.1863
8.JOU
«.f1i f
«.»* _
«.»»••"
"i «88
-'•*!!!-
iiiW
iidot
6.3145
6.3280
6.3413
9.344S
6,3676
6.3804
6.1 1^9
6.' ois
i'lfi
NH1ODU
"TffL
0.664
0.651
0.602
0.481
0.480
6.470
0.460
0.466
044D
0431
0.422
0.413
0.404
0.366
0.388
0.380
0.373
CBOOU
AnffO
ti "
3.J'
3.X •
3.28
3.J7
3.26
3.26
3.44
3.23
3.21
3.20
3.19
3.18
MT
3.16
3.18
3.43
3.12
3.11
TONOOU
2.40
2.40
140
140
2.38
138
138
2.38
138
2.39
136
2.38
2.38
138
J.3B
138
2.38
3.10 1 2.37
3.08 1 2.37
caoou
(man
3.05
3.04
102
1.00
188
2.96
2.94
2.82
2.61
2.88
167
lib
2.83
182
2.80
178
1»6
J.7»
2.73
2.71
TONODU
imp/I)
140
2.40
140
136
238
2.38
2.36
2.36
13*
138
2.38
83*
137
2.37
2.36
136
J.36
2.36
135
136
135
Prepared by A D.EM
Opoiwm 1 Vttoy Cf»»K WLA (Simnw-LVVF), Nov 2001 UAA.xh
P»je7 of 14
-------
valley CntK WWTP
Oposaum/VaHsy Cr»»fc, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Sfeady-Sfafe Stream Model
May • Novtmbtr Model
A and I U»« Classlflcatlon
Section 9
~~SS£ncffatllM[ ~ '
Ml
6.48
8.4*
*.»J
6.87
8.61
888
i:.«9
lifS
l. 77
i .41
iS»
*.*o
e.M
«.»8
7.02
7.06
7,10
7,14
7.1g
7.22
Now
t«il 71
414.1 10
151.1 i$
1»1.tW
161.898
181.800
494.404
181.611
m.eie
161.«21
161.826
1*1.831
181.63*
191.M1
181.846
181.681
181.858
161.661
161.668
161.672
181.677
s«i«nn™
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.0)
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.0«
" 'o.io '
0.10
CunuMfr* r«M
|Jf
'•^f
^'?*
i.io
1.30
131
(.31
1M
1.32
1.33
1.33
1.34
1.34
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.37
1.37
1.38
1.38
OlDtflcll
2.1379
2.3800
2.4609
16700
2.6774
2.7*30
2.6869
2.M92
3.0988
3.18*8
326*2
3.3620
34762
3.868*
3.6801
37498
38380
38248
4.0101
40940
4.176S
DO
AmM
1
E
t
Til
h?
M
4.7476
4.6421
4.8382
4.438*
4.3383
4.2363
4.13*0
4.0432
3.«46*
3.8882
3.7651
36784
38872
38004
34181
33311
32487
HHX
tm
t v
! i.'
: ^!
'J
I
11
J.;
3.1
HHI
fi
1
18:
3.606
3.697
3.610
3.464
3416
3373
332*
3289
3242
3200
3.188 '
3117
3.077
cflooi/
tm>n
ml
21.11
21.04
».«
20.*1
20.84
20.77
20.71
20.84
20.67
20.60
20.44
20.37
20.31
20.24
20.1*
20.11
20.04
1».«8
18.62
19.85
WHOOV
fw*»
wr
8.23
8.23
8.11
8.21
8.21
8.20
*.ie
$.1*
«.18
8.17
«.17
8.16
e.16
8.16
8.14
6.13
6.13
8.12
6.11
8.11
Section 10
Dlsttncv (milast
7.22
7.26
7.2*
7.31
7,38
7.38
7.41
7,44
7.47
7.60
7.83
7.87
7.80
7.63
7.88
7.89
7.72
7.76
7.78
Y.82
7.89
Flow
181.677
164.661
151.«
151.»
151,*
191.1
4
*
I
181.700
164.704
181.70*
191.712
161.716
181.720
191.724
191.728
191.7
154,7
18
191.740
181.744
191.748
181.792
191.796
Section Tltm
(day)
0.00
0.00
6.41
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.0t
0.06
Cumulative Time
(d»y)
1.38
1.39
' 1.3*
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.41
1.41
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.44
1.44
1.48
149
1.49
1.46
1.46
02 Defldl
fmwW
4.177*
4.14
-On
4.«
4.0H
45! i
i.«i
6
7
S
n
ii
3.6612
l.*320
3.M32
J.974*
3.«46t
38183
3.7*21
3.7692
3.7366
3.7127
3.68*1
1.6*18
3.8384
3.8117
00
(mom
3.2487
3.2811
3.3121
3.3443
3.3792
3.4487
3.4391
3.4894
3.4*48
3.6234
3.61 14
'3~.*i it
3> 40
3.7:87
3,7*91
3,7*02
38180
NH30DU
(ma/I)
3.0
7
1.090
3,024
2.0*7
J.97J
2.940
2.921
2.64*
2.871
J 1
f :
I1
1
1
J
i
4
2.760
2.727
2.704
*.«
11
2.658
183*
2.611
2.6*1
CBODU
(mo/I)
18.88
18.10
18.78
18.70
19.68
16*0
IMS
18.50
1»,46
1941
16.36
18.31
19.2*
19,21
19.1*
19.11
19.07
19.02
19.97
4*.»i
18.87
TONODU
8.1l
6.10
1.10
9.0*
8.0*
8.0*
8.68
8.07
8.07
8.0*
8.0«
8.05
8.05
8.04
8.03
8,03
6.01
8.02
6.01
8.64
8.00
Opottun 8, Valty Cr«* WIA (Sumw-LWF), NOT 2001 UAA xtt
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May • November Model
A and I Use Classification
Section 11
t>ltt*oc*(mltil
'" ~ Mi"
7.68
7.66
7.66
7.90
T.61
7.94
782
*.6*
*.63
7,94
7.6S
7.88
7.08
7.67
7JS
7.48
7.89
flow
(eM
I < 476
*:!,478
i >: .477
ii ,4f6
•ffiatr
is: .4*0
4(2.481
182.482
152493
Ui.464
182.484
182.481
482.488
461.467
182.488
-142.489
182.480
182.49*
182.491
482.492
182.483
S«rltonTVm»
tfwj
0.00
o.M
0.00
6.00
0.00
6.66
6.41
0.64
0.01
0.01
0.01
i.6t
0.0*
O.oi
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
O.OJ
0.02
CwrnrfMfv*T)m»
(UI "
;.»788 "
3.7769
3.W20
3.7881
3.7843
11808
3.7867
3.7829
3.7498
3.7488
DO
ImM
1.74%
3.7260
3.6947
3.6698
3.6446
3.6198
3.6962
3.6767
3.8468
3.6224
3.498S
3.4748
3.4812
3.4278
3.4046
3.3818
il»>
3)310
3.3134
3.2916
3.2886
HH300U
1.98'
2.171
Z871
2.886
2.681
2.688
J.584
2.W6
1844
2.836
2.631
2.828
2.621
J.<1*
2.811
2.806
2.601
i486
2.491
2.486
2.481
HHKOU
ttHojn
Tii
2.4: '0
2.419
2.447
2.436
2.428
2.414
2.461
2.362
1381
1376
2.389
2.349
2.338
2.328
2.317
1166
2.286
2.298
1J7J
His' "••
CBODU
tAA
«
18.77
16.76
18.76
18.74
18.73
48.t2
16.71
16.*6
48.69
46.66
14.6*
18.96
16.68
11 .84
41.63
18.62
18.61
18.66
18.68
caoou
'™*V
im
19.88
16.84
18.61
18.49
19.47
18.44
4*.4i
18.39
18.37
19,34
18.32
19.30
16.27
16.26
18.22
46.i6
18.16
18.16
18.13
18.10
roHOOu
CM«
7.99
r.99
r.89
7.88
7.68
7.88
7.98
7.98
7.98
7.88
7.98
7.99
7.97
7.6f
7.97
7.97
7.97
7.97
7,97
f.97
7.97
TOHOOU
(moA>
7.97
7.98
7.86
7.96
7.96
7.96
7.86
7.93
794
7.94
7.94
7.94
7.93
7,93
7.93
7.93
7.82
7.92
7.92
7.92
7.64
Prepared try A.D EM
Opouun 6 Vtky CrMk WLA (Surnrw-LWF), Nov 2001 UAAxb
Page 9 0)14
-------
Vfllay Crtek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Cneft, Jefforson County
Wafer Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May • Novembtr Model
A and I Uso Classification
Stcllon 13
m
ftoiv
CunwMrt Tim*
OlDtfklt
CBODU
rONODU
ftftnAt
TST
l619t
~sm~
JJf
7.81
-ffir
1.6
8.re
1(2.58
0.05
1.68
17.48
8.68
•W
162.611
008
-oTT
-w
4.2322
1718
~mr
7.81
TvfT
-T4T
162.662
0.14
1.88
i.n»
18.99
192.688
0.16
1.08
18.31
7.71
8.88
"tooT
162.T13
UT
TTT
4.1818
32EL
4.MS9
TMT
1.466
18.03
"TTfT
7.67
TST
TOIT
T7T
-T4Ts~
13SQ-
ipr
1E5T
10.92
"WT
4.0187
T9W
Tir
TeT
3.4713
tjsr
TST
14.89
10.98
192.1 41
0.33
Ut-
:.8048
3.6284
3.6878
4.8491
ZEpC
1.179
Tnr
14.
i-
7.81
44T7
TT5T
162.861
TlJUi
0.39
~oir
JM
-J4TT
15^"
7.47
T4T"
"JTTT
i»T9iy
"osr
•ffir
-nr
TtiT
182643
~bio
Tsr
12.09
~112T"
162.969
161444
0.46
~03T
1-M
TST
^;M»
3.6281
0.888
13.46
TliT
7.34
Tiir
463.020
ToT
1464T
BF
1W"
7.31
-T5T
0.92
12.71
183,045
o.e:
2.07
3.4009
12.78
7.26
S«c
-------
Valley Cr«ek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Cnek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May - November Model
A and / Use Classification
Sect/on 16
Distance (m/fesj
14,75
14,80
1«.0«
15.21
16.39
46.61
16.67
18.81
15.97
16.12
18.2*
16 4 J
1969
1873
16.19
47.04
ir.i»
17.34
17,50
17.68
17.80
Flow
fcW
154,066
154.44J
454.128
154.138
154.151
4M.4W _
4S4.17/
154.180
154.204
454.217
154.230
154.243
154.2M
4*4.268
154.262
164.J88
154408
464.322
454,335
154.346
154.361
Section Time
fdayl
0.00
0.01
O.OJ
004
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.12
6.3
0.19
0.16
0.4f
0.19
0.20
6.21
0.23
0.24
0.26
0.27
Cumulative Tlmo
(day)
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.26
2.30
2.31
2.33
2.34
2.35
2.37
138
2.40
2.41
4.41
144
2.45
2.48
2.48
2.48
1 4M
2.62
02 D.ffc/1
(mo/1)
2.0112
1.8268
1.8491
1.7792
1,71*
1.6651
1.6004
1.9901
1.5038
1.4608
1,4213
1,3646
1.3608
1.3188
1.2694
1.2819
1.23(1
1.2120
1.1894
1.1661
1.1480
DO
(man
6.4356
9.6201
6.6J72
5.8678
6.7326
5.7616
4.8466
(.8966
6.8432
6.8860
6.02(6
8.0623
1 0884
6.41*86
8.1676
8.1851
(.2108
(.2346
6.2971
6.2761
6.2990
NHtODU
(mall)
0.888
0.688
6.874
6,862 '
0.661
0.640
0.628
0.819
0.808
0.699
0.690
0.5(1
0.873
6.2(4
0.656
0.648
0.541
0,634
0.528
0.621
0.515
Section 1t
Distance f mites)
17.80
17.88
17.W
18.09
18.13
18.22
16.30
18.38
18.47
16.5$
16.04
16.72
18.80
1889
18.87
1».0»
18.14
16.12
18.10
18.38
16.47
Flow
lets)
164.3*1
154.36*
154.376
154.361
154. 300
184.397
154.404
154.412
154.418
154.426
4M.4SS
154.440
1*4449
154.455
164.462
154.468
154.476
154.484
154.491
154.4*8"
154.905
Section Time
(toy)
9.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
6.64
0.09
0.06
0.07
6.of
0.08
0.08
0.10
6.10
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.13
6.14
0.16
Cumulative Time
(day)
2.62
2.s4
153
2.54
2.69
2.65
2.96
2.87
2.57
2.68
2.5*
2.60
2.80
2.61
2.62
2.03
2.63
2.64
2.69
2.66
2.86
OZ Deficit
(ma*)
1.1546
1.16*3
1.1(35
1.1(72
1.1706
1.1734
4.1768
1.1760
1.1787
1.1611
1.1822
1.1(26
4,4*34
1.1839
1.1639
1.1831
1.1626
fc"!
t'807
^.^44
1.1781
DO
(man
6.2890
(.2(42
(.2800
6.2862
(.2626
(.1801
(.2776
6.2795
e.',jM
».:>M
'5.'Hi
(.2706
6.2701
(.2686
(.2700
1.2704
0.2708
8,2717
6.2726
e.ZT40
8.2754
NH30DU
(man
0.516
0.511
0.607
0.603
0.500
0.488
0.483
0.488
0.488
6.463
6.466
0.477
0.473
0.470
0.488
0.4(8
0.4*2
0.488
0.456
0.4M
0.451
CBOOU
(man)
11.33
11.24
D.14
11.04
10.85
10.86
10.76
10.67
10.58
10.48
10.40
10.31
10.22
16.44
10.89
9.97
8.66
8.80
8.71
6.63
8.66
CBODU
(man)
9.55
».to
9.46
9.41
6.37
9.33
8.J8
8.24
6.56
(.48
9.44
9.07
9.03
6.86
6.84
8.90
8.86
8.82
6.76
8.74
6.68
TONODU
(mgll)
7,03
7.01
7.00
6.88
6.87
6.89
8.84
(.62
6.81
8.88
8.88
6.86
6.88
8,83
6.82
6.80
6.78
6.77
6.76
6.75
(.73
TONODU
(mgfl)
(.73
8.72
6.72
6.71
6.70
(.69
6.66
6.88
6.67
6.66
6.86
8.84
6.64
6.63
(.(2
6.81
6.61
6.80
6.<8
(.58
8.5?
Pr»(i«r«dbyA.DEM
Oposiiin & Vatey Craek WLA (SunnwLWF), Nov 2001 UM xU
-------
Vatfey Creek WWTP
OpoasumfValley Creek, Jefferson County
Wator Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May - November Model
A and I Use Classification
Section 17
D»«fwnr» (ml(»«>
1647
19.78
20.10
20.41
20.72
21.04
21.38
21.66
21.97
22.29
22.60
22.91
23.23
23.94
23.68
24.17
24.49
24.79
29.10
29.42
29.73
Fkm
186.161
186.218
164.164
188.263
166.316
1 5.348
li i6.3*6
1l >6.4l3
166.449
166.478
166.810
168.843
166.676
168.666
186.640
169.676
166.708
188.736
165.776
189.803
196,936
Section Tim*
0.00
0.03
6.06
0.06
0.11
0.14
0.16
0.19
0.22
0.26
6.2?
0.30
0.33
0.38
0.36
0.41
0.44
0.47
0.49
062
0.86
fdtr)
tM
2.69
Itl
2.74
2.77
2.90
2.93
2.66
2.99
2.91
2.94
2.99
2.99
5.02
3.05
3.07
3.10
3.13
3.16
3.19
3.21
OJMfcft
fmofl
1.194J
1.16*6
14116
1.9123
1.6042
'•• ' '
ifi
1.1
i.i
i.i<
- H
HI
i
6
1
»
1
2.0969
2.1341
2.19*6
2.1867
2.2207
1.2411
2.2904
lifts
2.2678
DO
827^2
•.1 663
e.046:
9.9499
6.8840
6.7881
6.8931
6.6231
6.6694
9.9616
6.4488
6.4032
6.3814
6.3243
'-2!!1
6,2«
6.237
6,19*1
6.1628
6.1708
MNIODU
tmtft
0.461
0.443
0.438
0.427
0.421
0.414
0.406
0.402
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.3
It
2
7
4
6J76
0.379
0.371
0.397
0.394
0.361
f"
0.
M
P
12
C800U
tmtfl
tM
9.61
9.37
9.22
8.09
7.94
7.90
7.8f
7.63
7.40
7.27
7.16
7.02
9.90
9.76
6.67
6.88
6.44
6.32
6.22
6.11
fOMODU
.- fff- -
6.17
6.94
6.61
6.46
6.49
6.42
6.38
6.17
6.34
6.31
6.26
6.26
6.23
6.20
6.17
6.18
6.12
6.09
8.07
6.04
6.01
Sectlon18
Distinct ttnlletl
26.73
26.tt
28.82
28.86
26.80
26.68
28.88
26.03
26.08
26.12
28.1T
26.21
29.26
26.30
26.34
28.38
26.43
26.47
28.61
26.96
26.60
Flow
left)
«8.»38
166.636
165.843
195.846
166.692
169.666
196.990
168.664
169.869
169.873
168.877
169.861
169.896
166.666
185.894
168.9%9
166.902
165.60*
189.910
166.816
165.919
Section Time
0,00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.08
6.68
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.08
Cumulative Time
3.21
3.21
3.22
3.22
3.23
3.23
3.23
3.24
3.24
3.24
S.26
J.26
3.29
3.26
3.26
5.4V
127
3.27
128
3.28
3.28
O2 Deffc/f
2.2813
2.2646
2.2983
2.3017
.!
; ;
j
j
3
1
!
1
1 1
177
2.3299
(Suninw-l.WF), Nov 2001 UAAxU
Pojs \2ol14
-------
Valley Creak WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creak, Jefferson County
vyatcrQuaHfy
Steady-State Stream Model
May - November Model
A and I Use Classification
Section 19
Distance tmllat)
26.60
27.00
27.40
27.60
38 JO
26.60
28.00
26.40
26.80
30.26
30.60
31.00
31.40
31 60
32.20
3260
33.00
33.40
33.60
34.20
34.64
Flow
(eft)
167.38*
167.437
167.476
157.614
157.663
157.681
167.636
157.668
167.707
167.745
16T.764
187.622
167.661
167. *
4*7.1! 8
187.' il'6
158.016
166.063
166.0*2
156.130
166.16*
Secf/on Tlnrn
(On)
0.00
0.03
6.6)
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.21
0.24
0.26
0.31
0.35
0.38
0.42
0.48
0.48
0.62
0.65
0.68
0.62
0.66
0.6*
~~" Otlitncm trnlitl) ~~
J4.0 '
34.74
34.88
38.01
35.15
35.2*
35.43
35.56
35.70
3.6.84
35.08
36.11
36.26
36.36
38.53
36.66
36.60
3*.*4
37.08
37.21
37.38
Wow
186.169
iW.4821
16*. 1*5
1&6.206
48*.j2i
168.236
168.246
168.261
168.276
1W. 2W
488.364
161.314
188.328
468.344
158.354
168.367
158.361
458.3*4
156.467
168.420
158.433
SKIIOH Hm.
ei
i
0.02
0.03
6.6ft
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.10
6.44
0.12
0.14
6.44
0.16
0.17
6.18
0.18
0.26
0.22
0.23
Cumufottva TVrrw
(day)
3.28
i.32
3.36
5.39
3.42
3.46
3.48
3.63
3.68
3.60
3.63
3.67
3.70
3.74
3.77
3.81
3.84
3.87
3.81
3.M
3,«6
•""^J1*"
3.*
3.8
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.06
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.08
4.10
4.11
4.13
4.14
4.16
4.19
4.17
4.16
4,16
4.21
OlDefklt
(mofl)
2.3476
2.3652
2.
2.
1'
TIB
i!*
'at
24$ f
2.46 2
2.3887
2.3868
2.3687
2.3816
2.3716
2.3688
23467
2.3321
2.3181
2.2880
2,
4.
2606
2617
2.2417
2.220*
"to**
2.J263
2.2203
2.2143
2,26*2
i
2321
2.1*60
2.1*8*
11*37
2.1774
2
W2
21*4*
2.16*6
i.1622
2.
!
i
TO*
13*6
1331
1»7
" ' J.4JOJ
2.1136
2.1673
2.1006
00
(malll
Ww
6.1023
6.0685
6.0763
8.0713
6.0674
6.0663
6.0676
6.6717
6.077*
6.0666
6.0*6*
5.1076
6.1208
8.1354
6.1613
6,1665
6.1866
6,2066
6.2267
6.2466
DO
.' 4*6
.; 62*
.; t*J
; Q40
.! n 6
JfiT
j C 8
.16(1
:*53
.3016
6.307*
6.3142
6.3205
5.3268
6.3332
6.3386
6.3461
6.3525
6.3590
64654
6.3716
NH300U
(mot!
0.346
0.345
0.343
0.342
0.340
0.338
0.337
0.335
0.334
0.332
0.330
0.32*
0.327
0.325
0.324
0.322
0.320
6.316
0.317
0.315
0.313
NHiODU
Kill
aJ»
0.31J
0.311
0.310
0.308
0.308
0.307
0.308
0.304
0.303
0.302
0.301
0,361
0.300
0.28*
0.2M
0.28*
0.2*7
CBODU
(nto/l)
§s
s
1
6.2*
5.1*
5,07
4.96
4,65
4.74
4.64
4.54
4.44
4.34
4.25
4.15
4.06
3.87
3.68
3.80
3.72
CBODU
1*2
3.70
3.68
3.66
3.64
3.62
3.60
3.6*
3.66
3.54
3.62
3.60
M*
3.47
3.46
3.43
3.41
3.38
3.3f
3.36
3.34
fONODU
ImvV
6.83
5.80
5.86
6.83
8.SO
5.77
6,73
5.70
5.67
6.64
5.81
6.6*
5.81*
».52
6.48
5.46
6.43
MO
5.37
6.34
5,31
TONODU
831
6.30
6.2*
8.26
6.27
6.26
6.25
5.24
5.23
6.52
6.21
5.20
6.1*
5.16
6.18
5.17
6.16
6.15
6.14
5.13
6.12
PrtpareO>A.D.EM
11/26/2001
Opostum > vaky Cretk WLA (Sumwr-LWF), Nov 2001 UAAidj
P«ge13of14
-------
WWTP
Opossum/Valley Cretk, Jefferson County
Water Qua/ftv
Steady-State Stream Model
May-November ModeJ
A »ndt Use Classification
Stcllon 31
at Often
CBODO
TQHODU
frit
-3TTT
180J81
4.21
~ar
THT
i«0.*t*
-pT
"W
T5T
TiT
TiT
ToT
Tir
E4W
6.03
38.93
l«Ol»T
~OTT
2.018*
E4W
TTT
15T
4.33
39.71
ToTT
1*1.001
T*T53T
~m-
-02T
T4T"
-4TT
1.t87»
T*7iT
T4«r
Tsnr
3.07
ToT
4.9*
TJT
1*1.07*
3*»r
TST
T5T
4080
o^r
Tir
THir
S55T
TST
3SI
3E
ff
-losr
ir^r
JBiTT
&8foT
312
^
I3T
Tiffi
~o2ir
2.14
"sir
41.M
ipr
TSIT
1*1.228
1*1.2*3
Q._.
-551
"TiT
~4ir
0.2*2
~5giT
2.40
TIT
4.83
TeT
~o7T
1.1.....
TH?
T7T"
TTT"
44.*7
IJTiT
T5ST
1*1.33*
4*4.37*
0.46
"WT
4.M
1.9SW
l.tio*
T3~
2.97
^
T«T4T3
IT
*T
4F
o3r
-ftT'
-or
5,4810
ilTT
2.83
-m-
44.06
T8T4I
•T714T
IJST
[5R~
TBT"
1ST
44.44
~KST
1*1.4*7
161.626
T79
T3T
«-
6T7172
1J36T
0,??2
r8i
"2ir
4.**
"16TT
"i«Te«T
-osr
TST
-TTisr
-jfi&-
~ar
4,»4
TeT
Pr«9«r«dbyA,D.EM
Opottum t Vatoy &«<* WLA (Sumwr-LWF), Nov 2001 UAA.M
-------
Opossum Creek / Valley Creek Waste Load Allocation
May - November / F&W Classification
Confluence of Valley
& Bine Creek
J
1. USXWWTP
2. Koppers Organics
3. Valley Creek WWTP
Confluence of Valley Creek
& Opossum Creek
2.00
0.00 \ 5.00
Opossum Creek
10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Distance Downstream of USX, miles
35.00 40.00 45.00
DO Water Quality Criteria
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Mode/
May - November Model
FandW Use Classification
Enter the Number of Section 21.000
Total Length (miles) • | 46230
HeadWater Data
Receialonlndex(O)i
Mean Annual Prec. (P)«
Drainage Area (M«2)-
Temp (C*) i
CHL
Headwater Flow (cfe) u
CBODU (mg/l) •
NH.ODU (mg/l)
TONODU (mg/l)
Headwater D.O.|m)n| •
Opotium Creek I Velley Creek Wnte Lotd AHocitton
|Valev Oreek WWTP Effluent Oondtone
Design Ftow.MaC CBOD,,m(>(l NHrN,mtf TKN,rn»» ).O. (rrfnlmum), rr
I 8500 $J> OS 2.6 6.0
Dam Data
Dam Located at Beginning of Section <
Water Quality Factor i
Wler Dam Coefficient'
Difference In Water Level (ft)'
Summer WLA /PtW Cto»»»Te«tfon
Stream flow « Vatey Creek WWTP (els
20.0760
Use Goal Seek
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) (Opossum Creek) <
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) (Upper Valley Creek) <
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) (Lower Valley Creek) <
CBODu Concentration at End of Modeled Reach (mg/l)'
Enley J^butmrv pond/tf^n* (If nan
StcOoni
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
8.00
6.00
7.00
800
8.00
10.00
11.00
11.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
18.00
20.00
21.00
0
66.000
es.ooo
66,000
22.00
*. /MV*b/
f
68.00
68.00
66.00
•"fti
TONODU
(n&9
4,«r
" ' 4,»7
81,40
4.5T
4.S7
4.67
4.67
4,67
CBODU
(MttlQ
2.00
2.00
37.60
2.00
2.00
2.00
ZOO
2.00
NH300U
(man
0.4670
0.46TO
46.7000
"0.46/0
0.4670
0.4670
0.4670
0.4670
00
toga
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.000
0.000
6.000
3.000
0.000
(.000
8.000
OXKW
8.000
0.000
8,000
0.000
6.000
0.000
w»
ft«
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.68
o.oo
0.28
0.00
0.00
O.tt
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.00
0.68
0.00
1.48
0.00
2.38
0.00
FtfUp.
y Cf«* WLA (Sunmer-FtW), Nov 2001 UAAJits
PSB> 1 Of 14
-------
Valley Cr«a/k WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May • November Model
F »nd W Use Classification
Enter Effluent Conditions Iff none.
Ssctlonf
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
9,00
9.00
7.00
8.00
0.00
40.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
19.00
18.00
17.00
18.00
1B.OO
20.00
21.00
22.00
e«ve btenfc
(man
8.000
27.806
12.000
I
(man)
3.43
91.40
6.66
6.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.66
2.2«
6.00
0.06
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
6.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.60
TOHODU
(man}
3.43
tit.46
8.44
DO
(tna/D
8.00
8.00
6.66
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
000
(.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
o.oo
0.00
Flow
(eft)
17.0170
6.6887
431.9066
r«mp.
30.000
36.606
30.000
pH
7.00
7.00
7.00
Mtx.lnttnomNH)
3.09
3.08
HH3 foxfcfty
(mini
3.19
3.99
f
/
1 S*
1 xX".
/^x-
T/M moil itrlngtnt of (fte two
valun will be fcnpfementttf M
tht dlichwgt Hmtt.
\
1
HH1 WQ Until
Img/l)
1.00
20.00
6.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
_ 0.90
^s 6.06
-x" 6.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
Enter Section Characteristics (If none, leave blank)
Seel/on*
1.00
S.OO
3.00
4.00
6.00
100
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
•' •"" 13.00 "
14.00
u.oo
is.oo
17.00
18.00
18.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
Beginning
ein.im
4U.OOO
480.000
4(0.000
478.000
4M.OOO
4S2.000
439.000
430.000
421666
420.000
412.000
411.000
410.000
380.000
3*2.660
3U666
318.000
288.000
284.300
5«6oo6
2(8.700
Ending
Otv.HO
4JO.OO
480.00
4T6.00
4(9.00
4(ZM
439.00
430.00
422.00
420.00
412.00
411.00
410.00
310.00
342.00
33i66
ile.iW
288.00
284.30
280.00
2t8.70
2(9.00
efev.Ctong*
(ft)
8.00
10.00
9.00
20.00
3.00
17.00
9.00
8.00
2.00
8.00
1.00
1.00
30.00
18.00
31.00
13.00
20.00
3.70
34.30
1.30
3.70
Ltngth
MM
0.4700
0,4700
0.9100
1.1800
0.4400
1.7800
0.9(00
O.NOO
6.*
-------
Va//«y Cr««* WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May • Novtmtw Model
F tnd W Use Classification
Stcf/ons
1.00
J.OO
3.04
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
B.OO
6.00
10.00
11.00
(2.00
1300
14.00
18.00
10.00
ir.oo
16.06
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
RMCf/on ff«Mi @.20f C
L Kd
1.300
1300
1.300
1.300
1.300
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
6.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.300
0.300
0000
KNH3
1.00
1.60
1(0
l.So
1.90
1.90
i!6"
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.J6
1.90
1.80
1.90
1.SO
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.80
1.90
O.Off
KON
0.80
o.t4
0.80
6.16
6.86
0.10
6.14
0.10
6.10
0.10
0.10
6.<4
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0,10
0.10
o.oo
T. Coefflcfonf
1.30
Ntw Temp.
Krf
2.0(8
2.096
1098
t6«i
2.698
0.633
0.633
0.633
0.633
0.633
0.633
6.433
0.633
0.633
4.633
0.633
4.633
0.6)3
0.633
0.478
0.474
0.000
KNH3
3.06
2.86
3.01
2.93
3.07
3.02
3.1S
i.U
3.09
2.86
3.02
142
2.88
1.04
3.12
1.16
3.16
3.10
3.4*
3.08
3.14
0.00
KON
1.27
1.27
1.27
12?
1.27
0.16
4.16
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.10
0.16
0.16
0,00
Ave. Reacrallon
6.62
10.66
4.92
8.46
3.44
4.76
4.60
4.17
1.34
6.81
3.81
i.ee
J.78
6.80
7.87
6.04
1.98
1.74
1.74
1.48
1.45
0.00
Mixed Ttmp.('C)
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.40
30.00
30.00
iooo
30.00
34.00
30.00
30.00
10.60'
30.00
too
00
66
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
o.oo
Prepared byADEM
11(29/2001
Opouum » VM«y Cr**l( WLA (SUrm*f-F»W), Nov 2001 UAA.XM
Pap) ol 14
-------
Vallty Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Warer quaHfv
Steady-State Stream Modal
May - November Model
F and W Use Classification
Model Output
Swtlon t
i.oik>
0.024
0.047
0.071
0.0*4
0.11*
0.141
0.168
0.1*1
0.212
0.238
0.25*
0.282
0.308
0.328
0.383
0.378
0.400
0.423
0.447
0.470
mom
17.J77
17.377
17.37*
17,37*
17.378
17.376
17.380
17.360
17.381
W.i*i
17.3*2
17.362
17.383
17.383
17.384
17.384
17.366
17.365
17.388
17.388
17.387
StcHmTlmt
fttei
JUS
0.00
0.01
0.01
6.62
0.02
6.63
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
6.6*
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
008
0.08
0.08
0.0*
Cumuhfltw rim*
0.01
0.01
0.62
6.02
6.6J
6.63
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.08
6.66
0.07
0.07
0.08
008
0.08
0.08
0.0*
Section 1
D/lW(K«|m««.)
0.4T
0.4*
0.62
0.54
0.6*
0.6*
0.81
0.63
0.8*
068
0.71
0.73
0.76
0.7*
0.80
0.»2
0.15
6.87
0.6*
0.82
DM
flow
17.444
17.443
W.443
17.444
17.444
17.446
17.448
17.44*
17.44*
17.447
17.447
17.44*
17.44*
17.44*
17.44*
17.450
17.460
•
T.451
7.451
17.452
17.452
(day)
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.62
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
6.08
0.08
0.0*
0.0*
f*W
o.«*
0.10
6.16
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.13
6.13
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.15
6.18
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.1*
0.16
0.1*
°£T
1.4017
1.4708
1.8341
1.6*37
1.8500
1.70!
«
"•' i7*fl '"
1.78*3
1*431
1,8941
1*229
1,8593
1.8*17
20227
2.0816 |
207*2
2.102*
2115*
2.1465
21658
2.1*30
0
I
o
1%
&
»
M
fj
IT
5.1661
5,6511
6,8044
5.6808
6.51*8
6.4*12
6.4454
5.4126
63*10
53821
5.3JS4
83006
527*0
62672
6.2311
5.2207
OtMfctt
f"*I)
"" 5.11
It
2.1808
2.1770
11728
2.16*0
2.1624
2.18*3
2.14*6
2.1424
2.134*
2.1284
2.1178
2.1087
«t
20.
s
*
2.07*4
2.0880
2.0589
2.0473
2.03*1
2.024*
C
(n
:.
K>
H
};
ill
4»
8.2500
5.2687
6.2446
6.2717
6.27M
1-
5.:
6.;
«
H '
iJ8
6.31*8
6.32*8
5.3373
6.34(1
6.38*0
6.3702
6,3414
HH100U
{ JM
' *f^f
I '.iw
i 1.262
3J55
1226 '
3,201
3.175
3.148
3.122
30«7
3.071
3.044
3.021
3896
2.872
2*47
2.«24
2*00
2.07*
2.853
NHJ
(m
J.
3,1
3.1
JOU
^
M
12
1*
j(*y
3.044
3.622
2.***
2.1
77
t1»8
2.«34
2.ll2
2.8*1
t*ro
; ;i
i ,\
<»
;*
*
7
2.74T
1747
2.727
2.W
CBOOU
'.t*
'f?
'.7*
.85
'.07
7.60
y.43
7.38
7.2*
7.21
7.14
7.0*
7.01
884
8.87
6.80
8.74
e.*7
6.61
6.54
6.48
C8OOO
""If
(.11
6.48
6.42
8.38
4.30
6.24
6.1*
(.12
6.06
8.00
6.84
6.8*
6.«3
6.77
8.71
6.6*
6.60
6.98
6.80
6.44
5JS1
TONOOU
*&&
J<
»
341
3.38
IS?
3.35
3.33
3.31
3.26
3.2*
3.25
3.23
3.21
3.20
3.18
3.16
H4
3.12
3.10
3.06
3.06
TOHOOU
fmoilj
if*
!j
1
:,i5
:.43
3.41
3.3*
3.37
3.35
3.!
i!
3
1
3.26
3.27
3.25
3.1
3.S
3.
3.
3
1
8
r
3.' 6
3.14
3.12
3.10
Prepared try KD EM
lt/26/2001
Opo««um 5. V«l«y C««k WIA (Suimw-FiW). Nov 2001UM J*
Page 4 at 14
-------
Vallay Cnek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May • November Model
Fund W DM Classification
Ster/onJ _
0.*4
0.87
0.91
1.0J
1.04
1.07
t.ot
1.12
1.14
1.17
1.20
1.52
1.28
1.27
1.30
1.32
1.35
1.37
1.40
1.42
[ 1.45
Section 4 _____ ,
1.45
1.51
1.57
1.61
1.8*
1.78
1.81
1.87
1.83
1.W
2.0S
110
2.16
2.22
128
2.34
2.46
146
•• j J5
2.66
2.84
flow
IT 4*3
17.413
17.41}
iy.4»4
17.484
17.455
U.4JS
17.458
17.458
17,457
17.457
17.458
17.458
17.458
17.480
47.4*0
17,481
17.481
17.482
17.482
11483
«9W
lot*)
tow
17.470
17.477
17.485
17,482
17.600
17.S67
17.514
17.622
17.628
17.837
1T.844
lt,S$1
17.858
17 888
1 7.873
17.581
47.688
Mil**
17.803
17.810
S«c<1
9.08
6.0
4.9I
4.9I
4.80
4.76
4.70
4.88
4.80
4.66
4.51
4.46
4,41
4.37
TOHOOU
Imo*)
J.TO
•3.08 •
3.06
304
3.02
3.00
2.**
1*6
1*4
1*2
1*1
-Ij
II
m
7
lilt '
2.1
S
2.11
1*0
2,78
176
2^
2,
WwJ
o.«
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.16
0.11
0.12
0,13
6.14
0.16
0.17
0.18
018
0.20
0.21
0.23
0.24
Cumufclln Tina
fifctf
».«
OM
0.32
0.33
0.14
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.4]
0.43
o.4s
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.61
0.62
053
01D*Ocll
2.82*1
2.MQ4
14/83
2.40*4
13438
12808
2.2203
' 4.4
:J
:i
,»
y
11
1*
M
ii
4
i:i
127
0
a
146
1.7302
iesoi
1.6512
1.6135
1.6770
DO
fapfl.
sS
4.*i
fi
lie
4.6340
50
>tt
IM
8.1315
6.1
6.2
H8
IM
6.3052
••" 5.3
585
6.4 >9*
6.46*3
8.6089
5.6529
6.6873
t.«402
S.j
117
5.72(8
5.7507
6.78*3
t.8348
MHJODV
i.iil
' -174
' 2J*
< .1M
2.181
2.126
10**
2.064
2,i
ii
1.'
to
18
11
it
I*
67
1.127
iJfct
1.787
1.
.i
u
38
CAODU
-*!• -
4.1
1
4.11
4.06
3*5
3.88
3.76
3.67
3.58
3.80
3.41
3.33
126
3.17
3.0*
3.01
4
i*r
1*0
173
'4
7
TOHOOU
pi
168
184
2.61
2.67
153
14*
146
142
2.3*
135
132
128
125
2.22
118
118
112
10*
108
4.67 2.03
Prepared by AD EM
1ir26/2001
Opo»un 4 Vstey CrHk WLA (Surrrw-FiW), Nov 2001 UAAUs
P»8«6otU
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creak, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Mode/
May - November Model
F and W Us* Classification
! Section 6
Distance (m/Ms)
i.ei
106
288
2.71
2.73
178
i.tr
2.79
2.8]
2.84
2.88
2.88
2.60
2.9)
ret
2.97
2.88
3.01
3.04
3.08
3.08
Section 0
Dlstunct (milts)
3.08
3.17
3.26
3.35
3.44
3.63
3.82
3.71
3.80
3.80
3.88
4.08
4.1S
4.24
4.33
4.42
4.61
4.80
4.69
478
4.87
Flow
Ids)
17.810
17.813
17.616
17.619
17.621
17.624
17.627
17.630
17.632
17.639
17.638
11.646
17.643
17.646
17.M9
17.651
17.854
17.657
17.660
17.682
17.665
Flow
IcM
18.2M
18.270
18.264
19.286
19.313
18.328
19.342
19.367
18.371
19.386
19.460
19.415
19.428
19.444
19.468
19.473
16.487
19.602
19.616
18.631
19.645
Section Time
(davl
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.6i
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
Section Time
(davf
0.60
0.02
0.64
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.23
0.26
6.2>
0.28
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.36
Cumulative Time
(day)
0.93
0.53
6.54
6.64
6.86
0.55
0.88
666
6.66
0.87
6.67
O.i «
0.<8
0. «
0.98
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.61
0.61
0.62
Cumulative Time
(day)
6.62
0.64
0.65
6.67
0.69
0.71
0.73
0.74
0.76
0.78
6.66
6.82
0.83
6.65
6.87
0.69
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.88
02 Deficit
1.1807
1.1 028
1.6244
1.6451
1.6662
1.6647
1.7035
1.7217
i.riei
1.7662
1.7726
1.7663
1.6036
1.6182
1.6323
1.6468
1.6588
1.6714
1.8634
1.6980
1.8060
O2 Deficit
tmom
Illl1
1.1*47
1.8200
1.7573
1.6984
1.6374
1.6802
1.6250
1.4716
1.4201
1.3763
1.3224
1.2762
1.2319
1.1696
1.1476
1.1083
1.0703
1,0336
0.8887
0.9661
DO
6.6346
6.6126
6.7914
6.7703
6.7602
6.7309
8.7120
5.6936
(.6762
6.6593
6.6429
6.622
6.61! 0
6.6973
6.6I 32
8.6< 86
6.6666
8.*44<
6.6321
6.6208
6.6088
DO
S.4674
8.6334
8.8960
6.6667
9.7216
6.7808
8.8376
6.6928
6.9462
6.9977
6.0474
6.0953
6,1414
4.1889
6.2266
6.2697
6,3061
6.3472
6.3637
6,4166
6.4524
NH30DU
(moll)
1.698
1.644
'.633
1.822
.611
1.666
1.890
1.679
1.«M
1.689
1.646
1.636
1.626
1.616
.606
'.496
'.466
.478
1.466
1.489
1.480
NH30DU
(man
1.368
1.301
1.237
1.177
1.120
1.066
1.018
0.966
0.921
0.977
6.936
0.797
0.761
0.726
6.693
0.662
0.632
0.604
0.678 .
6.883
0.629
CBODU
(mp/M
2.67
2.64
2.62
2.69
167
4.8*
2.92
2.80
2.49
2.46
J.4S
2.41
2.36
137
2.JS
2.33
2.31
2.29
126
2.24
2.22
CBODU
(mat)
2.20
2.16
2.16
2.13
2.11
2.0«
2.06
2.04
101
1.99
1.97
1.64
1.92
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.84
1.62
1.60
1.76
1.76
TONODU
(man
2.03
2.02
2.01
2.00
1.99
1.68
1.97
1.88
1.99
1.84
1.92
1.91
1.96
1.89
1.86
1.87
1.66
1.89
1.64
1.63
1.82
TONODU
(mat)
165
109
2.04
2.04
104
103
2.03
102
2.02
102
101
101
2.01
100
160
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.96
1.86
1.88
PrapwsdbyAD.EM
11/2
-------
Vtlley Cnok WWTP
Opoasum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Qualify
Steady-State Stream Model
May • Novtmber Motltl
Fund W Use Classification
Section 7
Distant* (mlt»s)
4.87
4.80
4.93
4.85
468
5.0t
8.04
9.07
6.08
8.12
rig
818
»2i
JJS
8.26
520
6.32
5,35
5.37
s.4o
943
Stctlon 8
OtstHK*{mttf*l
6,41
8.48
os
9,98
8.83
6.67
8.72
6.77
6.82
6.8?
892
8.87
(.02
«.OT
6.12
6.16
8.31
6.28
8.31
8.36
6.41
Flow
fctoj
18.84S
19. HO
46.694
18,886
16.863
1».M8
46.87i
18.677
16.882
18.686
18.891
18.868
18.60$
48.664
48.608
16.613
48.618
18.622
18.627
16.632
16.6*6
flow
Mt)
18.118
16.934
16.632
18.640
18.848
18.6S6
18.864
18.8T2
16.880
16.888
16.668
20.003
20.011
16.6tt
20.027
20.038
20.043
20.041
20.098
20.067
20.079
Secffon Time
WayJ
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
o.os
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.64
0.10
0.10
0.41 "~
6.4i
ifc«onTfa»
(Owl
0.00
0.61
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.08
6.08
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.43
0.14
0.14
6.48
6.16
0.17
0.18
6.18
Cumulative Time
(day)
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
1.00
1.00
4.01
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.03
1.04
1.04
1.09
1.06
1.06
1.07
1.07
1.08
1.08
1.08
CumittUrtTlmi
fdw)
i08
1.46
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.18
1.18
1.17
1.18
1.16
1.20
1.20
1.51
1.22
1.2:
1.5
1.21
1.26
1.27
1.26
OZDffkll
ftiwfl
0.8684
0.8808
«.»! : 3
&ji 1
0* i
OK ' i
0.6 8
0.8408
0.8027
0.8846
0.8867
0.6786
0.8709
— - 6.883J
0.69S9
06476
06404
0.8)26
0.8299
0.8182
0.8109
OtDvfctt
(mo/IS
6.WS*
0.6261
0.8144
0.8038
0.7834
0.7831
0.7728
0.7828
0.7628
0.7431
0.7334
0.7238
0.7144
6.7681
0.6880
0.6888
0.6760
08883
0.8606
6.6521
0.8438
00
(man
6.4624
6.4608
6.4681
6.4776
6.4888
6.4842
6.602*
6.6106 '
6.S187
6.6268
6,9347
6.9426
6.9904
66982
6.9698
69739
69810
69989
68999
66032
6.6104
00
(ma/IS
MB
tj^f
ijip
6.6161
e.«i6e
6.6368
6.6661
6.6661
6.6701
8.6768
6.6886
8.6881
6,1*9*1
iH»I
6.7270
6.>386
6.7448
6.7637
6.t623
8.7708
6.7782
NH30DU
(ma/11
0.828
6.822
0. .
1, "
0 ii
j ,. §
1 J If
1.466
0.473
0.467
0.460
0.494
0.446
0.442
0.436
0430
0424
0.416
0.413
0.408
0.402
NHiODU
Ima/l)
oTw
AttI
6.3W
0.377
0.3«*
0.381
0.363
0.346
0.338
0.331
0.324
0.318
0.311
0.306
0.288
6'.2*3 '
6.267
0.262
6^7t
0.271
6.268
cao£
(mai
t.l
I.TI
1.7<
1.7J
4.7
4.7
1.7
\.1
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.81
1.8
1.6
1.6
t.e
1.6
1.1
1.(
CBO
(mst
M
1.(
1.<
1,(
1.(
1!
1.!
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.<
.'
4.-
1.-
i.-
)U
i
.
i
'
!
1
i
i
i
9 "
'
'
6
S
>
4
4
MS
f
1
3
2
1
6
)
)
7
T
«
6
4
3
2
1
«
7
6
TONODU
(man
1.86
1.87
i.»r
1.67
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.67
1.66
1.86
188
1.86
4.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.88
1.86
1.86
1.8t
TQNODU
(mtfl
iM
1.68
1.69
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.86
1.88
1.87
1.67
1.67
1.67
1.87
1.86
1.86
1.66
1.86
1.86
1.M
1.89
1.69
11/26/2001
Opossun & Vtfcy &w* Wl> (Sumwr-F&W), Nov 2001 UAA xH
Pog«7ol14
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May - November Mod*/
F and W U«« Classification
Section 9
Distance (mil**)
6.41
MS
6.48
e.B3
6.87
6.01
~" ' 6.69
e.e»
6.73
6.77
e.ei
6.W
6.60
DM
668
7.62
toe
r.io
7.14
7.ie
7.22
Flow
left)
151.575
161.680
151.886
J61.5M
ISUeS
181.800
fSI.805
151.811
151.616
151.821
151.821
16,1.641
161.83«
151.841
101.848
15l.66f
151.858
151.««1
141.66*
151.872
151.877
Section Time
(toy)
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
O.M
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.0«
0.10
0.10
Cu/nubt/ro Time
(dtyl
1.28
1.28
1.2»
1.30
1.30
1.31
1.31
1.32
1.32
1,33
1.33
1.34
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.36
1.38
1.37
1.37
1.36
1.36
Section 10
t>lst»ncetmllti)
7,31
7.25
7.26
7.31
7.3*
7.38
7.41
7.44
7.47
7.80
7.93
7.47
7.M
7.63
7M
7.61
7.72
7.T$
7.70
7.82
7.89
Plow
(els)
141.877
151.881
151.884
151.888
161.882
151.888
151.700
181.704
151.708
151.711
151.718
181.720
1*1.724
161.728
ist.yjj
161.738
161.740
161,744
151.748
181.752
151.706
Sect/on Time
(d»Sf)
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.67
0.07
0.07
0.08
Cumulative Time
(day)
1.38
1.38
1.36
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.41
1.41
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.44
1.44
1.45
1.46
1.46
1.46
1,46
02 Deficit
(ma»
1.3218
1,3782
1.433'
1.468
1.6411
1.6846
1.8468
1.6677
1,7481
1.7877
1.8484
1.8844
1.8417
1.8881
2.0338
2.078*
2.1232
2.1887
2.2088
2.2616
2.2832
DO
(man
6.1032
6.0468
5.8816
6.8370
6.8833
8.8366
8.77«e
9.727'
5.6771
».82 <
8.671 V
5.93(7
6.4634
5.4370
6.3812
6.3462
6.3020
6.2664
6.2168
6.1734
6.1318
OIDtlktt
(men)
2.2847
2.2767
2.2670
2.2386
12205
2.2028
2.1860
2.1677
2.1608
2.1446
2.1173
2.1010
2.0848
10881
2.66311 '
2.0361
2.0228
2.0080
1.8833
1.8788
1.8646
DO
(man)
6.&0
6.1608
8.1686
£,1660
8.2240
6.2416
5.2588
6,2766
B.JilT
6.3093
6.3266
6.3417
6.3676
1.3731
6.3885
6.4016
8.4166
6,4333
04478
6.4621
HH30DU
(man
2.018
1.883
1.868
1.»44
1.620
1.887
4.674
' .651
' .828
.807
.785
1.764
1,743
1.722
1.702
1.682
1.662
1.642
• .623
'.604
'.666
NH30DU
(moAl
1.686
1.672
1,»68
1.546
ieii
1*20
1.607
1.484
U82
1.470
1.457
1.446
1.433
1.422
U10
1.386
1.367
iiW
1.366
1.364
1.343
CBODU
(mg/l)
10.80
10.67
10.64
io.io
«.4t
10.43
10.40
10.3*
10.33
10.30
10.27
10.23
10.20
10.17
10.13
10.10
10.07
10.04
10.0iT
8.67
8.84
CBODU
Into/I)
6.84
8.81
6.8»
8.86
iM
6.61
8.76
8.76
8.74
6.72
8.66
6.67
8.64
6.62
8.68
8.67
8J6
8.J5
6.60
8.47
6.45
TONODU
(mat)
8.78
6.16
8.17
8,17
6.16
8.15
6.41
8.14
8.13
8.13
8.12
6.11
8.H
8.10
8.08
8.08
8.08
6.07
6.07
8.06
8.06
rONODU
(man
8.05
8.09
8.04
8.64
8.03
8.03
6.02
8.64
8.01
8.01
8.00
6.00
7.66
7.68
7.88
7.88
7.67
7.87
7.86
7.88
7.66
PrquradbyADEM
11/58/2001
Opotiun t Vatoy Cr**l< WLA (Sumw-F&W), Nov 2001 UAAUrt
PogeSotK
-------
Vtll»y Creek WWTP
Opo3»um,Vall»y Cn»k, Jefferson County
mtw Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May • Novtmbtr Model
P »nd W Us* ClMBlfloatlon
Section 11
Distance Intllet)
7.85
7.66
7.86
7.87
7.88
7.88
7.88
7.60
7.81
7.81
7.82
7.83
7.43
7.64
7.83
7.89
7.88
7.87
7.88
7.88
7.88
Flaw
152.476
162.47*'
152,477
152.4?*
153.478
162.460
162.4*1
152.411
182.4*3
462.4*4
162.4*4
1*2488
152.46*
162.4*7
162.418
151488
162.480
162.461
162.481
162482
161463
Section Time
o.oo
6.06
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0'
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
Cumutattve rime
(dtjfl
1.48
1.48
1.46
1.4*
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.4*
1.4*
1.4*
1.4*
1.48
1.4*
Oi Deficit
(ma/li
1.8*33
1.86S3 ' '
1.6673
1.8463
1.6713
1.6732
1.8782
1.87T1
1.6760
1.8808
1.8828
1.6647
1.8*66
1.6864
1.6802
1.8820
1.8836
1.8866
1.8874
1.8881
10008
DO
(mo/1)
6.4647
«.4*26
6.4606
«.45*«
64566
5.4M7
I4ftfr
Ml w*
6.* If '
6.4.10
6.4461
6.4432
64413
6.4386
5.4377
6.4366
6.4341
64323
6.450!
64289
6.4270
NH30DV
1.338
1.336
1.334
1.331
1.328
1.327
1.322
1.S18
ill*
4.316
1.312
1.310
1.307
1.305
1.303
1.300
1.288
1.286
1.283
1.281
ceoou
(mot)
?4<
3
0.4<
6.311
8.31
8.31
6.3i
-
6.3'
83
r
MI
*.»
ft
6.3
6.34
8.34
6.3
6.3
>
i
6.32
8.32
8.31
rONODU
r™/«
7.84
7.84
7.83
7.83
7.63
7.83
7.84
7.63
7.63
7.83
7.83
7.62
7.«2
7,»2
7.62
7.82
7.82
7.82
7.62
7.82
7.81
Section 12
Dlstmcv (milts)
7.68
8.01
8.02
8.04
8.06
8.07
8.08
8.11
8.12
6.14
8.18
6.17
8.18
6.20
8.22
824
6.28
6.57
8.26
6.30
6.32
Flaw
IcW
152.483
152.486
W.W
162.468
152.501
152.404
152.506
182.506
162.510
162.612
151614
162.816
152.818
162.620
182.522
182.824
162.626
152.828
152.630
162,633
162.636
Stctlon Time
(dv/l
0.00
0.00
6.66
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
6.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
Cimu/fotfve r/me
(day)
1.4
1.4
1.4!
1.48
1.46
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.50
1.5
I
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.61
1.52
1.52
1.62
O2Deflc/l
(ma*
2.0012
2.0144
2.0276
20
J
; ,i
I:
; .•
I .'
; ;
j .
; .
2.J
if
*
1
i
a
i
?
86
418
641
2.1663
2.1784
2.1803
2.2022
2.2141
12268
12374
2.2480
DO
f1"*8
6.4270
6.413*
6.4006
5.3676
.:
.;
,!
746
if
n
82
i
i
;
. ]
6.: 618
6,2488
5.2378
6.22*0
6.2142
5.2024
6.1808
6.1762
NH3ODU
(man
.2*0
1.275
1.2TO
1.2*4
1.268
'.254
u\
.23*
.233
.228
.223
1.21*
1.213
1.208
1.203
1,184
1.183
1.1*8
ceoou
ImM
*,¥
8.30
*.2»
4}/
816
«.»
6.24
6.23
M.21
il.»
1.16
iM*
ft1!
*.«
8.14
8.13
6.12
6.11
6.08
8.0*
8.07
TONODU
Ima/li
7.1
1
7.11
7.61
7.61
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.88
7.88
7.68
7.M
7.88
7.6*
7.H
T;
7.1
y.i
t.i
r
7
7
7
7.87
7.66
PrepartdtiyADEM
11(28/200)
Opoiwn » Vahry Cmk WLA (Sunmr-FtW), Nov 2001 UAA xh
Pag«9ol14
-------
Valley Cntk WWTft
OpossumAfalley Creak, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Strewn Mode/
May - November Mode)
F und W UM Classification
Siction 13
01 siMiew (mih*)
fi'2
8.54
8.76
8.88
9.20
8.42
(.64
9.66
10.01
10.30
10.52
10.73
10.98
11.17
11.39
11.61
11.63
12.08
42.47
12.49
12.71
Horn
161611
152.637
1(2.662
1526(8
182,713
152.738
152.764
152.780
161816
162.841
1 J.8»
1 2H:
i fc' f '
i 2j i
4 1 *" i
i i. 94
153.020
153.046
5#cf tor? Hrrhl
(Otyl
8.00
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.11
6.U
0.16
0.18
0.22
0.26
0.27
0.30
0.33
0.38
0.38
0.41
0.44
0.46
0.49
0.52
0.85
CimiufoMv* Tim*
"
1.68
1.60
1.81
1.66
1.68
1.71
1.74
1.77
1.79
1.82
1.88
1.88
1.90
1.93
1.86
1.99
101
2.04
107
OlOfllcIt
imoq
2I8J8
iip
1271
1
128(2
12748
12(44
12461
12300
2.207*
11829
2.1689
2.1271
10870
10688
10338
100
1*1
f.l I
1,0 i
" "IJi
i
1
I
I
1.8370
DO
Ntt
1 j:
i /i
i .11
Oil'
?
i
3
ie
2*
8.1878
6,fi
~*ni
fi»
" III
814
l
!
(
5.3088
6.M67
6.3(88
I.38M
6.4343
8.4642
6.4871
6.6301
6.5630
6.6986
NHlOtHJ
t«m«l
1.1
;•'
*.'
i(
6
'24
0.177
0.834
0.894
OJ
0.
57
123
0.791
0.761
0.734
0.709
0.6(6
t,««4
0.644
6.825
o.e'o*
0.692
0.677
6.8(3
Section 14
DllUnc* {mibll
llfl
12.81
12.9^1
13.0*2
13.12
13.22
1332
13.42
13.83
13.63
13.73
13.83
13.93
14.04
14.14
14.24
14.34
14.44
14,61
14.66
14.76
ftow
1(3.046
ItlOM
153.0(5
183.076
453.098
161096
183.106
163.116
183.126
163.137
153.147
153.167
163.1(7
183.177
193.187
183.1(8
183,208
153.218
163.22*
163.238
183,24*
SfcHonT/mt
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.18
CuflwMfv* 71™
(dnl
1(7
2.08
108
2.09
2.10
2.11
112
2.13
114
118
116
2.W
119
2.18
2.19
2.20
121
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.29
OlMkO
f2f
j
1.784*
1.7283
1.6760
1.6246
1.87(7
1.6316
1.49*6
1.4480
1.4088
1.3730
1.33
93
1.3088
1.2743
1,2449
IS
1.18)7
1.1*43
1.1401
1.1171
1.0982
00
fcfS
tlN
~^f,l
6. 'i
J^
Ti
-4
6 S
(
i
n
4*
n
is
«
6.9512
6.9916
6.0303
6.0668
6.1014
6.1343
*.1i
(.«
"" «.«
t.%
e\
1
"~ -II
*.a<
66
61
!3
i
*
\
M
NH1
(m
1.
l .
i ,
0.
0.
IODU
ftf
II
5*
u
ft
44
0.839
0.636
0.630
0.626
0.622
0.618
0.614
0.610
0.607
0.
103
6.SOO
6.4*6
0.443
0.488
0.48«
0.483
caoou
807
(,«
*\7(
(.81
946
(.31
(.17
(.03
7.89
7.76
7.62
7.49
7.M
7.23
7.11
6.98
9.86
(.76
6.63
6.82
MO
CBOOU
(.29
(.26
(.22
(.19
815
8.11
6.08
8.04
8.04
6.99
8.94
8.91
8.87
8.84
581
8.77
8.74
6.71
TOHODU
7.**
7. (3
T.7*
7.7*
7.73
7.(9
7.66
7.62
7.69
7.68
7.63
7.49
7.49
7.43
Y.3*
7.36
7.33
7.30
7.27
7.23
7.20
fONODU
7.16
7.17
7.1*
7.18
7.14
7.13
7.12
7.11
7.10
7.09
7.08
7.07
7.06
7.08
7.04
r.os '"
7.02
7.01
7.00
Pr*ptr*dbyAOEM
11/38/2001
Opoiwn & Vatey Cntk WLA (Sumnsr-F&W), Nov 2001 UAA »l»
-------
vaii»y cne* WWTP
OpOfsumVatlty Cn«k, Jtfftnon County
Water QgaHtv
Steady-Stats Stream Mode/
May - Novtmbtr Mod*/
F tnd W UM Classification
Section 15
Distinct fmllts)
14.75
14(0
18.08
14.21
16,38
15.81
18.97
19.12
i6.»7
10.11
1«28
18.4S
16.56
1873
1889
17.04
17.18
17.34
17.50
17.85
17.10
Flow
(cftl
154.011
154.112
154.125
154.138
1(4.181
154.1*4
184.177
164.1W
184.244
154.217
V54.230
454.243
154.288
154.288
154.282
1M.284
184.30*
154.322
1(4.3)5
154.348
154.381
Section Time
(day)
0.00
0.01
0.63
0.04
0.0*
0.07
0.08
0.0*
0.11
0.12
0.13
o.iS
0.18
0.17
0.1*
0.14
0.21
0.23
0.24
05J
0.27
Cumufef/v* Tltm
(d*v>
2.25
2.28
2.27
2.28
2.30
2.31
X3J
2.34
2.38
2.37
2.38
... Wj.,.
2.41
2.42
' 2.44
2.45
148
2.48
2.48
156
2.82
Ol&ettcH
(man)
1.1044
1.0582
1.0180
0.8778
0,8423
0.8101
0.8808
0.8535
0.8288
0.8097
0.7848
0.7851
0.7470
0.7303
6.7148
0.7003
0.8888
0.8743
0.6825
0.8515
0.8411
DO
(malt)
8.3427
8.3888
8.4308
8.4884
8.8048
8.6386 "
8.9883
8.5834
8.8183
8.841!
8.81 21
8.81 fi"
8.81 ft
8.7188
6J321 "'
8.7488
8.7800
8.7728
8.7844
87654
8.8087
NH30DU
ima/l)
0.483
0.478
0.473
0.48«
0.484
0480
0.488
0,491
0.448
0.444
0.440
0437
0.433
0.430
4^27
6.414
0.421
0.4«
0.416
0.412
0.408
CflODU
(ma/I)
8.88
?•**
5.58
8.54
6.4»
5.45
8.40
8.38
6.31
6.4*
5.22
6.18
6.13
6.08
6.04
6.00
4.88
4.82
4.er
4.83
4.7*
rOHODO
(man
8.88
8.87
8.85
6.*4
8: '2
8.
6.
6.
6.
6.1
6.
1
S
8
6
'
».
8.12
6.80
6.7*
8.78
6.76
6.76
6.73
6.72
6.70
6.8*
Section 19
17.4
U.88
17.87
18,05
18.13
18.22
18.30
18.38
16.47
16.55
16.84
18.72
1880
18.88
18.87
18.05
18.14
18.22
19.30
18.3*
18.47
Wow
SW
Sr~
1(4.3*8
184.376
154.383
1*4.390
164.367
154.404
164.412
i 44.416
154.426
154.433
1*4.440
154.448
454.465
<54.46"2
164.468
154.476
154.484
1544*1
154.464
154.565
S*tttOHTtttHi
0.09
0.01
0.61
0.02
0.03
'6.64
6.04
0.05
6.66
0.07
6.67
0.08
0.06
0.10
6.46
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.14
0,16
Cufniffeffra TTa»
J.JJ
i.w
2.ii
2.84
2.86
2.65
2.J*
2.87
2.67
2.5f
J.6B
2.62
2.63
2.83
2.64
2.85
2.66
2.66
Old
Im
i.
8Ji
0.1 i
i,1!
0.11
QJ
fflc/l
It
if
ij" ""
!* ..
ir "-
8
O.*l<*
0.6631
0.6645
0.6858
6.6*65"
0.8673
0.687*
0.8684
0.86*7
0.8688
0.66*0
0.6889
0.8887
0,66(4
0.6680
DO
/mn/n
11
W:
611
F
»
i
(.7*77
6.761
6.7ft
»
6
6.7* *
9.7803
6.78*6
6.767*
6.76
8.78
6
f
»
6.7650
6.7647
6.7(46
' ifi
«
e.ms
6.7847
0
6.7654
HHiODU
ftWB
Inv •"
6".«i
6.40!
0.405
6.463
6:462
0.400
Q.3M
0.38)
0.388
61384
1 >!!
"';*
" 1: 1
i . i
6.1^6
0,3«
0.3$
I
i
• am
0482
act
lixf
"*f
4.T
4.7
HI
t
i
4.6 i
4.88
4.64
4.62
4.6*
4.S
4.6
48
r ..
*
i
4.51
4.4*
4.47
4.45
4.43
441
4.38
4,36
TOHODU
tmfO
tS
•
6,17
6.66
6.1
6.1
6.1
8
it
14
6.83
6.63
6.82
8.61
10
86*
6.46
6.68
6.67
6.56
6.86
6.65
6.54
(.53
Prepared by ADEM
11/26/2001
Opoitum « Vitsy Cntk WtA (Sunmtr-FtW), Nov 2001UAA «t$
pege 11 o114
-------
V»ll»y Crw/t WWTP
Opossum/Vallty Cretk, Jtfffrson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
May • November Mode/
F anrf IV Uce ClMsHlcatlon
Section 17
CHttiiKe (mlln)
19.47
18.78
30.10
20.41
20.72
21.04
21.39
21.68
21.97
3329
22.60
2281
23.23
2364
23.06
24.17
24.48
24.79
25.10
3142
28.73
Flow
lets)
185.105
188.21*
1*5.160
1*5. 20S
185.915
1(11448
4«5.366
158.413
155,445
185.476
158.610
iSittt
166.876
168.608
165.540
153.673
188.706
188.73*
188.770
168.603
486.838
Section Time
fO>y)
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.11
O.U
0.16
0.18
0.12
0.28
0.27
0.30
0.33
0.38
0.3ft
0.41
0.44
0.47
0.49
0.82
0.6«
CumuJaMve Tim*
(dart
2.66
2.6*
172
2.74
2.77
4.80
2.63
2.65
2.88
2.91
2.94
2.M
2.99
3.02
3.08
3.07
3.10
3.13
3.16
3.19
3.21
02 Do Well
(mo/11
0.6764
0.7447
0,9079
0.8802
0.9300
6.4WS
1.0180
1.0567
1.0M9
1,1297
1.4814
1.1601
1.2161
1.23H
1.2604
1.2761
1.2956
1.3102
1.3228
1.3338
1.343b
DO
(mo/1)
8.7(20
0.7133
6.6502
0.5918
6.6381
8.4688
6.4431
6.4014
e,3«33
6.3284
42868
6.2660
6.2421
62187
(.1977
6.1781
6.1626
8.1480
8.1383
6.1244
8.44*4
HH30DU
(man
0.382
0.378
O.ifi
O.!7i
o.;69
0.388
0.364
0.361
0.358
0.358
0.354
6.3(14
0.346
0.347
0.348
0.343
0.341
6.339
0.337
0.335
6.333
CBODU
(man
4.35
4.28
4.20
4.13
4.06
3.*9
3.62
3.65
3.79
3.74
3.66
3,69
3.63
3.47
3.41
3,3*
3.28
3.24
3.4'6
S.13
3.07
TONODU
(man
6.62
6.50
8.47
6.44
8.41
8.36
6.36
6.33
6.30
6.2T
6.24
6.22
6.18
6.16
8.14
6.11
6.0S
6.08
6.03
6.00
5.88
Secf/on18
Distance tmllnl
25.73
28.t7
26.82
26.66
28.80
26.65
25.69
26.03
26.08
26.13
26.17
26.21
2626
26.30
28.34
28.38
26.43
26.47
26.51
26.58
28.60
Flow
(ch)
186.6)5
48'5.630
186.643
161648
166.662
166.866
115.880
165.864
185.868
165.873
154.677
156.961
UJ.681*
446.886
155.684
155.888
168.802
168.808
165.810
t»i#lS
1*5.919
Suction Time
ld,v)
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
6.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.65
0.05
0.06
6.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
6.08
CumubHvc rime
(day}
3.21
3.21
3.22
3.22
3.23
3.23
3.23
3.24
3.24
3.24
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.27
4.17
3.27
3.28
3.28
3.28
02 Deficit
(mnfl
4.3487
1.3462
1.3816
1.3636
U662
1.3886
\Sw>1
1,3628
1.3651
1.3672
1,3693
1.3713
4.3734
4,i764
U773
1.3792
1.381 4
1,3830
1.3848
13866
1.3884
00
fmo/»
J.4W
6.1127
6.1103
6.1080
8.1057
6.1034
6.1012
8,0880
6.0M8
6.0847
6.0826
6.0906
ioMb '
8.0868
6.0646
6.0826
6.666?
6.07(8
6.0771
6.6 1'to
6.6 '35
HH30DU
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0,332
0.332
0.332
0.331
0.331
0.331
0.330
0.930
0.330
6.330
0.328
0.326
MJV
28
0.329
OJ28
0.328
caoou
(mow
3.07
3.07
3.0*
3.05
3.04
304
3.03
3.02
3.01
3.01
3.00
2.8*
i»9
2.88
Z»1
2.96
1*8
2.95
JJ4
2.84
X«3
TONODU
(man
sis
5.87
6.67
5.88
8.88
6.88
6.85
5.85
' ' 5.95
6.84
8.84
5.94
5.63
6.63
5.63
6.92
6.92
6.81
6.91
6.84
8.90
11/28/2001
OpOHim 4 V«hy Cm* WIA (Suimw-FiW), Nov 2001UAM*
Peg* 12ot14
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Cnek, Jefferson County
Water QuaHtv
Steady-State Stroam Model
May - November Model
F and W U»e CIa»«lflc«tlon
Section 19
Distance (mlhsl
26,60
27.00
27.40
27.80
28.30"
10.60
19,00
SMO
28.60
30.20
30.80
31.00
31.40
31.M
^5.20
lf.60
33.00
31.46
3380
M.JO
34.«0
Section 20
Olstmc»(mllei)
34.90
J4.T4
34.88
38.01
38,18
35. J9
39.43
38.66
38.70
3884
36.84
M.11
3626
3039
38.83
_ 38.86
38,80
Si 84
37.08
37.21
37,38
Flow
fcfW
157.388
487.431
4W.476
187.814
•167.683
4S7J84
1»7.«30
4W.666
167.707
187.745
19/.7W
ier.a»
147,M1
fflr.il "
riHSiii
^Wj ii
1S8. It
168.083
188.082
188.130
188.188
Section Ttme
tdty)
0.00
0.6J
0.07
0.10
o.U
0.}t
oil
6.H
0.28
0.31
0.3* "
0.38
0.42
0.4J
0.48
0.82
0.68
0.88
0.82
0.88
0.88
Cu/nufar/ve 77m«
(tevl
3.28
"Ui "
3.38
3.38
3.42
•"$.48
3.48
3.«3
3.87
3.70
J.74
3.77
3.81
3.84
3.87
3.81
3.84
388
O2 DeHcll
Itnsm
1.3847
1.4073
1.4178
1.4183
1,4328 "
1.4376
1.4407
4.4423
1.4428
1.4418
4.41W
1.4388
1.4314
\.i~W
1.4188
1.4128
1.« It
1.J ii
i,I Ii
1.1 0
1.3682
00
(mo/11
8'.072(k """
Igjk
i .'
' ;
,
,
I .
'!
6
tM
" m
6.0:
8.05
• «:o>
«.'oi
i
i
f
i
r
vi
«
i
'4
hi ""
8.0821
8.0708
9.0788
8.0880
8.0880
NH3ODU
(moW
0.328
0.328
0.328
0.328
0.314
0.323
0.321
0.' 20
O.i 'ii
O.'T'
0.31
0.314
0.342
ti.M
0308
6.io*
0.308
0.308
0.303
0.301
0.300
CBODU
(ma/0
ill
1(0
2.76
2.73
ie/
2.62
2.88
188
2.46
4.40
2.34
in
1.14
2.16
MS
; .10
:.o»
2.01
iW
1.62
1.86
Flow
<7
d.id
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.23
Cumubtln Time
fday)
3.88
188
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.08
4.08
4.07
4.08
4.08
4.10
4.11
4.13
4.14
4.18
416
4.lf
4.18
iio
4.11
OlOttlcll
imaA)
1.3738
1.3">14
1.3888
1.3877
1,3858
1.5^38
1,3813
1.35M
'.3887
•,i4*4
.3820
1.3488
1.3471
i344t
iJ421
1.3388
4.317*
1.3344
1.3317
i3"tt<
1.JJ83
DO
fmoA)
8.0880
8. 1
8.1
08
28
8.1048
'.V
I.*
l.t
ui
'.1
' .1
' i\
'
!. S
6.
*,•:
*.(
1.*
8.1'
8.1'
i.r>
to
82
14
37
BCZ
I
f
i
i~
i "•
!f
i!"
i
5
<:
NH30DU
(man
0.300
0.209
6.288
0.287
0.286
6.204
0.281
0.2»
0,183
0.282
0,282
0.281
0.280
0.208
0.268
0.288
0.187
0.287
0488
0.288
0.28J
CBODU
Ima/ll
1.M
i*7
1.88
1.88
1.84
1.63
1.82
1.81
4.80
1.76
1.76
1.77
1.76
- .u
1.7
1.7,
4.73
l.rt
1.71
1.70
4.68
rONODU
tmaAl
t,8»
S.88
6.83
6.78
6.76
S\7i
8.70
6.67
6.64
J.el
8.4*
6.84
6.81
6.46
8.48
6.41
6.38
6.36
6.33
6.30
8.28
TONODU
8.28
«.!7
8.26
6.26
8.44
6.23
622
6.21
8.20
8.10
6.1*
6.17
6.46
6.16
6.14
6.13
8.41
8.12
8.11
».«
6.08
Prepared by AO EM
11/28/2001
Opo$«nt & V>hy Cre*k WUV (SurrcMf-FiW). Nov 2001 UAA »)»
-------
Velley Cruk WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-Stare Stream Modal
May - November Model
F and W Us* Classification
*«*W£n-?l _.. .-_-.
37.31
17.74
36.14
38.63
36.83
39.32
39.71
40.11
4».60
4».90
41.29
41.68
42.09
42.47
4287
43.26
43.69
44.06
44.44
44.64
46.23
flow
160413
160.881
160.686
160.926
160.963
161.001
161.038
161.076
HtiHi
161.160
181.166
161.226
161.263
161.300
U1.338
161.376
161.413
161.466
161.487
161.626
161.662
S«c«on Tint,
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.16
O.i9
0.23
0.26
6.29
0.32
0.36
0.39
0.42
0.46"
0.49
0.62
0.66
0.68
0.61
0.66
CUmU%£Tlmt
4.:
4J
4.;
1
4
7
4J8"
4.33
4.37
4.40
4.43
4.46
4.60
4.63
4.66
4.«9
4.6)
4.66
4.69
4.72
4.
4.
4.
4.
6
9
12
16
OtOrllcll
JS&R
1.IMt
1.3123
1.30)6
1.2941
1.266!
: -
»
1.2789
1.267!
1.28*
1.24»
1.2404
1.2311
1.2218
1.2126
1.2032
1.1939
1.1646
1.1762
1.1669
1.1666
a
mi
.'
,'
;
/
;
j
e.;
fi
fc
i;
6.
0
Jft
!
1
i
i
i ....
i
i
i
i !
i
; i
•
4
T
too
6.2793
6.2667
6.2990
6.3073
6.3166
1.1472 6.3260
HHiODU
tnft
6.4
6.:
67^
**
«4
63
>81
1.280
1 1.279
0.277
0.276
6.278
0.273
0.272
0,270
0.
Q.
o.:
69
**
«e
0.268
6.364
OJ62
6.261
0.260
C80OU
Imafl
1.§l
1.»*
1*
1.62
1.69
1.67
1.66
1*
1.81!
1.48
1.46
1.43
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3.
1.31
!*»_..._
\M
1.2*
TONODU
6.03
tl.W
4.99
4.86
4.9)
4.90
4.98
4.86
4.83
4.60
4.78
4.76
4.7)
4.70
4.68
4,66
4.63
4.61
4.69
Prep>nxlbyA.OEM
Opouun i Vafcy Cratk WLA (Sumwr-FtW), Nov 2001 DM xfc
Page 14 of 14
-------
Opossum Creek / Valley Creek Waste Load Allocation
December - April / A & I Classification
8.00
Confluence of Valley Creek and |
Opossum Creek
1. USXWWTP
2. Koppers Organics
3. Valley Creek WWTP
Confluence of Valley Creek
and Blue Creek
2.00
0.00 \ 5.00
Opossum Creek
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Distance Downstream of USX, miles
35.00 40.00 45.00
" Dissolved Oxygen Criteria
-------
Valley Crwfc WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Enter (ha Number of Sections >
31.000
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
Opostum Creek I Velley Cnek Weite to*rf Allocation • December - April WLA /AM CI*nHtc*Hon
December • April Model
A end I Use Classification
Total Length (mile*)- |
Headwater Date
Raceealon tndaK (O) •
Moan Annual Ptec. (P) •
Drainage Atea(M"2)»
Temp(C')-
CHL-
H«adwfil«r Flow (cle) »
CBODU (tng/l) •
NHjODU (mg/l) -
TONODU (mfl/l) -
Headwater D.O.t Qotl Soak
3.20
3.59
5.05
7.20
f fl'fff /flFftff'Wf*' 4ffif ft 931
StcUona
1.00
2,00
3.00 II
4.00
8.00
8.00
7.00
e.oo
(.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
19.00
18.00
17.00
16.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
^jf 9P« a
CoODU
(mffi
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
' nona. leew
tmfU
m
0,98
0.99
0.99
0.68
0.69
0.89
o.e»
0.89
0.98
0.69
0.68
0.69
0.89
0.98
0.99
0.68
0.88
0.68
0.66
0.69
J^/Jflfil
"^
M9
8.18
6.86
6.66
8.96
6.66
8.88
6.89
6.66
6.86
6.66
9.89
(.89
6.88
6.86
6.66
6.86
6.66
8.88
6.66
6.89
00
ftn*U
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
Flow
W
0.028
0.030
0.349
0.129
0.304
0.089
0.199
0.149
0.114
0.029
0.099
0.734
0.236
0.309
0.187
0.791
0.101
0.928
0.319
0.802
0.000
Ttmp.
29.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20iOOO
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
10.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
Q10
(dM
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DmlnegeAne
f>n»*U
Prepared by A DE.M
11/28/2001
Opossum 4 Vatey CretK WLA (Wlrtw-Ail), 2001UAA id>
Pap 1 of 14
-------
Valley CrwAr WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Model
A and I Use Classification
gfi^f tjfm/wif ^ono/uons in
SMtom
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
9.00
6.00
7.00
8.00 "1
8.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
19.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
18.00
20.00
2100
22.00
Saitm
CBOOV
26.000
37.900
33.000
• CMflfU
WKa "
Mtf
6.14
61.40
"tOO
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.bo •
0.00
8.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
rOTODU
ihflf
8.14
137.10
8.14
DO
6.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
fkrx
left)
17.017
0.0997
131.800
?5
20.000
20.000
20.000
pH
7.00
7.00
I*1*1/
3.08
3.M
1
T7M most 9lfl
two vmlut
Imptumttt
dl»ch*ri
MOW
3.27
3.H
41
/
/ jS
1 S'
//"
n0MtfOf(7W
*w1ltb»
todMtfi*
ju limit
/a£
IW9 WQ Limn
imtfl
zoo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
— 2.00
^ 0.00
/" 0.00
0.00
O.M
0.00
0.60
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Enter Section Characteristics (If none, leave blank)
Sec/font
Vob
2.00
3.00
4.00
9.00
«.oo
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
19.00
19.00
17.00
18.00 '
18.00 j
20.00
21.00
22.60
Beginning
Efov.m)
iis.foo
4VO.OOO
480.000
479,000
499.000
482.000
438.000
430.000
422.000
420.000
412.000
411.000
410.000
380.000
382.000
331.000
318.000
tjjji
300
280.000
298.700
299.000
Ending
eif-tnj
440.00
480.00
478.00
488.00
482.00
439.00
430.00
412.00
420.00
412.00
411.00
4(0.00
380.00
362.00
3J1.00
318,00
288.00
SM.30
280.00
268.70
269.00
fbv.Changa
m
8.00
10.00
6.00
20.00
3.00
17.00
8.00
8.00
2.00
8.00
1.00
1.00
30.00
18.00
31.00
13.00
20.00
3.70
34.30
1.30
3.70
269.00
Length
(">/*•«)
0.4700
0.4700
0.6100
1.1800
0.4400
J,*»
o. 'S6o
6.8100
0.6300
0.1400
0.3100
4.3800
2.0400
3.0900
1.6700
6.2800
0.8700
8.0000
2.7800
7.8800
Average
eitv.m
4i 4.090
41 9.000
4i 7.900
469.000
493.800
443.900
431900
426.000
421.000
416.000
4H.600
410.900
386.000
371.000
348.600
324.900
308.000
288.190
277.160
288.JSO
298.860
127.900
Section
StomlMnll
mti
21.277
8.604
16.807
6.818
8.467
8.826
6.163
2.468
12.688
7.43
3.i30
6.IM
6)24
10.184
7.784
3.188
4.283
4.288
0.473
0,470
wowrai
Avtttge Flow
^Jcrt) ,
%ii
18.21
18.24
18.43
18.67
23.04
23.24
24.28
199.62
188.08
198.16
188.22
188.62
188.10
181.78
181.68
18440
184.82
186.28
188.67
176.46
0.00
Arfng*
VtUft/ww)
~0.iH
0.312
0.312
0.314
0.317
0.340
0.342
0.383
0.601
0.801
0.908
O.S08
0.908
0.711
0.720
0.721
4.72»
0.730
0.746
0.767
0.760
DDIV/01
Opouun 4 Vgtoy d«»k WLA (Wlntor-A&l), 2001UAA xto
Pag«2ori4
-------
Vaffey Cree* WWTP
Oposaum/Va//»y Cre«fc, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December • April Modal
A and I Use Classification
Sections
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
8.00
r.oo
8.00
(.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
18.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
1&.00
20.00
21.00
2200
Reaction Rate* A
Kd
i.i4o
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.300
0.300
0.000
KNH3
1.60
1,50
1.80
1.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.60
1.50
1.50
160
1.60
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.60
0.00
KON
o.to
0.80
o.to
0.80 .
0.60
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
20"C
7*. Coefficient
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
088
089
0.88
o.ea
0.88
088
088
088
088
088
0.88
088
0.88
0.00
Retention
4.888
8.834
3.882
6.887
2.807
4.203
3.878
3.742
1.088
6.800
3.180
1.354
30(0
6620
6440
49)7
1680
1 370
1.370
1.140
1.140
NDIV/OI
Corrected ftetos 0 New Temp. 1
Kd
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0400
0.400
0.400
0400
0400
0400
0300
0.300
0.000
KHH3
4.43
1.34
1.34
1.21
1.39
1.30
1.43
1.4S
1.39
1.28
1.32
1.31
1.27
1.31
1.42
1.47
1.47
1.3»
1.3«
1.39
1.30
0.00
KON
6.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
Av*. R«a*ratlon
8.88
8.83
3.88
8.87
2.81
4.20
3.87
3.74
1.09
6.80
3.18
1.36
3.06
8.82
6.44
4.94
1.66
1.37
1.37
1.14
1.14
KDIV/OI
Mixed Temp.(°C) |
20.00 {
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
Prepared by AOEM
11/26/2001
Opostim & Vafey Cr«ek WLA (Winter-All), 2001 UAAxtt
P« je 3 0(14
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
OpossumVallay Creek, Jefferson County
Wattr Quality
Steady-Stats Stream Model
December - April Model
A and I Use Classification
Model Output
Section 1
D/«t»ncefm/te«;
o.ooo
0.024
0.047
0.071
0.094
0.116
0.141
0.1(5
O.H8
0.112
0536
0.369
0.202
0.306
0.3J8
0.393
0.376
0.400
0.423
0.447
0.470
Flow
(cfst
iMf
16.118
16.120
16.121
16.123
16.124
16.125
16.127
16.126
16.130
16.131
16.132
16.134
ie.m
18.137
16.136
16.136
16.141
16.142
16.144
18.145
Section TV/TO
rcM
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
O.M
0,07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.0*
0.06
Cumulative Time
(oty)
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.0«
0.05
0.06
0.06
O.M
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Of Deficit
{man}
2.6561
3.0451
3.1677
3.2661
3.3603
3.4506
3.5371
3.61*6
3.9990
3.7747
3.6471
3.6162
3.6621
4.0450
4.1050
4.1622
4.2168
4.2663
4.3175
4.3642
00
6,0*1
6,946
6642
8740
5,641
5.547
5,457
5,370
6,268
5,206
5,133
5.060
4.691
4.926
4.162
4.802
4.745
4.891
4.639
4.690
4.543
NH30DU
(man)
6.82T
6.602
9.578
8.554
8.530
9.606
8.492
8.456
9.434
5.410
9.396
9352
8.339
8.315
8.291
9.267
9.244
9.220
8.197
8.173
8.150
CBODU
(matt
24.54
24.45
24.31
2419
24.01
23.97
23,72
23.59
23X4
23.30
23.19
23.02
22.99
22.74
22.80
22.46
22.33
22,19
2105
21.93
21.79
fONODU
4.00
9.97
9.93
8.90
8.87
9.84
9.80
9.T7
9.74
9.71
8.67
9.84
8.91
6.68
8.55
9.51
8.46
9.46
9.42
9.39
6.36
Section 2
D/llanca (mltas)
0.49
0.52
0.54
0.58
0.59
0.61
0.63
0.56
0.68
0.71
0.73
0.75
0.78
0.90
0.62
0.85
0.97
0.89
0.82
0.94
Flow
fcfsl
16.101
19.202
16.203
18.205
18.206
18.206
16.20ft
16.210
19.212
18.213
18.215
18.216
19.217
18.219
18.220
18.222
19.223
16.224
18.226
18.227
18.226
Sec tlon Tlmo
(*V)
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.09
Cumulative Time
ftfcy;
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0,12
0.12
0.12
0.13
0,13
0.14
0.14
0.19
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
02 Deficit
4.3957
4.3737
4.3606
4.3963
4.3910
4.1648
4.3971
4.3996
4.3993
4.3991
4.3980
4.3991
4.3934
4.3900
4.3990
4.3912
4.3759
4.3696
43631
4.3560
4.3463
DO
tmoat
4,637
4.630
4.524
4.620
4,816
4,914
4.512
4.611
4.612
4.813
4.616
4.617
4.621
4.625
4.629
4.935
4.641
4.547 '
4,655
4.662
NH30DU
M
.11384
11394
U344
8.324
8.304
8.2*4
8.2*4
8.244
8.224
8.204
8.184
8.1*4
8.144
8.124
9,104
9,084
9.0*4
9.044
8.024
9.004
CBODU
tnrtll
M.T1
11.69
:t.45
21.32
21.19
21.06
20.94
20.91
20.89
20.59
20.44
20.31
20.19
20.07
19.95
19.93
19.71
19.59
1947
18,654
TOHOOU
(ma/lt
W
9.72
9.69
8,99
8.62
8.59
8.96
6.53
8.50
8.47
8.43
8.40
8.37
9.34
8.31
8.26
8.25
8.22
9.19
9.19
9.13
Pt«p»(»db'yA.DEM
11/26/2001
Opotsun & Vahy CrooK WLA (Winter- A»l), 2001 UAAKta
-------
Vallay Crwk WWTP
OpoMum/Vallay Cre*k, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Modal
A and / Use ClaMfficatlon
Section 3
Distance fmllei)
DM '
0.07
088
1.02
1.04
i.or
i.oe
1.12
1.14
1.17
1.20
1.22
1.2*
1.27
1.30
152
1.38
1.37
1.40
1.42
1.48
Flow
felt)
10.2281
10.230
18.J3J
1*.233
10.238
10.230
18.238
18238
18241
18.242
18244
19.24$
18247
18248
11.290
18.261
10.283
16.288
18288
18.211
10.288
Section Time
Wtf
6.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.0*
0.0*
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.0*
0.10
Cumulative Time
fdtyl
O.rt
0.1»
0.1*
0.20
0.29
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.2*
0.2*
028
0.27
0.27
0.2*
0.28
OtDolkll
fmoffl
4.390(1
4.4418
4.8200
4.8161
4.8678
4.7701
4.8659
4.0311
9.0040
9.0749
9.1427
9.2087
9.2724
9.3340
5,3835
9.4910
9.90M
9.8SOO
9.6114
6.6610
8.7088
DO
(mail)
Vfl!
4.472
4384
4288
4,219
4.139
4,097
3.882
3.004
3838
3.771
3.709
3,641
3.676
3.920
3.462
3.407
3.394
3.302
3.262
3.209
NH30DU
(mam
7.M3
7.061
7.030
7.010
7,006
7.076
7.063
7.032
7.010
7.700
7.707
7.740
7.728
7.703
7.602
7.061
7.030
7.610
7.607
7.970
CBOOU
(ma/11
10.39
10.23
10.10
16.88
10.09
10.73
10.61
10.40
10.36
10.24
10.13
10.01
17.00
17.77
17.6*
17.64
17.43
MM
17.20
17.00
16.88
TONODU
(man)
0.10
0.0*
0.03
0.00
7.07
7.04
7.00
7.07
7.04
7.01
7.70
7.79
7.72
7.68
7.66
7.62
7,90
7.68
7.63
7.60
Section 4
Distance fmlleai
1.61
1.97
1.63
1.68
1.78
1.01
1.07
1.03
1.88
2.0S
2.10
2.16
2.22
2.2*
2.34
2.40
2.4*
2.62
2.60
2.64
Plow
(oft)
10.290
10.270
10.204
10.311
10.320
10.346
10.3*3
10.3*0
10.307
16.414
10.432
10.440
18.4*6
10.403
10.601
10.010
10.938
10.992
10.970
10.687
10.604
Section Time
(dtfl
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.00
0.10
0,12
0.13
0.14
0.19
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.23
Cumulative Time
(d»y)
0.30
0.31
0,32
0.33
0.34
0.39
0.37
0.30
0.3*
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.43
049
0.40
0.47
0.40
0.40
0.60
0.82
Ot Delicti
(mo*
6.0174
8.9280
84354
8.3484
9.2638
9.1010
8,1020
8.0243
4.0407
4.0748
4.0020
4.7327
4.0042
4.8072
4.031*
4.4077
4.4061
4.3430
4.2037
4.224*
DO
10.71
10.49
10.10
19.04
19.60
1644
18,20
14.00
M.T3
14.40
14.27
14.04
13.02
13.01
1140
13.10
12,00
12.70
1190
12.30
TONODU
7.60
7.43
7.36
7.30
7.23
7.10
7.10
7.03
0.07
6.00
6.04
*.77
8.71
0.09
0.90
6.93
0.47
0.41
0.38
0.2*
0.24
Prepared by A DEM
fWS/2001
Opoiwm & Vafcy Creek WLA (W1nt*r-AS.I), 2001 UAA.xb
Page 8 of 14
-------
Valley Cr+ek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Crmfc, Jofferaon County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Mode/
A »nd I Use Classification
Section 8
D/iOnc.fml(«i}
2.66
2.66
2.71
2.73
2.78
2.77
2.71
362
2.84
2.88
2.88
j.eo
2.83
2.85
287
2.88
3.01
3.04
3.09
3.08
Flow
Mt)
IMS!
18.810
18.417
18.823
18.830
18.838
16.642
18.648
16.899
16.681
16.666
18.674
16.881
18.687
16.663
18.700
18.708
18.713
18.718
16.729
18.732
SKffonrtim
4.56
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.0]
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
CumufeMwrtm*
AM
IB
0.62
0.62
0.63
0.63
0.64
0.54
0.99
0.68
0.58
0.68
0,98
0.87
0.67
0.97
0.98
0.86
0.98
0,98
0.80
0.60
OtOtflcIl
4J808
4.334?
4.3873
4.4367 '
4.4880
4.6363
4.6864
4.6335
4.8766
4.7249
4.7684
48113
4.8933
4.8842
4.9342
48733
9.0114
9.0489
9.0848
8.1202
00
MM
4.841
4,988
4.038
4.464
4.433
4,384
4.336
4.288
4.243
4.188
4.184
4.111
4.086
4.026
3.688
3.848
3.811
3674
3.9)6
3.802
NH100U
Vfjf
6.708
6.680
8.871
6.851
6.632
6.61}
6.584
6.575
6.666
6.637
6.618
8.488
6.480
6461
6.443
6424
6403
6387
6.398
6.390
CBOOO
'Mi
12.11
12.24
12.17
12.10
12.03
11.88
118*
11.82
11.78
11.68
11.82
11.69
11.46
11.42
11.38
11.28
11.22
11.18
11.08
11.03
TOHODU
M"
iV
6.21
6.16
8.17
8.16
6.13
6.11
9.0*
6.07
6.05
6.03
6.01
5.86
6.67
6.86
6.83
5.81
6J8
8.87
5.65
5.63
Sactlon 8
0/.(wic« (mW.it
" """"""• """W " "" "-
3.17
3.26
3.36
3.44
3.63
3.62
3.71
3.80
3.68
3.86
4.06
4.16
4.24
4.33
4.42
4.51
4.60
4.68
4.78
4.87
now
Ictfl
fijli
22.80?
22.622
22.637
22.882
22.888
22.883
22.668
23.013
23.028
23.044
23.058
23.074
23.088
23.104
23.120
23.138
23.190
23.166
23.160
23.18*
SMfton rim.
W
m
0.02
0.03
6.05
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.11 I
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.21
0,22
0.24
0.26
0.27
0,26
0.31
0.32
Cu/nul»Kv« r/m*
Mjjl -
0.62
0.63
6.85
0.88
0.68
0.70
0.71
0.73
0.74
0.76
0.78
0.78
0.81
0.83
0.84
0.66
0.67
0.88
0.81
0.82
OitMkli
fmo/ll
4.8067
4.7456
4.6844
4.4508
4.3143
4.1848
4.0811
3.8435
3.8316
3.7247
3.6226
3.8267
3.4328
3.3442
3.2684
3.1763
3.1007
3.0283
16550
18887
2.8211
00
ftwffl
4.182
4.333
4.476
4.812
4.742
4.866
4.683
8.085
6.202
5.303
5.401
5.483
5.682
9.687
9,749
5.825
5.800
5.871
6.036
6.108
NH3ODU
tmo/ll
i.ff*
8.176
I.6W
4.677
4.860
4.786
4.663
4.603
4.614
4.428
... &n
4 HO
4.178
4.088
4.021
3.845
3.670
3.787
3.726
3668
3.587
C80DU
tmofi
f^p
6.33
8.28
6.20
6,14
8.07
8.01
8.65
6.86
8.83
8.77
8.71
8.66
6,58
6.63
647
8.41
8.36
6.30
8.24
6.18
rOMOOU
ftnaf
W
5.66
8.58
5.58
5.67
6.6«
6.65
6.66
5.54
5.63
6.62
6.51
6.61
5.60
5.48
548
6.47
5.47
5.46
5.45
8.44
Prep«r«dbyAOEM
11/29/2001
Opossum &V«teyCf»rtWlA (Whiter-Mi), 2001 UAA.»to
P«gt6t>M«
-------
Valley CreoH WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Model
A and I Use Classification
Section 7
OhtancffmlM
4.W
4.M
463
4.95
4.98
8.01
8.04
9,07
6.09
8.12
8.18
8.16
8.21
8.23
8.28
6.29
8.32
8.38
8.37
640
8.41
Flofi
(CM
21200
23.208
23.210
23.218
23.219
23.224
23.229
23.234
23.238
23.243
23.249
23.283
23.287
23.282
23.287
23.272
23.278
23.281
23.288
23.2*1
Section 8
Ot>t*ncKmltil)
8.49
8.81
8.81
8.83
8.87
8.72
8.77
892
5.87
8.92
8.97
8.02
8.07
8.12
8.18
9.21
8.28
8.31
8.38
8.41
no*
fftt
24.199
J4M7
24.208
24.214
24.222
24.231
24.239
24.247
24.259
24.284
24.272
24.291
24.289
Z4.2«7
24.308
24.314
24.322
24.331
24.33*
24.347
Stctlon Tim
(day)
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
4,04
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.0«
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.10
Cumubt/v* Time
tdajfl
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.17
0.97
0.**
0.98
O.M
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.02
1.02
S«itonr<*ati
T,*0
7.17
7,68
7.62
7.49
7.47
7.44
7.41
7.39
7.39
7.33
7.31
7.28
7.J6
T.23
7.20
7.18
7.15
7.13
7.10
TONODU
(man
6.44
6.44
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.42
6.42
6.42
8.42
641
6.41
6.41
6.41
6.40
6.40
8.40
6.40
6.38
TONODU
Ml
6.36
8.36
6.36
6.36
6.34
6.34
8.34
6.33
6.33
6.32
5.32
5.32
6.31
5.31
6.30
6.30
630
8.2*
8.2*
6.26
PrqurrtbyADEM
1W6/7001
Opossum I V«HY CTMti WLA (WN«r-A»l), 2001 UAA«»
Page 7 of 14
-------
Valley Craefc WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Qua/ftv
Steady-Stats Stream Model
December • April Model
A and I Itoa Classification
Section 0
| Distance (VnHes)
6.41
643
• 49
6.53
9.57
861
9.88
6.69
6.T3
6.77
9.81
•.86
6.90
684
8.88
7.02
7.0«
7.10
7.14
7.18
7.22
Flow
(clW
165. 847
168.864
199.892
155899
185.876
199.884
168891
199.898
mew
159.813
195.920
198.927
189.839
189.842
159.849
195.987
188.864
159.871
155.878
189.888
198.993
Sec lion Time
(dart
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.10
Cu/nufetfve TVme
ftfer)
1.20
1.20
1.21 "
1.21
1.22
1.22
1.23
1.23
1.24
1.24
1.25
1.28
1.26
1.26
1.27
1.27
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
OtDflkll
(mMJ
3.7570
3.8465
3.9380
4.0267
4.1173
4.2081
4.2616
4.3778
4.4627
4.6486
4.6300
4.7122
4.7936
4.8742
4.9538
6.0326
6.1105
9.1876
5.2636
8.3383
DO
6.176
5.084
4,884
4.904
4,816
4.726
4.641
4.656
4.470
4,366
4.303
4.220
4.139
4.059
3.979
3.800
3.822
3.745
3.668
3.963
Section 10
Distance Imllesl
7.25
7.28
7.31
7.39
7.38
7.41
7.44
7.47
7.90
7.83
7.97
7.90
7.93
7.69
7.99
7.72
7.T«
7.76
7.82
7.99
Flow
fcfcj
199.981
185.888
198.008
198.010
189.019
168.022
196.027
150.033
196.038
196.044
196.090
199.099
196.061
156.087
156.073
166.078
150.064
196.080
196.086
186.101
186.107
Sffctfon TJmo
(day)
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.62
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
Cu/nubtfve Time
(d»Y>
l«
1.28
1.30
1.30
1.31
1.31
1.31
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.33
1.33
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.37
O2 Ooflctt
ImalQ
8.3032
6.2661
6.2286
8.1637
6.1883
5.1235
6.0682
9.0999
6.0222
4.6694
4,9672
4.6254
4.8941
4.8832
4.8328
4.8028
4.7733
4.7442
4.7186
4.6973
00
ftns/V
3.631
3.868
._ 3.705
3.741
3.776
3.811
3.845
3.678
9.812
3.846
3.877
4.008
4.040
4.071
4.102
4.112
4.161
4.180
4.218
4.247
NH30DU
6.09$
8.044
7.883
7.842
7.692
7.841
7.762
7.742
7.683
7.644
7.896
7.949
7.600
7453
7.406
7.M8
7.J1J
7.28*
7.220
7.176
7.130
CBODU
(nmn
25.69
28.80
28.84
28.78
26.72
28.66
28.61
28.65
28.48
28.43
26.38
M.32
26.26
26.20
26.16
28.08
28.03
27.M
27.82
27.86
27.81
TONODU
(mo/1)
8.63
8.63
8.62
8.62
8.52
6.51
6.51
8.60
8.80
6.49
649
8.48
8.48
8.48
8.47
6.47
846
646
8.46
6.46
NH3ODU
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Model
A and (Use C/asafffcat/on
Section 11
Dltttncf (mites)
7.88
7.99
7.97
788
7,9*
7.99
7.W
791
7.«1
7.»2
7.»9
7.83
7.94
7.9*
7.»S
7.**
7.97
7.99
7.9*
7.99
Section 12
OltUiK»(mllfi)
f.M
9.01
9.02
9.04
•.08
9.07
9.09
9.11
9.12
9.14
l.1«
9.17
9.19
9.20
9.21
9.24
9.2S
9.27
9.29
8.10
9.32
Flow
Ictif
199.197
189.199
199.109
169.171
189.172
189.173
168.174
1B9.179
199.177
189.179
189.179
189.191
189.192
189.193
199.194
199.1H
189.197
189.199
188.199
189.191
189.192
Flow
Icttl
188192
158.193
189.199
198.201
189.204
188.207
189.210
189.213
189.219
188.219
199.222
188.228
188.229
189.231
1M.2J4
189.237
188.240
188.249
188.249
189.248
189.281
Sec (ton f/m«
(dif)
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0,01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
Sec/ton Time
(day!
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
Cifmufolfve n/iw
(*Jtf
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.38
1.3*
1.38
1.3*
1.39
1.39
1.3*
1.3*
1.3*
1.39
1.38
Cumubl/ve Tims
Wj1
1.31
1.3*
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
142
02 Otttclt
("Wi ii
4.9999
4.9730
4.9798
4.8900
4.9835
4.9170
4.8*04
4.993*
4.9*72
4.7009
4.7040
4.7073
4.T107
4.7140
4.7173
4.7209
4.7239
4.7270
4.7302
4.7334
OZ Deficit
fmo/B
4.7337
4.7884
4.7929
4.9073
4.9319
4.9997
4.9797
4.9037
4.9274
4.9911
4.9747
4.9991
8.0214
8.0448
8.0*77
9.0*07
8.1138
8.1382
9.1989
9.1814
8.203*
00
(mo/11
4.270
4.298
4.283
4.289
4,288
4.262
4.24*
4.248
4.242
4.238
4.238
4,232
4.229
4.228
4.222
4.219
4.218
4.212
4.209
4,200
4.202
00
(man
4.202
4.17*
4.183
4.128
4.10S
4.081
4.097
4.033
4.008
3.8*8
3.992
3.939
3.916
3.992
3.891
3.848
3.823
3.900
3.777
3.788
3.733
NH3ODU
(moO)
8.448
9.440
9.433
8.427
8.420
8.414
(.407
8.401
8.3*4
9.399
9.392
8.378
8.389
9.^92
9.388
8.380
8.343
8.337
9.330
8.324
NH30DU
rmg/U
1.324
U.30*
6.2*4
8.27*
9.288
9.280
6.238
6,220
8.209
9.191
9.177
9.192
9.147
9.133
8.11*
9.104
9.0*0
9.079
9.091
9.047
8,033
C0ODU
Inrnm
29.91
29.61
28.80
28.89
29.68
29.67
M.S*
26.66
28.84
29.63
29.92
28.61
28.91
28.60
26.48
29.49
29.47
29,48
29.49
29.44
CBODU
f"ftff
2944
29.42
29.40
28.3*
29.39
29.33
29.31
28.2*
28.27
29.28
29.23
29.21
29.1*
29.18
28.14
26.12
28.10
28.08
28.09
29.04
29.02
TONOOU
(man
9.34
9.34
8.3J
9.33
(.33
1.33
1.33
9.33
9.33
9.33
9.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
9,33
9.33
9.32
ftSJ
».32
•.32
TONODU
(moll)
'«/
9.32
(.32
(.32
(.32
9.31
9.31
8.31
8.31
(.31
(.31
8.30
(.30
8.30
(.30
940
9.30
8.29
8.28
826
8.29
Prepared by A.D EM
Oposum * Vafcy Creek WIA (WW«r-A4l), 2001 UAA.id»
Page ft of 14
-------
VaWay Cn»«M WVTP
Opossums/alley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December • April Model
A and I Use Classification
Section 13
OltUncf trnUe*)
8.32
8.84
9.79
8.98
920
•.42
8.64
8.99
10.09
10.30
10.82
10.73
10.68
11.17
11.39
11.»1
11.83
12.09
12.27
1148
12.71
Flow
(cfsj
W.41H
161.288
188.328
188381
168.389
169.438
188.472
169.600
168.846
1(8.682
186.818
188.888
1886*2
188.728
168.768
188.802
118.838
188.878
189.812
188.848
188.988
Section Tlm»
fday)
0.00
0.03
o.os
0.08
0.11
0.13
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.32
0.34
0.37
0.40
0.42
0.48
0.47
0.80
0.83
CvmuMtvt Time
(day)
\M
1.49
1.49
1.80
1.83
1.89
1.89
1.61
1.63
1.99
1.99
1.71
1.74
1.77
1.79
1.92
1.68
1.87
1.90
1.92
1.98
OlDfdctl
(mftt
8.2673 .
8.2938
8.3199
8.3337
8.3399
8.3379
8.3299
8.3131
8.2919
8.2648
6.2334
6.1979
9.1669
8.1189
8.0T14
i -.L-J.-
4Mt
4.81B5
00
3.733
3.698
3.949
3.624
3.909
3.903
3.M8
3.914
3.829
3.981
3.979
3.709
1749
3.794
3.926
3.971
3.919
3.999
4.020
4.073
4.127
NH30DU
Wl
Ifil
6.966
8.993
6.819
9.366
9.200
9.049
4.903
4.793
4.629
4.484
4.397
4.244
4.124
4.009
3.987
3.799
3.689
Ml 4
3.««
3.391
CBODU
26.02
29.74
28.49
26.19
24.92
24.98
24.39
24.13
23.97
23.92
23.39
23.12
22.97
2192
22.38
22.14
21.81
21.97
21.44
21.21
20,98
TONODU
(mft
8.2V
6.27
8,24
8.22
9.20
8.16
8.19
9.13
9.11
9.09
9.07
9.08
9.03
9.01
7.88
7.99
7.94
7.92
7.10
7.18
7.99
Sect/on 14
iHtnncflmHrtl
wfi
12.81
12.91
13.02
13.12
13.22
13.32
13.42
13.63
13.63
13.73
13.93
13.93
14.04
14.14
14.24
14.34
14.44
14.88
14.96
14.76
Kn*
{f 'tfj
tUJU
169.867
189.009
169.020
199.032
189.044
199.098
169.0*8
169.079
199.091
169.103
169.116
199.127
169.138
189.180
189.162
168.174
169.196
169.197
169.209
169.221
SKtbnTlmt
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.18
0.19
0.17
0.19
CufltufeHmrJm*
.... ma . ...
1.96
1.97
1.99
1.99
1.99
2.00
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
108
109
2.06
2.07
2.09
2,09
110
2.11
2.12
2.13
OJDvdeft
Mno
4.18o
47043
4.6809
4/4919
4.3773
4.2772
4.1813
4.0994
4.0012
3.9199
3.9368
3.7878
3.9928
3,8110
3.9421
3.4769
3.4122
3,3811
3.2922
3.2367
3,1813
00
fw*H
iW
4.249
4.390
4.498
4.873
4.673
4.769
4.891
4,949
8.033
6.118
6.193
6.297
6.339
6409
6.474
6.939
6.999
6.689
9.714
6.769
HH1OOU
3.328
Ml
3.2 '
3.209
3.176
3,149
3.119
3,099
3.069
3.031
3.003
2.979
1946
1921
£989
2.989
1842
2.917
CBODU
20.94
20,78
20,98
20,91
20.64
2047
20,39
20.32
20.28
20,16
20.10
20.03
19.98
18.99
19.8J
19.76
19.99
19.61
19.84
toman
fW
'Ml
7.86
7.84
7.84
7.63
7.92
7.92
7.91
7.90
7.90
7.79
7.79
7,77
7.77
7.79
7,76
7.78
7,74
7.73
7.73
7.72
Pr«p«r*JbyADEM
11/28/3001
Opoctun & Vtfey Cf«k WIA (\Mntw-MI), 2001 UM >*
P«jetOoM4
-------
Valley Creefc WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Modal
A and I U«e Classification
Section 16
Dltltncafmllttf
14.76
1490
18.08
18.21
19.36
18.J1
18.»7
18.82
15.97
18.12
16.28
18,43
1688
18.73
18.88
17.04
17.19
17.34
17.80
17.86
17.80
Flow
(c%
W.AJ
181.616
161.632
161.647
161.662
161.677
161.683
161.708
161.723
161.736
161.764
161.766
161.764
161.768
161.816
161.630
161.646
161.660
181.676
161.891
161.906
Section Tim*
ftfey)
4.00
0.01
O.OJ
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.06
D.Ot
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.21
0,22
0.23
0.26
0.26
Cumuhf/va TV/no
(*yi
2.13
2.14
2.18
117
2.18
2.18
2.20
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.31
2.32
2.33
2.38
138
2,37
2.38
OlDetklt
(man)
3.0763
2.6720
2.6788
2.7661
2.7024
2.8243
2,9312
2.482>
2.4190
2.3681
2.3028
2.2601
2.2006
2.1639
2.1099
2.0684
2.0283
1.9923
1.9672
1.9240
00
(mat)
Wit
6.683
6.987
6.063
6.172
6.266
6.334
6.407
6.476
6.640
6.668
6.666
6.708
6.768
6.808
6.849
6.990
6.929
6.966
7.001
7.034
NH30DU
"TR?
2.741
1701
2.861
2.623
2.666
2.648
2.611
2.476
2.440
2.408
2.371
2.337
2.309
2.272
2.241
2.209
2.178
2.149
1119
2.090
CBODU
fmo/IJ
19.18
18.08
18.98
11.68
18.78
18.68
18.S8
18.49
18.38
18.29
16.20
18.10
19.01
17.91
17.82
17.72
17,63
17.84
17.48
17.36
TOHOOU
(mall)
7.66
7.68
7.64
7.63
7.62
7.61
7.60
7.66
7.68
7.67
7.56
7.63
7.94
7.63
7.62
7.81
7.81
7.90
7.49
7.48
Section 16
DlttaiKt>(mll»sj
\1M
17.86
17.87
16.06
16.13
18.22
18.30
18.38
16.47
18.89
18.M
18.72
18.80
16.86
18.97
19.08
19.14
19.22
19.30
19.39
19.47
Flow
pry
mWA
161.914
161.923
161.931
161.939
161.948
161.686
161.966
161.873
161.681
161.990
161.998
162.008
162.016
162.023
162.031
161040
162.048
162.058
162.063
182.073
Sect/on Tim
(dm)
0,01
0,01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.14
Cumulative T7me
(d»r)
2.39
2.39
2.40
141
141
2.42
143
2.43
2.44
2.48
146
148
147
148
2.48
2.49
180
2.91
191
2.92
2.93
OJDonc/l
("f8
1.9348
1.9375
1.9399
1.9418
1.9434
1.9447
1.9486
1.9461
1.9484
1.9484
1.9461
1.9458
1.9446
1.9435
1.9421
1.6405
1.9367
1.6367
1.8348
1.9321
00
(mall)
7.031
7.026
7,026
7.024
7.023
7.021
7.021
7,020
7.020
7.020
7,020
7.021
7.021
7.023
7.024
7.026
7.027
7.029
7.032
7.034
HH30DU
1090
1074
2.058
1041
1026
1010
1.964
1.678
1.883
1.946
1.933
1.918
1.603
1,999
1.674
1.880
1846
1.832
1,118
1.608
1.791
CBODU
fmjf/M
tt.il
17,31
17.26
17.21
17.18
17.11
17.06
17.01
1646
16.81
16.66
16.62
16.77
16.72
16.67
16.62
16.96
16.63
1648
1643
16.39
rONODU
(mg/l)
7.47
747
7.46
7.45
7.48
7.44
744
743
7.43
7.42
7.42
741
7.41
7.40
7.40
7.38
7.38
7.38
7.36
7.37
Prepared by A.D.EM
tt/Z9/200f
Opoasun & Vafcy Creek WLA (Wnter-ASI), 2001 UAAxta
P«8»11of14
-------
Veltey Creak WWTP
Opossum/Valley Crwk, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stnam Model
December - April Jtfocfe/
A »nd I Use Clarification
Section 17
Distance (mlltt)
ii.47
18.79
20.10
20.41
20.72
21.04
21.38
21.««
21.87
22.2*
22.60
22.91
23.23
23.54
23,83
24.17
24.48
24.7*
28.10
26.42
25.73
F/ow
(ell)
184.023
164.0(1
184048
164,138
1(4.173
184211
1«4.248
1M.2H
1(4.323
1(4.3(1
164.3N
1(4.436
1(4.474
1(4.(11
184.M9
1(4.(((
1(4.(24
1(4,6(1
164889
1(4.737
1(4.774
Section Time
(toy)
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.19
0.21
'0.24
0.26
0.29
0.31
0.34
0.37
0.39
0.42
0.46
0.47
0.60
0.62
CumuMlvt TVme
(dap)
its
2.88
269
561
2.83
2.68
2,66
2.71
2.74
178
2.79
2.(2
2.84
2.87
2.89
2.92
2.98
2.97
3.00
3.03
3.08
OJDeflc/I
(mart)
l.sKH
2.1038
2.2472
2.3(18
2.8072
2.8248
2,7338
2.8JBS
2.9300
3.0177
3.0990
3.1740
3.2433
3.3070
3.3884
3.4188
3.4876
3.6117
3.8617
39878
3,8187
DO
foil
68M
6.726
6.690
(.4(8
8.349
8.238
(.137
(.042
8.884
6.873
6.788
5.728
6.666
5.607
6.883
6.608
9.461
8,421
5.388
5.353
HHJODU
(ms?l
Wl
1.727
1.6(0
1.838
1.892
1.881
1.611
1.472
1.438
1.38*
1.3(8
1.332
1.300
1.288
1.238
1.211
1.183
1.167
1.111
1.107
1.0(3
CBODU
(moM
16.04
16.87
16.70
18.64
16.37
16.21
16.08
14.88
14.73
14.67
14.42
14.28
14.11
13,96
13.82
13.(7
13.62
13.3*
13.24
13,10
rowoou
fx^L
7.32
7.30
7.28
7.26
7.24
7.22
7.20
7.18
7.16
7.18
7.13
7.11
7.08
7.07
7.05
7.03
7.02
7.00
(.8*
6.80
S«cf/onf8
0/*Mnc*jMfnJ
28.77
28.82
28.88
28.80
26.8S
28.88
28.03
28.08
28.12
28.17
26.21
26.26
26.30
26.34
26.36
28.43
28.47
28.61
28.66
26.60
flow
-i$£r-
184.779
184.784
184.789
184.784
164799
184.804
1(4.608
1(4.814
194.619
164.628
164.830
1(4.835
1(4.840
184.848
1(4.118
1(4.11 1
164.810
184.888
1(4.970
1(4.878
StettonTtm*
ftf
w
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
Curr.ul.Mv. Tim*
'ft/
'IK •
3.86
3.08
3.08
3.07
3.07
3.07
3.08
3.0»
3.08
3.09
3.09
310
3.10
3.10
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.12
3.12
3,12
OlDmOcIt
J,lfwl
3.6287
3.6380
3.6422
3.8484
3,6545
3,6605
3.6664
3.6723
3.6781
3.6838
3.8*64
3,6980
9.7008
3,70(0
3,7113
3.71(8
3.7218
3,7270
3.7321
3.7372
00
6.340
5.334
5.326
5,322
5.318
6.310
6.304
6.298
8.292
6.267
8.281
8.276
8.270
8.2(5
8.269
8.254
6,248
8,244
8.239
MMOOO
M—
1.610
\j>n
1.074
1.071
1.088
1.0(8
1.082
1.080
1.087
1.054
1.081
1.048
1,048
j.W»
1.040
1037
1.034
1.032
1.029
1.026
CflOOU
*Tf-
•3.08
3.08
•3.04
13,02
13.00
12,88
12.88
U84
12.62
12.91
12.88
12.87
1185
12.83
12.81
1178
12.77
12.75
12.73
12.72
TOHODU
(.98
(.88
6.98
6.85
6.85
(.84
(.84
(.84
6.94
8.83
(.93
(.83
(.82
6.62
6.82
6.82
(.81
(.91
6.91
Pr«pir«JbyAOEM
1V2W200I
Opoctum 8. VaMy Cratk WLA (Wlnlw-All), 2001 UAAxb
Pago 12 0
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Volley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Model
A and I U»e Classification
Section 10
DlttiiKt (mltos)
26.60
2700
27.40
27.80
2*,20
28.60
20.00
2840
2990
30.20
30.80
31.00
31.40
3180
32.20
32.60
33.00
33.40
33.10
34.20
34.80
Section 20
Distance [mllot)
34.89
34.74
34.11
39.01
38.16
36.29
36.43
36.6»
36.70
39.84
36.»6
36.11
36.26
39.39
36.63
36.66
36.60
36.«4
37.08
37.21
37,36
Flow
fcM
166.766
166.631
166.676
188.»Z4
166.171
169.017
169.063
166.110
169.166
166.202
169.24*
166.266
169.342
169.366
161.414
166.461
166.627
166.S74
169.620
169.666
166.713
flow
IcM
ttlK.rU
169.729
169.746
169.741
166.777
169.763
166.608
169.624
169.840
169.896
169.672
166.668
166.604
166.620
166.636
166.662
169.668
166.684
170.000
170,016
170.032
Section 77me
0.00
0.03
0.07
J.10
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.23
0.26
0.30
6.33
0.36
0.38
0.43
0.46
0.46
0.62
0.66
0.68
0.62
0.66
Sffctfon r/me
fdtyt
000
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0,06
0.07
0.06
0,09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0,13
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.20
0.21
0.22
Cumulative 77m0
(day)
8.1*
3.16
3.16
3.22
326
3.28
3.32
3.38
3.38
3.42
3.46
3.48
3.62
3.69
3.68
3.62
3.69
3.68
3.71
3.76
3.78
Cumufotfve Time
'fitf
i.fi '
3.79
3.80
3.61
3.62
3.83
3.86
3.86
3.67
3.86
3.89
360
3.81
$.82
3.63
3.64
3.66
3.87
3.96
3.86
4.00
OlDetkll
(mn/IJ
3.7647
3.7868
3.8277
3.6928
3.6738
3.8611
3.M48
3.9163
3.1 228
3.1270
3.6267
3.9278
3.9249
3.81M
3.9113
3.8017
3.8802
3.6771
3.6624
3,6462
01 Of Hell
3.86ff
3.8462
3.8387
3.6320
! 1.6263
J.618S
3.8117
3.8048
3.7678
3.7906
3.7837
3.7788
3.7684
3.7621
3.7646
3.7474
3,7400
3.7326
3.7280
3.7178
3.70*6
DO
6.219
8.169
8.166
8.130
8.108
6.082
6.076
6.068
8.061
9.086
6.069
9,098
9.099
6.084
9,072
9,082
8,0*3
9.106
8.121
5.137
00
(maill
I.W
8,144
9.190
9.187
9.164
6.170
9.177
6.184
8.181
9.188
9.209
9.212
8.220
9.227
9.234
6.242
974*
9.29*
9.2*4
9.271
9.276
NH30DU
ioii
0.8*0
0. «t
0.- 48
0.«2*
0.606
0.6*0
0,*72
0.199
0.83*
0.624
0.606
0.784
0.761
0.7*7
0.786
0.742
0.731
0.71*
0.70*
0.8*8
NH30DU
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
OpoaaumJVilley Crook, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
April Model
A and I Use Classification
Section 31
Otot*nc*tmHftji__
5f.lt
37.74
M.14
38,93
38.93
36.32
3«.T1
40.11
40.50
40.80
41.2*
41.69
42.01
4247
42.67
43.26
43.69
44.0S
44.44
44.64
45.23
flow
fi'-SL-
Mai
176.847
WW
176.137
176.182
176.227
176.272
176.»18
176.IW
176.408
176.463
176.498
176.543
176.686
176.633
176.676
176.724
176.768
176,814
176.638
176.804
Srci/onTlmt
(tfafj
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.08
0,12
0.18
0.19
0.22
0.2*
0.28
0.31
0.34
0.37
0.40
0.43
0.46
0.4*
0.62
6.S6
0.88
0.62
CwnuhNv* flow
fdnd
4.00
4.03
4,06
4.08
4,12
4.18
4.18
4.22
4.25
4.28
4.31
4.34
4.37
4.40
4.43
4.46
4.46 1
4.62
486
4.68
4.62
OIMfcM
{mutt
Mir
3.6628
3.6344
3.6167
3,8816
3.6878
3.8437
3.6184
3.4681
3.4706
3.4461
3.4216
3.3670
3.3724
3.3476
3.3232
3.2866
3.2741
3.2466
3.2261
3.2007
00
(mp*>
t,M4
6.327
5.351
6.378
6.398
6.422
5.448
6.471
6.466
9,620
8844
6.868
6.683
6.618
6.642
6.667
6.882
5.716
5.741
5.768
6.788
NHJODU
fmp/n
0.6J1
olt23
o.««
0.608
0.603
0.887
0.880
0.6(4
0.678
0.673
0.666
0.663
0.657
0.663
0,646
0.843
0.638
0.634
0.530
0.626
0.622
CttODV
(may
l*f
• • i si
,M
6.46
8.38
8.30
6.22
8.14
8.07
7.88
7.82
7.84
7.77
7.70
7.62
7.65
7.48
7.41
7,34
7,27
7.20
roNODU
f«*ff
'«f
».21
6.1»
8.17
6.16
6.13
6.11
6.08
6.07
6.06
6.04
6.02
6.00
8.88
6.86
6.86
6.83
6.81
6.89
8.67
5.66
Pr«f»r*
-------
8.00
.a
ft
4.00
3.00
2.00
Opossum Creek / Valley Creek Waste Load Allocation
December - April / F&W Classification
'^'Confluence of VaUey Creek
1 & Opossum Creek
^^_. --
Upper Valley Creek
Confluence of Valley
Creek & Blue Creek
Lower Valley Creek
1. USXWWTP
2. Koppers Organics
3. Valley Creek WWTP
0.00 \ 5.00
Opossum Creek
-t
10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Distance Downstream of USX, miles
t-
35.00 40.00 45.00
DO Water Quality Criteria
-------
Valley Cr«ok WWTP
Opossuni/Va/Vey Crvefc, Jefferson County
Water Qi/a/ffv
Steady-State Stream Model
December - Aprtf Mode/
F and W Use Ciass/ficaf/on
Enter the Number of Sections •
Total Length (miles) •
HeadWater Data
Recaeilon Index (O) •
Mean Annual Prec (P) •
Dr»lnafl«Area<$ Vatey Creek WWTP (cfe)
24.347
D.O. (minimum), mg/l
6.0
0,00
1.80
o.eo
1.00
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) (Opossum Creek) »
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) (Upper Valley Creek) "
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) (Lower Valley Creek) »
CBODu Concentration at End of Modeled Reach (mg/l) •
Use Qoal Seek
4.67
5.07
6.13
5.30
Hf{"«f Trlftutarv (porfd/f/o^a f/f none, let
SecNon*
4.00
200
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
800
900
10.00
11.00
13.00
13.00
14.00
19.00
16,00
17.00
16.00
10.00
20.00
21.00
29.00
O
69.000
65.000
63.000
iyej)/|n||)
p
M.OO
89.00
88.00
TONODU
(mga)
4.67
4.97
91.40
4.67
4.S7
4.87
4.97
4.87
CBODU
(man)
2.00
2.00
37.90
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
NH3ODU
(man)
0.497
0.497
49.7000
0.497
0.487
0.497
0.497
0.497
DO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.000
o.ooo
6.000
3.000
0.000
6.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.000
o.ooo
6.000
0.000
e.000
0.000
6.000
0.000
70 „
fcf«)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.16
0.00
0.89
0.00
0.00
2.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.3B
0.00
1.99
o.oo
3.91
0.00
9.97
0.00
Temp,
(C°)
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
Drainage
Area (M«2)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
19.80
0.00
32.70
0.00
81.20
000
£{]ter 'ncif'RyMfjJfiflo*' §°fl
Stcllon*
"tie
2.00
3.00 ''
4.00
9.00
6.00
7.00
6.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
19.00
16.00
17.00
1800
19.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
dltlons (1
lmj®
SST""
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3,000
none. IMV
HH10DU
(m»fli
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.89
0.8*
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
iAIflff/Ji
TONODU
(mini
6.86
6.86
6.88
6.86
6.86
6.66
6.86
6.86
6.86
6.86
6.88
6.86
6.M
6.66
6,88 H
6.86
6.86
6.86
6.69
6.86
DO
*WJ
nr
7.73
7.73
7.73
7,73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.7J
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.7J
7.73
Flow
o!oif
0.026
0.030
0.349
0.128
0.304
0.089
0.166
0.146
0.114
0.029
0.069
0.734
«.]}«
0.309
0.167
0.761
0.101
0.928
0.316
0.902
0.000
Twnp>
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20:oob
20.000
Q10
O.w
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DrUnfgtAram
tm^q
Prepared by A.D CM
11(57/2001
OpoMitn t, Vafcy Creek WLA (Wmter-FaW), Nov 2001UM xU
Page 1 of 14
-------
Valley Cntk WWTP
Opossum/Valley Os«A, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady'State Stream Model
December - April Model
Fend WUse Clarification
Et}t<>'f nW
Z?
4.67
81.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOHODU
fmyty
8.14
137.10
8.14
DO
Imp/I)
8.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
600
0.00
000
ooo
000
000
000
000
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
flow
fcW
17,017
0.0997
111.600
Tamp.
f'C)
20.000
20.000
20.000
pH
7,00
7.00
Mu
Inttrtam HH3
Ima/l)
3.08
3.08
NHl Toxklty
(main
3.1T
3.68
f
/
/ /
/ >"
l^
Th» mosf ttrlngent of the
two vtlues will 6e
Impltminttd m th«
NH) WQ Limit
(ma/11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
_ 2.00
X" 0.00
/^ 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Enter Section Characteristics (if none, leave blank)
Section*
lob1
2.00
3.00
4.00
g.oo
6.00
7.00
800
e.oo
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
19.00
le.oo
17.00
18.00
18.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
Beginning
«ev.jW
488.000
480.000
4(0.000
476.000
469.000
462.000
419.000
430.000
422.000
420.000
412.000
411.000
410.000
380.900
362.000
311.000
318000
288.000
H 4.300
0.000
298.700
289.000
Ending
Cfor.(W
480.00
4tO.OO
479.00
499.00
492.00
438.00
430.00
422.00
420.00
412.00
411.00
410,00
380.00
382.00
311.00
318.00
288,00
284.30
2TO.OO
296.70
299.00
Etov.CAange
f?
t.M
10.00
8.00
20.00
3.00
17.00
9.00
8.00
2.00
8.00
1.00
1.00
30.00
18.00
31.00
13.00
20.00
3.70
34.30
1.30
3.70
289.00
Length
(mffesl
04700
0,4700
0.9100
1.1800
0.4400
1.7800
0.9900
0.8800
0.8100
0.6300
0.1400
0.3100
4.1800
2.0400
3.0900
1.8700
».2»00
0.8700
8.0000
7.7900
7.8800
Avantgo
£ tev. (M
4M.OOO
469.000
477.800
499.000
493.900
443.900
432600
428.000
421.000
416.000
411.800
410.900
369.000
171.000
346.900
324.900
106.000
281160
277.190
258.350
296.880
127.900
Section
Shpoflt/mlf
U.«i
21.277
8.604
16.807
6.818
8.487
8.628
8.163
2.466
12.688
7.143
3,030
8.834
8.824
10.164
7.784
3.189
4.283
4.288
0.473
0.470
SWV/OI
Average Flow
fch)
18.21
18.24
18.41
18.67
21.04
21.24
24.28
168.82
196.09
188.19
198.22
198.62
188.10
161.78
161.88
164.40
164.82
168.29
168.87
176.49
0.00
Avtngf
Vol. (ft/iecj
4.311
0.312
0.112
0.114
0.317
0.340
0.342
0.193
0.801
0.901
0.908
0.908
0.908
0.711
0.720
0.721
0.728
0.730
0.749
0.767
0.780
#DIV/OI
Prepared by AD EM
11/27/2001
Opoitim 1 Vatay Cr«*fc WLA (WIntw-FiW), Nov 2001UAA xd
P«ga2oft4
-------
Valley Croek WWTP
Opossum/Valley CreeK, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December- April Model
F end W Use Classification
Sections
1.00
2.00
300
4.00
5,00
8.00
7.00
a.oo
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00 i
18.00
10.00
17.00
1600
18.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
Reictlon Rttet fl
Kd
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.300
0.300
0.000
KNH3
1 si
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.50
1.«0
1.80
1.90
i.eo
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.90
0.00
KON
o.lo
6.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.10
"0.10 ' '
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0,10
0.10
0.00
20° C
T. Coefficient
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
0.88
0.88
0.88
0,88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.00
Reaeraf/on
9.888
8.834
3.882
8.887
2.807
4.203
3.878
3.742
1.088
9.800
3.180
1.394
3.080
9.820
8.440
4.837
1.S80
1.370
1.370
1.140
1.140
SOW/01
Corrected Rates ffi New Temp.
Kd
iioo
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.406
0.400
0.300
0.300
0.000
KNH3
\M
1.40
Ml
1.39
1.42
1.38
1.48
1.47
1.44
1.38
1.41
1.41
1.38
1.41 _,
1.48
1.80
1.48
1.49
1.44
1.44
1.44
0.00
KON
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0,10
0.10
0.10
0.00
Av«. Raattatlon
8,89
8.»3
3.68
8.87
2.81
4.20
3.87
3.74
1.08
9.80
319
1.35
3.08
S.52
8,44
4.84
1.98
1.37
1.37
1.14
1.14
Mm/101
Mixed Temp.('C)
26.66
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.06
0.06
Pr«p«r»dbYADEM
11/27/7001
Opoisum & Vttoy Creek WLA (Wtntw-F&W), Nov 2001 UWUfc
Page 9 0114
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Model
F and WUae Classification
Model Output
Section 1
Dlftanco fmllot)
0.000
0.024
0.047
0.071
O.OM
0118
0.141
0.16S
0.118
0.212
0.238
0259
0.282
0.306
0.32*
0.393
0.379
0.400
0.423
0.447
0.470
Section 2
Oliftnt* (mlitt)
8.47
0.49
0.82
0.64
058
0.59
091
0.03
O.M
o.m
071
0.71
0.75
0.7«
0.80
0.82
08!
0.87
0.89
0.82
0.84
Flow
(eft)
»M
16.118
18.120
18.121
18.123
18.124
18.129
18.127
18.128
18.130
18.131
18.132
18.134
18.135
18.137
18.138
18.138
18.141
18.142
18.144
18.149
flow
(cW
11301
18.202
18.203
18.209
18.200
18.208
18.20*
18.210
18.212
18.213
18.219
18.218
18.217
18.21*
18.220
18.222
18.223
18.224
18.229
18.227
18.22*
Section r/me
(tey)
6.00
0,00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.0ft
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0,08
SrcllonTIn*
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
O.OJ
0.03
0.04
0,04
0.09
O.OS
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.0*
0.08
Cumulative r/me
(0»y)
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
L_ 0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.0*
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.0*
0.09
0.08
0.0*
CtomdHlnTIm
9,9*
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0,13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
01 Deficit
(man
2.8871
2.94M
2891*
3.0)9*
3.0777
3.1178
11980
3.1824
3.2270
3.2589
3.2812
3.3209
3.3488
3.3798
3.4008
3.4248
3.4470
3.4681
3.4880
3.9097
01 CUtlctl
Ptf?
im
3.4*88
3.48*7
3.4904
3.4708
3.4*10
3.4910
3.440*
3.430*
3.4201
3.40*4
3.3*87
3,3*7*
3.37*7
3.3998
3.3943
3.3430
3.3319
3.3188
3.40M
3.289*
DO
(man
8.010
S.H2
S.416
9.872
5.830
9.7*0
9.791
9.719
9.680
9.048
9.919
9.987
5.998
5.932
5.907
6.483
9/480
9.438
9.41*
6.401
00
8.401
6.412
9.421
9.430
9.440
5.480
9.4*0
5.470
9.480
9,4*0
9.501
9,912
5.923
9.634
9.949
5.998
9.988
9.67*
6,991
9.802
9.914
HH30DU
(man)
4.33*
4.343
4.M7
4.391
4.394
4.399
4.3*1
4.399
4.39*
4.371
4.374
4.377
4.378
4.392
4.384
4.388
4,388
4.3*0
4.3*2
4.3*4
HHKDU
Ml
'am
4.662
4.M4
4.9*9
4.867
4.«8«
4.670
4.671
4.673
4674
4.974
4.678
4.97*
4.67*
4.677
4.677
4.«77
4.677
4.677
4.977
4.877
CBODU
(mat)
18.87
18.88
18.74
18.6}
18.81
18.40
18.2*
18.18
18.07
17.8*
17.89
17.74
17.64
17.63
17.42
17.32
17.21
17.11
17,01
18.90
16.80
CBODV
byA.OEM
Opotium & V«hyCr««K WIA (Wlnttr-FlW), Nov 2001 UAAxtt
Ptjt 4 o( 14
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Model
Fend WUae Clarification
Section 3
Distance (mites)
0.87
0.98
1.02
1.04
1.67
1.08
1.12
1.14
1.17
1.20
1.22
1,25
1.27
1.30
1.32
1.35
1.37
1.40
1.42
1.49
Flow
(CM
18529
18.230
18.232
19.233
18.338
19239
10238
18.238
19241
18.242
18.244
18.249
18.247
18.248
18.210
18.281
18.193
16.285
18.218
18.258
18.298
Section Tim*
(daj/l
4 60
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0,08
0.08
0.09
0.10
Cumulative Time
(day)
0.18
0.18
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.29
0.26
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.28
Ot Deficit
("IB/M (
3.298v
3.3820
3.4231
3.4824
3.MOO
3,5857
3.6497
3.7021
3.7928
3.8010
3.8484
3.8954
3.9369
3.9928
4.0249
4.0»48
4.1034
4.1408
4.1770
42118
4,2454
DO
frns/ij
uu
6.581
8.480
5.431
9.373
. .».»ir.
5.2(3
5.211
8.180
8.111
5.084
5018
4.97)
4930
4.899
4.848
4810
4772
4739
4701
4.868
NH30DU
fwfi
4.878
4.878
4.874
4.873
4.87J
4.871
4.888
4.668
4.888
47884
4.882
4.MO
4.898
4.958
4.9M
4.641
4849
4848
4.843
4.841
CBODU
fimA)
14.ft&
14.85
14.75
14.85
14.58
14.49
14.37
14.28
14.18
14.09
14.00
13.81
1382
13,73
13.84
13.95
13.49
13.37
13.28
13.20
13.11
TONODU
(man)
«3s
8.10
8.08
8.03
8.00
7.87
T.M
7.90
7.87
7.84
7.81
7.78
7.75
7.72
7.89
7,88
7.62
7.88
7.56
7.53
7.50
Section 4
Distance (miles)
1.61
1.57
1.83
1.69
1.75
1.81
1.87
<«
1.98
208
2.10
2.16
2.22
2.28
2.34
2.40
2.48
2.82
2.98
2.64
Flow
Ml)
18.258
18.276
18.284
18.311
18.328
18.349
18.363
18.380
18.397
18.414
16.432
18.448
18.466
18.463
18.501
18818
18.535
16.952
18.570
16.987
18.804
Section rime
(d»yl
6.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.23
.Cumulative rime
(day)
oil
0.30
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.38
0.37
0.38
0.38
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.48
0.50
0.52
Oi Deficit
(m«fil
4.2484
4.1794
4.1116
4.0483
3.8830
3.9216
3.6821
3.8044
3.7483
3.8836
3.6407
3.6680
3.5387
3.4865
3.4416
3.3848
3.3481
3.3045
3.2606
3.2180
3.1761
00
(mg/ll
mi
4.741
4.806
4.874
4.837
4.888
5.096
6.119
6.171
6.226
6.279
6.331
8.381
6.430
8.478
5.525
6.670
8.619
5.658
5.701
5.743
HH30DU
(ma/li
4.61
4.634
4.627
4.620
4.612
4.603
4.684
4.685
4.676
4.688
4.554
4.643
4.632
4.520
4.507
4.495
4.462
4.498
4.458
4.441
4.427
CBODU
(mall)
m\
12.91
12.70
12.61
12.31
12.12
11.93
11.74
11.58
11.38
11.20
11.03
10.85
10.88
10.62
10.35
10.18
10.03
8.88
8.72
8.57
TONODU
(mojll
7.%
7.43
7.36
7.30
7.23
7.18
7.10
T.OJ
8.87
6.80
6.84
6.77
8.71
6.65
6.58
6.53
8.47
6.41
8.39
6.26
6.24
Prepared tiyAO EM
1VJ7/2001
Opossum 4 Vifey Cw/K WLA (WW«f-F4W), Nov 2001 UAAids
P»8« B ol A4
-------
Valloy Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley CneH, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Model
Panel WUae Classification
Section 6
Dlttanco fmlktf
2.64
2.88
788
2.71
2.73
2.78
2.77
2.7*
2.82
2.84
2.S6
2.68
280
2.63
Z«5
2.97
2,69
3.01
3.04
3.M
3.08
|s»c«onfl
1 OMfMMtMftj
) ""Ill
3.17
3.26
3.38
3.44
3.63
3.62
3.71
3.80
leg
3.99
4.09
4.19
4.24
4.33
4.42
4.51
4.60
4.89
4.79
4.97
Flow
Ms>
m&o4
18.810
18.817
18.923
18830
18.836
18.642
18.840
18.85S
18.661
18.888
18.874
18.681
18.687
18.693
18.700
18.708
18.713
16.718
19.726
18.732
flow
jfi*i
fl 151
22.807
22.922
22.837
22.882
22.868
22.683
22.898
23.013
23.026
23.044
23.089
23.074
23.08*
23.104
23.120
23.138
23.150
23.168
23.180
23.1*8
Soclton rime
(dm)
600
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
SKIiottTtmt
IM
I'B
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.11
0.22
0.24
0.28
0.27
0.26
0.31
0.32
Cumulative TVme
Idat)
4.6l
0.82
0.62
0.83
0.83
0.84
0.84
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.66
0.86
0.87
0.67
0.67
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.69
0.60
0.60
Cumi/JjMw r//n.
<*tf
\K
0.62
0.63
0.66
0.66
0.68
0.70
0.71
0.73
0.74
0.76
0.78
0.79
0.81
0.83
0.84
0.96
0.87
0.89
0.81
0.92
O2D«fldf
Imo/ll
ywj
3.21S7
3.2683
3.2870
3.3380
34721
3.4088
3.4441
3.4789
3.8130
3.8483
3.67*0
3.6109
3.8420
3.8728
3.7023
3.7314
3.76*8
3.7876
3.8147
3.8411
OlOffcll
faff
mil
3.7W3
3.6010
3.4823
3.3686
3.2626
3.1610
3.0644
2.6726
2.8893
2.8021
2.722*
2.6476
2.8786
2.8068
2.4414
2.3788
2.3180
2.2618
2.2071
2.1847
DO
W
Ifli
6.703
6.684
8.826
6.587
6.680
8.614
8.478
6.443
6.40*
6.376
6.343
. 8.311
6.280
8.280
8.220
8.181
6.182
6.138
8.108
6.081
' DO
M
\m
6.200
6.326
9.444
8.887
6.664
6.763
8.662
8.883
8.041
6.124
6.203 _
6.278
6.360
6.418
6.484
6.647
6.806
8.6*4
8,71*
6.771
HH30DU
(meM
W»
4.420
4.413
4.407
4.400
4.3*3
4.386
4.380
4.373
4.366
4.369
4.382
4.346
4.338
4.331
4.324
4.317
4.310
4.303
4.2*6
4.288
NHJODU
AwD
j.Jtl
3.621
3.461
3.383
3.316
3.281
3.187
3.126
3.084
3.004
2.946
2.889
2.633
2.778
2.728
2.673
2.622
2.672
2.824
2.476
2.42*
CBODU
(mg/l)
».!/
8.62
6.46
».41
8.38
9.30
9.26
9.19
9.14
9.09
9.04
8.M
8.03
8.89
9.93
9.79
9.73
8.98
8.83
8.68
8.83
CBODU
w
Ml
7.30
7.28
7.20
7.18
7.10
7.08
7.00
6.86
6.01
6.86
6.82
677
6.72
6.88
6.63
6.88
6.84
6.60
6.48
6.41
rowoou
(mo/lj
4.24
6.21
6.1*
6.17
6.16
8.13
6.11
6.09
6.07
6.08
8.03
8.01
6.89
5.97
6.86
8.93
8.91
8.99
8.87
8.88
6.83
rowoou
(stft
5.69
6.89
6.88
6.87
8.86
6.86
8.88
6.84
6.63
6.62
8.81
6.61
8.80
6.49
8.49
8.47
8.47
6.46
8.48
6.44
1U27/200!
Opossum » V»l»y O»«k WLA (V«lnt»r-F»W), Nov 2001 UAA xh
P«9«e o( 14
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December • April Model
Fend WUse Classification
Section 7
Dlatanc* tmlht)
4M
493
4.98
488
5.01
8.04
8.07
5.0*
8.12
8.18
8.1*
8.21
8.23
8.28
5.29
8.32
8.38
8.37
8.40
8.43
Flow
Mil
K.lm
23.200
23.208
23.210
23.218
23.21*
23.224
23.22*
23.234
23.231
23.243
23.24*
23.293
23.287
23.282
]3.»r
23.272
23.27*
23.2«1
23.2M
23.2*1
Sec/ton Time
{d»W
0.00
0.00
0.01
o.ot
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.08
' '0.06 '"
0.08
o.or
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.0*
0.0*
0.10
Cumubtfve rfrne
(daw)
0.82
093
093
0.94
O.M
0.95
O.M
098
O.M
0.87
0.87
O.M
O.M
O.M
0.89
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.02
1.02
02D«flc/l
froofl
2.1484
2.1331
2.120*
11088
2.0*88
10049
2.0731
2.0*14
10498
20394
2.0270
2.0187
2.0048
1.W34
1.9824
1.9718
1.»80«
1.9469
1.8383
1.9J87
00
Img/lt
6.78J
8.7*6
6.808
8.820
8.832
8.844
8.858
8.887
8.87*
8.8*0
8.802
8.913
8.824
8.83S
6.946
6.9S7
e.M8
8.979
8.8*8
7.000
NH30DV
(mgA)
2.414
2.39*
2.384
2.38*
2.384
2.338
2.324
2.310
2.2*8
2.281
2.287
1283
2.23*
2.228
2.211
2,1*7
11*4
2.170
2.187
2.143
CBODU
fmpW
8.41
8.40
8.38
8.37
8.38
8.34
8.33
8.32
8.30
8.2*
8.2*
8.27
8.2S
8.24
8.23
8.21
8.20
8.1*
8.17
8.18
8.18
TONODU
(mg/l)
0.44
8.44
8.43
8.43
8.43
8.43
8.43
8.42
8.42
8.42
8.42
8.41
8.41
8.41
5.41
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.39
Section 8
Ditunt*(mlttil
" — mr —
8.48
8.83
9.88
8.83
6.87
8.72
6.77
8.82
897
8.82
S.*7
6.02
e.or
8.12
8.18
6.21
626
8.31
6.36
941
fin*
ftftl
I4TI1
24.18*
24.1*7
24.206
24.214
24.222
24.231
24.23*
24.247
24.288
24.284
24.272
24.2*1
24.288
24.2*7
24.306
24.314
24.322
24.331
24.33* ,
24.347
SKUonnm*
**!tf
'&«
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.0}
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.0*
0.16
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.17
CumtfMfv* Hnt*
(Ottl
,_ '.IB
1.03
1.04
1,05
1.06
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.0*
1.10
1.11
1.11
1.12
1.1J
1.14
1.18
1.16
1.17
1.17
1.11
1.1*
0*0»fic«
faffl.
\m
1*813
1.»381
1.8191
1J032
1.iwt
1.8721
1.8888
1.8416
1.628*
1.8118
1.7*72
1.7827
1.T6»
1.7842
1.7401
1.7283
1.7126
1.6*80
1.MM
i.*m
00
Imafl
•.in
6.880
6.9*6
7.012
7.028
7.043
7.088
7.074
7.08*
7.104
7.11*
7.134
7.148
7.183
7.177
7.191
7.208
7.21*
7.232
7.248
7.29*
NHJODU
ft?
Ill
2.080
2.031
2.017
1.8*8
1.*7S
1*88
1*38
1.816
1.8*8
1.876
1657
1.838
1.81*
1*01
1792
1.764
1.747
1728
1712
1.6*9
CBODU
(.95
5.83
6.*1
5.88
5.87
5.85
5.83
8.81
8.78
5.76
5.74
5.72
5.70
6.6*
8.66
6.84
5.82
8.60
6,68
rottoou
faf?
8.36
8.38
5.35
8.38
6.34
6.34
6.34
8.33
6.33
5.32
6.32
8.32
6.31
5.31
6.30
8.30
8.30
5.2*
5.29
6.28
PrspirW by A D E M
1W7/2001
Opoiium » Vafcy Cc««t( WLA (VUMw-F&W). Nov 2001 UAA vrt
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Wator Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December • April Model
Fond WUae aasolflcatlon
Section 9
0l*8tnc* {mth»j
~* - TO ~ "*""""
6.45
649
6.53
e.87
e.ei
».«»
(.69
(73
6.77
981
9.88
6.80
6.94
e.M
7.01
7.96
T.tO
7.14
7.18
7.2J
Section 10
U»SS«jiS8w)
7.25
7.26
7.J1
7.35
7.31
7.41
7.44
7.47
7.50
7.53
7.57
7.90
7.63
7.M
7.69
7.7Z
7.76
7.79
7.M
7.85
How
t&lL-
HSJttf
189.854
156.862
i55.»e»
155.876
1B8.8»4
155.881
195.898
15580*
155.913
155.920
155.927
158.935
155.942
155.949
158.857
1SS.864
185.971
185.979
185.986
155,993
flow
ifliL-
ilIJIl
155.999
156.005
156.010
189015
186.022
186.027
156.033
156.039
166.044
186.050
168.066
156.061
156067
1S6.07J
186.076
166.064
188.090
166.095
158.101
166.107
ttftteo Tlo»
fff?
"'""'MS
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.10
SKUmtrfn*
,,f*tf
1 iu
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
CunufeVw nm»
ftferf
1.«
1.20
1.20
1,21
1.21
1.22
1.22
1.23
1.23
1.24
1.24
1.26
1.28
1.26
1.26
1.27
1.27
1.28
1.M
1.29
1.29
CumuiMw r(m»
Mwf
'<.»
1.29
1.30
1.30
1.31
1.31
1.31
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.33
1.33
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.38
1.35
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.37
Of (MM
P&R.
ifW
' 2.7t19
2.6473
2.9021
2.9564
10102
3.0633
3.1160
3.16«1
3.2197
3.2707
3.3213
3.3713
3.4207
3.4W7
M19*
3.6681
3.6136
3.6606
3.7070
3.7630
OSDrtdt
W
3.7246
3.6851
3.6660
3.6376
3.6084
3.5818
3.5846
3.6279
3.5017
3.4769
3.4604
3.4265
3.4009
3.J787
3.3626
3.3295
3.3064
3.2837
3.2614
3.2394
DO
too*
«.w .
6.141
6.066
6.031
8.976
6.822
6.689
8.617
8.765
8.713
6.662
6.611
6.661
8.512
6.463
6.414
6.367
6.319
6.272
6.226
8.160
DO
""Jffi
i-is
6.210
6.239
8.286
8.297
6.328
5.383
8.380
6.408
6.433
5.489
8.464
8.509
5.534
S.888
6.861
8.608
8.626
6.651
6.673
6.696
MHJODU
*Tff
'4.BI
4.016
4.071
4.046
4.021
J.W7
3.673
3.946
3.»25
3.901
3.677
3.654
3.631
3.906
3.785
3.762
3.736
3.717
3.695
3.673
3.651
IVMJODU
t_
3.616
3.602
3.886
3.670
3.655
3.839
3.623
3.609
3.492
3.477
3.462
3.446
3.431
3.416
3.401
3.386
3.371
3.357
3.342
CSODU
frU
ml
21.06
21.04
21.00
20.95
2081
20.87
20.63
20.78
20.74
20.70
20.66
20.62
20.66
20.53
20.46
20.45
20.41
20.37
20.33
20.29
CBODU
Hfl
MH
20.26
20.22
20.19
20.16
20.13
20.10
20.07
20.03
20.00
19.97
19.94
19.91
19.68
19.85
18.82
19.79
19.76
19.72
18.69
19.66
rONODU
fn«f
I,H
8.53
6.63
8.62
8.52
8.52
6.51
8.61
8.80
(.60
(.48
(.49
9.49
8.46
(.46
9.47
8.47
8.46
6.46
8.46
(.45
TOHODU
(mB-V
(.45
(.46
(.44
8.44
6.44
8.43
8.43
8.43
8.42
8.42
8.42
8.41
8.41
8.41
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.39
8.38
6.39
Pf»p«f«ADEM
11/27/W01
Oponum & Vatey Cretk WLA (VMnter-F&W), Nov 2001UAA x)«
Page 8 o(14
-------
Va/foy Cre«h WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creak, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Mode/
Fend WUae Classification
Section 11
Distance ftnllfs)
' iK
7.89
7.88
7.87
7.68
7.8*
7.88
7.10
7.81
7.91
7.82
7.93
7.93
7.84
7.H
7.85
7.88
7.»7
7.88
7.88
7.88
Section 12
DltUnfO Imlln)
9.01
9.02
8.04
8.0*
8.07
e.08
8.11
8.12
8.14
8.18
8.17
8.18
8.20
8.22
824
829
8.27
8.28
8.30
8.32
Flow
left)
198.187
158.168
198.1
3.S04
3.301
3.298
3.296
3.292
3.298
3.289
3.262
3.278
3.276
3.272
3.26*
3.1M
3.2*3
3.28*
3.288
3.263
3.260
3.247
3.243
3.240
NH30DU
W
ISA
3.233
3.228
3.218
3.210
3,203
3.1*8
3.1*8
3.1*1
3.174
3.1*6
3.169
3.162
3.148
3.138
3.130
3.123
3.116
3.109
3,102
3.098
CBODU
(man)
18.4i
19.42
19.42
19.41
19.40
19.40
19.39
19.3*
19.38
19.37
19.36
19.36
19.36
19.34
19.34
19.33
19.32
19.32
19.31
19.30
19.30
CBODU
("iWil
19.3$
19.2*
19.27
19.28
19.24
19.22
19.20
19.19
19.17
19.1*
19.14
19.13
19.11
19.10
19.09
19.07
19.09
19.03
19,02
19.00
19.99
TONODU
fmjfV
9.34
9.34
854
8.33
8.33
•.33
8.33
9.33
8.33
6.33
8.33
9.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.32
8.32
1.32
8.32
TONODU
fnw/IJ
8.32
8.32
8.32
8.32
8.31
8.31
B.31
8.31
8.31
8.31
8.30
8.30
830
e.30
8.30
9.30
8.29
8.29
9.29
8.29
Pr»p««dbyADEM
1W7/2001
Opossum & Vafcy Crew WU (Wnl»r-F4W). Nov 2001UAA.J&
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creth, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Model
Fand WUae Classification
Section 13
Olttanc* fm/teg)
LU
(.54
87$
see
».20
(.42
»,*4
».M
10.08
10.30
10.52
1073
10.05
11.17
11.39
11.81
11.83
12.09
1227
12.41
12.71
Flow
fcft)
188.251
158.2(8
159.325
158.381
158.398
158.435
158.472
158.508
168 945
1(8.512
158.818
158,955
158.8*2
158.728
198.7*5
158.802
158.838
«MW
158.812
158.848
158.98S
Section Time
3.004
2.917
2.833
2.752
2.«74
2.598
2.628
2.459
2.3(8
Z322
125*
2.1*9
2.140
2.084
1029
1.977
1.928
1.877
1.830
1.7(4
CBODU
frno/U
18.7*
18.58
18.38
18.1*
18.00
17.80
17.81
17.43
17.24
17.09
18.87
18.8*
18.51
18.34
K.18
19.99
19.82
18.95
1548
18.32
TONODU
(mam
8,27
8.24
8.22
8.20
8.18
8.1«
8.13
8.11
8.0*
(.07
8.05
8.03
8.01
7.98
799
7.84
7.92
7.90
7.88
7.88
Section 14
Distance (mil**)
12.71
1281
1391
13.02
13.12
13.22
13.32
13.42
13.53
13.03
13.73
13(3
13.93
1404
14.14
1424
14.34
14.44
14.58
14.85
14.75
flow
(cW
158.9(7
159.00*
159.020
189.032
159.044
15*.09(
159.08*
158.07*
15».0»1
189.103
169.118
199.127
199.138
1(9.160
159.182
159.174
159.188
189,1*7
16».20»
199.221
Seer/on Time
(°W
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.18
0.17
0.18
Cumulative Hnte
L <&X)
1.98
1.97
1.M
1.«9
1.99
2.00
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.07
2.09
2.09
2.10
2.11
2.12
2,13
O2 Deficit
(my
3.1722
3.0958
3.0223
2.8121
2.8(48
2.8204
2.798*
2.8999
2.W27
2.KM4
2.9382
2,4882
2.4382
2.3921
2.34N
2.3094
Z2M7
2.2285
2.1(7*
2.1518
DO
(mg/1)
5.778
8.894
8.828
6.9OT
8.0(9
(.130
(.1(1
8.291
(.307
6.30J
8.414
8.484
8.912
8.598
6.TO2
8.845
(.885
(.724
8.782
8.7*8
NH3ODU
(moii)
1.789
1.754
1.739
1.T2»
1.710
1696
1.8(2
1.868
1.694
1.840
1.827
1.614
1.801
1.688
1.67S
1.982
1.5(0
1.537
1.525
1.513
caoou
(main
19.26
15.21
18.18
18.10
15.05
14.99
1494
14,69
14.84
14.78
14.73
14.88
14.63
14.57
14.52
14.47
14.42
14.37
14.32
14.28
rowoou
(ma/I)
7.89
7.84
7.(4
T.tt
7.82
7.82
7.81
7.80
7.80
7.78
7.7(
7.77
7.77
7.7(
7.75
7.78
7.74
7.73
7.73
7.72
Prepared byAD EM
11/27OT01
OpoMim & Vahy Cf«*t- WIA (Wtn((r-F&W), Nov 2001 UAA.x)«
Page 10 of 14
-------
Valley Cr*oH WWTP
Opossum/Valley CreeA, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Mode/
Fand WUse Classification
Section 15
Distance (mlleal
Ills
14.90
18.08
11.21
16.36
1881
18.97
1882
15.97
18.1]
1628
16.49
1».8»
18.7)
18,89
17.04
17.1»
17.M
17.80
17.89
17.80
Flow
M>l
101.619
181.8)2
181.847
181.882
181.877
181.893
181.708
181.72)
181.731
181.784
181.788
181.7*4
181.79*
181.818
181.830
181.845
181.880
161.978
181.891
181.908
Section Time
Idnl
0.0(1
0.01
0.0)
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.08
«.««
0.10
0.12
0.1)
0.14
0.1*
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.28
0.28
Cumulative Time
fdlyt
i«
2.14
J.15
Z17
lie
2.19
2.20
2.22
2.2)
2.24
2.28
2.27
2.38
2.28
1)1
2.32
2.33
239
138
2.37
2.39
O2 Deficit
IWl
2.0*49
2.02)3
1.8S87
1.8849
1.8)73
1.7838
1.7338
1.8870
1.8434
1.8027
1.8*47
1.82*0
1.4888
1.4*43
1.4)48
1.4072
1.3811
1.35*6
1.3338
1.31«
00
'"K!
».ftf
8.864
8.93S
7.002
7.084
7.121
7.178
7,228
7.271
7.316
7.39*
7.3*4
7.42*
7.48)
7,4*4
7.524
T.W1
7.577
7.802
7.825
7.847
HH3ODU
(mM
M»
1.47*
1.481
1.444
1.428
1.409
1.393
1.378
1.380
1.34S
1.329
1)14
1.ZM
1.284
1.270
1.258
1.242
1.228
1.215
1,202
1.169
CBODU
UM
14.01
«.»4
13.88
13.78
13.72
13.68
13.5*
13.60
13.43
13 S6
13 M
19.22
13.15
13.0*
13.02
12.98
12.88
12.81
12.75
1Z«8
rONODU
tmgA)
7.68
7.85
7.84
7.63
7.82
7.81
7.80
7.59
7.88
7.57
7.6»
7.»8
7.54
7.6)
7.62
7.61
7.51
7.50
7.49
7.48
Section 18
DIttfnce (milts)
1>.W
17.16
17.87
18.06
It. 13
18.22
18.30
18.38
18.47
18.55
19.64
18.72
18 tO
18.89
18.97
18.05
18.14
18.22
19.30
19.39
19.47
Flow
left!
IWol
181.914
161.823
181.»31
181.83*
161.848
161.958
181.985
181.973
161.681
1C1.OTO
161.999
1*2.00*
162.016
162.023
162.031
162.040
1*2.048
162.066
162.0*9
162.073
Sactton Time
fttarl
$.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.14
Cumulative Time
(day)
2.3*
2.39
2.40
2.41
2.41
2.42
2.43
14)
2.44
2.46
2.4*
2.48
2.47
2.48
2.48
2.49
2.W
2.51
2.61
2.52
2.6)
02 Deficit
(•«9V
UTia
1.3218
1.3234
1.3161
1.3288
1.3279
1.3289
1.3298
1.3304
1.330*
1.3)11
1.3)12
1.3311
1.3309
1.3305
1.3300
1.3243
1.3284
1.3275
1.3284
1.3262
CO
fmg/B
im
7.648
7.64)
7.641
7.838
7.«38
7.837
7.838
7.636
7.6)8
7.*36
7.836
7.635
7.6)6
7.636
7.638
7.6S7
7.638
7.639
7.840
7.641
NH100U
""W
\m
1.182
1.174
1.187
1.1*0
1.153
1.146
1.140
1.133
1.12*
1118
1.113
1.10*
1.100
1.0M
1.087
1.0B1
1.076
1.069
1.083
1.067
CBOOU
(man
uM
12.64
12.81
12.67
12,64
12.50
12.48
12.43
12.30
11)8
12.92
12.28
12.25
1Z.22
1I1»
12.15
12,11
12.0*
12.04
12.01
11.97
TONOOU
(moA)
7.47
7.47
7.4*
7.49
7.46
7.44
7.44
7.43
7.4)
7.42
7.42
7.41
7.41
7.40
7.40
7.38
7.39
7.38
7.38
7.37
PrtptredbyADEM
IW7/ZOOI
Opoitum 6. Vahy Cretin, WLA (Wlnter-F4W), No» 2001 UAA ids
Pog«1tolt4
-------
Valley Creek WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Model
Fund WUae Classification
Section 17
"^Mtntm^Aif" '
fMT
18.78
30.10
20.41
20.72
21.04
21.35
21. N
21.87
3228
2280
22.91
2329
21.64
23.86
24.17
24.46
24.78
25.10
29.42
25.73
Sect/on f 8
D/slaiice (mlt»s)
25.77
25.92
2586
39.90
25.95
28.88
28.03
29.08
28.12
28.17
28.21
28.25
28.30
28.34
28.98
28.43
28.47
28.51
28.51
28.80
Wow
("ft
milj
184.081
164.098
184.138
184.173
164.211
184.248
184.288
184.323
184.381
184.399
184.436
184.474
184.811
164.548
164.688
164.624
164.681
164.688
164.737
164.774
Flow
(<•'«{,
164.778
184.784
184.788
184.784
184.788
184.804
184.808
184.814
164.618
164.826
164.830
164.638
164.640
164.648
184.850
164.655
164.880
184.665
184.670
164.875
SwNan rtn*
SSp
0.03
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.31
0.34
0.37
0.39
0.42
0.45
0.47
0.50
0.52
See lion TV/no
fdoyj
8.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
CuewbMw r*n*
1M
2.55
2.68
2.61
2.63
2.66
2.69
2,71
2.74
2.T8
2.78
2.92
2.94
2.87
2.69
2.92
2.95
2.97
3.00
3.03
3.05
Cumulative Tims
(*tf
3.08
3.06
3.06
3.07
3.07
3.07
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.12
3.12
3.12
OtDfOeM
Ps?
1.4571
1.6573
1.6514
1.7388
1.8228
1.8002
1.8727
2.0405
2.1037
2.1626
2.2174
2.2683
2.3154
2.3590
2.3882
2.4362
2.4702
2.5012
2.5285
2.5552
Ol Deficit
(man
iiseo
2.5640
2.5680
2.6738
2,8768
2.6836
2.6664
2.5931
16877
2.8024
2.8068
2.6} 14
2.6158
2.6203
2.6247
2.6280
2.6333
2.6376
2.6416
2.6468
2.8488
00
7.621
f.618
7418
7.320
7.232
7.148
7.072
6,898
6.632
8,868
6.806
6.786
6.704
8.657
8.613
6.673
6.536
6,502
6.471
6.443
6417
DO
fmo*
6.417
6.412
6.407
6.402
6.387
8.382
6.388
6.383
6.378
6.374
6.368
6.365
6.360
8.366
6.351
6,347
6.343
6.338
6.334
6.330
6.326
MMOOU
"f?
TAW
1.026
1.006
0.868
0.866
0.851
0.933
0,918
0.800
0.884
0.868
0.654
0.840
0.626
0.613
0.800
0.768
0.776
0.765
0.763
0.743
HH3ODU
(mtfl
0.741
0.740
0.736
0.7S7
0.736
0.735
0.733
0.732
0.731
0.726
0.728
0.727
0.726
0.724
0.723
0.722
0.720
0.718
0.718
0.717
caoou
ftwig
11.78
11.80
11.48
11.38
11.24
11.12
11.00
10.88
10.77
10.66
10.54
10.43
10.32
10,21
10.10
6.68
8.88
9.76
9.68
8.68
CBODU
(mgA>
6.66
9.85
8.64
8.62
8.61
8.48
8.46
8.47
6.46
6.44
8.42
8.41
8.40
8.38
8.37
».M
8.34
8.33
8.31
9.30
TONODU
(ma»l
7.32
7.30
7.28
7.26
7.24
7.22
7.20
7.18
7.16
7.15
7.13
7.11
7.09
7.07
7.05
7.03
7.02
7.00
6.86
6.86
TONODU
(mg/l)
6.86
6.86
8.95
6.85
6.95
6.96
8.94
8.84
6.84
6.64
6.93
6.93
6.83
6.82
8.82
8.82
6.02
8.91
8.91
8.61
Prof»r«dbyA.D.EM
11/27/2001
Oponitn & Vefcy Creefc WLA (Wlntw-FiW), Nov 2001 UAA .rit
Page 12 ol 14
-------
Vetfey Creek WWTP
Qpossum/Valloy Cn«k, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady'State Stream Model
December - April Model
Fand IV I/so Classification
Section 19
Ollttncf (mllesl
26.60
27.00
27.40
27.80
28.20
28.60
28.00
29.40
2980
3020
10.60
91.00
5140
3 180
32.20
3180
33.00
33.40
33.80
34.20
34.60
Flow
(cM
\rn.nt
1»».»31
168876
168.824
168.871
168.017
168.063
188.110
166.166
168.202
168.248
168.206
188.342
166.366
168.434
166.481
168.827
188.674
166.620
168.666
168.713
Sect/on r/me
(dart
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.20
0.23
0.26
0.30
0.33
0.36
0.38
0.43
0.40
0.48
0.62
0.86
0.59
0.62
0,66
Cutttutatlve r/mo
(*vl
"i.'« ;:
3.46
3.18
3.22
3.26
3.2*
3.32
3.39
3.38
3.42
3.48
3.48
3.S2
3.66
3.68
3.62
3.65
3.68
5.71
3.78
3.78
OtOtllcH
{"B?
liMo
2.6860
2.T227
Z7472
2.7666
2.7»73
2.6032
2.6168
2.8277
2.8364
29431
2.«476
2.8500
2.8817
2.8511
2.8488
2.8453
2.8404
2.8341
2.8267
2.6161
DO
(man
6286
6.280
9.236
6.214
6.188
6.180
8.166
6.155
8.147
6.140
9.135
8.132
6.131
6.132
6.134
6.138
6.143
6.148
6.158
8.185
NH30DU
lay*)
0.700
0.680
0.680
0.671
0.662
0.6M
0.846
0.636
0.630
0.623
O.«1»
o.eo»
0,602
0.686
0.5*0
0.584
0.678
0.573
awe
0.662
CBODU 8 TOHODU
(man} 6 (mam
8.01
8.88
8.77
8.66
6.54
8.43
6.32
8.21
«.10
7.88
r.e»
7.78
7.ee
7.86
7.48
7.38
7.28
7.18
7.W
7.00
6.83
6.61
6.78
6.77
6.74
6.72
6.70
6.66
6.66
6.63
e.ei
8.58
6.57
6.65
8.53
6.61
6.46
6.46
6.44
6.42
Section 20
D/ilancefm/tes)
34.60
34.74
34.88
35.01
35.18
35.28
35.43
35.58
36.70
36.84
38.86
36.11
36.26
36.38
36.63
38.66
36.60
36.84
37.06
37.21
37.35
Flow
4cfS4
UJ.H3
168.728
168.745
168.761
168.777
168.783
168.806
168.824
166.840
168.656
168.872
169.888
168.804
168.820
168.636
168.652
168.866
168.684
170.000
170.018
170.032
Section Time
Pyl
6.00
0.01
0,02
0.03
0.04
0.05
" 6,07
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.20
0.21
0.22
CumutatlveTlme
fcfeyj
J.W
3.78
3.80
3.81
3.82
3.83
3.65 "'
3.86
3.67
3.88
3.88
3.80
3.81
3.82
3.83
3.84
3.88
167
3.86
3.66
4.00
OiDflkll
[martj
fro*
2.8203
2.6166
2.8128
2.8080
2.8051
2.8012
2.7672
2.7632
2.7882
2.7650
27609
2.7767
2.7724
2.7881
17638
0684
2.7680
2,7506
2.7460
2,7418
DO
Cnofll
6.f4i
6.168
6.172
6.176
6.110
9.184
6.1TO
6.182
6.186
8.JOO
6.204
6.206
'" 63ii
8.218
6,221
8.225
8.226
6.234
6,236
6.243
6.247
NH30DU
fFlfl
J.fti
0,561
0.658
0.557
0.556
0.554
0.542
0.551
0,548
0.547
0.546
0.544
0.543
0.541
0.540
0.538
0.637
0.536
0.534
0.533
0.531
CBODU
(mat)
7.W
6.88
6.05
6.83
8.61
6.88
6.M
6.84
8.61
6.76
6.77
6.78
8.72
6.70
6.6S
6.66
6.63
6.61
6.6»
6.57
6.66
rowoou
(mail
«Ai
6.41
6.41
6.40
0.38
6.38
6.38
6.37
6.37
8.36
6.35
6.35
6.34
8.33
6.32
6.32
6.31
6.30
6,30
6.28
6.28
11/27/2001
OpoMum * V»tey Cr««k WIA (VMntw-FtW), Nov 2001 UM lit
P«9«13of14
-------
Vallsy Crwfc WWTP
Opossum/Valley Creek, Jefferson County
Water Quality
Steady-State Stream Model
December - April Model
Fand WUse ClaaalflcBtlon
Section 31
D(t Slice (m/te»)
37.J!
37.74
58.14
36.83
39 S3
36.32
91.71
40.11
40.50
40.10
41.M
41.68
42.M
42.47
42.97
43.20
4165
44.05
44.44
44 «4
48.23
Flow
felt)
176.002
176.047
176.092
179.137
176.192
176.227
170.272
176,31*.
176.363
17MO>
176.493
176.498
178.843
176.888
176.633
176.676
176.724
176.76*
176914
176.15*
179.904
Section Tim*
o.oo
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.12
0.18
0.11
0.22
0.26
0.2*
0.31
0.34
0.37
0.40
0.43
0.46
0.4*
0.62
0,0*
o.ee
0.62
Cumutatlve Tims
(dtri
4.00
4.03
4.0*
4.0*
4.12
4.18
4.18
4.22
4.25
4.2*
4.31
4.34
4.37
4.40
4.43
4.48
4.4*
4.62
4.68
4.81
4.62
OtDtOcIt
2.7609
2.739*
Z7204
17061
2.MM
2.6740
2.85*2
2.6424
2.62*4
2.6104
2.6*43
2.97*1
2.8611
2.S457
2.52*4
2.6131
2.4W7
2.4*04
2.4*40
2.4477
2.4314
00
(man)
Vfii
9.254
9,270
9.285
9,300
6.319
9.332
9.34*
6.394
9.3*0
8.319
9.412
6.42*
6.444
1461
6.477
9.413
6.910
9,629
9.942
9,651
NH30DU
(ma/I)
6.fti
0.626
0.821
0.91*
0.814
0,511
0.00*
0.504
0.801
0.41*
0.415
0.412
04*0
0.417
0.4*4
0.482
0.47»
0.477
0,474
0.472
0.461
CBODU 1 TONODU
(mot) 1 ImgA)
8.1* } 'i?/
9.33 9.21
9.27
9.22
9.19
9.10
8.04
9.99
9.13
9.17
9.82
8.77
6.71
6.66
8.61
8.66
6.90
6.49
0.40
9.39
8.30
8.11
9.17
6.18
9.13
9.11
9.08
6.07
6.06
9.04
9.02
9.00
9.19
5.19
6.15
8.13
9.11
8.89
5,87
5.89
PmpwwfbyAD.E.M
Oposiun » Vitoy Cr««H WU (Wlntw-F&W), Nov 2001 UAA xb
Page 14 oil 4
-------
Attachment 6
Detailed Recreational Use Attainability Analysis
for Village and Valley Creeks, EPA Region 4
-------
INTRODUCTION
The segments of Village and Valley Creeks drain adjacent watershed in Jefferson
County, Alabama. The land usage is predominantly urban and their watersheds are
virtually identical in their physical characteristics and pollution stressors. Sources of
bacteria in the watersheds include leaking sewer lines, discharge and overflows from
wastewater treatment plants, domestic animals, wildlife, and leaking septic systems. In
addition, there are little to no vegetated riparian zones to filter runoff, a high water
table, and a generally steep slope to the landscape. These factors reduce travel time and
increase delivery ratio (fraction of bacteria deposited on land that arrives in stream
water) of bacteria to the creeks from runoff. Climate and landscape factors also tend to
mitigate the process of natural decay, increasing the likelihood of delivery of bacteria to
the creek waters from land-based sources. Bacteria enter the creeks from point source
discharge of treated domestic sewage and overflow generated by stormwater, as well as
land-based non-point sources from overland runoff and through baseflow from
infiltration. The municipal dischargers currently operate disinfection processes and
would meet F&W discharge limits end of pipe. Sewer overflows and leaking sewer lines
are a known problem in the watersheds and Jefferson County is currently under a
consent decree that involves expenditure of $800 million to fix those problems by 2006.
DATA ANALYSIS
There are three data sets available for analysis:
i) Weekly measurements of fecal coliform bacteria during 2000 from two
monitoring locations in Village Creek, one upstream from the WWTP and one
downstream
2) Flow records from the same monitoring locations on the same days
3) Daily precipitation measurements during 2000 from a nearby airport
These data can help address three questions:
i) What pattern of bacteria levels are exhibited in Village Creek and likely exhibited
in Valley Creek?
2) What influence do point source discharges have on bacteria levels in Village
Creek and likely have in Valley Creek?
3) To what extent do precipitation events and patterns affect bacteria levels in
Village Creek and likely in Valley Creek?
Figure i depicts upstream and downstream single sample bacteria measurements
taken during 2000 plotted again the corresponding stream flow. The data range is
restricted to measures below 2000 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/ioo ml to better
observe the relationship. Fecal concentrations do not correlate well with flow. It is
apparent that flow is greatly augmented by discharge with downstream measures
associated with much higher flows. Concentrations tend to be higher upstream of the
discharge.
-------
Figure 2 depicts downstream bacteria levels plotted against upstream bacteria levels.
The data range is restricted to measures below 1000 CFU/ioo ml to better observe the
relationship and avoid measures that are likely associated with sewer overflow events.
The unity line helps show that, regardless of magnitude, the concentration downstream
does not exceed concentration upstream. This plot helps indicate that discharge of
treated sewage from the WWTP is not a significant contributor to downstream bacteria
levels.
Figure sa is a plot of the running geometric mean (using five weekly measures taken
over approximately the previous 30 days) over the course of the year for both the
upstream and downstream monitoring locations. It shows an irregular pattern with
downstream levels tending to follow upstream levels with an effluent dilution effect,
with a notable exception of downstream geometric means plotted in early April, where
highly elevated levels are likely indicative of raw sewage from a sewer overflow event. In
general, bacteria levels are low in winter months, rise in early spring, remain variable
yet high into the summer months, fall somewhat in late summer/early autumn, then rise
again in late autumn. Values above the 1000 CFU/ioo ml geometric mean bacteria
criteria for LWF occur both the upstream and downstream monitoring locations.
Figure sb is the same plot depicting only data from the months of June-September.
The June-September 200 CFU/ioo ml bacteria criteria for F&W is consistently
exceeded at both monitoring locations.
Figures 4a-c are frequency distribution plots of year round single sample data, year
round running geometric mean data, and June-September running geometric mean
data. At both monitoring locations, approximately 85 percent of single sample
measures are below the 2000 CFU/ioo ml single sample bacteria criteria for LWF, and
about 90 percent of the running geometric mean values are below the 1000 CFU/ioo ml
geometric mean bacteria criteria for LWF. During June-September, the running
geometric mean consistently exceeded 200 CFU/ioo ml and exceeded 400 CFU/ioo ml
almost half of the time at the downstream monitoring station and almost all of the time
at the upstream monitoring station.
Figure 5 depicts daily precipitation measurements during 2000 from a nearby airport
that should accurately reflect precipitation in the Village Creek watershed. Periods of
relatively heavy rains occurred in March, late July/early August, and mid November.
Figure 6a plots single sample bacteria measurements throughout the year on one axis
and precipitation totals from the five days prior to bacteria measurement on the other
axis. The plot reveals a relationship between bacteria measurements and accumulated
rainfall during the few days prior to measurement during the period from mid-March
through late November, where rainfall peaks correspond to either upstream or
downstream (or both typically) spikes in bacteria levels. In general, approximately one
inch of accumulated rainfall over 5 days corresponds to measured bacteria levels above
1000 CFU/ioo ml. In particular, the heavy rains of March and November match the
very high spikes in bacteria levels. Two measures appear anomalous: the upstream and
downstream bacteria spike on May 10 is not associated with significant prior rainfall
-------
and the upstream measurement on June 5 seems disproportionately high in comparison
to the past five days rainfall. Figure 6b is a close up of the plot for the mid June-
September time period when relatively heavy rains appear to result in smaller bacteria
spikes in comparison to other seasons. Season and temperature may play an important
role in the relationship between precipitation and instream bacteria concentration. Low
temperatures in winter may not be favorable for bacteria survival, whereas warmer
temperatures in late summer may result in a general higher level of bacteria growth but
also an increased decay rate that results in smaller bacteria concentration spikes.
Figure ya plots the running geometric mean values also depicted in Figure sa on one
axis and precipitation totals from the 30 days prior to bacteria measurement on the
other axis. Each point thus represents a composite of conditions over the previous
month. This plot reveals a general relationship between bacteria measurements and
accumulated rainfall during the same month, with the exception of data from early May
to early June (plotted as values from early June-early July). This deviation reflects the
influence of the measurements taken on May 10 and June 5. Figure yb depicts the
same data displayed in Figure ya without those measures participating in the geometric
mean calculations. This does not imply that those measures are incorrect: only that they
don't fit the pattern with precipitation as do the other measures.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Bacteria measurements taken at the location downstream of the WWTP in Village
Creek are either be equal to or lower than upstream measurement, except in instances
where sewer overflows appear to have occurred. It is clear from the data analysis that
discharge of treated sewage from the WWTP is not a significant contributor to the
measured downstream bacteria levels. The correlation of downstream spikes in bacteria
levels above 1000 CFU/ioo ml with rainfall events, and the high spike in response to
heavy March rains in particular, suggest that sewer overflows are the most likely cause.
The correlation of upstream spikes in bacteria levels above 1000 CFU/ioo ml with
rainfall events could result from land-based sources such as domestic animals and
wildlife affected by overland flow, or from non-point sources such as leaking sewer lines
and leaking septic systems that are relatively close to the creek bed with short delivery
times from groundwater to baseflow in the creek. The high upstream spikes in response
to significant rainfall events suggest leaking sewer lines as the most likely cause.
Although a running geometric mean of 1000 CFU/ioo ml and single sample maximum
of 200 CPU/ 100 ml were exceeded approximately 10-15 percent of the time at both
monitoring locations, it is anticipated that work to resolve the sewer overflows and
replace leaking sewer lines will result in attainability of the LWF use classification with
respect to bacteria criteria.
The pattern of correlation between precipitation over the previous 30 days and
the running geometric mean of 5 weekly bacteria measures (monthly plots) suggest that
non-point sources such as leaking sewer lines, domestic animals, wildlife, and leaking
septic systems are the dominant contributors of bacteria levels to creek waters over
longer periods of time, and that favorable conditions in the watershed for delivery may
also play an important role. During the June-September period, when rainfall was
-------
generally low, the running geometric mean consistently exceeded 200 CFU/ioo ml and
exceeded 400 CFU/ioo ml almost half of the time at the downstream monitoring
station and almost all of the time at the upstream monitoring station. It is clear from
the data and analysis that the primary contact recreation aspect of F&W is not attainable
under the current conditions which include leaking sewer lines.
No currently available information suggests that primary contact recreation is
attainable. In fact, the available information suggests that the magnitude of bacteria
levels, the variety of sources, and the physical characteristics of the waterbody indicate
that primary contact recreation to the degree of protection provided by the F&W use
classification is not attainable, and the highest attainable use is LWF. Therefore, a
primary contact recreation use (such as F&W) is not designated at this time as a result of
a combination of human-caused conditions (that may not be feasible to fully remedy),
natural physical conditions of the watershed unrelated to water quality (e.g., high water
table), and likely to a lesser extent natural sources of pollution. However, it is
anticipated that the substantial capital investment to resolve sewer overflows and
replace leaking sewer lines will improve water quality. It is not currently possible to
determine the percent contribution from the known categories of non-point sources, nor
is it possible to project the degree of success in terms of bacteria levels that will result
from replacing the leaking sewer lines. As new information becomes available that
pertains to attainability of recreation in and on the water, it will be considered and water
quality standards revised accordingly.
-------
Figure i: Bacteria Levels and Flow (Village Creek, 2000)
Fecal CFU/100ml
• 1
•
t*
+«%+ * ^ 1
r< * K- •:- •
y + f\
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Flow, cfs
^Upstream •Downstream
Figure 2: Upstream vs. Downstream Bacteria Levels (Village Creek, 2000)
1000
Downstream CFU
100
200
300
400 500 600
Upstream CFU/100 ml
700
800
900
1000
-------
Figure sa: Monthly Bacteria Levels (Village Creek, 2000)
3000
12/26/99
2/14/00
4/4/00
5/24/00 7/13/00
9/1/00 10/21/00
12/10/00
•UPSTREAM
-DOWNSTREAM
Figure 3,b: Monthly Bacteria Levels (Village Creek, June-Sep 2000)
2000
5/14/00
6/3/00
6/23/00
7/13/00
8/2/00
8/22/00
9/11/00
10/1/00
10/21/00
•UPSTREAM
-DOWNSTREAM
-------
Figure 4a: Single Sample Frequency Distribution (Village Creek, 2000)
3000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
'Upstream
Downstream
0.8
0.9
Figure 4b: Running Geometric Mean Frequency Distribution (Village
Creek, 2000)
3000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
'Upstream " " Downstream
-------
Figure 40: Running Geometric Mean Frequency Distribution (Village
Creek, June-Sep 2000)
2000
0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
'Upstream
Downstream
Figure 5: Daily Precipitation (Village Creek Watershed, 2000)
[c*
c 3
o
*S o c
"5.
'o ~
v z
£
0.5 -
ll I I
imiii L
12/6/99 1/25/00
i
1
1
1
I
LuJL i iJiJl sikJ
3/15/00 5/4/00 6/23/00
I I
111 lU
8/12/00 10/1/00 11/20/00 1/9/01
-------
Figure 6a: Weekly Bacteria Levels and Precipitation (Village Creek, 2000)
40000
35000
30000
25000
LL
O
20000
15000
10000
5000
1/25/00
3/15/00 5/4/00 6/23/00 8/12/00 10/1/00 11/20/00
•UPSTREAM —•—DOWNSTREAM PPT(5)
0
1/9/01
Figure 6b: Weekly Bacteria Levels and Precipitation (Village Creek, 2000)
3500
3000
3
LL
O
6/3/00
6/23/00
7/13/00
8/2/00
8/22/00
9/11/00
•UPSTREAM
•DOWNSTREAM
•PPT(5)
10/1/00
-------
Figure ya: Monthly Bacteria Levels and Precipitation (Village Creek, 2000)
o
8
01
3000
2500 J
n
at
IE
01 O
01 O
S.
01
O
2000 1
1500
1000
500
12/26/99
2/14/00
4/4/00
5/24/00
7/13/00
9/1/00
10/21/00
12/10/00
-UPSTREAM
-DOWNSTREAM
-PPT
PPT (30)
Figure yb: Monthly Bacteria Levels and Precipitation (Village Creek, 2000)
[excluding 5/10 and 6/5 bacteria measurements]
3000
«i 2500
re
01
2 £ 2000 ^
c "-
ra O
1500
-g £ 1000
s
o
500
12/26/99
2/14/00
4/4/00
5/24/00
7/13/00
9/1/00
10/21/00
12/10/00
-UPSTREAM
-DOWNSTREAM
-PPT
PPT (30)
-------
Attachment 7
List of References
-------
List of References
Biological and Chemical Study of Opossum, Valley, Village, and Five Mile Creeks,
EPA Region 4 & ADEM, 1978.
Water Quality Assessment - Opossum, Valley, Village and Five Mile Creeks, EPA
Region 4 & ADEM, 1989.
Ground-Water Availability in Jefferson County, Alabama, Geological Survey of
Alabama (GSA), Special Map 224,1990
Opossum Creek-Valley Creek Waste Load Allocation Study, ADEM, 1992
Rapid Bioassessment: Benthic Macroinvertebrates (RBP III) and Fish (RBP V), Five
Mile, Valley, Village, and Opossum Creeks, EPA Region 4,1997.
Valley Creek - Water Quality Report, EPA Region 4 & ADEM, 1998.
Opossum Creek Sediment Study, EPA Region 4 & ADEM, 1998.
Birmingham Watershed Project, Watershed Reconnaissance of the Water-Quality
and Aquatic Health Conditions of Village and Valley Creeks, USGS & USAGE, 2000-
2002 (data only report unavailable).
-------
Appendix D:
New York Harbor
Complex UAA
-------
USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
of the
NEW YORK HARBOR COMPLEX
August 1985
-------
Table of Contents
introduction i
Study Area Description 1
N.Y.S. Classification and Standards
for Marine Waters 6
Assessment of Attainable Uses 14
Conclusion & Recommendations . 23
Appendix 1 26
Acknowledgements 28
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) requires the State, from time to
time, but at least onee every three years, to hold public hearings to review
the State Surface Water Quality Standards and to make appropriate modifica-
tion to these standards. For all water bodies, for which the approved
standards do not include all of the uses described in Section 101(a)(2) of the
Act, the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131) requires the State
to provide an analysis which demonstrates that the Section 101(a)(2) uses are
unattainable. Section 101(a)(2) sets an interim goal of "water quality which
provides for the protection and propagation of fish, sheEfish and wildlife and
provides for recreation in and on the water." A use attainability analysis
meets this requirement of the Regulation and must be submitted to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the State for all water bodies in
which the State: "(a) is designating uses for the water body, such that the
water body will not have all the uses which are included in Section 101(a)(2)
of the Act, (b) maintaining uses for the water body which do not include all of
the uses in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, (c) removing a use included in Section
101(a)(2) of the Act or (d) modifying a use, included in Section 101(a)(2) of the
Act, to require less stringent criteria" (48 FR 51401), A full use attainability
study is required only for each water body and designated uses. As part of
each subsequent triennial review of the Water Quality Standards, the State is
required to re-examine the basis that was used to exclude specific uses, given
in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, and to consider any new information that is
available which could indicate that a revision of the applicable standard is
warranted.
-------
The Water Quality Standards Regulation describes a use attainability analysis as a
"multi-step scientific assessment of the physical, chemical, biological and econom-
ic factors affecting the attainment of the use. It includes a water body survey and
assessment, a wasteload allocation, and an economic analysis, if appropriate" (48
FR 51401). The State may designate uses for a water, which do not reflect the
Section 101(a)(2) goals, if the use attainability analysis demonstrates that the use is
not attainable because of any of the following:
"(1) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of
the use 5 or
(2) Natural, ephemeral, Intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels
prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compen-
sated for, by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent discharges
without violating State water conservation requirements, to enable uses to be
met; or
(3) Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of
the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage
to correct than to leave in place; or
(4) Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its
original condition or to operate such modification in a way that would result
in the attainment of the use; or
-------
(5) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such
as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the
like, unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life protec-
tion uses; or
(6) Controls more stringent than those required by Sections 301{b) and 306 of
the Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social
impact."
NYS's Surface Water Quality Standards incorporate designated uses for Class t!F
and "SD" water that do not include all of the Section 101(a)(2) uses. Class "I"
waters are fishable, but are not swimmable; Class "SD" are neither swimmable nor
fishable and are not designated for shellfishing.
The key parameters in the determination of use are coliform bacteria and dissolved
oxygen. Bacterial concentrations restrict swimming and shellfishing uses, while
low dissolved oxygen levels limit the aquatic biota.
The purpose of this report is to present a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) for the
following waters in the New York Harbor Complex which do not meet the Section
10l(a)(2) goals of the Clean Water Act. These waters include:
Hudson River, from the New York - New Jersey line to Upper N.Y. Bay
Upper N.Y. Bay
Lower N.Y. Bay
Jamaica Bay
East River, from Flushing Bay to Upper N.Y. Bay
Harlem River - "
m .
-------
For such waters, a UAA is a requisite to complete the Water Quality Standards
review/revision process, consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act. This is also
necessary for compliance with Section 24 of the Federal Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grants Amendments of 1981 thus permitting Federal
Construction Grants for the following projects which impact these waters;
North River WPCP
Red Hook WPCP
Coney Island WPCP
Owls Head WPCP
This is part of New York States overall program to assess Water Quality Standards
and Classifications and is described in the Water Quality Standards Attainability
Strategy which details the plan to the employed by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation in meeting the swimmable/fishable water quality goals
of section 101{a)(2) of the CWA.
TV.
-------
USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS FOR THE
NEW YORK HARBOR
Study Area Description
The Lower Hudson River is actually a fjord or drowned river. In its
geological formation the Hudson River above its current mouth was actually a
lake. As the level of water in the lake increased with glacial melt it
breached the narrow strip of land on its southern border (currently the
Narrows between Staten Island and Brooklyn) and began flowing to the ocean.
Later the ocean rose and covered the lower third of the Hudson (now known as
the Hudson rift and canyon).
As a result of this formation, sections of the Hudson above the Narrows
are deeper than the waters in the New York bight and the Atlantic ocean.
The depths used in the steady state model of New York Harbor which was
developed by Hydroscience Inc. are shown in Figure 1. The center line,
plotting transects used in this plot and in subsequent plots, is shown in
Figure 2.
With the effects of tide felt as far north as Troy, the lower 150 miles
of the Hudson is swept by a semi diurnal tide. The mean tidal range in the
Lower Hudson ranges from 2.9 ft. to 4.4 ft. The average maximum flood
current varies from 0.8 to 1.7 knots (1.3 to 2.9 fps) and the maximum ebb
current varies from 1.1 to 2.3 knots (1.9 to 3.8 fps) The tides carry
salinity up the Hudson River approximately 45 miles to Bear Mountain thus
creating an estuarine environment- in this reach of the river.
-------
0
-10
-20
-30
UJ
u.
— -30
X
gj -60
o
-70
-80
-90
-100
-WATEH SURF*Cf
-10
-20
-30
U
U
li.
-ao
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
SO 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -SO
HUDSON RIVER TRANSECT - BEAR MOUNTAIN BRIDGE TO ATLANTIC OCEAN (MILES)
I
I I
i
3
it*
K
X
0 10 20 30
EAST RIVER ( MILES)
FIGURE 1. DEPTHS USED IN THE HYDROSCIENCE MODEL
-------
NYC E08 STUDY
HYDROSCtENCE, INC,
—«••*••
FIGURE 2, PLOTTIN6 TMNSECTS
-------
Troy is the first point upstream of the mouth where the fresh water
flow in the Hudson can be measured. The fresh water flows for the Lower
Hudson have to be approximated using measured tributary flows and a unit
runoff per drainage area method. According to the Hydroscience analysis at
low flows, the fresh water flow at Bear Mountain is 120 percent of the flow
measured at Troy,
v/The Lower Hudson is considered a moderately stratified estuary. The
stratification occurs when the freshwater flowing downstream meets the more
dense saline water which flows upstream with the tide. The freshwater flows
over the saline water causing a wedge of saline water of flow upstream under
the freshwater. The difference in densities minimizes the mixing of the
waters. This creates a two layered system in the estuary which does effect
the distribution of water quality constituents.
The salinity intrusion in the Lower Hudson also creates a estuarine
ecosystem in the area. The aquatic life' indigenous to such an environment
must be able to withstand daily and seasonal fluctuations in, salinity. The
aquatic population of the Lower Hudson is made up of resident and
non-resident species. The non resident species include those species of
marine fish which spawn in fresh waters and fish which spawn in marine
waters but spend a portion of there life in fresh water. The resident
species are those which are confined by their lack of mobility or their
intolerance to salinity variations.
/
Unlike the Hudson the East River is not a river at all. The East River
is actually a strait between Upper Bay and Long Island Sound. It is
substantially a dispersive system driven by the tide.
The mean tidal range in._the East River ranges from 4.1 to 6.4 feet.
\
The flood currents vary from 1.2 to 3.8 knots (2.0 to 6.4 fps) and the ebb
currents vary from 0.6 to 4.7 knots (1.0 to 7.9 fps). The East River floods
from the Battery towards Long Island Sound.
-------
Both the Hudson and the Upper Bay flow into the East River daring the
first two hours of flooding-and the East River flows into "both systems for
the first hour of ebbing. During other times the East River either flows
into or from the Upper Bay, The interaction with the Hudson does introduce
fresh water to the East River but not enough to cause stratification.
The depths used in the East River portion of the steady state model are
also shown in Figure 1.
The Upper Bay which forms the major port facilities in New York City,
is the common mouth of the Hudson River, East River, and the Kill Van Kull.
The Upper Bay discharges through the Narrows into the Lower Bay.
•'* The Upper Bay and the Narrows encompass approximately 21 square miles
and has an average depth at mean low water of approximately 22 feet. The
mean tidal range at the Battery is 4.6 feet. The neap and spring tidal
ranges are 3.6 and 5.2 feet respectively. The maximum flood current at the
Narrows varies from .3 to 2.1 knots (.5 to 2.5 fps). The maximum ebb tide
varies from .7 to 2.4 knots (1.2 to 4.1 fps). The average tidal prism
through the Narrows is approximately 20 percent of the Upper Bay volume at
low flow.
The Upper Bay is usually completely mixed vertically. However, certain
flow and temperature conditions can cause short term vertical
stratification. In general past studies indicate that the biological
community in the Bay is similiar to that found in the .Hudson and East
Sivers.
-/' The Narrows flow into the Lower Bay and then to the Atlantic. The
Lower Bay also receives water from Jamaica Bay and Raritan Bay. The waters
from Newark Bay and the Arthur .Kill enters the Lower Bay through Raritan
Bay. Newark Bay also discharges into the Upper Bay through the Kill Van
Kull.
-------
Jamaica Bay is a shallow bay which supports an extensive system of
tidal marshes. The bay covers an- area of approximately 20 square miles and
has a mean depth of approximately 16 feet. The daily freshwater input to
the bay is less than 1 percent of the total volume and the interchange with
the ocean is restricted to the Rockaway Inlet. Approximately a third of the
bay's volume flows in and out of the inlet on the flood and ebb tides. The
9
volume of the Bay is 7 x 10 cubic feet at the mean tide level.
The Jamaica Bay waters and most of the land in and surrounding the Bay
make up the Gateway National Recreation Area, It is an ecologically
sensitive area and protected natural environment. Estuaries like Jamaica
Bay with their salt water marshes and tidal wetlands are noted for their
high productivity and their importance as a spawning, nursery and feeding
ground for juvenile fish. The estuaries also provide an excellent habitat
for marine invertebrates, mollusks, birds and mammals.
The New York Metropolitan Area with its dense population and
development has severely impacted the marine ecosystems of the Hudson, the
East River and the other water bodies in the New York Harbor System. These
waters are forced to assimilate large discharges of municipal and industrial
wastes as well as intermittent wastes entering the system through wet
weather discharges. A large portion of these wastes are currently
untreated. An estimation of the waste water flows entering the harbor is
shown in Table 1. In addition to conventional pollutants, those discharges
contain a wide assortment of toxic substance which have been polluting both
the water and sediments in the harbor.
In addition to these discharges, the Harbor is impacted by the port ac-
tivities. The shipping channels, ports, marinas and fuel storage and
transfer points are shown in Figure 3. The movement to container shipping
has affected the Port of New York by concentrating the shipping activities
-------
at the container ports. Many of the smaller ports have been abandoned and
are in disrepair. The decrease in commercial shipping has been offset by
recreational boating and the harbor is quite active. The risk of oil spills
and spillage of other pollutants which could affect the aquatic and
recreational uses are high in such a port.
-------
TABLE Ll
Estimation of Wastewater Flow to the New Jersey/New York Harbor Complex
Pollution Source Daily Flow_ (MGD)_*
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 500
Raw Sewage Discharge (Point Source) 203
Other Urban Non-point Sources 125
New York/New Jersey Treated Effluent
(tmdisinfected in winter) 1,830
*Flows are based on annual average rainfall,
Table taken from Water Quality ManagementAssessment Due to Marine CSO
Abatement^Along the New Jersey Shore prepared by the Bureau of System Analysis and
Wasteload Allocation N.J. DEP.
-------
o «
-------
NYS Classifications and Standards for Marine Watery
The marine waters in New York State are classified on a best use basis.
The best uses are ranked according to the water quality requirements of the
usage. There are four designated uses considered in the classification
scheme, shellfishing, bathing (primary recreation), fishing (finfish
propagation) and fish survival. The general aquatic uses such as aesthetic
enjoyment and the -maintenance of fish and wildlife are assumed in all
classifications. A best use classification includes all uses of the lower
classifications and excludes the uses specified in the higher
classifications. For example, a primary recreation classification would
allow all uses except for the taking of shellfish for_market purposes which
is a higher use specified in the shellfishing, classification. The
classification system also precludes a higher usage if the standards of a
lower use are being used. For example, if the water body is not suitable for
fishing it is not suitable for swimming either.
For each best use classification there are water quality criteria or
standards which have to be met in order to protect and preserve the intended
use of the water. These standards apply to the following parameters;
dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, pH, temperature, dissolved solids,
turbidity color, taste and odor, floating materials, oil and toxic wastes.
Since all waters are intended for general uses such as aesthetic
enjoyment and maintenance of fish and wild life most of the standards apply
to all the
marine water bodies regardless of the classification. Only the Dissolved
Oxygen, coliform bacteria, and toxic waste standards vary from
classification to classification.-
-------
MCT TOM
»»* thatlHahina lathing ruhina Ftahtna Navigation latMf
CTaailfIcatlon
MINMJUtf Of MATE* QUALITY STANDARDS TO* KIN YORK HAUBO*
HEM *(
SheUft thing
S
«D
?OH
»I STATE DIFAMTMEKT Of EHVIHOWMENTAt CONSEIWATIOM
Bath 1 ng f lahing
Ii "ic
s $
t *oom<'> IO.OOOHGM
IOOMON'" J.OOQNIJH
rtahinj
4
|0,OOOHtH
l.OOOMGH
Navigation
Jo
1
MS
MS
fata»atar
Olaiolvad Oiygin S S $ 4 1 MS
Col If Of M
Total ?OH t,400IM(ll .«,«•-»" •« m 1,480011
r*»l l«M«» laOMGMUl 2.000H6H l.O"0"6" m n
t» . MorMl +$,1 MS
Tavparatura (Of| »o°r and +4°r of aablcnt and +1.5CVT It aabltnt It over no?
Oliaolvad Solid* MB MS MB MS MS MS
Tucbtdlty Mo unnatural incraaaa MS
Color No unnatural color vhlch intarfaraa with uaa MS
Taata and Odor Mona that Intaitara tilth uaa, or Injurt of «adt inaditola, f Uh or ahalltlah MS
Oil and rloatlnfl No raaldua dua to waita* and no viatbla MS
tl\m at qlotmlaa
Material MS MS MS MS MS Nona on or
adjacant to
baach
Suapandad, Colloidal No dapoalllon or intaifaranoa with uaa
t Sattlaabla SolIda
To»lc Haataf Nona that Interface with ute, of Injuta, or »aka Inedible, Mona that MS
Clah of ahallflah intarfera
with uaa
or Hah
•urvlval
HI - Ho Standard, M * Had!an. Of • Gaoaatrlc Naan, MM - Monthly Median, HON • Monthly Gaoactrte Nadian.
graataf than or aqual to, laaa than or aqual to, * pi in or Mlnui
(II MTC Naaith DapartMtit Standarsa. Thay ata tha aaaw al tha K.t. stata Maalth OaparMant Itandarda Cor lathing.
U> Thla atandald ahall ba awt «han dialntaction Is practiced (May IS-Bcpt, 19 in NYC yaal-round In Maw Jaraayl.
(It Thtt ttandard rapraaanti tha addition o( a faeal calKom atandatd tor Claa* Sk ai propoitd by NYS-DBC.
-------
HUDSON MIVCR
LONG ISLAND SOUND
EAST A*0 HARLEM
UPHH SAY
ARTHUR KILL, KILL VAN KULL,
AND MIWAUX BAT
LOWIR, RAKITAN, AMD SANDY HOOK SAYS
JAMAICA MY
ATLANTIC OCEAN
(Tefal Colifsrn
CD>tioI»*<<
SHELLFISHIN6
(LMi tfton TO MPN/IOOmt)
(Not ItU I ft On 5.Om?/I)
1ATMINS
(Uvrthan 8400 mPN/100ml)
(Mot f«u »*OB I-Omo/l)
(FISHING
(ho conform standard In p<-opo««d
(Net 1*11 ftian «.0mo/l]
(No eel if arm it under tf)
(Net IIK than 3.0ms/0
.
,V f1 S / S S s S
S/fSS
o i * i 4 s win
STATEN
ISLAND
X/XXXXXXX/X
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/xxx
xx xxxxx xx1 xx xx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.XXXXXX
WP - 152 Rtd Hoali WPCP
201 Wo»tf*aler Facility Plan
NEW YORK STATE
WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION
HAZCN AND 3AWY!*,'.C.
inai
-------
The classifications and standards are shown in Table 2. Note that
Class SC and Class I have the same best use specification, the difference
between the classes lies in the Dissolved Oxygen 'standard.
All the waters in the New York Harbor system which are under New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation's jurisdiction are also under
the jurisdiction of the Interstate Sanitation Commission. In addition the
Hudson River, Upper Bay, Lower Bay, Raritan Bay, the Authur Kill and the
Kill Van Kull fall under the jurisdiction of New Jersey's Department of
Environmental Protection. Each agency has its own water quality
classification system. The best use designations of these classification
systems are consistent for Harbor waters.
The New York State Classifications for the waters of New York Harbor
are shown in figure 4.
Existing Uses
The Department of Environmental Conservation considers The Harbor
waters to be effluent limited waterbody segments. This means that the
technology based effluent limitations required by the Clean Water Act are
sufficient to meet the present water quality standards. This does not mean,
however, that the applicable standards are presently being met in these
water bodies. What it does mean is that when the existing and proposed
pollution control projects are at the .technological treatment required by
the Clean Water Act, the expected instream water quality will meet the
current standards.
The Hudson River below the New York - New Jersey line is currently
classified as a Class I waterway. The best use specification for a Class I
water body states, "The waters shall be suitable for secondary contact
-------
recreation and other usage except for primary contact recreation and
shellfishing for market purposes." The Hudson above the New York - New
Jersey line is classified "SB",
The East River is classified as an SD water body. The best use
specification for the SD class is, "All waters not primarily for
recreational purposes, shellfish culture or the development of fishlife and
because of natural or man-made conditions cannot meet the requirements of
these uses."
The water quality in the Lower Hudson and the East River is below the
designated standards for the respective water bodies. Both presently
receive large quantities of raw sewage. The Red Hook Water Pollution
Control Project and the North River Pollution Control Project are designated
to eliminate these raw sewage discharges.
The North River sewage treatment plant and the Red Hook sewage
treatment plant are the last two plants to be built in New York City to
provide secondary treatment for currently untreated wastes. The North River
STP will eliminate approximately 150 million gallons a day of raw sewage
currently being discharged to the Hudson River. The Red Hook treatment
Plant will eliminate about 53 million gallons a day of raw sewage which is
now being discharged into the Buttermilk Channel and the Gowanus Canal
(tributaries to the East River).
According to the North liver facility plan the water quality
improvement brought about by this project and other proposed projects in the
area will promote the survival and reproduction of most, if not all, species
of fish native to the Hudson. According to the Red Hook facilities plan,
the completion of both projects will result in sunnier dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the last River greater than 4.2 mg/1. The present summer
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Lower East River are between 2.1 and
2.6 mg/1.
-------
The Upper Bay including the Narrows like the Lower Hudson is classified
Class I with the same best usage described above.
At the common mouth of the Hudson River, East River and Kill Van Kull
the Upper Bay indirectly receives and to some degree dilutes most of the
waste from the metropolitan area. The Bay also receives a direct discharge
from the Owls Head water pollution control plant located in Brooklyn, The
plant discharges into the Bay Ridge Shipping Channel on the east side of the
Bay. The Owls Head plant serves an area of approximately 13,664 acres with
a population of about 785,000. At present the plant treats 100 MGD of
waste. The plant is over thirty years old and removes 69 percent of the
suspended solids and 57 percent of the BOD influent load. The plant is
being upgraded to attain 85 percent removal cf these parameters as required
by the Federal Clean Water Act.
The water quality in the Upper Bay is highly correlated with the
freshwater flow and temperature of the Hudson River. During low flow
periods the water quality tends to degrade because of a loss of dilution and
high temperatures tend to degrade the quality by intensifying the oxygen
demand in the system. The dissolved oxygen standard of 4.0 ffig/1 is
frequently violated during the summer months.
The Lower Bay and Jamaica Bay have an "SB" Classification. The best
use specification for an "SB" water body reads as follows: "The waters
shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation and any other
use except for the taking of shellfish for market purposes."
The standards for this classification are often violated in Jamaica Bay
and Lower Bay. Based on comprehensive sets of data collected during the
summers of 1974, 1975 and 1976_ the dissolved oxygen concentrations were
below the 5.0 mg/1 standard 25 percent of the time in the Lower Bay and 32
-------
10
percent of the time in the bottom waters of Jamaica Bay, The coliform
standards are also violated in the Lower Bay, Some of the Coney Island and
Staten Island Beaches are posted (I.e., swimming is not recommended) because
of coliform standard contraventions. The coliform standards were met in
Jamaica Bay except near Howard Beach,
Subsequent routine sampling in this area indicates an improvement in
the dissolved oxygen concentrations, however, violations of the standard
still occur. The improvement is probably due to improvements made to the
water pollution control plants which discharge to this area.
The Coney Island Water Pollution Control Plant discharges into the
Rockaway Inlet which connects Jamaica Bay with the Atlantic Ocean. The
plant services an area of 14,200 acres with a population of approximately
690,000. The plant currently treats 97 MGD and removes 50 to 60 percent of
the influent BOB and suspended solids.
The Coney Island plant is not the only plant in the Jamaica Bay area.
The Bay also receives continuous discharges from the 26th Ward, Jamaica,
Rockaway Inwood and Cedarhurst Water Pollution Control Plants. Seventy
percent of the freshwater input to the bay is the result of these
discharges. The remaining thirty percent enters the system through storm
water overflows and storm water runoff.
The Atlantic Ocean off Rockaway is classified "SA" with a best use that
reads as follows: "The waters shall be suitable for shellfishing for market
purposes and primary and secondary recreation." The coliform standards for
shellflshing are not met in portions of this area.
Dry weather sewage discharges are not the only way raw sewage enters
the harbor system. Shock loadings of pollutants enter the system through
storm water discharges and combined sewer overflows. These additional
-------
11
loadings may negate the protection provided by the dry weather discharge
control approach. During the critical summer months rain events usually
occur every 3 to 4 days. The r&sulting combined sewer overflows and storm
water discharges from these storms often have higher pollutant
concentrations than the continuous discharges to the system.
The duration of the intermittent water quality caused by these
discharges depends on the intensity and duration of the rain event. The
intermittent effect can disappear over one or two tidal cycles or persist
for several weeks. The intermittent water quality problems and problem
areas are shown in Figure 5.
According to the 208 intermittent water quality evaluation the coliform
(total and fecal) levels in New York Harbor were often 2 to 6 times higher
during wet periods than dry periods. The evaluation also estimated that in
the Hudson River, on 57 percent of the 122 summer days (June 1 - September
30) the intermittent coliform levels were present. This estimation
considered only rainfall events greater than ,11 inches/hr in intensity.
Due to the frequency of the summer storm events the Harbor is rarely
found to be in the steady state dry weather condition which is used to set
the continuous discharge limits.
Intermittent discharges (i.e., CSO's and storm overflows) are of
special significance to the water quality of Jamaica Bay.
According to the 208 analysis the intermittent discharges do not appear
to contribute to dissolved oxygen violations in the Harbor. The BOD loads
entering the harbor during these wet periods 'do not significantly alter the
dry weather BOD concentrations. However, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation has determined that further study of CSO impacts
with respect to dissolved oxygen is necessary.
-------
MAJOR INTIMMirriNT
W*TC* QUALITY P*O»LCK$
t MUBMNI MVU
2 LOM ISLAND 1OUKO
3 CUT «N8 MMLCM PtlVf »*
4
S AWTHU* Cltt, UU. **H KUU,
MO HIMM i*Y
6 LOWI*, tAtimil, AND 1ANDT NOOK Mtl
MV
8 ATLANTIC OMAN
SE**6£-«(.ATCO DCJKIS,
COUFORMS, *NO OIL UNO CHtASE
INTERMITTENT WATER
QUALITY PROBLEM AREAS
FIGURE 5
-------
12
These discharges do however impact the collform concentrations in the
Harbor. The predicted eoliform concentrations shown in figure 6 are due to
these discharges. The projections shown in figure 6 were made using the 208
steady state model. The steady state combined sewer overflow loads and
stormwater runoff loads were generated using a storm intensity of ,12
inches/day (a daily average of the annual rainfall). Secondary treatment
with chlorination was assumed at all the municipal treatment plants so the
plants effect on the projected coliform levels are insignificant,
In order to insure compliance with current water quality standards and
protect the designated aquatic uses some sort of combined sewer overflow
abatement program may be necessary. However, the details of such a. program
need further study and definition. In order to accomplish this, New York
State has required the City of New York to undertake a more detailed
evaluation of CSO problems and abatement alternatives for the Sew York
Harbor Complex. This study has just begun and will be critical in assessing
the degree of CSO abatement measures which must be implemented to attain
water quality goals.
The effects of combined sewer overflow abatement programs were
previously analyzed along with other waste treatment alternatives as part of
the 208 area-wide wastetreatment management planning process. One of the
alternatives studied by the HY.C Department of Environmental Protection was
"the present requirement alternative". The object of this alternative was
compliance with all Federal, State, inter-state water quality/effluent
standards for the metropolitan area. The objective standards and a summary
of the treatment required to meet those standards are shown in Figure 7. In
assessing "the present requirement alternatives" the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection assumed a 90 percent capture and
-------
SJC3.
* *
«* « »
*
**4£S
»
** *• *•*• «
di4 M* j ao e . •*«*»
* *««•• * » j jj f .
• «*•
* *
* *
*•«
**«**
«••**
»** * »
**« *
*«
M « *
^
«
*
*
t
B.^l-t . O.ttj*.
a*4.iiti
""'" /vorr-
ALL VALUES MPN/IOO ML
Figure 6
Stormwater Discharge Effect
Median Total Coliform Bacteria Concentrations
-------
r~»
W
H
-------
13
storage of all combined sewer overflows for an average year's rainfall. The
stored overflows would receive primary treatment or better before being
discharged.
The 208 model predictions for the base line conditions (1980) can be
used to predict the current condition of the Harbor waters since there have
been no significant changes to that treatment senario and none will occur
until the Red Hook and North River Water Pollution Control plants go on
line. The dissolved oxygen baseline concentrations are shown in figure 8
and 9. Figure 10 shows the "baseline total colifora concentrations 'in the
Harbor. Figure 11 shows the areas of the Harbor where the coliform
standards are violated.
-------
14.
Assessment of^Attainable Uses
Approach to Use Attainability
New York Harbor has been the subject of many investigations in the past and therefore
this analysis is based on existing data and the current assessment of the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) personnel who are familiar with the system. Since the
Harbor is an interstate waterbody the Interstate Sanitation Commission, the State of New
Jersey, EPA Region 0 and EPA Headquarters were also consulted,
The primary sources of information for the analysis are the documents generated by
the New York City 208 Area-Wide Waste Treatment Management Planning Program. As
part of the 208 process, the NYC Department of Environmental Protection evaluated
various water quality alternatives and determined the amount of treatment necessary to
attain the objectives of each alternative. The alternatives investigated were based on
desired aquatic uses. Therefore, the results of the 208 analysis can readily be used in a Use
Attainability Analysis.
A list of reports which were reviewed or consulted in preparing this report are
contained in Appendix 1.
AnalysisConducted
The reports reviewed treat the physical and biological factors in a general way. All
reports indicate that historically the New York Harbor,. System was a productive marine
ecosystem with a diverse biota. Presently, however, the diversity and productivity of the
system is severely impacted.
-------
2t«.i
1121*.* »
"8.2 '29,
ei.si
«,s»«
«« fit.i* *•
** »»»•«•
_«.»*_ ...
55.?» jr.
"15.92 J.7J9
1.J2S !(..!» 12,91
Jl.Si JD.»»
U.TJ
»' Q.I 19
NOTE:
'. . ALL VALUES MPN/IOO ML
Fl GURE 23
PREDICTED MEDIAN TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA CONCENTRATIONS
ZERO DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVE
-------
I ! ! I I I ! I
UMMMili
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
to 10 o -to
DISTANCE-HILCS fHQM •ATTtRY
HUD SOU RIVER
-to
-90
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
Figure 8
CITY OF NEW YORK 20§ STOOY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
BASELINE
DISSOLVED OXYGEN TRANSECT
WATCH ftesouftcts
DEPARTMENT Of CITY M.ANNUM
MAZIN ANO SAWYER
-------
* ** •
HSU* *
* * *
* « «
* * !**}£
* * *
233.9.. *****
" • **
• »
* ***
t •*
* »* JST»1« *
** *•
* * 4*92.* * *•»•
Jllll • * .. .
« * * »• «
** »*
*•«•*«
»»54.
133TI llllt
** « **«•*«« •
********
* i«lt.«
«* •!?.» •«
StJ.l
•* *
• ilM,
*** *
* •«
7 1H.7
»»*,7 an.r
Ifit** *«
.»»•..«.
••••l».ll
t >».
•«•••
• 130.0 HT.t
.J J«7.i iM.t IkS. 2
tl«.* J10.1 UT«I
*•« 14. to
M.91 ».»*
*I.M U*,t
. -
Ml.l 1M.2 IT.«
t »7.«*
17*. f *
lit. S •*.*! M.T5 •««• 13. 1
111.* IM.t «•« •• l*.*t
»• 1»T,7 ** * «.
.... « ...» >.» i».is nt.it * •
** * »*»* «** ?*•*! * «
»*•• •••»« ..> •
« «« * * t.*»»
•.** **»?2 * *
•** •••**
SB** *• *«
• ** *«
•*•** * ?*¥]?
**• X.
** **** •
4.3SJ
ALL VALUES MPN/lOO ML
Figure 10
Baseline Condition
Median Total Coliform Bacteria Concentrations
-------
LEGEND
VIOLATES NYS COLIFORM STANDARDS
VIOLATES NYS AND NYC COLIFQRM
STANDARDS
INCLUDES;
- W, P. C.P, DISINFECTION
- RAW SEWAGE FROM RED HOOK
AND NORTH RIVER
- 2% DRY WEATHER LEAKASE
- CSO/STORM RUNOFF
SCALE
9 I t I 4 S MILES
I. fH hrf
I HUDSON niven
2 LQN« ISLAND SOUND
3 EAST AND HARLEM RIVERS
4 UPPER SAY
5 ARTHUR KILL, KILL VAN KULL,
AND NEWARK IAY •
6 LOWER, RARITAN, AND SANDY HOOK BAYS
JAMAICA MY
ATLANTIC OCEAN
NEW JERSEY
cirr or new YOU* tot STUDY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PHQTECTWN
COUFORM VIOLATIONS
BASELINE
NYS CLASSIFICATIONS
BUREAU OF WATER RESOURCES
MEPAKTUCKT OF CITY PLANNING
MA ZEN AND SAWYER
Figure 11
-------
PM
•
.
T
_i
%^
o
t t
•
M
IS
£ §
o
0
w 4
o
•» 3
5
t
o
1
-mm
*~
!>
K
hi
~* W
K
— U
X
o
IP.
*
_ z
1
i 1
•
•1 • <•
o
z
<
ri
M
o
•:
s
§
J 1
1
•f
|
£
III
§
•
1
1
I
\m.
Z
O
a.
n
H
Z
3
Z
1
1
»'
I
yf
11
a
z
4
^
M
*>
X
m
_i
-i
»-
1
I 1 I I I
— •
rSATURATtON ~
^MINIMUM ^^
\OISSOLVED
\OXYGEH —
tj tmmmmm ••• ~
^«Y8/WY8 ""
W
l»
o
K
• •—
S
u
Z
s '• •
O ••...
H - .^
i i i i i
10
t
t
f
f
S
4
3
t
1
t I 1 i 1
— _
-^-SATURATION ~
— ~
— . —
~~_.UlMlUtlU ~*
r~ IW* iWIWtU M
^.1 DISSOLVED -.
1 OXYGEN
— i — .
I •
^-r ^
1 \
i \
•VMM »
\
1
™"" lyVG /WVC ---5 ••"*•
W i 3jF W *O "~~
— • —
-^ ww-
— _
ill 1 1
10
t
,
f
f
•
9
4
S
t
1
i i 1 I 1
_
~" ^SATWATION
— A— ^«.
—
— UUkUUlIU
_ DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
: r^K
/ m ~*
- / L_
§
~ f ftlVfi/MYt
~~ d
— M
•»
bl
m»
~i i i i i
1 1.
— ^—
P-»-
M
-
i !
S
•r
•r
i
x
1
^**
__
«<-»
(••.
_
_
7-
'
~—
—
—
—
l~
o • 10 m to zs . so "o a to is za to M 10 5 o
UPPEH MILES L.I, , EAST MILII HUDSON MAftlTAN , MILE*
' BAT SOUND RIVER RfVCR RIVER
EAST RIVER HARLEM THE KILLS
IMVER
Ficdiirs 9
3 fi-rv **e UC-IM vnt*tr <>na cYimv
UPPER
BAIT
DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
BASELINE
DISSOLVED OXYGEN TRANSECT
WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT Of ClTr PLANNING
NAZI N AND SAWYER
-------
16,
The Department does not believe there are potentially exploitable commercial
shellfish population in the Hudson River within New York City and Westchester/Rockland
Counties. This assessment is based upon a review of biological data collected by various
institutions and consultants which do not document extensive population of commercially
important shelfish species in the areas. It is not clear at this time if this absence of
shellfish is due to physical, environmental or pollutional reasons.
The designation of a swimming use for the Hudson River and Upper New York Bay is
dependent upon attainment of the eoliform standard of 200 MPN fecal coliform/100 ml.
Heavy bacterial pollution Is currently present in most of the metropolitan Hudson,
especially below its confluence with the Harlem River. These high fecal eoliform levels are
substantiated from data observations illustrated in Figures 17 through 19. As shown, the
fecal eoliform density peaks at about 40,000 in the neighborhood of the Battery Park.
The principal sources of bacterial pollution in the Hudson River are the heavy
discharges of untreated and inadequately treated sewage from New York and New Jersey.
Approximately 200 MGD of untreated sewage flows into the Hudson River and Upper New
York Bay from New York City. Other sources of eoliform pollution may be attributed to
CSOs, urban runoff, plant and sewerline leakages and by-passes on both sides of the river.
Figures 20 through 23 present the eoliform projections in the Harbor complex, based on the
NYC 208 report. Various treatment alternatives were considered in this projection analysis.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHELLFISH SPECIES
OCCASIONAL STANDS OF BLUE MUSSELS, •
HARD CLAMS AND BLUE CRAB,
SURFCLAM, DESIGNATED AS SHELLFISHING
FOR BAIT PURPOSES.
HARD CLAM RESOURCES NOT DESIGNATED
FOR SHELLFISHING. !
HARD CLAM, DESIGNATED AS SHELLFISHING
AREA.CLOSED EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL
PERMITS,
WATER BODY
I HUDSON RIVER
2 LONG ISLAND SOUND
3 EAST AND HARLEM RIVERS
UPPER BAY
5 ARTHUR KILL, KILL VAN KULL,
AND NEWARK BAY
6 LOWER, RAR1TAN, AND SANDY
JAMAICA BAY
ATLANTIC OCEAN
SOURCE- NYS DECEMBER
H6MPSTEAO
MASBQR
NEW JERSEY
SHECLFfSH RESOURCES
BfPAHTMENT OF CNViRONMCNTAL PROTECTION
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNINQ
MAZE* *NQ SAWTER
TASK 319.03
F16.URE
13
-------
15.
The chemical factors and the physical factors which affect the transport and
distribution of the chemical pollutants were analyzed through the use of a steady state
mathematical model developed by Hydroseienee, Inc., as part of the 208 program.
The steady state model simulates tidal movements which occur in the system by taking
into account the distribution of the various parameters brought about by that movement
through the use of dispersion coefficients. The model used a two layered segment scheme in
the Hudson estuary portion of the model to address the vertical stratification which exists in
the estuary. The model segmentation of the harbor is shown in Figure 12,
The N.Y.C. 208 study surveyed seasonal dry weather water quality in New York Harbor
during the late summer (August-September 1975), late fall/winter {November-December,
1976), and late spring/summer {June-July, 1977). Surface and bottom samples were taken at
87 stations through out the Harbor. Surveys conducted in the summers of 1965 and 1970
were also used in the model development. The flows during the summer of 1965
approximated the 7-day, 10-year low flow which is traditionally used as a critical condition
in waste load allocations.
In addition to the dry weather surveys, two storm events were monitored as part of the
208 study. The 208 water-quality sampling stations are also shown in Figure 12.
Hudson River & Upper NjwYork_Bay
As indicated previously the Hudson River and Upper New York Bay are currently
classified for fish propogation (Class "I"). Therefore, an assessment of the potential for
shellfishing and bathing use must be addressed.
-------
NORTH
208 WATER QUALITY
SAMPLING STATIONS
FIGURE 12
-------
17.
As seen, with the secondary treatment alternative (all plants at the secondary level)
the fecal coliform levels (assuming fecal conform = total coliform/4) in the Hudson River,
between the State line and its confluence with the Harlem River, will fall below the
criterion for SB classification (200 MPN/100 ml). Therefore, in view of these anticipated
improvements in the near future, the Hudson River segment between the State line and its
confluence with the Harlem River, is recommended to be upgraded to SB classification,
hence, made swimmable. #?
However, for the Hudson River segment between the Harlem River junction, and the
Battery, and Upper New York Bay itself, the secondary treatment alternative is predicted to
only lower the fecal coliform levels to less than the existing Class I criterion (2,000
MPN/100 ml) but the criterion for SB classification (FC = 200 MPN/100 ml) wiE still not be
met. According to the NYC 208 Report, only the zero discharge alternative, with 90% CSO
control, predicts sufficient coliform reductions to achieve the swimmable goals. Further-
more, even the zero discharge alternative does not predict sufficient coliform reductions to
attain shellfish goals (total coliform less than 70 MPN/100 MPN for direct harvesting).
East River & Harlem River
The East River between the Battery and Flushing Bay is presently classified for Fish
Passage (SD).
The East River with its strong tidal currents and deep hard substrate provides a
somewhat limited and harsh environment. Mans activities have caused severe changes to
the physical characteristics of the -East River. These changes include river enroachment
(landfill), dredging, blasting and pollution.
-------
18.
Yet recent studies indicate fish, benthic, phy to plankton, zooplankton and periphyton
populations exist in the East River. The various communities are made up of speeies which
can tolerate such an environment, but those communities are balanced and with some
exceptions not so different from the communities which existed two hundred years ago.
The Newton Creek 301(h) Report prepared by Hazen and Sawyer Engineers states that
"With the exception of oysters and possible communities associated with shaEows and tidal
areas, the bio-system comprised primarily of non-resident species, is similar today to what
it was two hundred years ago. PoEution stresses may limit growth of certain species of
phytoplankton and zooplankton as weE as residence time for various fish species. Channeli-
zation and removal of rocks and reefs may limit feeding areas fo the non-resident species.
The loss of oyster beds is permanent due to the loss of habitat, freshwater inflow,
shaEows, tidal areas and wetlands."
As part of the same report Hazen and Sawyer conducted an angler survey between
August and December of 1982. Twenty-four fish species were caught during that period.
Most were considered migratory speeies, however, three species were considered to be
residents of the East River.
Based upon this information it appears that upgrading of the use designation to Fish
Propagation (Class I) is appropriate. Analysis performed as part of the N.Y.C. 208 and
Newtown Creek 301(h) indicate that the D.O. standard of never less than 4 mg/1, coliform
standard of 10,000 MPN/100 ml and fecal coliform of 2,000 MPN/100 ml are attainable with
the application of secondary treatment to municipal point sources.
-------
19,
Therefore, the Department as part of a separate hearing process has proposed to
reclassify this portion of the East River and Harlem River to Class I (Fish Proportion).
The designation of a swimming use for this portion of the East River and Harlern River
is dependent upon attainment of the eoliform standard of 200 MPN fecal coliform/100 ml.
Heavy bacterial poEution is currently present in most of East River and Harlem River.
High fecal eoliform levels are substantiated from data observation, as illustrated in Figures
11 through 19. As shown, the fecal eoliform density peaks at about 40,000 in the
neighborhood of the Battery and 100,000 in portions of the Harlem River.
The principal sources of bacterial poEution in the East River are the discharge of
untreated sewage from the Red Hook drainage area in Brooklyn. Approximately 50 MOD of
raw sewage flows into the East River from New York City. Other sources of eoliform
poEution may be attributed to CSOs, urban runoff, plant and sewerline leakages and by-
passes on both sides of the river. Figures 20 through 23 present the eoliform projections in
the Harbor complex, based on the NYC 208 report. Various treatment alternatives were
considered in this projection analysis. As seen, with the secondary treatment alternative
(aE plants at the secondary level) the fecal eoliform levels (assuming fecal eoliform = total
coliform/4) in the East River, and Harlem, wiE not faE below the criterion for SB
classification (200 MPN/100 ml). According to the NYC 208 Report, even the zero
discharge alternative, with 90% CSO control, does not predict sufficient eoliform reductions
to achieve the swimmable goals or direct sheEfishing goals.
-------
20.
I
Jamaica Bay
Jamaica Bay is currently classified for swimming (SB). However, as indicated in
Figure 13 a hard clam resource exists within Jamaica Bay.
The designation of a shellfishing use (SA Direct SheEfish Harvesting) is dependent upon
the attainment of eoliform standard of 70 MPN total coliform/100 ml.
The principal sources of bacterial pollution in Jamaica Bay are attributed to CSO.
High eoliform levels are substantiated from periods of data observation, as illustrated
in Figures 14 through 16.
Figures 20 through 23 present the eoliform projections in the Harbor complex, based
on the NYC 208 report. Various treatment alternatives were considered in this projection
analysis. However, for the Jamaica Bay, the secondary treatment alternative is not
predicted to lower the total eoliform levels below criterion (70 MPN/100 ml) for direct
shellfishing. According to the NYC 208 Report, even the zero discharge alternative, with
90% control, does not predict sufficient eoliform reductions to achieve the direct shellfish-
ing goals.
Lower New York Bay
Lower New York Bay is currently classified for swimming (SB). However, as indicated
in Figure 13 a hard clam resource exists in lower N.Y. Bay.
-------
21.
The designation of a shellfishing use (SA Direct SheEfish Harvesting) is dependent upon
the attainment of the total eoliform criteria of 70 MPN/100 ml.
High total eoliform levels are substantiated from data observation, illustrated in
Figures 14 through 16.
The principal sources of bacterial pollution in the Lower New York Bay are the carry
over discharges of untreated and inadequately treated sewage from New York and New
Jersey. Approximately 200 MOD of raw sewage flows into the Hudson River from New York
City. Other sources of eoliform pollution may be attributed to CSOs, urban runoff, plant
and sewerline leakages and by-passes on both sides of the river. Figures 20 through 23
present the eoliform projections in the Harbor complex, based on the NYC 208 report.
Various treatment alternatives were considered in this projection analysis. As seen, with
the secondary treatment alternative (all plants at the secondary level) the total eoliform
levels in the Lower New York Bay, will not be below the criterion for SA classification (70
MPN/100 ml). According to the NYC 208 Report, only the zero discharge alternative, with
90% CSO control, predicts sufficient eoliform reductions to achieve the direct shellfishing
goals.
Assessment of Alternatives
Based on the NYC 208 report, only the zero discharge alternative, with 90% CSO
control, predicts sufficient eoliform reductions to achieve the sheEfishing/swimming goals
for water in the New York Harbor Complex. In fact, in some cases, even the zero discharge
does not predict sufficient coMform-reductions to achieve shellfishing goals. However, the
NYC 208 report concluded that based on environmental, technical and institutional factors,
this alternative is not feasible. Even if implemented, the projected improvements in the
-------
22.
water quality may still not materialize, since the precision of the NYC 208 water quality
model to predict total and fecal coliform levels has not been demonstrated for the bacterial
levels in question. Furthermore, the remaining 10% of the CSOs wiE stfll have some impact
on the Lower New York Bay. The alternative provides that the CSOs are to be captured and
then given primary treatment followed by disinfection. The estimated reductions in the
coliform bacteria, via ehlorination of primary treated captured CSO, may have been
overstated. It is also recognized that the applicability of steady state models to CSO and/or
coliform bacteria analysis is limited.
CSO abatement is the crucial factor in meeting the swimmable/fishable water quality
goals. The zero discharge alternative entails in-line (sewers) and off-line storage, foEowed
by primary treatment and disinfection. Based on the NYC 208 study, the current costs
associated with this CSO control scheme are estimated to be over 7 billon dollars (updated
from the original (1975) 3.5 billion doEars), The engineering feasibility of this CSO control
program has not been established. A detailed study, involving over 600 major CSO points,
generally distributed throughout the harbor region, is required. Therefore, pending detailed
engineering evaluations of this alternative (90% of CSO control) and others, it is judged that
its feasibility has not been demonstrated.
-------
23.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recognizing the scope and limitations of the analyses to date, further studies are
underway and will be continued. It is possible that other treatment/abatement alternatives
for CSOs, which were not evaluated in the New York City 208 planning process, could
produce the desired result of attaining swimmable and shellfishing water quality. New
Jersey is currently actively pursuing Marine CSO abatement funding under Section 201(n) for
local communities. Additionally, New York State has required the City of New York to
undertake a more detailed evaluation of CSO problems and abatement alternatives for the
New York Harbor Complex. This study has just begun.
During the same time period as the CSO study, the North River and Red Hook Water
Pollution Control Facilities will begin to treat and provide disinfection for flows which are
currently discharged without treatment to the Hudson River and the Lower East River.
Continued monitoring during the time period will help to evaluate the predictive
capability of the New York City 208 model and provide an up-to-date data base in order to
determine if the swimmable/shellfishing goals are attainable.
„-"-"
Based upon this report, the foEowing waters are recommended for upgrading:
^y-i 1. The East River (from the Battery to Flushing Bay) and the Harlem River (East
River to Washington Bridge) from SD to I
2. The Hudson River (from the Harlem River confluence to the N.J. - N.Y. border)
from I to SB
-------
24.
The existing classification of the following waters should be retained:
1. Hudson River (from the Harlem River to Battery) - Class I
2. Upper New York Bay - Class I
3. Harlem River (Washington Bridge to Hudson River) - Class I
4. Jamica Bay - Class SB
5, Lower New York Bay - Class SB
It is further recommended that the folowing programs and studies be instituted or
continued:
1. On-going studies to determine the extent of water quality improvements
resulting from low cost and technically feasible programs, such as regulator leakage
correction, and non-structural controls, such as street sweepings, etc.
2. Enhancement of the Harbor Complex monitoring network, tailored to determine
the water quality improvements resulting from the anticipated upgrading of public
wastewater plants.
3. Consideration of area-wide and site-specific studies and/or corrective actions to
restore the intended uses, such as shellfishing, bathing, etc.
4. Continuation of interstate cooperation in water quality improvement programs in
the Harbor complex. Continuation of steering committee coordination in assessment
of specific problems, such as upgrading of stream uses, if and when warranted.
-------
25.
5. Confirmation and implementation of ongoing and required efforts, such as New
York City regulator leakage control. New Jersey - City wide abatement studies and
New Jersey CSO abatement studies.
6. Implementation of the permits program.
Based upoon this additional monitoring information and water quality management
studies, the conclusion on attainability in this report should be reviewed during the next
three years.
-------
Z
b
?p
-_o
5
30
m
c
I •
2
I/) 5
£
m
IA
j>
i.
rn o
a
i
pi '
m
to
TOTAL COL1FORMS j MPN/ 100 ML )
5 o o 5 o o c
— N 1-1 4" to 01
RARITAM BAY {ill
0
CAHTERET
h— GH
-NEWARK BAf
0
TOTAL COLIFORMS (MPN/JOO ML)
CAST mvcft 1 I 1 i 1
0
...
MtJDSOW RIVER
TOTAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOOML)
5_ o 6 5 ^ 5 J
BATTCRy J I « I I |
0
1-0
0
HADiEU BIVtH w
0
TIIHOOS NECK 0
0
0
-HtMPSrtAU HARBOR
0
5 ' c
"* I «
o
o
2 *
< 0
m
(A 0
••?•
>, m
m w
J» O
at
i
- c .
z -
z
CD
*. 1
3 -IO -20 -:
5E'TO ATLANTIC OCEAN (MILK
" o
TOTAL COLIFORMS { MPN / 100 ML )
1 °M »
0 ™*
1 i
' ® ... * *
0
N.»,-N,J. STAFE tlME ' -
O
o_ •
HARLEM HIVEB |_ , .0- (
a* an. |__o_i
0
M3
1 — 0-J ^
HAiitwr * t> 1 1 1 o o,
£ E et ^
NARSOWS 1 OH . _|
0 m
"~SANU5f HOOK - z
e I
~~ »
a
,-. m
__ t) "O
z
•
»4
f
i
-------
2
O
mo
"OOO
CD™|Q
r m
— o •
roTi
S5
TOTAL COLIFORM (MPN/IOOMLJ TOTAL COLIFORM (MPN/IQOML)
.-V *"*
§
Z
m 1
!j °
«™,
5
R '
M g
PfftTH AUBOY | J_ 0^f ] }
I-©
^-—O-,
1 /"^ 1
1 *^ *
|— ^— 4
_S*»D? HOOK
1
2
< 5
50
—
p
m ,.,
1 J I J I
z
O
~_ o
SOUTH RIVER 5
2
-
KDT»I AUBOV
- TOTAL COLIFORM (MPN/ 100 ML)
_, o o o 6 S 5 6
-U~~ ls> kj ^ Uk 01 *-*
TOTAL COLIFORM
01 —
J> O
g
MM
.— • O
i
NORTON POINT 1 1 1 1 i ^
1 Q-t
t-Q~t "
UANIIATTAN BEACH
CANAA5IE HEACII
-
" a
m G
2D
^*«
R 0
1 I i i 1
DUNOCE OAU
2
O
-PASSAIC g
,»!
>
~
NEWARK SAY
" TOTAL COU FORM (MPN/100 ML)
-r
C" 1^
J* O
0
m
TOTAL COLIFORM (MPN/ 100 ML ) 2
g ^5- 6N q, % 5u. 5» 5^ | _
Cl C3
3>
1
03 _
ffl O
O
X
2
r j i j j
* » i i *
- o
- 0
31? ^
_
<
m
5D
• — • o
]£
m
^2
i
1 i I I 1
GflflllEU. QAM
-
li&CKEHSACX
—
SEC*UCUS
_
1 0 1
—JESSE* CITY ^ Q j
' ° '
KELL V^N KUtt
fn ° ' ' " '"' ••" — ••""'• <-»
-------
in7
tu
rr>6
IO
_J
3
o
z
0.
2
• M .04
•S
IE
O
u_
_l
O
0 IO3
H
O
h-
102
.-I
FLOW AT 8CA* MOUNTAIN %ie*oo ei* LEeeMO:
Te«i>€!Mruite * z
Y T (
X [
§
— • s
5 ^
I |
i I *"!
30 40
-7*e
I MAX
MIN
fifuf
I 4. rk I /K W T
T Til A
T* I I. ili
i ; f , f 1
©
I
UJ
z
a ' , , . at •
ij jti
S I : i- , s I T .
«-*"* *I5 * J,
| ; r 1 •; | | | 1
»» 2" Z .« D Z (A
(• II I 1 1 t 1
-
30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30
HUDSON RIVER TRANSECT - BEAR MOUNTAIN BRIDGE TO ATLANTIC OCEAN {MILES!
in7
IU
10s
"H
s
o
z
Q.
2
""""
1 10*
(T
O
° io3
^_
o
1—
I02
t
••
•O «l)
I 1 f
~ ©
a
-
- s S
< I «
i • i i
! "l f
20 IO
IV.*
S
O
f r
>
«t
*
i
=
s I0
a:
g '
§ iO3
t—
o
^*
102
,
fl
- Ij.
-
_
K
mm - >
> f
* o
2 ' 1
u f . 1
I^f
10s
o
o
^ 10s
z i
a.
'S
^ !Q 6
e
o
u.
3,0=
t-
O
^
W2
,
"if ^5
il T T
11
II
ii
> Q
T s
1 1
i i is
S a g 51
^ w x 2 I
" 51
i t r i r
0 .0 . • 10 0 10 2O 30
THE KILLS (MILES) HARLEM RIVER . '--EAST RIVER (MILES)
FIGURE 15
N.YC. 2O8 TOTA;L COLIFORM DATA
(NOVEMBER 29 TO DECEMBER 17, 1976}
-------
till
I ! I
I > 1
» I I
TOTAL COLIFORMS IMPN/IOOML} TOTAL COLIFORMS (MPN/100MLJ
Q, 5 o Q q o o 5 5 o 5 5 5 6
N . M > T» m •* si N . u » TI a» ^i
ao
—i
3
2:
03 ±
*"C
— .
£
[n i
w g
PERTH AubOY | *—&-t | f |
t_^>H
i~*'~€^"
~~ Vt-iu-i-.Q |
»— O~i
**^"*^
i © t
•01
_SJSNO» HOOK
50 °
^4
3
2
pa
< 5
m
30
2
F
Pi _
TOTAL COLIFORMS {MPN/ 100 ML) M °
c. o
£
>
e
BD —
s
F
w fj
MORTON POlHI1 1 II I
' ^
»-Q^ .. .- . •
UANIUT1JW Bf AOI O
ft
CtMAMilE BEACH C)
- O
©
.— O i
D 5
?0
s
s
1 1 I I f
riELMtLLE DAU
~~
O
0
SOUTH BlVEII $»
H
s*
~
PERTH AM80Y
TOTAL COLIFORMS ( MPN/ 100 ML )
I i i r i
CUHDtf 0*M
O
— p«S5»ic o
s
™
HI WtHK BAY
5
™ TOTAL COLIFORMS (MPN/ 100 ML)
5 5 o o 5 o o
- N w > - -w tn
.-.
' 5 R
o
X
TOTAL COLiFORMS ( MPN/ 100 ML 5 g
S 5- ^, 5w 5* 5« 5», °i >
X
1
-<
CD
m o
j>
n
DC
S
1 1 I ! 1
MCOB AilS PARK
— | Q ^
FAR ROCKAW4Y
-
X «-»
<
m
30
-— o
2
§
ir^
1 1 1 1 I
OIIADELL DAM
_
HACKENSACK
-
SEC^ilOJS
-JERS£» CIT¥ ' ^ Q^
j-JjU
KM-L VftM KULL
-N'
O 2
< k
m o
03 w
m o
10 oo
to o"
o0
° r~
m L.
-n
m
-4
m
-------
2 ..5
io
tr
o
u.
O 3
O 10
p
IO -
10
AT 86**
T-£MfeH*TO(«€ » 17 - 27 "C
O aeOMETHIC MEAN 0VIR DEPTH M.Y.C. 208
* H.f.C. B.W.S, PAT ft
I MAX
MIN
i,!
II
I 11
o
s I
! ! I [ I }
90 40 30' 2O , !0 0 ~IO -2O -30
HUDSON RIVER TRANSECT - BEAR MOUNTAIN BRIDGE TO ATLANTIC OCEAN (MiLES)
— 10
O
IC
S 10
ce
£
I0
io
10
—
-
1
— I
1
J,
1
"
T «
" i J
I
I
T
m.
5
O
.i
>
!i
•
•'
i" w 5 '*
s S * *
i i '
S L 3, 3
V
i
IU
8
— 10
_j
2
O
O
^ 10*
; 1
: OT 4
S 10
K
O
U_
0 3
0 jo3
*~ .o2
,o'
— _
' •$
T 1 5 I T
_ "i < >
o
ti I i
— '
•
•UK
* >
? i
3 ., 1
20 10 0
THE KILLS (MILES )
0 IO
HARLEM RIVER
10 20 30
EAST RIVER (MILES)
FIGURE 16
TOTAL; COLJFORM DATA
(JUNE 15.TO SEPTEMBER 28,1977}
-------
c_
C
Z
m
_ H
cn O
o r
C/) O
m o
-!•-;
n
oo
~n
TOTAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOO ML) TOTAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOO ML)
o o o
30
i
to t
5 °
^^^
y*
p
M l^>
PCHTK AMBOt* 1 *•
l^l_4@ — J
,~_0 '
1 Q-rJ_A |
^SAf«)Y HOOK
56 o o 5 05 o o 36
*• Ul £fi *••* ^jj — M i4 ^ C* fft "H
Q-4 | i
~^^ . .,,. ,,,i«,.|
1
> g
^M
Z.
30
*C O
S3
s
r~
m
J r 1 1 I
_F,a0V(LU MH
Z
souni »i«e« a
-t
_ ^
PERTH *HBOr
- TOTAL COLiFORMS (MPN/IOO ML)
^ .. 5- 5« 5W 6* 5» 5». 5-4
TOTAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOO ML ) % °
_ _
°- °N °W
> °
2
3^*
n
tn ~
5
2
Ul IN>
NORTON POiMf i
£ -"""""•"'Q— -**
I ,.. ,„_„, A „,/?*
i » a
~ i • j- l*
i • © **
_
o "~
j>
°* °w °m °^ °
J r~ t
jjj
1
c:
fH O
3D
g
[7|
t i i 1 I
DUNDEE MU
Z
o
PASSA* o
TC*
_i
~
NewaNx BAY
•" TOTAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOO ML)
5 N
J> O
0
X
TOTAL COLIFORMS (MPN/ (00 ML) g
O __ ta ol
o o
Q
5:
-C
CD
rn o
3
r-.
3:
r N
1 [
jiCOB BiiS »BK
-0
fftfl «OCK»W«*
m u
w
_ _ — — w
* « ,S! „,- , H r\ -
1 I I
j
5*v
~
m
XI
-^ o
S.
m
M
j,.
1 1 1 I 1
OfiAUEU MM
-
IIACKENSACK
-
S| CAUCUS
— JERSElf C1IJ H2M
1— Q-j
k*.L VAH KUl.L
• ~" u
'
-------
FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOO ML}
FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOO ML)
2
Is
H°°
m _.
2 n-J "^
ml 1 **••
f*"S x"\
|T| r* O»-
3 r S
— o m
f O M
r"" *-«j
i\i TI
1 x-4
•* O
ID «
~xl *^^
^!o
jt*
j>
° 9, 1 °» 9. °» 5-< 5 5, 3u o, o, 5m 5
In 8
X
m
X
M 5
S
So
ac z
G
^j
m 6
RtHIIiN BAY | | | j
I^«U
- 0
OUiTiREI ^* |-CH
~~NEW*flK BUY • ' *
UPPER BAY j
FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOO ML)
i 5 5 Q S 6 I
— In u • * (a o»
CAST RIVEN I ( [ 1
Q~~
.
HUDSON RIVfH
C ^
O
M
O
2
2 *
< 0
m
aj
2 w
B^ °
1 i -
?°
z
o
-- C- .
1 0
30 2
FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOO ML) m
t '30
™ —• « »™ -™ _ I ^~
O O O O O O Or?
0- N w * « « ^S_
Tn
t >.
3P
1
-~
5 8
§
O-
BATTERY 1 t 1 i
lilt
t&t
— g
« 12/1
HiSiEumvsR 1~GH
1 H\ 1 '
i GH
IHHOGS NCCK 0
0
0
- itupsrtAD lURiOH
0
rn
1 *
-H
O
j>
> O
2
O
"
S- M
*
2
^^
m I
W r!
1 1 1 1 I
^UMH «OUHUI«Q
-^ -*I
p
a _l
• Q >
1I«U£*STII«W -* *
» *
Q m a
NO
rjutwi ICE m, 0 M -«
- - • • * t
© *
Kt-Ht -STATC UNf ~
tt
Q
- ^^ O
1 ' " w 1 «
' rt
IliHLtU RIUCR | Q |
_**» •'•" ^—GH
e
H€H
i—o—i j;
8&fT£A¥ ^ >"•" 1 0 ftj
i.
1 0 j - J S ^
£_»<:)_— $ 2 x o ""
1 ~/*\ t m
NAUHOWS *^^ ' H
o S
0 ?
— fl
o
_ 0 5
z
« I 1 I I
I I
-------
1111
t i >
FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOOML) FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOOML)
o 6 o o 6 5 S « 5 o o 6 o o Q
Q- w w * w W *
33
5
2
03 I
5 °
^
s •
tn g
MRTH AUaOlf *' ""1 ---fa)- • 1 | | J
Q
_ *®*
,~_e j
1H2H
1 O 1
K-H
_ SAH0J HOOK
S *^
_ 'l
i!
2
2
m ®
3D
^
5 «
i I 1 1 1
fltLDVlLI £ MM
2
O
SOUTH »|VtH P
S ' j
1*
PE.HTH AMBGV
FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/100 ML)
50 J* ^ ow % 6^ o^ OH
FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOOMLJ 12 °
Q - -- « - - - &
— f* , w * ui o» *-i *^
1
^ °
s
fn
in N
-^ O
MOfllWI KKHt II 1 |
t-O — 1
_ ,__ Q _,
MANHATTAN i£ ton
CANAAStC 0£ACH
—
Al
< _
m o
!!
2
^
1 1 i I I
_ouHOcen«M
0
-P«SS*IC Q
O
" §
NEWARK Hit
- ° FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOOML)
6 6 o 6 O Q_ o.
> s
o
FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/100 ML) g
yr — _ _ (/%
^
Jr
O5
m o
^
o
oc
*—*
2
f 1 1 I I
— 0
JACOB K»3 PAHS
- 0
7^ o
30
**V
r*i
3}
— o
2
—
m
to
— . N 01. *. en at
i 1 t I 1
OSAOetL DAU
-
HACXENS4CK
_
SE CAUCUS
• — •
~ JtHSEt cir?
|— - • O""'l
, .^ ,
* "r__"A..
'*"" T"= ====rirn\lM1i -• )
Kil L UAW KULl
»
^
m o
"o c»
Fl "TI
DO n
rn >
rur
.1, Q.
01
-------
1W
,«%6
10
_J
2
***»
c.
2 iO4
2
cr
o
ti
' J
o „
o los
_J
o
LU
u.
\f\2f
IQ
1
FLOW AT SCA» MOUNTAIN VI14-OO Clt i£Sf/HO'
T£M*£*»TU*€ » t-7«C Q 5£0«€TRtC MCAN OVER DEPTH
I MAX
M1N
• ' ' ' T
ft (0 11
T >T T T" ^C Jk JL
J 1 TY I 0i 2^T T
5 • z - 0 1 i 1 A
T T (S
-» i i
| 0 i 1
? ^ 5 i
[ -"•*•!-. 1
i , "• £
— 5 '-«,,'"* ' s
* a "*" , w S3
^ e ' " S' ' -1 S J
o 5 ^^'S* « S * ^*
5 it SiVtf* 5<3a
2 ^ »-2'*0 SI Z tA 4t
j L ! 1 ] 1 | 1 1 [ 1 | !
.
5O .40 30 20 10 O~~~- -10 -20 -30
HUDSON RIVER TRANSECT - BEAR MOUNTAIN BRIDGE TO ATLANTIC OCEAN {MILES)
I07
10s
_J
•s
o
2,0=
o.
2
I0"
1 '
_}
O
U ,Q3
O
yj
u_
iO2
.0s
,
I—
T© T
IT ° ^:
11
"ft
-L -i.
f „
s >• « $
3 S M «
2 w * • *
1 5 I s
1 5 S S
1 ! I
>0 10
O7
• ,08
, J
O
•z.
a.
g (O4
ir
S
J
o
«I03
u
yj
u.
SO2
D »'
_ ,
'
~ T
1
•*"
—
OC
W
> ac
: 1
«* o
"* 3
lot S
j . .
O7
ra6
_j
o
2 KD5
Z
0.
« IQ4
u.
j
O
U (03
U
U
LL.
IO2
1
_
—
i**?
-4 f
i
JL i
T i
1
a T
1 0
T I
f » S
I i IS.
1 1 i 2 $
S 1 1 1 *
I 1 1 1 1
0 10 IW' O 10 2O 30
THE KILLS {MILES 7 HARLEM RIVER EAST RIVER { MILES ) .
FIGURE is
NYC. 208 FECAL COUFORM DATA
(NOVEMBER 29 TO DECEMBER 17, 1976)
-------
I I t I t
O
m ro
23 O
00
m —<»
"
o
0)
FECAL COLtFORMS (MPN/IOO ML) FECAL COLIFORMS {MPN/IOO ML)
5Q6QS56ioQoOoo6
— r* 14 *. u fl* "•« ^» — N u * i» i» "*«
30
H
2
CD i
s _
5 A
^€RfH AMflOy <^H I T f t
' ^ *
i T^XZ^T^
j^-cy-l w I
t X7 1
N-H
_ S*MO» HOOK
S»
rf
2
*tl
iO
Is
S
1 I I I I
FH:LIMU.E WM
z
o
— o
SOUIII ItlVCIi J>
-
PfHTM AMBOY
S ~ FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN/IOO ML)
6060600
TJ— N u Tk ui 01 ••!
t> ftt
Cfl O
FECAL COLIFORMS { MPN/JOO ML) g
i o o o Q 5 o on
j>
> -
e
1°
s
w u
. • o
.
NMTONFOIMr 1 1 1 1
*^— ^— < ^ ...'.. ;•
UANHATIAH eCACH 0
~ 0 _ ...
CAMARSK M4CH O
°0
O
2
m o
»
—
S
^ 1 1 1 I 1
1 /TV 1
1 vj (
I O — — — 1
1 S~\ f
. ;*L * i
. ' ^ j
NFWARKBAV'
- FECAL COLiFORMS {MPN/IOO ML)
c
? IV5
** o
o
FECAL COLIFORMS {MPN/IOO ML) . |
ajo 5 6 S 5 3 S w
Q_ >J W*. U 01 Nl>
Ci O
|
*<
00
m o
S
2
b u
'
- , Q |
- 1 — GH
5S O
31
31
*^ O
m
M
5
fill
OII4DELL OAU
IliCKCNSACK
-
SECAUCUS
-jfHsev CITH I— O-j
H-H
KILL V>N KULL
1
3N ' -
-------
10
fi-
_ 10
2
O
O
- io5
CL
2
sn 4
2 10
ec
o
u.
8 io3
!
O
u
u.
IOZ
IO1
FLOW AT i6A« MOUNTAIN-.. 7 BOO «(• L£6CHO.
TEMPERATURE —17 - 2T "C ' ® GEOMETRIC ME4M OVEB DEPTH N.Y.C. 808
* N.T. C. O.W.K. DATA
I MAX
MIN
-
rr P * ^
~ TV • '
ifc
1 A J.
•iii
1 T«H T
* •*• o
O T . S ~i ]_
-I s i • § : 5; ' * A « T
T = I 3 3: * g 5 It
1 is I'i S: * ' 5 i Ills
£ ** • * X. 9 a * IA
1 !-l:.|- I I !.!!__
.
20 40 30 20 tO 0 -10 -20 -30
HUDSON RIVER TRANSECT - BEAR • MOLTNTAIN BRIDGE TO ATLANTIC OCEAN (MILES!
IO7
io6
3
2
O
S ,os
^
CL
2
<*•*
w id*
2
tr
O
u_
— 1
O 3
0 10
_J
O
iLt
U" 102
j J*
_
,^
Tr
T 6
1 Tl0 9 i
- Of IT.
5 1 I J-T? '
^ i i X ^
_ ' '
-1-
o
_...... ( t
1 i s
3T « * B
s i * s
1 1 .1 s
1 1
IO7
* ios
•Jl
2
O
O
x !0S
Z
a.
*.•
CO ,_4
i io
(r
' 1
1 %M]
O 3
O 10
u
tu
u.
(
—
1:'
-"I
• » .
T
i
.°" II <>
> I 1.1
it*
•
— . ic
iM
1 1
!0T
- 'o8
3
o
o «
x 10
z
a.
2
•w
« .o4
ce
o -
_i
O 3
Q 10
U
u
It -_
IO2
in1
_
—
T T
"I iJf
lilt if I
i iT^ 5 " T
f 1 U- i tl. f i
" i\m
•- i
- * u r ^
« "3
si '1
s I i Q i 0
If I I 1
20 10 0 0 10 0 . IO 20 30
THE KILLS (MILES) HARLEM RIVER EAST RIVER (MILES)
FIGURE 19
FECAL COL1FORM DATA
(JUNE 15 TO SEPTEMBER 28, 1977}
-------
!0T 1~7
s
_ 10
2
0
S s
^ 10
z
Q~
S
« iO4
**c
o
u_
O 3
<-> 10
yj
u.
!02
to'
-
—
—
— NO DATA
™
~|
5 1 1
325
id. v* a.
1 .1 t
<\*
0
o
*"*• - S
Q.
2
—
= «4
CC
o
u.
wj
« 10
UJ
V
in1
™*
_ .
NO
"**
_
2
2
to
w
1
i
DATA
^ •
vi
g
20 IO 0 20 10
RARiTAN RiVER (MILES) PASSA1C RIVER (
€
-. 10
o
o
r~ s
z 10
a.
1 '°4
|
I
o
0 io3
_j
UJ
y_
2
10
1
10
x T
111 !
-A 1«
il rfnT |
i i IS j| 1
* ,-"• ",
i ! i
IW
6
— 10
s
o
0
**** s
z '
0.
s io4
CC
o
u.
_1
o
u io3
_1
o
UJ
u.
a
10
mv
-
JS
.
*>«
i
|
0 -fO -ZO 0
T
I- i
S
1
1
>
^g
£E
,o
U.
.-
-S
o
u
**"
0
MILES )
a
>
O
£
i
1 •
. 1
1
H* 1
fe:
i
U;
MX
4
-
U 1
10
RARITAN BAY {MILES} JAMAICA
'"
io7
s
10
5
10
IO4
;
10
«d2
!O
"—
j "T*
If.
~
_ a
S3 £
j | § "
S'M •« «V
U U «
§"€ UJ W
£ Ifl . ™
1 i !
2O IO 0
)
,j
3
X
z
>
J
t
m
-10
HACKENSACK RIVER (MILES)
,„? .
'
I
i w
6
• — io
3S
o
0 5
x 10
z
a.
-OT (Q4
2
CC
O
u_
Ij
O 3
0 IO
O
UJ
IE
"- z
:o
1 QI
"20 0 IO
BAY (MILES
20
ROCKAWAY BEACH (MILES)
X,
FIGURE 19
FECAL COL1FORM DATA
(JUNE 15 TO SEPTEMBER 28, 197?)
-------
JU.a 35H.J J65.2
!2».B 218,2 ItNl
5«*,s»S 5»,75
ALL VALUES MPN/100 ML
FIGURE 20
PREDICTED MEDIAN TOTAL COL1FORM BACTERIA CONCENTRATIONS
BASELINE CONDITION
-------
•327,? l»».J
1(,3U. 12-*
••• III!.
ALL VALUES MPN/iOO ML
FIGURE 21
PREDICTED MEDIAN TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA CONCENTRATIONS
SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
-------
•• ..1351.
1309. »
*. »*"*»1319. 1133.
177.7
171.9
*!9t,7 !IS.*
««•*«
329.0 '."t.!
"« •»3Z»,J ll».» 133,0 47,i*
42,73 11.u
35.SI ' ">t,73 • Z».1U
*. 15.a1*
165.1 *
2fll.il 3«*,M 3a.3Q ***. 4.154
209,7 13J.O ••«•»« 17,44
*** 37*,* •* * «*
** « ***« «** 47,K? * *
«»•• **... *.«
*,2SO
o.ui
0.10'.
ALL VALUES MPN/IOO ML
FIGURE 22
PREDICTED MEDIAN TOTAL CO Li FORM BACTERIA CONCENTRATIONS
SECONDARY TREATMENT ± 50 PERCENT CSO
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
-------
-26-
Appendlx 1
Source Doc urn en ts
1. New York City 208 Reports
a. the Final Report
b. task 710 Description of the Final Plan
e. task 315 Seasonal Water Quality Evaluation
d. task 314 Seasonal Steady State Modeling
e. tasks 518/526 Baseline/alternatives: Summary Volume 1
f. tasks 512/522 Baseline and Alternatives: Modeling
g. task 335 Intermittent Water Quality Evaluation
2. North River Water PoEution Control Project, 201 Facility Plan, Volume 4,
Environmental Assessment Statement
3, Red Hook Water PoEution Control Project, 201 Facility Plan Final Report
4. N.Y.S. Department of Health pre-classification Study - Lower Hudson River
from mouth to Northern Westchester-Roekland county lines.
5. N.Y.S. Department of Health pre-classification study - Lower East River
6. N.Y.S.D.E.C. Hudson River Water Quality and Waste Assimilative Capacity
Study. Prepared by Quirk Lawler and Matusky Engineers
-------
-27-
7. Water Quality Management Assessment Due to Marine CSO Abatement along the
New Jersey Shore - prepared by Bureau of System Analysis and Waste Load
Allocation N.J. DEP.
8. Surface Water Quality Standards for New Jersey - N.J, Department of Environ-
mental Protect! on/Division of Water Resources (4/85)
9. Coney Island Water Pollution Control Plant Facility Plan
10. Owls Head Water Pollution Control Plant Facility Plan.
11. Use attainability analysis of the NY Harbor Complex - N.J. DEP Division of
Water Resources June 1985.
12. New York State Water Quality Standards Attainability Strategy
-------
-28-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Division of Water gratefully acknowledges the
contribution of the following individuals in the preparation
of this report:
Philip M. DeGaetano •- Project Director
Philip O'Brien - Principal Investigator
Richard Newman - Technical Assistance
Albert Bromberg - Technical Assistance
N.G. Kaul - Technical Assistance
Aslam Mirza - Technical Assistance
Donna Johnson - Typing
Chris Dybas - Typing
Stacy Kmen - Typing
Susan Stuart - Typing
Mark Kruszona - Report Reproduction
Other agencies involved in providing guidance and review
including staff of OSEPA - Headquarters, Washington and Region
II, Interstate Sanitation Commission and New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection.
-------
Appendix E:
Red Dog Mine UAA
-------
RED DOG USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
AQUATIC LIFE COMPONENT
By
Phyllis Weber Scannell
Technical Report No. 96-1
Janet Kowalski
Director
Habitat and Restoration Divsion
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
February 1996
-------
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game administers all programs and activities free from discrimination on
the basis of sex, color, race, religion, national origin, age, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability.
For information on alternative formats available for this and other department publications contact the
department ADA Coordinator (voice) 907/465-4120: (TTD) 907/478-3648. Any person who believes s/he has
been discriminated against should write to: ADF&G, PO Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526 or O.E.O. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240.
-------
RED DOG USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
AQUATIC LIFE COMPONENT
By
Phyllis Weber Scannell
Technical Report No. 96-1
Janet Kowalski
Director
Habitat and Restoration Divsion
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
February 1996
-------
Table of Contents
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Introduction 1
Authority 1
Purpose 1
Description of Streams Considered for Reclassiflcation 1
Ikalukrok Creek 3
Mainstem Red Dog Creek 3
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek 5
Tributaries to Middle Fork Red Dog Creek 5
Sulfur Creek 7
Shelly Creek 7
Connie Creek 7
Rachael Creek 7
Hilltop Creek 10
North Fork Red Dog Creek 10
Geology 11
Climate/Population 11
Existing Classification 11
Recommended Changes to Aquatic Life Classification 11
Water Quality Monitoring Stations 12
Waste water Dischargers 12
Problem Definition 12
Approach to Use Attainability 12
Data Analysis 13
Hydrology 13
Stream Flow Evaluation 13
Water Quality Evaluation, Baseline Conditions 13
Ikalukrok Creek: Station 8 15
Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Station 10 15
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 20 16
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 140 16
Shelly Creek 17
Connie Creek 18
Sulfur Creek 18
Rachael Creek 19
Hilltop Creek 20
North Fork Red Dog Creek 20
-------
Water Quality Evaluation, after development of the Red Dog Mine. 20
Ikalukrok Creek: Station 8 21
Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Station 10 22
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 20 22
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 140 23
Shelly Creek 24
Connie Creek 25
Sulfur Creek 25
Rachael Creek 26
Hilltop Creek 27
North Fork Red Dog Creek 27
Conclusions 28
Mainstem Red Dog Creek 28
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek 28
Sulfur Creek 28
Rachael Creek 28
Shelly Creek 29
Connie Creek 29
Hilltop Creek 29
North Fork Red Dog Creek 29
Biological Evaluations 29
Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Baseline Studies 29
Ikalukrok Creek, Station 73 29
Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Station 10 30
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Stations 20 and 140 30
Shelly Creek, Connie Creek, Sulfur Creek, and Rachael Creek, Hilltop Creek 30
North Fork Red Dog Creek 30
Macroinvertebrates: Current Study 31
Methods 31
Results and Discussion 31
Ikalukrok Creek 32
Mainstem Red Dog Creek 33
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek 3 3
Shelly Creek 33
Connie Creek 33
Sulfur Creek 34
Rachael Creek 34
North Fork Red Dog Creek 34
Conclusions 34
Microinvertebrates 35
Baseline Studies 35
Current Study 35
Methods 36
Results and Discussion 36
n
-------
Ikalukrok Creek 36
Mainstem Red Dog Creek 36
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek 36
Shelly Creek 36
Connie Creek 37
Sulfur Creek 37
Rachael Creek 37
North Fork Red Dog Creek 37
Conclusions 37
Periphyton: Baseline Studies 37
Periphyton: Current Study 38
Methods 38
Results and Discussion 38
Conclusions 38
Macrophytes: Baseline Studies 39
Macrophytes: Current Study 39
Methods 39
Results and Discussion 39
Ikalukrok Creek 39
Mainstem Red Dog Creek 39
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek 39
Shelly Creek 40
Connie Creek 40
Sulfur Creek 40
Rachael Creek 40
North Fork Red Dog Creek 40
Conclusions 40
Fish: Baseline Studies 41
Natural Fish Kills 42
Fish: Current Study 42
Methods 42
Results and Discussion 42
Point Source Evaluation 44
Non-Point Source Evaluation: Whole Effluent Toxicity 45
Conclusions and Recommendations 46
References Cited 49
Appendix 1. Summary Of Water Quality Data, 1979-1983. 51
Appendix 2. Summary Of Water Quality Data, 1979-1983. 52
Appendix 3. Summary of Metals Data, 1979-1983. 54
Appendix 4. Summary Of Water Quality Data, 1991-1995. 56
Ikalukrok Creek, Station 8. 56
Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Station 10 58
in
-------
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 20. 60
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 10. 61
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 140. 62
Appendix 5. Summary Of Metals Data, 1991-1995. 64
Ikalukrok Creek, Station 8 and 73. 64
Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Station 10 65
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 20. 66
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 140 67
Shelly Creek, 1995 68
Connie Creek, 1995 68
Rachael Creek, 1995 68
Sulfur Creek, 1995 69
Hilltop Creek 69
Appendix 6. Invertebrates Found In Wulik River Drainage Before Mining. 70
Baseline Studies Conducted by EVS (1983). 70
Baseline Studies Conducted by Dames and Moore (1983). 71
Appendix 7. Invertebrate Data, 1995. 72
Appendix 8. Estimates Of Chlorophyll-a, 1995. 77
Appendix 9. Common And Scientific Names Of Fish From Wulik River Drainage 79
Appendix 10. Overwintering Adult Dolly Varden In The Wulik River. 80
Appendix 11. Water Quality And Metals Data, 1979-1983. 81
Appendix 12. Water Quality And Metals Data, 1991-1995. 97
Appendix 13. Water Quality And Metals Concentrations In Mine Effluent, 1995. 125
IV
-------
List of Tables
Page
1. Chronic/acute and Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Metals. 14
2. Ikalukrok Creek (Station 8), percent of water samples exceeding
chronic/acute levels, 1979-1983. 15
3. Mainstem Red Dog Creek (Station 10), percent of water samples
exceeding chronic/acute levels, 1979-1983. 16
4. Middle Fork Red Dog Creek (Station 20), percent of water samples
exceeding chronic/acute levels, 1979-1983. 16
5. Middle Fork Red Dog Creek (Station 140), percent of water samples
exceeding chronic/acute levels, 1979-1983. 17
6. Shelly Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels,
1979-1983. 18
7. Connie Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels,
1979-1983. 18
8. Sulfur Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels,
1979-1983. 19
9. Rachael Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels,
1979-1983. 19
10. North Fork Red Dog Creek, percent of water samples exceeding
chronic/acute levels, 1979-1983. 20
11. Ikalukrok Creek, after mining. Percent of water samples exceeding
chronic/acute levels. 21
12. Mainstem Red Dog Creek, after mine development. Percent of water
samples exceeding chronic/acute criteria. 22
13. Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, below mine effluent. Percent of water
samples exceeding chronic/acute levels. 23
14. Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 140. Percent of water samples
exceeding chronic/acute levels. 24
15. Shelly Creek. Percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels. 24
16. Connie Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels. 25
17. Sulfur Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels. 26
18. Rachael Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels. 26
19. Hilltop Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels. 27
20. North Fork Red Dog Creek, percent of water samples exceeding
chronic/acute criteria. 28
21. Aquatic invertebrates collected during baseline studies by EVS (1983). 31
22. Aquatic invertebrate communities, 1995. 32
23. Average invertebrate density reported by Dames and Moore (1983), EVS
(1983) and ADF&G (1995) at various sampling locations in the Wulik
River drainage. 35
24. Fish species collected during baseline studies. 41
25. Post-mining use of Wulik River drainage streams by fish. 43
-------
26. Comparisons of water quality and metals before and after mine
development. 44
27. Whole Effluent Toxicity at Station 140. 45
28. Whole Effluent Toxicity at Ikalukrok Creek, Station 9. 46
29. Summary of fish use of streams in the upper Wulik River drainage. 47
30. Summary of aquatic micro and macroinvertebrate use of streams in the
upper Wulik River drainage. 47
31. Summary of macrophyte and periphyton use of streams in the upper
Wulik River drainage. 48
List of Figures
Page
1. Locations of Streams Considered For Reclassification Of Aquatic Life
Use. 2
2. Ikalukrok Creek at Station 8. 4
3. Mainstem Red Dog Creek at Station 10. 4
4. Middle Fork Red Dog Creek at Station 20. 6
5. Middle Fork Red Dog Creek at Station 140. 6
6. Sulfur Creek. 8
7. Shelly Creek. 8
8. Connie Creek. 9
9. Rachael Creek. 9
10. North Fork Red Dog Creek. 10
VI
-------
Red Dog Creek Use Attainability Analysis
Aquatic Life Component
Introduction
Authority
The US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) water quality standards regulation
(40 CFR 131.1.(])) establishes the requirement that states or tribes conduct a use
attainability analysis when either designating uses which do not include the
"fishable/swimable" uses or when designating new subcategories of the
"fishable/swimable" uses which require less stringent criteria.
Purpose
The purpose of this Use Attainability Analysis is to identify streams in the Wulik River
drainage that do not support the currently designated uses for aquatic life. Natural
background water quality and metals concentrations may limit aquatic populations.
Aquatic life is defined in this document to include all aspects of the aquatic community:
fish, macroinvertebrates, microinvertebrates, periphyton, and macrophytes. Existing uses
are defined under 18 AAC.70.990 (20):
"existing uses" means those uses actually attained in a waterbody on or
after November 28, 1975.
and under 40 CFR Sec. 131 E:
"existing uses" means those uses actually attained in the waterbody on or
after November 28, 1975.
Description of Streams Considered for Reclassification
All of the streams considered for reclassification in the Wulik River drainage are located
in northwest Alaska, approximately 95 km (59 mi) north of Kotzebue (Figure 1). Middle
Fork Red Dog Creek flows adjacent to the Red Dog ore body, a large lead - zinc deposit
that currently is mined by Cominco Alaska Inc. The following is a description of the
streams considered in this document for reclassification to eliminate the aquatic life
criteria. Water quality and fisheries data collected during baseline studies (1979-1982)
represent pre-mining conditions because no disturbance had occurred in these drainages
at that time.
-------
\ORTII /•'OKA RED IXXi ( REEK
Numbers are Water Quality Sampling
Stations
Effluent Enters Creek
Water Flow
= appnn I mile
map not drawn lu \tak-
Figure 1. Locations of streams considered for reclassification of aquatic life use.
Water quality sampling stations are shown on the map.
-------
Ikalukrok Creek
Three segments of Ikalukrok Creek were considered in this study: Ikalukrok Creek from
the headwaters to the confluence with Red Dog Creek, Ikalukrok Creek below the
confluence with Red Dog Creek to Dudd Creek, and Ikalukrok Creek below Dudd Creek.
Ikalukrok Creek above the confluence with Red Dog Creek (Figure 2) has a drainage area
of 150 km2 (59.2 mi ). The creek flows through mineralized zones and red iron
flocculant and white aluminum flocculant are prevalent in side channels, smaller
tributaries, and backwater areas. Stream bed rocks frequently are stained orange from
iron precipitate. During 1992, Ikalukrok Creek above Red Dog Creek had a high mean
monthly flow of 17.3 m3/s (610 cfs) and a low flow of 0.02 m3/s (0.58 cfs). At Station 9,
stream width ranges from 2 to 7 m (7 to 24 ft) (up to 21 m or 68 feet in high flow years),
with depths ranging from 0.15 to 1.2m (0.5 to 4 feet). The stream bed at Station 9
consists of gravel, cobbles, and rocks. This section of Ikalukrok Creek has not been
disturbed by mining or other human activity.
Ikalukrok Creek from the confluence with Red Dog Creek downstream to Dudd Creek
contains periodic elevated concentrations of metals from the natural mineralization
upstream and from mineralization along Red Dog Creek. At Dudd Creek (Station 7),
widths range from approximately 3.5 to 40 m (12 to 130 feet) and depths range from 0.3
to 1.2 m (1 to 4 ft). Temperatures range from 0 to 10°C during open flow. Ikalukrok
Creek (Figure 2) has a 485.8 km2 (184 mi2) drainage area, with 320 km2 (124 mi2) below
the confluence of Red Dog Creek.
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek (Figure 3) has a drainage area of 64 km2 (24.6 mi2 ) of which
10 km 2 (3.8 mi2) does not contribute to the flow because it is impounded behind the
tailing dam. During 1992, Red Dog Creek had a high mean monthly flow of 5.4 m /s
(191 cfs) and a low flow of 0.0045 m3/s (0.16 cfs). Widths of the creek range from 3.5 to
18 m (12 to 60 ft), with depths ranging from 0.06 to 0.5 m (0.2 to 1.7 feet) (R. Kemnitz,
pers. comm., USGS Water Resources Division, Fairbanks). The stream bed contains
gravel, small cobble, and a few small boulders. The creek has some meander and areas
where it has shifted locations. Temperatures range from 0°C in the winter to 10°C in
summer.
-------
•K
Figure 2. Ikalukrok Creek al Station 8.
Figure 3. Mainstem Red Dog Creek al Station 10.
-------
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek (Figure 4 at Station 20 and Figure 5 at Station 140) has a
drainage area of 12 km2 (4.74 mi2), of which 1 km2 (0.4 mi2) does not contribute to the
flow. During the 1991 water year, Middle Fork had a high mean monthly flow of 1.25
1 T
m /s (44.0 cfs) and a low flow of 0.004 m /s (0.15 cfs). The creek has wide meanders
with average channel widths from 3 to 10 m (10 to 30 ft), with depths from 0.03 and 0.45
m (0.1 and 1.5 feet). Cominco Engineering Services Ltd. (reported in EBA Engineering
Inc [1991]) reported that Red Dog Creek continues to flow with subsurface water flow at
a rate of about 0.03 m3/s (1 cfs) through the winter months.
Cominco Engineering Services Ltd. (1983) described the water quality in Middle Fork
Red Dog Creek:
The mainstem on Red Dog Creek [above North Fork of Red Dog Creek,
now called Middle Fork Red Dog Creek] adjacent to, and running over the
ore body is currently a zone of natural degradation which is hostile to
aquatic life. High metal concentrations, particularly zinc, lead, and
cadmium prevail in this part of the creek largely as a result of direct
contact with exposed mineralization and, more significantly, from surface
drainage emanating from the main part of the orebody on the west side of
the creek. As an illustrative example, concentrations of zinc in the
summer average in the 15 to 20 mg/L range and a typical mass loading of
this metal discharged downstream can be in excess of one half ton per day.
The creek was diverted into a lined, perched ditch in March 1991 to separate upstream
water from water seeping through the ore body. Below the ditch is a constructed French
drain to allow subsurface water from both sides of the lined ditch to flow into the seepage
ditch. The substrate of the diversion ditch is constructed of a gravel layer and a surface of
coarse rip rap to protect the synthetic liner. Prior to diversion, Middle Fork Red Dog
Creek flowed over some of the more highly mineralized and leachable zones of the Red
Dog deposit.
Tributaries to Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Information on tributaries flowing into the north side of the ore body (Figure 1) is limited
to a few measurements of water quality collected in the baseline studies (Dames and
Moore 1983 and EVS and Ott Water Engineers 1983). These are small tributaries of <1
to <10 cfs summer flow. Dames and Moore (1983) described the tributaries:
-------
rigure 4 Middle l;ork Red Dog Creek at Station 20
hyure 5. Middle I ork lied Dog Cieek til Station 140.
-------
Many of the tributaries exhibited high quality water compared to the
mainstem. Water at stations 34 [Sulfur Creek], 38 [Shelly Creek], 40
[Connie Creek], and 47 (Rachael Creek) during summer was highly
oxygenated with 11.0 to 13.0 mg/L of dissolved oxygen.... Conductivity
levels ranged from 70 to 330 wmho/cm at 25°C. pH was slightly low,
ranging from 6.3 to 7.1, and alkalinity concentrations were generally low
(7.9 to 74 mg/L).
Tributaries flowing into the northeast side of the ore body are not affected by mineral
development. Except during periods of high rainfall, these creeks were reported in
baseline studies to have clear water with low turbidity. Turbidity ranged from 0.37 to 24
NTU. The high value (24 NTU) was measured at station 38 in July when flow was high.
Sulfur Creek
Sulfur Creek is a small, intermittent stream (Figure 1 and 6) flowing into the northwest
side of the ore body. The creek is steep, with stair-step pools. Flows are intermittent; the
creek stopped flowing in late July 1995. The stream bed is medium sized cobble with
orange stain from iron precipitate.
Shelly Creek
Shelly Creek flows into Middle Fork Red Dog Creek from the northeast (Figures 1 and
7). The creek is small, densely vegetated by willows, and stained with iron precipitate.
Few water quality data have been collected on Shelly Creek.
Connie Creek
Connie Creek is the largest of the tributaries (Figures 1 and 8). The creek flows through a
wide, shallow channel. Water depths are less than 20 cm during summer flows. The
creek bottom is medium cobble with some staining.
Rachael Creek
Rachael Creek, at the headwaters of Middle Fork Red Dog Creek is a small, partially
undercut stream flowing from the base of Deadlock Mountain. In 1994 the creek was
sampled and found to contain high concentrations of Al and Zn. Elevated Al and Zn
concentrations in the bypass ditch (Station 140) and in Rachael Creek in August 1994
suggests that high rainfall during this time period increased metals concentrations in
Rachael Creek.
-------
Figure 6. Sulfur Creek.
Figure 7. Shdl> Creek.
8
-------
Figure 8. Connie Creek.
Figure 9. Rachael Creek.
-------
Hilltop Creak
Hilltop Creek is a small, possibly intermittent, creek flowing from the southeast side of
(he ore deposit north to Red Dog Creek. The creek flows into Red Dog Creek nenr the
headwaters, near Connie and Raehad Creeks.
Reference Stream: \rnrth Pork Red Dog Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek (Figure 10) was selected as a reference stream because it is in
the snmc drainage and has limited mineralization. Therefore, climatic conditions and
types of apccics expected to occur would he similar to the streams being considered for
rcclassification. with the exception of the effects of elevated metals concentrations from
mincrali/.atiun in the other streams.
North Fork Red Dog Creek has a drainage area of 41 km2 (15.9 mi2). During the 1W2
water year. North Fork Red Dog Creek had a high mean monthly flow of 3,5 mVs (125
cfs) and low summer Hows of 0.34 m /s (12 cfs). Widths range from 7 to 15 m (24 to 51)
fl) and depths from 0.09 to 2 m (0.3 to 6 ft). The stream bed is characterized by gravel,
rocks, and small boulders and is subject lo shilling. Temperatures range from 0 to 10°C
during open water flow. Mineral staining is not evident in North Fork Red Dog Creek.
Figure 10. North Fork Red Dog Creek.
10
-------
Geology
The Red Dog Mine is located at approximately 68°13' N latitude by 163° W longitude in
the southwestern DeLong Mountains, a component of the Brooks Range in Alaska's
Arctic. Lying within the DeLong Mountains Quadrangle, the area termed the Red Dog
Prospect is a rich surficial showing of copper, lead, zinc, and silver ore located
throughout the upper reaches of the Red Dog Creek drainage. The geology was described
by Dames and Moore (1983):
The DeLong Mountains lie within the Rocky Mountain System and are
characterized by low mountains, plateaus, and highlands of a rolling
topography with summits between 300 and 1500 m. Most peaks in the
southwestern area are less than 900 m in height and unglaciated; lower
hills have been rounded by extreme weathering, although upthrust rock
formations with jagged peaks are not uncommon. The area is underlain by
continuous permafrost to depths in excess of 60 m. The regional geology
is sedimentary with some evidence of later volcanic activity. The geology
is Mesozoic, characterized by sandstone and shale of marine and non-
marine origin.
Climate/Population
The area is treeless, frequently windswept with a mean annual temperature of 2 to 4°C.
The area is remote, with access by airplane or summer barge. The mine site is
approximately 90 km (55 miles) by gravel road from the ocean port.
Existing Classification
The State of Alaska classified all streams and rivers in the Wulik River drainage,
including the Wulik River, Ikalukrok Creek, and Red Dog Creek and its tributaries for all
uses under 40 CFR, Chapter 1, part 131, 131.10, and 18 AAC 70.055.
Recommended Changes to Aquatic Life Classification
The purpose of this study is to examine the appropriateness of the aquatic life
classification for Mainstem Red Dog Creek; Middle Fork Red Dog Creek and its
tributaries Rachael, Sulfur, Connie, and Shelly Creeks; and Ikalukrok Creek. Water
quality and biological data collected during baseline studies were used to describe pre-
mining conditions. Water quality and biological data from 1991 through 1995 were used
to describe conditions after development of the Red Dog Mine. Water quality data
collected between 1984 and 1990 were not used because the data were collected
sporadically and because no comparable biological data were collected.
11
-------
Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Water quality monitoring has been conducted throughout the Wulik River drainage since
1979, before development of the Red Dog Mine. Water quality monitoring after
development of the Red Dog Mine was conducted at many of the same stations (Figure
1), using the same station numbers, as baseline monitoring conducted by Dames and
Moore. Baseline monitoring conducted by EVS and Ott Water Engineers (1983) was
done at many of the same stations; however, different station numbers were assigned.
Where stations are at the same location, the station numbers established by Dames and
Moore are used for the EVS and Ott Water Engineers (1983) data. Only limited baseline
water quality monitoring was conducted in tributaries to Middle Fork Red Dog Creek.
Water quality monitoring stations referenced in this report are Ikalukrok Creek at Station
8 and Station 73, Mainstem Red Dog Creek at Station 10, Middle Fork Red Dog Creek at
Stations 20 and 140, Shelly Creek , Connie Creek, Sulfur Creek, Rachael Creek, and
North Fork Red Dog Creek.
Wastewater Dischargers
The Red Dog Mine is currently the only industrial development in the Wulik River
drainage that discharges to waters of the state.
Problem Definition
Studies to date have shown that Middle Fork Red Dog Creek has not supported fish or
other aquatic populations. The absence of aquatic communities is because of natural
mineralization, naturally occurring high concentrations of metals, and low pH.
Intermittent flows and poor water quality in tributaries to Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
probably limit aquatic life. Fish use in tributary streams also is limited by lack of
overwintering habitat and inability to access these tributaries through the naturally
degraded water quality of Middle Fork Red Dog Creek.
The water treatment system at the Red Dog Mine uses calcium hydroxide to remove
sulfide metals. The resulting effluent is high in total dissolved solids in the form of
calcium sulfatc. Treating seepage water from the ore body has resulted in water in both
Middle Fork and Mainstem Red Dog Creek that is lower in Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn but higher
in pH, total dissolved solids and sulfate than under natural, undisturbed conditions.
Approach to Use Attainability
The Wulik River and its tributaries currently are classified under 18 AAC 70.050 as
protected for all uses. Red Dog Creek historically has had periodic high concentrations
of metals. Fish kills were reported in Mainstem Red Dog Creek and in Ikalukrok Creek
at the confluence with Red Dog Creek before development of the Red Dog Mine (EVS
12
-------
and Ott Water Engineers 1983). Baseline sampling found no evidence offish use of
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, South Fork Red Dog Creek (now the tailing dam), or any
tributaries to Middle Fork Red Dog Creek.
Extensive sampling by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has not shown fish to
occur in Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, upstream of North Fork Red Dog Creek (Weber
Scannell and Ott 1995). The Alaska Department of Fish and Game does not believe that
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek contains water of sufficient quality to support fish (Weber
Scannell and Ott 1995).
The objective of this study was to sample Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Middle Fork Red
Dog Creek, and tributary streams downstream of and adjacent to the Red Dog Mine for
macro- and microinvertebrates, periphyton, and macrophytes. Ikalukrok Creek below
Red Dog Creek (at Station 8) and North Fork Red Dog Creek (the reference stream) also
were sampled. This survey provides information on relative abundance and relative
diversity of aquatic taxa to fulfill the aquatic life analysis of a use attainability analysis
for reclassifying Middle Fork Red Dog Creek and other appropriate tributaries.
Information on the taxonomic groups present in Mainstem Red Dog Creek and Ikalukrok
Creek can be used to develop site-specific criteria for total dissolved solids and sulfate.
Data Analysis
Hydrology
Red Dog Creek from its source to Ikalukrok Creek, tributaries to Middle Fork Red Dog
Creek, and portions of Ikalukrok Creek freeze in late October; by mid-winter there is no
flowing surface water. Isolated pools may form in Ikalukrok Creek; this water usually
has low (<1 mg/L) dissolved oxygen and high metals and dissolved solids concentrations.
Fish could not survive in these conditions. North Fork Red Dog Creek may contain some
spring water input, but probably does not contain any flowing water suitable for
overwintering fish. The winter distribution offish appears to be limited to Ikalukrok
Creek downstream of the confluence with Dudd Creek and in the Wulik River.
When breakup occurs (usually in late May), Arctic graying migrate upstream in Ikalukrok
Creek to Mainstem Red Dog Creek and into North Fork Red Dog Creek.
Stream Flow Evaluation
Water Quality Evaluation. Baseline Conditions
The following is a summary of the water quality conditions measured in the study
streams before development of the Red Dog Mine. Included is a discussion of the
number of occasions metals concentrations exceeded amounts reported toxic to salmonid
fish. Refer to Appendix 1 for a summary of 1979-1983 hardness, total dissolved solids
(TDS), sulfate, pH, and temperature data; Appendix 2 for a summary of 1979-1983
dissolved oxygen, conductivity, flow, and alkalinity data; and Appendix 3 for a summary
13
-------
of 1979-1983 metals data. Appendix 11 contains all available baseline water quality and
metals data.
Metals concentrations reported for the water quality sampling stations were compared
with concentrations reported to cause acute or chronic toxicity on species of salmonid
fish and with concentrations currently listed by US EPA as the Maximum Allowable
Concentration (Table 1). The acute and chronic concentrations and the references for
each concentration are listed below.
The following criteria were used to select values for chronic toxicity from published
literature: at least 50% mortality of salmonid fish, tests conducted in moderately hard to
hard water from 100-350 mg CaCO3/L, and test conducted over at least 96 hours.
Chronic toxic values for zinc were reported as 2 to 4 mg/L; in comparing toxic values
with stream water samples we used the lower value of 2 mg/L.
Table 1. Chronic/acute and Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Metals.
Metal
Chronic/Acute
Toxicity adult
salmonid fish
mg/L
Maximum
Allowable Cone.
aquatic life
mg/L
Reference
Aluminum 0.1
Cadmium 0.027
Copper 0.28
Lead 0.19
Zinc 2
Ontario Minis, of
the Environ. (1984)
0.0039 Alabaster and Lloyd 1 982
US EPA 1992
0.018 Alabaster and Lloyd 1982
US EPA 1992
0.082 USEPA1985
US EPA 1992
0.12 Alabaster and Lloyd 1 982
US EPA 1992
14
-------
Ikalukrok Creek: Station 8
Baseline data showed Ikalukrok Creek at Station 8 contained moderately hard water with
circumneutral pH. During winter (measured in March), water is high in total dissolved
solids and hardness; this is a result of ionic exclusion during ice formation. Data
collected during the winter are not included in this report because they are not considered
to represent conditions other than ionic exclusion from ice formation. Low conductivity
in late May was due to snow melt.
Water occasionally contained elevated concentrations of aluminum, cadmium, and zinc
(Table 2). The maximum reported concentrations were 0.17 mg Al/L, 0.04 mg Cd/L, and
4.2 mg Zn/L.
Table 2. Ikalukrok Creek (Station 8), percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute
levels, 1979-1983.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
30
11
0
0
17
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
67
10
0
78
Number of
Samples
10
18
10
18
18
Maimtem Red Dog Creek, Station 10
Baseline data showed Mainstem Red Dog Creek at Station 10 contained moderately hard
water with neutral to acidic pH. During winter (measured in March), water was high in
total dissolved solids, sulfate, and hardness; this was a result of ice formation.
Concentrations of Zn were elevated above the reported chronic/acute toxic concentrations
of 2 mg/L for salmonid fish and often contained elevated concentrations of Al and Cd
(Table 3). Concentrations of Pb were not elevated: the maximum concentration was 0.1
mg/L and median concentration was 0.08 mg/L (the Limit of Detection). The
chronic/acute level for Zn (from Alabaster and Lloyd 1982, Table 1) is conservative;
higher values also were reported. Baseline studies (Dames and Moore 1983) reported
that Arctic graying migrated through Mainstem Red Dog Creek to North Fork Red Dog
Creek during spring high flows when metals concentrations were lower.
15
-------
Table 3. Mainstem Red Dog Creek (Station 10), percent of water samples exceeding
chronic/acute levels, 1979-1983.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
37
44
0
0
100
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
LOD1 too high
0
0
100
Number of
Samples
38
43
15
43
43
'LOD = Limit of Detection
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 20
Baseline data showed water in Middle Fork Red Dog Creek contained elevated
concentrations of aluminum, cadmium, and zinc, and frequently elevated concentrations
of Pb. The maximum reported concentrations were 0.91 mg Al/L, 0.14 mg Cd/L, 0.36
mg Pb/L, and 17 mg Zn/L. The number of times water samples exceeded chronic/acute
toxicity concentrations (Table 4) suggests that this water is not suitable to support fish.
Table 4. Middle Fork Red Dog Creek (Station 20), percent of water samples exceeding
chronic/acute levels, 1979-1983.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
57
97
insufficient data
24
100
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
100
56
100
Number of
Samples
28
34
4
34
34
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 140
Baseline data showed water in Middle Fork Red Dog Creek at Station 140 frequently
contained elevated concentrations of aluminum, cadmium, lead, and zinc. The maximum
16
-------
reported concentrations were 2.31 mg Al/L, 0.21 mg Cd/L, 1.11 mg Pb/L, and 28.5 mg
Zn/L. Median concentrations were 0.73 mg Al/L, 0.12 mg Cd/L, 0.33 mg Pb/L, and 15.7
mg Zn/L. The number of times water samples exceeded chronic/acute toxicity
concentrations (Table 5) and the extremely high metals concentrations suggest that this
water is not suitable to support fish.
Table 5. Middle Fork Red Dog Creek (Station 140), percent of water samples exceeding
chronic/acute levels, 1979-1983.
Metal % Samples exceeding % Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity Maximum Allowable Number of
to adult salmonid fish Concentration Samples
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
100
100
No data available
80
100
100
95
100
20
20
0
20
20
Shelly Creek
There were no baseline data collected on hardness, TDS, flow, dissolved oxygen, or other
water quality factors in Shelly Creek. Samples for metals concentrations were limited to
one sample in 1981 and four in 1982 (Appendix 11). Concentrations of both Cd and Zn
exceeded Maximum Allowable Concentrations in all of the samples collected, Pb was not
elevated. The maximum concentration of Cd was 0.028 mg/L, of Pb 0.08 mg/L, and Zn
2.3 mg/L.
17
-------
Table 6. Shelly Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels, 1979-
1983.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
no data available
20
No data available
0
20
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
100
0
100
Number of
Samples
0
5
0
5
5
Connie Creek
Limited water quality and metals data (Appendix 11 and Table 7) collected in Connie
Creek during baseline studies showed this creek to have moderately good water quality.
However, Cd concentrations were above but close to the Maximum Allowable
Concentration, and ranged from 0.002 to 0.021 mg/1.
Table 7. Connie Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels, 1979-
1983.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
No data available
0
No data available
0
17
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
83
0
83
Number of
Samples
0
6
0
6
6
Sulfur Creek
Limited water quality data collected by Dames and Moore (1981) portray Sulfur Creek as
having elevated concentrations of Pb and Zn (average of three samples = 0.128 mg Pb/L
and 0.754 mg Zn/L) and slightly elevated concentrations of Cd (average of three samples
= 0.007 mg/L) (Table 8, Appendix 11). Flow ranged from 0.07 to 1.2 cfs, dissolved
18
-------
oxygen concentrations were near saturation, and pH was slightly acidic. The highest zinc
concentration measured (of 3 samples) was 1.167 mg/L.
Table 8. Sulfur Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels, 1979-
1983.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
No data available
0
No data available
33
0
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
100
33
100
Number of
Samples
3
3
3
Rachael Creek
Water sampling in Rachael Creek was limited to four samples in 1982 (Appendix 11 and
Table 9). The water was described by Dames and Moore (1983) as clear, of low
turbidity, and high dissolved oxygen concentrations. Cd and Zn concentrations were low,
ranging from 0.002 to 0.008 mg Cd/L and 0.079 to 0.142 mg Zn/L. No baseline data on
Al concentrations were found.
Table 9. Rachael Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels, 1979-
1983.
Metal % Samples exceeding % Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity Maximum Allowable Number of
to adult salmonid fish Concentration Samples
Aluminum No data available
Cadmium 0 25 4
Copper No data available
Lead 0 04
Zinc 0 25 4
19
-------
Hilltop Creek
No historic data were available for Hilltop Creek.
North Fork Red Dog Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek was described by Dames and Moore (1983) as being of high
water quality and supporting a diverse community of flora and fauna. The creek is a clear
water stream with high dissolved oxygen concentrations during summer and low levels of
total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, and settleable solids. Alkalinity was higher
than in any of the other creeks monitored. Dames and Moore measured concentrations of
Cu, Pb, Ag, and Zn in the sediments. They reported concentrations considerably lower
than Middle Fork or Mainstem Red Dog Creek. During summer, Al concentrations are
moderately high (Table 10).
Table 10. North Fork Red Dog Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute
levels, 1979-1983.
Metal % Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
36
0
0
0
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
LOD too high
0
0
7
Number of
Samples
25
29
5
29
29
LOD = Limit of Detection. Unless samples are at least 5 times the LOD, the values are
considered to be qualitative.
Water Quality Evaluation, after development of the Red Dog Mine.
The following is a summary of the water quality conditions measured in the study
streams from 1991 to summer 1995. This time period begins with completion of the
mine seepage water collection system in 1991. Collection and treatment of mine seepage
water had the most profound effect on water quality of Red Dog Creek. Water quality of
the mine effluent was further improved by installation of the sand filters in 1994 and
improvements in the water treatment plant. Included is a discussion of the number of
times metals concentrations exceeded amounts reported toxic to salmonid fish (Reference
20
-------
toxic amounts listed on Table 1) and identification of the metals believed to be exerting
the most toxicity during the time period from 1991 through 1995. Refer to Appendix 4
for a summary of 1991-1995 water quality data, including hardness, TDS, sulfate, pH,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and flow, and Appendix 5 for a summary of
1991-1995 metals data. Appendix 12 contains all of the baseline water quality and metals
data.
Ikalukrok Creek: Station 8
Ikalukrok Creek at Station 8 has moderately hard water with circumneutral pH (Appendix
4). During periods of discharge from the mine effluent, water hardness reached a
maximum concentration of 666 mg/L and TDS a maximum concentration of 906 mg/L.
The treated mine effluent appears to moderate the lowest pH values. In 1992, the
minimum pH was 5.7 and in 1994 and 1995 the minimum values were 7.2 and 7.1. Flow
data from Station 8 were limited to two measurements.
During open water periods, temperatures ranged from a low of 0°C to 13.6°C (measured
in 1992). Maximum water temperatures in 1995 during periods of maximum discharge
from the Red Dog Mine do not appear to alter downstream temperature regimes
(Appendices 4 and 12). Maximum and median temperatures in 1995 are not higher than
in years 1991-1993 when discharge volumes were low or zero.
Water occasionally contained slightly elevated concentrations of aluminum, cadmium,
and zinc (Appendices 5 and 12 and Table 11). Metals concentrations measured in 1995
were generally lower than in 1991 through 1993, when there was minimal discharge. Al
concentrations were higher in 1995; however, these concentrations are related to high
rainfall and increased erosion in the headwaters of Middle Fork Red Dog Creek and do
not correspond to concentrations found in the mine effluent.
Table 11. Ikalukrok Creek, after mining. Percent of water samples exceeding
chronic/acute levels.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
26
1
0
0
6/0*
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
7
0
4
100
Total
number
of samples
92
96
58
96
96
*6% of the samples exceeded the reported chronic toxic level of 2 mg Zn/L, none of the
samples exceeded the higher reported chronic toxic level of 4 mg Zn/L.
21
-------
Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Station 10
Mainstem Red Dog Creek contains moderately hard water. Both hardness and TDS are
elevated during periods of maximum discharge from the mine. Concentrations of TDS
reached a maximum of 1100 mg/L in 1994 and 1070 mg/L in 1995 (Appendix 4 and
Appendix 12). Median TDS concentrations in 1995 also were higher than in 1991 and
1992, when discharge was minimal. Periods of high discharge during open water months
also correspond to higher pH values: median pH values were 7.7 in 1994 and 7.6 in 1995,
compared with median values of 7.0 in 1991 and 7.4 in 1992. Stream flow (based on 6
measurements in 1993) ranged from 32.7 cfs to 400 cfs.
Metals concentrations at Station 10 were elevated in Al, Cd, and Zn (Table 12 and
Appendices 5 and 12).
Table 12. Mainstem Red Dog Creek, after mine development. Percent of water samples
exceeding chronic/acute criteria.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
16
33
0
2
55/19*
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
LOD too high
0
4
100
Total
number
of samples
85
95
60
94
94
*55% of the samples exceeded the reported chronic toxic level of 2 mg Zn/L, 19% of the
samples exceeded the higher reported chronic toxic level of 4 mg Zn/L.
LOD = Limit of Detection. Unless samples are at least 5 times the LOD, the values are
considered to be qualitative.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 20
Hardness, TDS, and sulfate concentrations in Middle Fork Red Dog Creek below the
mine effluent are elevated by the effluent (Appendix 4). In 1995, the maximum hardness
was 1170 mg/L, maximum TDS was 2190 mg/L, and maximum sulfate was 1500 mg/L.
The highest measured pH of 9.0 was in 1994. The median pH for 1994 and 1995 is
slightly higher than in 1992 but not higher than median values for 1991 and 1993.
Water temperatures during the open flow periods range from 0°C to 19.4°C.
Temperature does not appear to be elevated by discharge (Appendix 4).
22
-------
Metals concentrations, except for Al, have shown a steady decline between 1991 and
1995 (Appendix 5). When compared to levels reported in the literature (Table 1) for
chronic/acute toxicity, water at Station 20 is toxic for Cd and Zn most of the time, and
toxic for Al 25% of the time and Pb 36% of the time (Table 13). High Al concentrations
occurred in fall 1995 after abnormally high rainfall. Elevated Al was not found in 1991-
1994. (Refer to Appendices 5 and 12 for comparisons of metals concentrations for each
year.)
The concentrations of Cd and Zn are sufficiently elevated to prevent fish from
successfully spawning and rearing in this creek, and to limit primary and
macroinvertebrate production.
Table 13. Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, below mine effluent. Percent of water samples
exceeding chronic/acute levels.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
25
76
0
9
93/61*
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
90
1
36
98
Total
number
of samples
99
118
76
118
118
*93% of the samples exceeded the reported chronic toxic level of 2 mg Zn/L, 61% of the
samples exceeded the higher reported chronic toxic level of 4 mg Zn/L.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 140
Station 140 is located in a channel constructed to bypass Red Dog Creek around the
active ore body, above the mine discharge. Although construction of the bypass channel
has decreased metals concentrations in Red Dog Creek (compared with concentrations
measured before mining), the water flows through naturally mineralized areas and
remains high in metals, especially Cd, Pb, and Zn (Appendices 5 and 12).
Water Quality at Station 140 is acidic with pH levels as low as 5.2.
Water samples collected between 1992 and 1995 exceed the reported chronic/acute
toxicity limits for Cd in 75% of the samples, for Pb in 85% of the samples, and for Zn in
86% of the samples (Table 14). Given the high metals concentrations, it is unlikely that
this waterway would support fish, aquatic invertebrates, or aquatic plants.
23
-------
Table 14. Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 140. Percent of water samples exceeding
chronic/acute levels.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
20
75
0
42
86/68*
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
100
0
85
100
Total
number
of samples
70
101
72
101
101
*86% of the samples exceeded the reported chronic toxic level of 2 mg Zn/L, 68% of the
samples exceeded the higher reported chronic toxic level of 4 mg Zn/L.
Shelly Creek
Few water samples were collected in Shelly Creek (Appendix 12). Shelly Creek has
moderately hard water (Appendix 12) and in 1995, water contained concentrations of Al
and Cd that were elevated above the reported chronic/acute toxicity levels (79% samples
for Al and 36% of samples for Cd) (Table 15). Seventy nine percent of the water samples
contained concentrations of Cd that were above the Maximum Allowable Concentration
and 93% of the samples exceeded the Maximum Allowable Concentration for Zn.
Concentrations of Fe ranged from 0.19 to 1.22 mg Fe/L.
Water in Shelly Creek is naturally high in metals. It is likely that high concentrations of
Al, Cd, Fe, and Zn limit the aquatic life use of this creek.
Table 15. Shelly Creek. Percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
79
36
0
7
43/14*
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
79
31
14
93
Total
number
of samples
14
14
13
14
14
*43% of the samples exceeded the reported chronic toxic level of 2 mg Zn/L, 14% of the
samples exceeded the higher reported chronic toxic level of 4 mg Zn/L.
24
-------
Connie Creek
Few water samples were collected in Connie Creek (Appendix 12). Connie Creek has
moderately hard water and in 1995, metals concentrations were generally lower than
reported chronic/acute toxicity levels for Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn (Table 16).
Connie Creek contains the best water quality of any of the tributaries to Middle Fork Red
Dog Creek. If fish were not excluded from this tributary by the poor water quality in
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, it is possible they could inhabit this creek.
Table 16. Connie Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
33
8
0
17
8/8*
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
25
8
17
50
Total
number
of samples
12
12
12
12
12
*8% of the samples exceeded the reported chronic toxic level of 2 mg Zn/L, 8% of the
samples exceeded the higher reported chronic toxic level of 4 mg Zn/L.
Sulfur Creek
Sulfur Creek is a small, intermittent tributary with an estimated summer flow of less than
3 cfs. The creek contains small step pools. Flows are too low to allow fish to swim
upstream between step pools. Sulfur Creek typically stops flowing in mid-summer. In
1995, flows stopped in late July.
Only two water samples were collected in Sulfur Creek (Appendix 12), both in 1995.
Sulfur Creek has moderately hard water (133 and 140 mg/L) and in 1995, water
contained concentrations of Cd, Pb, and Zn that were elevated above the Maximum
Allowable Concentrations (Table 17).
High metals concentrations and the poor water quality in Middle Fork Red Dog Creek,
along with the small size of Sulfur Creek, its steep step pools, and intermittent flows,
probably exclude fish from using this tributary.
25
-------
Table 17. Sulfur Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
17
0
0
33
0/0*
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
37
0
67
100
Total
number
of samples
6
6
6
6
6
*0% of the samples exceeded the reported chronic toxic level of 2 mg Zn/L, 0% of the
samples exceeded the higher reported chronic toxic level of 4 mg Zn/L.
Rachael Creek
Rachael Creek has moderately hard water and in 1995, water contained very high
concentrations of Al (from 1.17 to 1.81 mg/L) and Cu (from 0.04 to 0.06 mg/L) and low
pH (from 4.7 to 5.9) (Appendix 12). According to the Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines (CWQG), at pH below 6.5, Al is extremely toxic to aquatic life. The CWQG
suggests a maximum Al concentration of 0.005 mg/L to protect aquatic life when the pH
is less than 6.5. The median concentration of Al measured in Rachael Creek during 1995
was 340 times the toxic level and the maximum concentration measured in 1995 was
more than 650 times the toxic level; pH was below the State Water Quality Criteria for
protection of aquatic life. The combination of high concentrations of Al and low pH
would exclude most, if not all, aquatic species from Rachael Creek. Concentrations of
Cu and Zn also were elevated above the Maximum Allowable Concentrations in 100% of
the samples (Table 18).
Table 18. Rachael Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
100
0
0
0
0/0*
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
0
100
0
100
Total
number
of samples
10
11
11
11
11
*0% of the samples exceeded the reported chronic toxic level of 2 mg Zn/L, 0% of the
samples exceeded the higher reported chronic toxic level of 4 mg Zn/L.
26
-------
Hilltop Creek
Hilltop Creek is a small tributary to Red Dog Creek that flows from the southeast edge of
the currently developed deposit. Flows in the creek are low and may be intermittent.
Metals concentrations are high (Table 19 and Appendix 12); water in this tributary
contains some of the highest metals concentrations found in any tributaries to Red Dog
Creek. Cominco Alaska Inc. sampled three sections of Hilltop Creek in 1995: the
headwaters, the middle section, and the lower section near Red Dog Creek. Metals were
not as high at the headwaters near the mine pit as in the middle section (Appendix 12).
This creek was not sampled for fish, aquatic invertebrates, or aquatic plants during this
study. High concentrations of Al (average 5.97 mg/L, range 0.26 - 9.59 mg/L), Cd
(average 6.43 mg/L, range 3.2 to 7.8 mg/L), Pb (average 3.4 mg/L, range 0.39 to 4.22
mg/L) and zinc (average 1197 mg/L, range 147 to 1580 mg/L) combined with low pH
(range 4.2 to 6.1) would exclude aquatic communities from this creek.
Table 19. Hilltop Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute levels.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
100
100
no data available
100
100
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
100
100
100
Total
number
of samples
11
11
11
10
* 100% of the samples exceeded the reported chronic toxic level of 2 mg Zn/L, 100% of
the samples exceeded the higher reported chronic toxic level of 4 mg Zn/L.
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Only 14 samples were collected from Station 12 during 1995 and 2 in 1992 (Appendix
12). Most of the metals samples were below the limit of detection; 1 sample in 1995 had
Cd and Zn concentrations above the reported chronic/acute toxic levels (Table 20). This
sample also had concentrations above the Maximum Allowable Concentration for Cd, Pb,
and Zn. Except for the one water sample with slightly elevated metals concentrations, the
water in North Fork Red Dog Creek is of high quality for aquatic life.
27
-------
Table 20. North Fork Red Dog Creek, percent of water samples exceeding chronic/acute
criteria.
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
% Samples exceeding
chronic/acute toxicity
to adult salmonid fish
0
6
0
0
6/0*
% Samples exceeding
Maximum Allowable
Concentration
6
0
6
6
Total
number
of samples
10
16
16
16
16
*6% of the samples exceeded the reported chronic toxic level of 2 mg Zn/L, 0% of the
samples exceeded the higher reported chronic toxic level of 4 mg Zn/L.
Conclusions
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Although water quality periodically exceeds toxic limits and Maximum Allowable
Concentrations, exceedences are not sufficient to exclude fish and other aquatic species.
Water quality has been improved from background by the mine sump collection system
and, probably, by high effluent discharges.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Concentrations of metals, especially Cd and Zn, are sufficiently high to preclude use by
fish, aquatic plants, and aquatic invertebrates.
Sulfur Creek
Fish use of Sulfur Creek is limited by poor water quality in Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
as well as the small size, low and intermittent flows, and step pool configurations found
in Sulfur Creek. Water quality is poor.
Rachael Creek
High concentrations of Al and low pH would eliminate most, if not all, aquatic species
from this tributary.
28
-------
Shelly Creek
Water in Shelly Creek is degraded by elevated concentrations of Al, Cd, Cu, and Zn. It is
likely that poor water quality combined with low flows and high gradient limit use of this
waterway by fish and other species of aquatic life.
Connie Creek
Poor water quality in Middle Fork Red Dog Creek limits upstream movement offish.
Connie Creek supports a community of aquatic invertebrates and algae.
Hilltop Creek
Extremely poor water quality due to elevated concentrations of Al, Cd, Pb, and Zn would
eliminate most classes of organisms from Hilltop Creek.
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Water quality in this tributary is excellent and rarely exceeds limits reported to cause
acute or chronic toxicity to aquatic species.
Biological Evaluations
Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Baseline Studies
Aquatic invertebrate communities were sampled by EVS and Ott Water Engineers (1983)
and Dames and Moore (1983) as part of the baseline studies conducted for Red Dog
Creek. Taxonomy for Oligichaeta and Chironomidae has been revised substantially since
these reports were completed. Therefore, in the present report Chironomidae and
Oligichaeta from baseline data are not identified below family level for Chironomidae or
class for Oligichaeta.
Ikalukrok Creek, Station 73
Aquatic invertebrate samples were collected in Ikalukrok Creek at Station 73, about 5 km
(3 miles) downstream from Station 8 (Table 21, Appendix 6, EVS and Ott Water
Engineers 1983). There are no significant inflows of water to Ikalukrok Creek between
Stations 8 and 73; therefore, water quality conditions are similar and the invertebrate data
are believed to represent populations in Ikalukrok Creek at Station 8.
Among the creeks influenced by mineralization from Red Dog Creek, Ikalukrok Creek
contained the greatest abundance of aquatic invertebrates. Taxonomic richness was
similar to communities in Mainstem Red Dog Creek and Middle Fork Red Dog Creek.
29
-------
Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Station 10
Few invertebrates were collected in Mainstem Red Dog Creek (Table 21, Appendix 6).
There was an average of 3.1 invertebrates collected during each sampling time, with only
5.5 taxonomic groups represented.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 20 and Station 140
Dames and Moore (1981) describe the macroinvertebrate communities in Middle Fork
Red Dog Creek:
There is little or no macroscopic life in the Main Fork Red Dog Creek
from Station 43 below where the first major drainage from the ore body
enters the creek to Station 20 above the confluence of the North Fork.
Tributaries entering this reach from the ore body significantly degrade the
water quality and the suitability of the aquatic habitat. Other tributaries
entering this reach support rich and diverse invertebrate life but are of
insufficient volume to dilute the stream to the point where long-term
residency is possible.
EVS and Ott Water Engineers collected about the same number of invertebrates from
Station 21 (an average of 15 per sample time) and Station 140 (an average of 13.9 per
sample time) (Table 21, Appendix 6). Taxonomic richness also was similar at the two
stations: EVS and Ott Water Engineers reported an average of 5 taxonomic groups from
Station 21 and 4.7 taxonomic groups from Station 140. At both stations the majority of
invertebrates were Plecoptera.
Shelly Creek, Connie Creek, Sulfur Creek, and Rachael Creek, Hilltop Creek
No baseline data on aquatic invertebrate populations are available for any of these
tributaries.
North Fork Red Dog Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek contained both the greatest abundance and the highest
taxonomic richness of any of the sites sampled during baseline studies. In the limited
sampling done by EVS and Ott Water Engineers (Table 21 and Appendix 6), 8 different
taxonomic groups were found. Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera dominated the aquatic
invertebrate community. Dames and Moore (1983) reported similar populations of
aquatic invertebrates in their baseline studies (Appendix 6).
30
-------
Table 21. Aquatic invertebrates collected during baseline studies by EVS (1983).
Invertebrate Abundance Taxonomic Richness
average maximum average maximum
Creek #/sample #/sample #/sample #/sample
Ikalukrok C. (Sta. 73)
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
16.3
4.8
41.8
1.4
5.4
5
7
6
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 21 15 24.7 5 5
Station 140 13.9 33.1 4.7 5
North Fork Red Dog Creek 63.5 100.2 7 8
No data were found for Shelly, Connie, Sulfur, or Rachael Creek
Data from EVS and Qtt Water Engineers (1983)
Macroinvertebrates: Current Study
Aquatic invertebrate communities were sampled in 1995 to detect any changes in either
abundance or taxonomic richness that may have occurred since development of the Red
Dog Mine. Communities were sampled once in July. Because different methods were
used to collect invertebrates and because invertebrate taxonomy has changed since the
baseline sampling, only general comparisons between pre- and post mining are made.
Methods
Five semi-quantitative samples were collected at each sample site with a "D" net in July
1995. Samples were washed through a plankton bucket into whirl-pack bags, preserved
in 70% ETOH, and labeled.
Samples were sorted from rocks and organic debris, identified to lowest practical
taxonomic level, and counted. All invertebrate samples were permanently preserved in
homeopathic vials with neoprene stoppers and stored at Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Fairbanks. Hilltop Creek was not sampled.
Results and Discussion
Results of the invertebrate sampling are summarized in Table 22. Data from each sample
on numbers of invertebrates by family are presented in Appendix 7.
31
-------
Table 22. Aquatic invertebrate communities, 1995.
Invertebrate Abundance
Creek
average
ft/sample
maximum
#/sample
Taxonomic Richness
average
ft/sample
maximum
#/sample
Ikalukrok Creek
Station 8
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Station 10
Station 11
7.4
4
0.4
24
13
1
1.4
1
0.4
2
1
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 140 0.2
Station 20 1
Tributary Streams
Sulfur Creek
Shelly Creek
Connie Creek
Rachael Creek
North Fork
Red Dog Creek
36.6
4.2
40.6
0.2
26
74
7
47
1
40
0.2
0.6
1.8
1.6
2.6
0.2
5.4
3
2
3
1
Ikalukrok Creek
Station 8
Samples collected in Ikalukrok Creek had an average of 7.4 invertebrates and 1.4 taxa per
sample, with a maximum of 24 invertebrates and a total of 4 taxa (Table 22, Appendix 7).
Invertebrates were primarily Nematodes (from 60% to 100% of the total). Only one
Plecoptera and no Ephemeroptera or Trichoptera were found.
32
-------
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Station 10
An average of 4 invertebrates and 1 taxon were collected in Mainstem Red Dog Creek at
Station 10. Three invertebrate families were represented: Nematoda, Diptera: Tipulidae,
and Diptera: Chironomidae. Nearly 100% of the invertebrates were Nematoda.
Station 11
Invertebrate communities in Mainstem Red Dog Creek at Station 11 were even more
depauperate than at Station 10. Only 1 taxon was found: Diptera: Chironomidae; the
average number of invertebrates per sample was less than 1 because 60% of the samples
had no invertebrates.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 20
Only five Nematoda were found in the aquatic invertebrate samples collected at Station
20. The lack of taxonomic richness and invertebrate abundance suggests that this section
of Red Dog Creek does not support a viable invertebrate community.
Station 140.
Only one Chironomidae larvae was found in the five aquatic invertebrate samples
collected at Station 140; it could not be determined if this one invertebrate drifted from
upstream areas or was produced locally. The lack of taxonomic richness and invertebrate
abundance suggests that this section of Red Dog Creek does not support a viable
invertebrate community and that invertebrate production is low to non-existent.
Shelly Creek
Few invertebrates were found in Shelly Creek (Appendix 7). The aquatic benthic
community included a small leach (Hirudinea), Nematoda, the Dipteran Chironomidae,
and the Plecoptera: Nemouridae. The average number of invertebrates per sample was
4.2 and the maximum number was 7.
Connie Creek
Connie Creek supports an abundant, however not diverse, invertebrate community.
Invertebrate abundance was similar to that found in the North Fork Red Dog Creek;
however, the community had lower taxonomic richness than found in the North Fork Red
Dog Creek. In order of abundance, taxa found were Diptera: Chironomidae,
Ephemeroptera: Heptagenidae, Diptera: Tipulidae, and Plectoptera: Nemouridae.
33
-------
Sulfur Creek
Sulfur Creek supports a fairly abundant invertebrate community with low taxonomic
richness. In order of abundance, the invertebrate groups found were Nematoda and
Chironomidae. Exuvia from Plecoptera: Nemouridae were found; they did not appear to
be pre-emergent.
Rachael Creek
The invertebrate community in Rachael Creek was virtually non-existent: only two
Chironomidae adults were found. It is unlikely these insects were produced in Rachael
Creek.
North Fork Red Dog Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek had an invertebrate community that was both diverse and
abundant. Ten different taxonomic groups were found; more than at any other site.
Tipulidae, Trichoptera, and Ephemeroptera were too immature to identify beyond family
(or order for Trichoptera). Chironomidae were primarily case-builders, probably
primarily Orthocladinae. Identification of Chironomidae larvae was beyond the scope of
this project.
Conclusions
Invertebrate communities, as demonstrated by both taxonomic richness (more than 2
orders represented) and abundance (more than 1 invertebrate per sample) were
documented in the following streams:
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Sulfur Creek
Connie Creek
When compared to baseline studies, aquatic invertebrate densities were lower in Station
73 in 1995 than in Station 73 or Station 8 during baseline studies (Table 23). EVS
reported more invertebrates from Station 21 during baseline (average of 15 organisms per
approximately 0.1 m sample) than during post mining sampling at Station 20 in 1995
(average of 1 organism per approximately 0.1 m sample). Ikalukrok Creek upstream of
Red Dog Creek was sampled by Dames and Moore during baseline studies. At that time,
this site had the highest invertebrate density measured anywhere in the drainage: there
•~\
was an average of 245 organisms per approximately 0.1 m sample).
34
-------
Table 23. Average invertebrate density reported by Dames and Moore (1983), EVS
(1983) and ADF&G (1995) at various sampling locations in the Wulik River
drainage.
Station average number of
organisms/sample
Dames and Moore Baseline Data
Station 10 3
Station 8 71
Station 9 245
EVS Baseline Data
Station 73 16.3
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek 3.1
Station 21 15.0
Station 140 13.9
North Fork Red Dog Creek 63.5
ADF&G
Station 8 7.4
Station 10 4
Station 11 0.4
Station 20 1
Station 140 0.2
Sulfur Creek 36.6
Shelly Creek 4.2
Connie Creek 40.6
Rachael Creek 0.6
North Fork Red Dog Creek 26
Microinvertebrates
Baseline Studies
No data were found on microinvertebrate communities during baseline studies.
Current Study
Streams in the Red Dog area were sampled in July 1995 for the presence of
microinvertebrate communities. This component of the aquatic community was
examined to determine its importance in each stream.
35
-------
Methods
Five rocks were collected from each sample site and packed in individual plastic, sealed
bags. Rocks were examined within 6 hours of collection with a dissection microscope at
10 to 60 x. Scrapings of the rocks were mounted on a microscope slide with water and
examined with a compound microscope. Photographs were taken of the organisms.
Results and Discussion
Ikalukrok Creek
Station 8
Examination of all surfaces of five rocks from Station 8 showed few microinvertebrates
and no visible algae. One small (<1 mm Chironomidae) and one small (<1 mm) mite
were found. No other microinvertebrates were found on the rocks.
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Station 10
No plant or invertebrate life was observed on any of the rocks, with the exception of one
empty Simulidae pupal case.
Station 11
One of the five rocks supported sub-microscopic Simulidae larvae, nothing was observed
on the other four rocks.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 20
A small (<1 mm) Chironomidae larvae was found on one of the rocks. No
microinvertebrates were found on any of the other rocks, nor was algae, moss, or blue-
green bacteria visible with microscopic examination.
Station 140
Five rocks were examined, no plants or invertebrates were observed.
Shelly Creek
Rocks from Shelly Creek were covered with a thick mineral precipitate; no signs of plant
or animal life were detected with microscopic examination.
36
-------
Connie Creek
Rocks from Connie Creek supported from 20 to 100 sub-microscopic Chironomidae. No
other invertebrates were observed on the rocks. Abundant mosses were observed along
the stream margin; no invertebrates were observed in the mosses (at 50 to 250 x).
Sulfur Creek
Rocks from Sulfur Creek contained no visible aquatic vegetation. Two small
invertebrates were observed; they appeared to be tiny aquatic leeches.
Rachael Creek
Rocks were coated with a thick precipitate that probably was aluminum; no invertebrates
or plants were observed.
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Each rock was covered with diatoms and blue-green bacteria, probably Nostoc.
Chironomidae larvae were associated with the blue-green bacteria. Rocks had from 25 to
hundreds of Chironomidae. Also observed on the rocks were filamentous green algae,
pupal cases from Simulidae, sub-microscopic Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera nymphs,
and Trichoptera larvae. Clusters of unidentified insect eggs were found on some of the
rocks.
Conclusions
Microscopic and sub-microscopic communities were found on rocks from the following
streams:
Ikalukrok Creek (only a sparse community)
Connie Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Periphyton: Baseline Studies
EVS and Ott Water Engineers (1983) conducted limited sampling of periphyton
communities in Middle Fork Red Dog Creek by measuring concentrations of chlorophyll-
a. Their methods were similar to those used by ADF&G in this study. EVS and Ott
Water Engineers (1983) reported concentrations of chlorophyll-a ranging from 0.01 to
0.10 mg/cm in flowing water upstream of the South Fork Red Dog Creek and
chlorophyll-a concentrations ranging from 0.04 to 0.20 mg/cm2 in seeps adjacent to
37
-------
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek. Periphyton was not sampled in Red Dog Creek
downstream of the South Fork or in Ikalukrok Creek.
Periphyton: Current Study
Methods
Five rocks were collected at each sample site within a riffle section. A 5 cm x 5 cm
square of high density foam was placed on the rock. Using a small tooth brush, all
material around the foam square was removed and rinsed away with clean water. The
foam was removed from the rock and the rock was brushed with a clean tooth brush and
rinsed onto a 0.45 wm glass fiber filter, held by a magnetic filter holder connected to a
hand vacuum pump. Excess water was pumped through the filter, and approximately 1
ml saturated MgCO3 was added to the filter to prevent acidification. The dry filter was
wrapped in a large filter (to absorb any additional water, labeled, and placed in a zip-lock
bag and packed over desiccant. Filters were frozen in a light-proof container with
desiccant.
Filters were cut into small pieces and placed in an extraction tube with 10 ml of 90%
buffered acetone. Extraction tubes were covered with aluminum foil and were held in a
dark refrigerator for 24 hours. After extraction, samples were read on a Shimadzu UV-
1601 Spectrophotometer and a Turner Model 10 Fluorometer. Trichromatic equations
(according to Standard Methods, APHA 1992) were used to convert spectrophotometric
optical densities to total chlorophyll-a. The Turner Fluorometer was calibrated with US
EPA standards according to Standard Methods. A calibration curve was developed, using
known standards, standard dilutions, and chlorophyll-a concentrations determined with a
spectrophotometer. Hilltop Creek was not sampled.
Results and Discussion
Periphyton communities (i.e., detecting chlorophyll-a in at least 3 of the 5 samples) were
documented in North Fork Red Dog Creek, Sulfur Creek, Shelly Creek, and Connie
Creek (Appendix 8). Station 11 contained one sample with measurable amounts of
chlorophyll-a, and Ikalukrok Creek contained two samples with measurable amounts of
chlorophyll-a.
Conclusions
Based on samples examined for the presence of chlorophyll-a (a measure of periphyton
standing crop), periphyton communities were documented in the following sites:
North Fork Red Dog Creek Sulfur Creek
Connie Creek Shelly Creek
Limited algal productivity was indicated in Ikalukrok Creek and Mainstem Red Dog
Creek.
38
-------
Macrophytes: Baseline Studies
No previous studies were found that documented the presence of aquatic macrophytes in
Ikalukrok Creek or Red Dog Creek and its tributaries.
Macrophytes: Current Study
Streams in the Red Dog area were examined and photographed in July 1995 for the
presence of macrophytic plants. Aquatic plants may be an important component of an
aquatic community and an indicator of good water quality. Hilltop Creek was not
sampled.
Methods
Our intention was to collect any visible macrophyte algae along the stream and place it in
a labeled plastic bag for later identification. Because few macrophytes were observed
and those were generally limited to mosses, we noted their presence only. The following
is a description of macrophyte communities observed at each sample site.
Results and Discussion
Ikalukrok Creek
Station 8
The edges of the stream bank at Station 8 in Ikalukrok Creek were gravel, with no aquatic
plants along the stream margins. Mosses grew in seeps adjacent to the stream, but there
were no aquatic plants found in the stream.
Maimtem Red Dog Creek
Station 10
The edges of the stream bank at Station 10, Mainstem Red Dog Creek contained wide
gravel bars and shrub vegetation. No aquatic plants were found in the stream.
Station 11
The Mainstem Red Dog Creek at Station 11, just below the confluence with the North
Fork, contained wide gravel bars and the banks supported shrub vegetation. No aquatic
plants were found in the stream.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 20
The edges of the stream bank at Station 20 in Middle Fork Red Dog Creek were gravel,
with few grasses and shrubs. No aquatic plants were found in the stream.
39
-------
Station 140
This section of the Middle Fork of Red Dog Creek is a man-made channel with steep,
graveled sides. No vegetation has established along the stream margins. There were no
aquatic plants found in the water.
Shelly Creek
The banks of Shelly Creek were covered with shrub willows. No aquatic plants were
evident on the stream bottom; however, mosses grew abundantly along the stream
margins.
Connie Creek
The edges of Connie Creek were primarily gravel, with shrubs growing on the stream
banks. A few mosses were observed on the stream bottom.
Sulfur Creek
The banks of Sulfur Creek contained grasses and sedges. No aquatic plants were found in
this darkly stained creek.
Rachael Creek
The stream banks along Rachael Creek were covered with grasses, sedges, and other
terrestrial plants. No aquatic plants were evident in the stream.
North Fork Red Dog Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek contained abundant aquatic mosses and filamentous algae on
the stream bed. The edges of the creek were filled with various aquatic plants. The
mosses and filamentous algae in the stream appeared to provide an important substrate
for aquatic invertebrates.
Conclusions
Aquatic macrophytes were an important part of the aquatic ecosystem in North Fork Red
Dog Creek, and to a lesser extent, in Connie Creek and Shelly Creek. They were not
found in the other sites. We believe that high metals concentrations in Middle Fork Red
Dog Creek contributed to the absence of aquatic macrophytes in downstream areas.
40
-------
Fish: Baseline Studies
Baseline studies conducted by Dames and Moore (1983) reported fish use in Ikalukrok
Creek, Mainstem Red Dog Creek, and North Fork Red Dog Creek (Table 24). Fish
species present in the Wulik River are listed to illustrate the importance of this river for
fish. Common and scientific names of fish are listed in Appendix 9.
Table 24. Fish species collected during baseline studies.
Water body
Ikalukrok Creek
Use (fish species)
Migration (AG)
Notes
few present
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Spawning (AG, ChumS)
Rearing (AG, DV, SSc)
Migration (AG)
migration limited
to spring high flows
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek no fish found
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Wulik River
Migration (AG)
Spawning (AG)
Rearing (AG)
Arctic grayling
slimy sculpin
chum salmon
Dolly Varden
humpback whitefish
round whitefish
least cisco
Bering cisco
Alaska blackfish
pink salmon
sockeye salmon
coho salmon
chinook salmon
ninespine stickleback
DV = Dolly Varden, AG = Arctic grayling, SSc = slimy sculpin, ChumS = chum salmon
Shelly, Rachael, Connie, and Sulfur Creeks were not sampled.
41
-------
Natural Fish Kills
EVS and Ott Water Engineers (1983) observed natural fish kills in 1982 while collecting
baseline data for the Wulik River drainage. Arctic grayling moralities ranged from
underyearling juveniles (20 to 40.9 mm) to sub-adults (75 to 220 mm); Dolly Varden
mortalities were juveniles (53 to 113 mm). Thirty six dead Dolly Varden and 171 dead
Arctic grayling were found in Red Dog Creek between Station 12 and the mouth in July
and August 1982. One juvenile Dolly Varden and one juvenile Arctic grayling were
found dead in Ikalukrok Creek above the confluence of Red Dog Creek. EVS and Ott
Water Engineers reported that fish found dead in Red Dog Creek had considerable
amounts of brown precipitate and mucus on their gills and occasionally had hemorrhaged
gills and opaque eyes.
Fish: Current Study
Methods
ADF&G flew aerial surveys using fixed-wing aircraft in fall 1979 through 1995, with the
exception of 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1990. The fall surveys covered the Wulik River from
its mouth near the village of Kivalina to a point approximately five river miles above its
confluence with Ikalukrok Creek.
ADF&G trapped Dolly Varden and other fish species (e.g., Arctic grayling, slimy
sculpin) in Ikalukrok Creek, North Fork Red Dog Creek, and Mainstem Red Dog Creek
from 1991 through 1995. Sampling was done with minnow traps baited with salmon roe
contained in perforated plastic containers. Minnow traps fished from about 20 to 80
hours each sample period.
ADF&G conducted visual stream surveys for Arctic grayling and other fish in North Fork
Red Dog Creek, Mainstem Red Dog Creek, and Middle Fork Red Dog Creek from 1991
through 1995 and in Shelly, Sulfur, Connie, and Rachael Creeks in 1995. Arctic grayling
were sampled by angling in North Fork Red Dog Creek, Mainstem Red Dog Creek, and
Ikalukrok Creek.
Results and Discussion
The number of overwintering Dolly Varden in the Wulik River ranged from 30,853 in
1984 to a high of 144,138 fish in 1993 (Appendix 10, Weber Scannell and Ott 1995).
Surveys showed the Wulik River to be one of the most important drainages for
overwintering Dolly Varden in northwest Alaska.
Fish were found to inhabit Ikalukrok Creek, Mainstem Red Dog Creek, and North Fork
Red Dog Creek. Slimy sculpin were not found in Mainstem Red Dog Creek or North
Fork Red Dog Creek before 1995. They are believed to migrate into these creeks in
spring after breakup, then use the waterways for summer rearing. Most likely, they
migrate downstream in fall, before freeze-up. The uses of streams by fish after
development of the Red Dog mine are listed in Table 25. The data on catch per unit
effort and actual numbers offish are given in Weber Scannell and Ott (1995).
42
-------
Table 25. Post-mining use of Wulik River drainage streams by fish.
Stream
Use (Fish Species)
Ikalukrok Creek
Station 8
Ikalukrok Creek
upstream of Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Station 10
Station 11
Migration (AG, DV, SSc)
Rearing (AG, DV, SSc)
Migration (AG)
Rearing (AG)
Migration (AG, DV, SSc)
Rearing (AG, DV, SSc)
Migration (AG, DV, SSc)
Rearing (AG, DV, SSc)
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 20
no fish found
Station 140
no fish found
Shelly Creek
Connie Creek
Sulfur Creek
Rachael Creek
no fish found
no fish found
no fish found
no fish found
North Fork
Red Dog Creek
Wulik River2
Migration (AG, DV, SSc)
Spawning (AG)
Rearing (AG, DV, SSc)
Arctic grayling
slimy sculpin
chum salmon
Dolly Varden
humpback whitefish
round whitefish
least cisco
Bering cisco
Alaska blackfish
pink salmon
sockeye salmon
coho salmon
chinook salmon
ninespine stickleback
burbot
DV = Dolly Varden, AG = Arctic grayling, SSc = slimy sculpin.
'incomplete surveys have been conducted in Ikalukrok Creek above Red Dog Creek.
Species other than Arctic grayling may be using this portion of the creek.
2Fish use was not documented in the Wulik River.
43
-------
Point Source Evaluation
Comparisons of water quality and metals concentrations data before and after
development of the Red Dog Mine (Table 26) indicate the following changes related to
the point source discharge from the mine and to diversion and collection of the mine
seepage water. It is not possible to separate the effects of effluent from mine seepage
collection. Refer to summaries of water quality data presented in Appendices 1 through 5
and to the complete listing of water quality and metals data from sampling stations in
Appendices 11 and 12, and water quality and metals data from mine effluent in 1995 in
Appendix 13.
In summer 1995 the wastewater treatment plant discharged maximum amounts of treated
water. The volume of mine discharge during 1995 is representative of the amount of
discharge requested by Cominco Alaska Inc. in the NPDES permit.
Table 26. Comparisons of water quality and metals before and after mine development.
Analyte or Factor Ikalukrok Creek Mainstem Middle Fork
Red Dog Creek Red Dog Creek
Temperature NMC1 NMC
pH >' >
Flow > >
Hardness > >
TSS NMC NMC
Dissolved Oxygen NMC NMC
Turbidity NMC NMC
Conductivity > >
TDS > >
Sulfate > >
Al not related not related
Cd <' <
Cu < <
Pb < <
Zn < <
NMC
>
>
>
NMC
NMC
NMC
>
>
>
not related
<
<
<
<
NMC = no measurable change, < = decrease, > = increase over background conditions.
Concentrations of Al appear to be related to high rainfall and increased erosion.
44
-------
Non-Point Source Evaluation: Whole Effluent Toxicity
Whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests were conducted on water taken from Middle Fork
Red Dog Creek at Station 140 during summer 1995 (Parametrix 1995 a, b, c, d, e, and f)
and from Ikalukrok Creek at Station 9 above Red Dog Creek (Parametrix 1995f). WET
tests were conducted at other stations that are influenced by the mine discharge effluent.
Because it is not possible to separate effects between natural mineralization and mine
effluent, those test results are not presented.
Tests on water taken from Station 140 (Table 27) showed significant toxicity for both
Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas. The no observed effects concentration
(NOEC) was <1% Station 140 water mixed with 99% laboratory water. The
concentration of Station 140 water resulting in 50% mortality was <1%.
Table 27. Whole Effluent Toxicity at Station 140.
Date Water
Collected
June 11-14
1995
June 19,2 1,23
1995
July 5,7, 10
1995
July 17,19,21
NOEC1
LOEC2
LC503
NOEC
LOEC
LC50
NOEC
LOEC
LC50
NOEC
LOEC
LC50
Ceriodaphnia dubia
survival reproduction
1% <1%
6% 1%
2%
1% 1%
6% 1%
2%
1% 1%
<1%
1%
<1%
Pimephales promelas
survival growth
mg
1%
6%
5%
1%
6%
3%
1%
6%
2%
1%
6%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
NOEC = No Observed Effects Concentration.
LOEC = Lowest Concentrations at which adverse effects were observed
3LC50 = Concentration at which 50% of the test population died.
45
-------
Station 9. Ikalukrok Creek above Red Dog Creek
Whole effluent toxicity tests conducted on water from Ikalukrok Creek at Station 9
(above Red Dog Creek) did not show significant toxicity for Ceriodaphnia dubia or
Pimephales promelas survival in August 1995 (Table 28). The NOEC for C. dubia
survival was 100%. Tests did show significant detrimental effects of Station 9 water on
C. dubia reproduction, with a NOEC of 1% Station 9 water.
Whole effluent toxicity tests using Station 9 water collected in September 1995 showed
somewhat higher toxicity for C. dubia than in August, the NOEC was 73% and the LC50
was 84%. Survival and growth of P. promelas remained at 100% in September samples.
Table 28. Whole Effluent Toxicity at Ikalukrok Creek, Station 9.
Date Water
Collected
August 6
1995
Sept. 9
1995
NOEC1
LOEC2
LC503
NOEC
LOEC
LC50
Ceriodaphnia dubia
survival reproduction
100% 1%
>100% <1%
>100% N/A
73%
1 00%
84%
Pimephales promelas
survival growth
100%
>100%
>100%
100%
>100
>100
mg
100%
>100%
N/A
100%
>100%
NOEC = No Observed Effects Concentration.
LOEC = Lowest Concentrations at which adverse effects were observed
3LC50 = Concentration at which 50% of the test population died.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Information from baseline studies and from post-mining studies were used to determine
the ability of each waterway to support a viable aquatic community (Table 29 for fish,
Table 30 for invertebrates, Table 31 for periphyton). Aquatic communities include any
combination offish, aquatic macroinvertebrates, aquatic microinvertebrates, periphyton,
and macrophytes. Incidental occurrence of a few organisms is not considered to
constitute a community.
46
-------
Table 29. Summary of fish use of streams in the upper Wulik River drainage.
Stream Pre-mining Post-mining Attainable
Ikalukrok Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork
Red Dog Creek
Sulfur Creek
Shelly Creek
Connie Creek
Rachael Creek
Hilltop Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Yes
Yes
No
No
?(No)
?(No)
?(No)
?(No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
? = no data were available.
Table 30. Summary of aquatic micro and macroinvertebrate use of streams in the upper
Wulik River drainage.
Stream Pre-mining Post-mining Attainable
Ikalukrok Creek
Mainstem
Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork
Red Dog Creek
Sulfur Creek
Shelly Creek
Connie Creek
Rachael Creek
Hilltop Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Yes
Low
No
9
9
9
9
9
Yes
Low
Low
No
No
Very Low
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
? = no data were available.
47
-------
Table 31. Summary of macrophyte and periphyton use of streams in the upper Wulik
River drainage.
Stream Pre-mining Post-mining Attainable
Ikalukrok Creek
Mainstem
Red Dog
Middle Fork
Red Dog
Sulfur Creek
Shelly Creek
Connie Creek
Rachael Creek
Hilltop Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Low
Low
No
?
?
?
?
?(No)
Yes
Low
Low
No
Yes
Low
Yes
No
No
Yes
Limited
Limited
No
Limited
Limited
Yes
No
No
Yes
? = no data were available.
Based upon information presented in this Use Attainability Analysis, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game recommends retaining the stream classification for Aquatic
Life in the following streams:
Connie Creek North Fork Red Dog Creek
Ikalukrok Creek Mainstem Red Dog Creek
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game recommends elimination of the stream
classification for Aquatic Life in the following waterbodies:
Middle Fork Red Dog Sulfur Creek
Shelly Creek Rachael Creek
Hilltop Creek
48
-------
References Cited
Cominco Engineering Services Ltd. 1983. Wastewater collection and management: Red
Dog Project. File No. RDS .012. 65 pp.
Alabaster, J.S. and R. Lloyd. 1982. Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Fish.
Butterworm Scientific. Second Edition. 361pp.
American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association, and
Water Environment Federation. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. 18th Edition. A.E. Greenberg, L.S. Clesceri, and A.D.
Eaton, eds. American Public Health Assoc. Washington, D.C.
Dames and Moore. 1981. Surface water and aquatic biological investigations of the Red
Dog Area, Alaska. Prepared for Cominco American, Inc. 123 pp. + Append.
Dames and Moore. 1983. Environmental Baseline Studies, Red Dog Project. Prepared
for Cominco Alaska Inc.
EBA Engineering Inc. 1991. Red Dog Mine Design of Mine Water Diversion Dam,
Supporting Design Report.
EVS Consultants Ltd. and Ott Water Engineers, Inc. 1983. Toxicological, Biophysical,
and Chemical Assessment of Red Dog Creek, DeLong Mountains, Alaska, 1982.
for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. October 1983. Project
143-1.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1984. Water Management, Goals, Policies,
Objectives and Implementation Procedures of the Ministry of the Environment,
Revised. Toronto, Ontario. 70 pp. Reviewed in Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines 1995.
Parametrix, Inc. 1995a. Toxicity Evaluation of Stations 10, 73, and 140 to Ceriodaphnia
dubia and Pimephales promelas. Prepared for Cominco Alaska Inc. Kotzebue,
AK 99752. Project No. 55-2833-01 (01). July 1995.
Parametrix, Inc. 1995b. Toxicity Evaluation of Station 140 to Ceriodaphnia dubia and
Pimephales promelas. Prepared for Cominco Alaska Inc. Kotzebue, AK 99752.
Project No. 55-2833-01 (01). June 1995.
Parametrix, Inc. 1995c. Toxicity Evaluation of Station 140 to Ceriodaphnia dubia and
Pimephales promelas. Prepared for Cominco Alaska Inc. Kotzebue, AK 99752.
Project No. 55-2833-01 (01). July 1995.
Parametrix, Inc. 1995d. Toxicity Evaluation of Station 140 to Ceriodaphnia dubia and
Pimephales promelas. Prepared for Cominco Alaska Inc. Kotzebue, AK 99752.
Project No. 55-2833-01 (01). August 1995.
Parametrix, Inc. 1995e. Toxicity Evaluation of Station 140 to Ceriodaphnia dubia and
Pimephales promelas. Prepared for Cominco Alaska Inc. Kotzebue, AK 99752.
Project No. 55-2833-01 (01). September 1995.
49
-------
Parametrix, Inc. 1995f. Toxicity Evaluation of Stations 9, 10, 73, and 140 to
Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas. Prepared for Cominco Alaska
Inc. Kotzebue, AK 99752. Project No. 55-2833-01 (01). September 1995.
US EPA. 1985. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Lead - 1984 Criteria and Standards
Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-440/5-
84-027.
Weber Scannell, P.K. and A. G. Ott. 1995. Fishery Resources below the Red Dog Mine,
Northwest Alaska. ADF&G Tech. Report No. 95-5. Juneau, AK.
50
-------
Appendix 1. Summary of water quality data, 1979-1983.
Station
Station 20
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 12
North Fork
Station 140
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Hardness
mg/L
93
145
58.5
16
92.1
201
67.5
12
96.15
217
39
16
89
155
68
10
116
290
34
24
IDS
mg/L
216
287
131
4
187
210
183
3
143
284
115
4
Sulfate
mg/L
108
149
66
3
174
324
95
5
87.5
98
50
3
60
76
30
3
pH Temperature
°C
6.6
6.9
5.7
5
5.85
6.5
5.3
8
7.5
7.8
6.0
8
6.4
6.7
5.8
10
7.5
7.9
9
5.0
14.3
0.0
5
6.3
12.8
0.0
7
6.3
8.7
0.0
7
4.1
14.7
-0.1
8
TDS = total dissolved solids
51
-------
Appendix 2. Summary of water quality data, 1979-1983.
Station
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Dissolved
Oxygen
mg/L
13.2
10.4
5
13.4
10.2
48
11.3
14.2
10.4
8
11.6
14.2
9.7
5
7.7
7.9
7.2
14
10.9
13.5
0.3
9.0
11.6
13.7
2.3
9
Conductivity
wmho/cm
230
140
8
220
110
50
276
650
63
7
265
525
28
5
352
591
44
7
328
1090
154
8
289
940
179
8
Flow
cfs
8.55
27
1.3
8
13.5
76
1.6
18
19
92
12
15
32.0
126.0
3.2
25
102.5
310.0
15.0
14
Alkalinity
mg/L
13
2.2
10
68.4
87.8
47.4
15
4.95
16
1
8
23
44
1.7
5
90.5
115.4
48.8
15
70
245
5.2
9
75
388
12
10.
52
-------
Appendix 2, continued.
Station
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
median
maximum
minimum
count
D.O.
mg/L
11.25
14.4
9.5
8
Conduct.
wmho/cm
352
591
44
7
Flow
cfs
20
92
8.1
19
Alkalinity
mg/L
99
138
8.4
8
Station 09 median 11.7 282.5 132 73.5
Station 09 maximum 13.9 480 1260 176
Station 09 minimum 0.2 16
Station 09 count 9 8 31 26
53
-------
Appendix 3. Summary metals data, 1979-1983.
Station
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 1 0
Station 10
Station 10
Station 1 0
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Al
mg/L
0.73
2.31
0.15
20
0.665
2.31
0.15
24
0.325
0.91
0.05
28
<0.15
0.55
<0.02
25
<0.1 5
1.19
0.02
38
0.04
0.17
O.02
10.00
Cd
mg/L
0.12
0.21
0.07
20
0.0115
0.025
O.006
12
0.1335
0.94
0.071
32
0.078
0.14
0.02
34
0.03
0.03
O.0002
29
0.03
0.10
0.002
43
O.01
0.04
O.001
18
Cu
mg/L
0.013
0.028
0.007
4
0.009
0.025
0.005
4
0.01
O.01
O.002
5
O.001
O.02
0.002
15
O.001
O.02
0.001
10
Pb
mg/L
0.33
1.11
O.08
20
0.029
O.08
0.0003
12
0.274
1.11
0.0026
32
0.11
0.36
0.0015
34
0.08
0.08
O.004
29
O.08
0.10
O.001
43
O.004
0.028
0.001
18
Zn
mg/L
15.70
28.50
9.06
20
0.98
1.8
0.349
12
15.85
49.8
9.06
32
9.865
16.5
2.63
34
0.02
0.37
0.01
29
3.70
13.00
0.57
43
0.74
4.20
0.17
18
54
-------
Appendix 3, continued.
Station
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Al
mg/L
<0.15
0.55
<0.02
25
0.045
0.23
<0.02
10
Cd
mg/L
O.025
<0.025
O.0002
29
0.002
0.025
<0.0002
24
Cu
mg/L
O.005
0.013
O.002
5
0.0045
0.012
O.001
10
Pb
mg/L
<0.08
<0.08
<0.0001
29
0.0012
<0.08
<0.0001
24
Zn
mg/L
0.023
0.37
0.005
29
0.0255
2.3
0.006
24
55
-------
Appendix 4. Summary of Water Quality Data, 1991-1995.
Ikalukrok Creek, Station 8.
Hardness, total dissolved solids, and pH.
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Hardness
mg/L
179
270
143
11
237
798
53.1
29
131
191
55.9
12
132.5
498
43.2
22
156
666
82.5
12
IDS
mg/L
261
406
174
11
312
1040
64
29
181
229
68
17
159.5
658
57
22
209
906
118
15
PH
7.1
7.5
6.8
11
7.44
8.2
5.7
29
7.7
8.2
6.7
17
7.7
8.2
7.2
22
7.7
7.9
7.1
14
56
-------
Appendix 4, continued.
Station 8. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and flow.
Date
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Temperature
°C
5.8
11.5
-0.2
11
7.6
13.6
-0.5
29
6.7
15
2
17
4
8.4
0
22
5.8
10.6
1
14
Dissolved
Oxygen
mg/L
12.8
13.6
10.3
10
9.2
13.2
4
25
11.15
20
8.1
12
11.55
13.2
7.5
22
13
14.5
12.7
5
Conductivity
wnho/cm
348
576
215
8
465
135
11
22
268
420
50
14
248
790
143
20
330
442
261
6
Flow
cfs
189.9
248.3
131.5
2
57
-------
Appendix 4, continued.
Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Station 10
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Hardness
mg/L
244
563
179
12
369
1540
52.7
30
177
1100
99.3
18
580
1070
247
9
Total Dissolved
Solids
mg/L
349
831
207
12
519
1850
67
30
214.5
369
50
18
228
1610
127
18
824
1610
171
19
PH
7.0
7.5
6.7
12
7.4
8.1
6.12
30
7.55
8.2
6.6
18
7.7
7.9
7.2
18
7.6
7.8
7.1
14
58
-------
Appendix 4, continued.
Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Station 10
Date
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
no samples
median
maximum
minimum
count
Temperature Dissolved
°C Oxygen
mg/L
6.1 11.8
14.1 14.0
-0.2 9.5
11 11
5.35 9.8
13.9 13.4
-0.5 4.9
30 28
7
17
1
18
were collected.
9.5
13
3
14
Conductivity Flow
umho/cm cfs
481
665
270
8
680
2090
114
27
182.6
400
32.7
6
1029
1790
97
14
59
-------
Appendix 4, continued.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 20.
Hardness, total dissolved solids, sulfate, and pH.
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Hardness
mg/L
354
763
210
13
561
1560
28
32
53.5
74
32.9
2
319
1580
71.5
18
597
1170
138
5
IDS
mg/L
568
1310
346
13
810
2230
50
32
198
961
57
19
509
2440
97
18
1680
2190
135
28
Sulfate
mg/L
300
1500
55
18
1000
1500
57
10
pH
7
7.6
6
13
6.8
8
6.1
32
7.1
7.7
6.3
18
7
9
6
17
7.3
7.8
6.6
25
60
-------
Appendix 4, continued.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 10.
Temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and flow.
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Temperature.
°C
5.5
16.1
-0.2
12
6.7
19.4
0
32
5.5
13
0
18
4
13
0
17
12
15.2
7
24
Dissolved
Oxygen
mg/L
11.9
16
8.8
12
9
13.4
1.8
29
12.3
12.5
12.1
2
Conductivity
wmho/cm
1.3
6.1
0.4
13
0.435
11
0.12
30
3.35
3.7
3
2
1580.5
2390
94
26
Flow
cfs
577
1570
440
11
0.96
2.56
0.08
32
7.6
28.9
26.7
9
61
-------
Appendix 4, continued.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 140.
Hardness, total dissolved solids, and pH.
Date
1991
1992
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Hardness
mg/L
155
267
108
19
127.5
242
25.2
36
IDS
mg/L
345
717
210
13
204
456
16.6
36
PH
7
8.2
5.2
52
6.5
8.2
5.7
36
1993 no samples were collected.
1994 no samples were collected.
1995 median 412.5
maximum 624
minimum 105
count 32
62
-------
Appendix 4, concluded.
Station 140. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and flow.
Date
1991
1992
1994
1995
Temperature Dissolved
°C Oxygen
mg/L
median 4.3 11.5
maximum 11.6 15
minimum -0.2 7.7
count 13 13
median 8.25 7.5
maximum 15.4 12.5
minimum -0.1 3.3
count 36 33
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Conductivity
wmho/cm
305
490
178
10
274
58
27
28
680
70
63
7
Flow
cfs
4.65
24.2
2.1
20
63
-------
Appendix 5. Summary of Metals Data, 1991-1995.
Ikalukrok Creek. Station 8 and 73.
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Al
mg/L
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
12
<0.05
0.73
<0.05
28
<0.05
0.28
<0.05
17
0.085
1.02
0.05
23
0.145
1.06
0.05
13
Cd
mg/L
0.012
0.040
0.007
12
0.007
0.024
O.003
28
O.003
0.003
O.003
17
0.003
0.02
0.003
23
0.00483
0.0198
0.00069
17
Cu
mg/L
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
12
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
28
0.00322
0.01
0.0016
17
Pb
mg/L
0.008
0.023
O.001
12
O.002
0.094
<0.002
28
<0.002
0.009
<0.002
17
0.006
0.078
0.002
23
0.00565
0.106
0.00058
17
Zn
mg/L
1.62
3.61
1.07
12
0.865
3.120
0.305
28
0.203
0.389
0.143
17
0.282
2.62
0.098
23
0.619
2.01
0.138
17
64
-------
Appendix 5, continued.
Mainstem Red Dog Creek, Station 10
Date
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Al
mg/L
<0.05
0.05
<0.05
12
<0.05
0.892
0.05
30
O.05
0.69
0.05
18
0.108
0.403
0.05
17
0.05
0.105
0.05
9
Cd
mg/L
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
18
0,
0,
0,
18
0.
0,
0,
18
.036
.047
.010
.02
.06
.003
.008
.013
.003
.014
.031
.006
.02
.237
.012
Cu
mg/L
O
O
O
12
O
O
0
30
0
0
0
18
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.0034
.0047
.0014
Fe
mg/L
0
0
.02
.06
0.02
12
0,
2,
0,
30
0,
0,
0,
8
.045
.98
.02
.083
.237
.057
Pb
mg/L
0.
0.
026
028
0.010
12
0.
0.
0.
29
0.
0.
0.
18
0.
0.
0.
18
0.
0.
0.
18
007
386
002
014
136
004
023
07
004
0187
0393
0131
Zn
mg/L
5.85
6.54
1.58
12
2.515
5.92
0.699
30
0.939
1.31
0.463
17
1.59
3.38
0.533
18
2.55
3.67
1.39
18
65
-------
Appendix 5, continued.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 20.
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
median
maximum
minimum
count
Al
mg/L
<0.05
0.48
<0.05
12
0.05
0.226
O.05
30
0.05
0.38
0.05
17
0.086
1.25
0.05
23
0.091
0.197
0.05
9
Cd
mg/L
0.13
0.19
0.06
12
0.045
0.147
0.013
30
0.026
0.032
0.013
17
0.029
0.52
0.016
23
0.0428
0.0559
0.00005
28
Cu
mg/L
O.01
O.01
O.01
12
O.01
0.012
O.01
30
0.00589
0.109
0.00023
28
Pb
mg/L
0.161
0.295
0.044
12
0.0405
0.23
0.015
30
0.049
0.348
0.016
17
0.095
0.345
0.01
23
0.046
0.142
0.00039
28
Zn
mg/L
21.75
32.40
8.28
12
6.38
18.7
1.6
30
3.29
3.83
1.64
17
3.57
11.3
2.1
23
4.91
8.06
0.0008
28
66
-------
Appendix 5, continued.
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 140
Year
1991 median
maximum
minimum
count
1 992 median
maximum
minimum
count
1993 median
maximum
minimum
count
1 994 median
maximum
minimum
count
1995 median
maximum
minimum
count
Al
mg/L
0.1
0.44
0.05
56
0.05
1.61
0.05
36
0.08
0.46
0.05
20
0.103
1.47
0.05
13
0.196
0.196
0.196
1
Cd
mg/L
0.08
0.758
0.003
56
0.054
0.216
0.012
36
0.02
0.15
0.01
20
0.035
0.15
0.012
13
0.1045
0.262
0.0317
32
Cu
mg/L
0.04
0.05
0.01
56
0.01
0.07
0.01
36
0.01
0.02
0.01
3
0.058
0.058
0.058
1
0.0128
0.0197
0.0056
32
Fe
mg/L
0.215
2.9
0.04
54
0.023
3.69
0.02
36
0.58
1.68
0.17
3
0.101
0.101
0.101
1
0.236
0.236
0.236
1
Pb
mg/L
0.108
0.856
0.01
56
0.181
1.94
0.046
36
0.10
0.58
0.05
20
0.207
0.542
0.126
13
0.1815
0.345
0.131
32
Zn
mg/L
13.8
157
1.4
56
9.99
138
1.47
36
1.93
16.30
1.10
20
4.11
29.5
1.57
13
22.1
33.6
4.78
32
67
-------
Appendix 5, continued.
Shelly Creek, 1995
median
Hardness
mg/L
62
maximum 116
minimum 33
count
Connie
median
5
Creek, 1995
Hardness
mg/L
79
maximum 148
minimum 5 1
count
5
Al
mg/L
0.271
0.549
0.077
14
Al
mg/L
0.09
0.37
0.05
12
0
0
0
14
Cd
mg/L
.0137
.0447
.0006
Cd
mg/L
Cu
mg/L
0.0140
0.0235
0.0016
13
Cu
mg/L
0.00 O.005
0.
19
0.06
0.00 0.005
12
12
Fe
mg/L
0.403
1.220
0.190
13
Fe
mg/L
0.09
1.22
0.05
11
Pb
mg/L
0.0496
0.6040
0.0052
14
Pb
mg/L
0.01
0.27
0.002
12
Zn
mg/L
1.62
5.10
0.09
14
Zn
mg/L
0.12
36.80
0.01
12
PH
6
7
6
6
6
.8
.3
.4
pH
.85
7.40
6
.60
6
Rachael Creek, 1995
median
maximum
minimum
count
Hard
mg/L
256
491
164
5
Al
mg/L
1.70
3.27
1.17
10
0
0
0
11
Cd
mg/L
.00300
.00381
.00214
Cu
mg/L
0.0610
0.0840
0.0427
11
Fe
mg/L
2.80
4.28
0.25
9
Pb
mg/L
0.0008
0.0480
0.0003
11
Zn
mg/L
0.707
0.838
0.202
11
pH
5.45
5.90
4.70
4
68
-------
Appendix 5, continued.
Sulfur Creek, 1995
Hardness
mg/L
median 132
maximum 140
minimum 87
count 4
Hilltop Creek
Date
Al
mg/L
0.05
5.97
0.05
6
Al
mg/L
Middle of Hilltop
7/31/95
8/1/95
Mouth of Hilltop
7/31/95
8/1/95
17
27
7
12
.10
.60
.87
.20
Cd
mg/L
0.0070
0.0118
0.0030
6
Cd
mg/L
10.1
10.5
6.2
6.9
Cu
mg/L
0.0064
0.0200
0.0012
6
Fe
mg/L
20.
22
3.
4.
6
45
11
Fe
mg/L
0.058
20.100
0.036
5
Pb
mg/L
2
2
4
4
.64
.33
.69
.55
Pb Zn
mg/L mg/L
0.0913 0.971
2.1200 1.900
0.0658 0.399
6 6
Zn
mg/L
2130
2080
1510
1600
PH
7
7
6
4
.0
.4
.5
pH
3
3
4
4
.55
.5
.25
.1
Headwaters of Hilltop
7/31/95
8/1/95
15
12
.40
.20
3.78
6.9
85.
4.
5
11
1
4
.63
.55
530
1600
2
4
.71
.1
Hilltop Monitoring
8/16/95
8/21/95
8/25/95
8/29/95
9/3/95
9/6/95
9/13/95
9/21/95
9/28/95
10/6/95
10/17/95
9
8
9
8
7
4
3
2
8
3
0
.39
.19
.59
.47
.75
.09
.65
.97
.29
.05
.26
7.8
7.6
7
5
6.7
6.5
7
6.9
6.8
6.2
3.2
3.
1.
3.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
68
96
88
39
17
37
21
11
8
16
03
4
4
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
.12
.22
.90
.78
.49
.39
.39
.94
.09
.35
.75
1580
1550
147
1430
1460
1260
1380
1250
1250
1150
710
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
.2
.8
.2
.6
.7
.7
.8
.1
69
-------
Appendix 6. Invertebrates found in Wulik River Drainage Before Mining.
Baseline Studies Conducted by EVS (1983).
Oligichaeta
Station Taxa N
Chironomidae
Taxa N
Plecoptera
Taxa N
Ephcmeroptera
Taxa N
Ikalukrok Creek
Station 73
(sampled at
4 locations)
July
August
Station 9
July
Mainstem Red
Station 10
July
August
3
3
2
1
3
2
2
3
2
Dog
1
1
2.5
0.2
7.9
0.7
2
0.2
10.3
1.2
0.4
Creek
0.1
<0.1
9
9
11
10
9
6
7
7
12
9
5
6.5
1.2
14.1
4.2
3
1.5
22.1
14.6
6.4
3.9
0.7
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3.2
0.2
12.3
1.5
3.8
1.7
6.5
0.7
2.2
0.3
0.2
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
2
2.3
0.1
5.5
1.2
1.9
1.0
2.9
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 21
July
August
Station 140
July
August
August
2
2
1
0
2
0.8
4.8
1.5
0
12
6
9
8
6
10
2.4
2.8
1.4
2
5.5
2
2
2
2
0
0.9
9.8
0.1
0.3
9.3
1
1
1
1
3
1.1
7.3
0.4
3
6.3
North Fork Red Dog Creek
July
August
3
3
10.3
9.2
11
13
50.3
6.1
2
3
15.6
4
2
3
24.0
7.5
70
-------
Appendix 6, continued.
Baseline Studies Conducted by Dames and Moore (1983).
Station
Station 10
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Station 9
Non-Insect
Invertebrates
1
11
1
2
17
Chironomidae
1
76
22
14
52
Plecoptera
0
14
2
2
71
Ephemeroptera
1
55
11
4
105
Total
3
156
36
22
245
71
-------
Appendix?. Invertebrate data, 1995.
Sample number
Total number of organisms
Total number of taxa
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Acarina
Nematoda
Tipulidae
Chironomidae
larvae
Chironomidae
pupae
Simulidae
Heptagenidae
Baetidae
Siphloneuridae
Nemouridae
Capniidae
Sample number
Total number of organisms
Total number of taxa
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Acarina
Nematoda
Tipulidae
Chironomidae
larvae
Chironomidae
pupae
Simulidae
Heptagenidae
Baetidae
Siphloneuridae
Nemouridae
Capniidae
Ikalukrok Creek, Station 8
1
1
1
1
2
24
1
24
3
1
1
1
1 exuvia
4
11
4
6
3
1
1
5
0
0
Connie Creek
1
42
3
35
2
4
2
38
1
37
1
1 + lexuvia
3
37
3
1
33
2
1
4
39
3
37
1
1
5
47
3
1
44
1
1
average
7.4
1.4
average
40.6
2.6
maximum
24
4
maximum
47
3
72
-------
Appendix 7, continued.
Sample number
Total number of organisms
Total number of taxa
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Acarina
Nematoda
Tipulidae
Chironomidae
larvae
Chironomidae
pupae
Simulidae
Heptagenidae
Baetidae
Siphloneuridae
Nemouridae
Capniidae
Sample number
Total number of organisms
Total number of taxa
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Acarina
Nematoda
Tipulidae
Chironomidae
larvae
Chironomidae
pupae
Simulidae
Heptagenidae
Baetidae
Siphloneuridae
Nemouridae
Capniidae
Sulfur Creek
1
74
2
70
3
1
2
12
2
7
5
1 exuvia
3
57
2
56
1
exuvia
4
20
1
20
5
20
1
20
Rachael Creek
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1 adul
3
1
1
4
0
0
1 adult
1 exuvia
5
0
0
average
36.6
1.6
average
0.6
0.6
maximum
74
2
maximum
1
1
73
-------
Appendix 7, continued.
Sample number
Total number of organisms
Total number of taxa
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Acarina
Nematoda
Tipulidae
Chironomidae
larvae
Chironomidae
pupae
Simulidae
Heptagenidae
Baetidae
Siphloneuridae
Nemouridae
Capniidae
Sample number
Total number of organisms
Total number of taxa
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Acarina
Nematoda
Tipulidae
Chironomidae
larvae
Chironomidae
pupae
Simulidae
Heptagenidae
Baetidae
Siphloneuridae
Nemouridae
Capniidae
Red Dog Creek, Station 1 1
1
0
0
2
1
1
1pupa
3
0
0
4
1
1
1
5
0
0
North Fork Red Dog Creek
1
14
6
1
3
1
1
2
6
2
40
5
3
30
2
3
2
1
3
24
7
1
1
12
2
1p
4
2
1
4
26
6
4
2
1p
14
2
1
2
5
26
3
2
12
2
10
average
0.4
0.4
average
26
5.4
maximum
1
1
maximum
40
7
74
-------
Appendix 7, continued.
Sample number
Total number of organisms
Total number of taxa
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Acarina
Nematoda
Tipulidae
Chironomidae
larvae
Chironomidae
pupae
Simulidae
Heptagenidae
Baetidae
Siphloneuridae
Nemouridae
Capniidae
Sample number
Total number of organisms
Total number of taxa
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Acarina
Nematoda
Tipulidae
Chironomidae
larvae
Chironomidae
pupae
Simulidae
Heptagenidae
Baetidae
Siphloneuridae
Nemouridae
Capniidae
Red Dog Creek, Station 140
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
1 exuvia
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
Red Dog Creek, Station 20
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
4
0
0
5
0
0
average
0.2
0
average
1
0.6
maximum
1
0
maximum
3
1
75
-------
Appendix 7, concluded.
Sample number
Total number of organisms
Total number of taxa
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Acarina
Nematoda
Tipulidae
Chironomidae
larvae
Chironomidae
pupae
Simulidae
Heptagenidae
Baetidae
Siphloneuridae
Nemouridae
Capniidae
Sample number
Total number of organisms
Total number of taxa
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Acarina
Nematoda
Tipulidae
Chironomidae
larvae
Chironomidae
pupae
Simulidae
Heptagenidae
Baetidae
Siphloneuridae
Nemouridae
Capniidae
Red Dog Creek, Station 10
1
2
1
2
2
5
3
3
1 Tipula
1
3
13
1
12
1
1 exuvia
4
0
0
5
0
0
Shelley Creek
1
4
1
4
2
3
1
2
1 exuvia
1
3
4
2
2
1a
1
4
7
2
5
2
5
3
1
3
2 exuvia
average
4
1
average
4.2
1.4
maximum
13
3
maximum
7
2
76
-------
Appendix 8. Estimates of Chlorophyll-a, 1995.
Periphyton samples were collected and analyzed by ADF&G according to methods
presented in the text.
Creek
Ikalukrok Creek
Ikalukrok Creek
Ikalukrok Creek
Ikalukrok Creek
Ikalukrok Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Sulfur Creek
Sulfur Creek
Sulfur Creek
Sulfur Creek
Sulfur Creek
Station
Number
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 1 1
Station 1 1
Station 1 1
Station 1 1
Station 1 1
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
ug/cm
chlorophyll-a
0.155
-------
Appendix 8, concluded.
Creek
Shelly Creek
Shelly Creek
Shelly Creek
Shelly Creek
Shelly Creek
Connie Creek
Connie Creek
Connie Creek
Connie Creek
Connie Creek
Rachael Creek
Rachael Creek
Rachael Creek
Rachael Creek
Rachael Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Station ug/cm
Number chlorophyll-a
0.041
0.136
0.064
0.078
-------
Appendix 9. Common and Scientific Names of Fish from
Wulik River Drainage
Arctic grayling
slimy sculpin
Dolly Varden
humpback whitefish
round whitefish
least cisco
Bering cisco
Alaska blackfish
chum salmon
pink salmon
sockeye salmon
coho salmon
chinook salmon
ninespine stickleback
Thymallus arcticus
Cottus cognatus
Salvelinus malma
Coregonus pidschian
Prosopium cylindraceum
Coregonus sardinella
Coregonus laurettae
Dallia pectoralis
Oncorhynchus keta
O. gorbuscha
O. nerka
O. kisutch
O. tshawytscha
Pungitius pungitius
79
-------
Appendix 10. Overwintering Adult Dolly Varden in the Wulik River.
Fish were aerial surveyed by ADF&G before freeze up. Data on fish surveys are
presented in Weber Scannell and Ott (1995). All surveys were conducted by A. DeCicco,
ADF&G.
Year
Wulik River
upstream of
Ikalukrok Creek
Wulik River
downstream of
Ikalukrok Creek
Total Fish
Percent of Fish
downstream of
Ikalukrok Creek
1979
1980
1981
1982
1984
1987
1988
1989
1991
1992
1993
1994
3,305
12,486
4,125
2,300
370
893
1500
2,110
7,930
750
7,650
415
51,725
101,067
97,136
63,197
30,483
60,397
78,644
54,274
119,055
134,385
136,488
66,337
55,030
113,553
101,261
65,497
30,853
61,290
80,144
56,384
126,985
135,135
144,138
66,752
94
89
96
97
99
99
98
96
94
99
95
99
80
-------
Appendix 11. Water quality and metals data, 1979-1983.
Water Quality Data, before mining.
Station
Wulik River
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
DATE
6/19/81
7/16/81
8/14/81
9/6/81
3/17/82
6/1/82
7/9/82
8/10/82
9/12/82
10/16/82
Source
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
hard.
mg/L
113
118
103
183
200
Ikalukrok Creek at Dudd Creek
Station 07
Station 07
Station 07
Station 07
Station 07
Station 07
6/18/81
9/7/81
7/9/82
8/11/82
9/12/82
10/17/82
Ikalukrok Creek
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
3/19/82
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/10/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/11/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
96
179
TDS
mg/L
147
166
174
128
SO4
Ikalukrok Creek below Red Dog Creek
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
8/11/81
9/4/81
3/21/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
146
167
720
174
635
PH
7.7
7.4
7.6
6.7
7.1
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.5
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.9
7.5
7.7
7.1
7.7
6.9
7.7
7.3
D.O.
mg/L
11.7
12.0
11.5
9.9
12.9
10.3
11.2
12.7
13.9
11.3
9.3
11.8
12.8
12.6
0.6
9.6
11.4
13.2
12.4
11.2
11.0
2.3
Cond.
237
291
320
111
219
264
275
230
300
216
268
293
320
1050
189
264
282
230
292
940
Flow
cfs
800.0
1 700.0
2100.0
650.0
2700.0
800.0
500.0
600.0
190.0
110.0
175.0
118.0
135.0
45.0
1 550.0
108.0
100.0
28.0
140.0
110.0
81
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Water Quality Data, before mining.
Station
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
DATE
5/30/82
7/8/82
7/8/82
8/12/82
9/13/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
10/19/82
5/28/83
6/15/83
6/15/83
7/10/83
8/3/83
9/3/83
7/18/81
Source
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
P&N
P&N
P&N
P&N
P&N
P&N
D&M
hard.
mg/L
28
96
155
145
194
79
TDS
mg/L
124
SO4
62
36
72
114
Ikalukrok Creek above Red Dog Creek
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
6/17/81
7/16/81
8/11/81
9/4/81
3/19/82
5/30/82
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/8/82
7/8/82
7/14/82
7/21/82
7/22/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/7/82
8/12/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
90
93
142
163
290
34
85
85
92
123
127
121
121
109
87
105
106
111
133
115
123
163
284
30
PH
6.1
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.1
7.5
7.2
7.5
7.1
6.0
7.8
7.8
D.O.
mg/L
13.7
10.0
11.6
13.5
11.8
12.1
11.7
11.3
11.7
0.2
13.9
9.8
11.5
Cond.
233
200
499
286
440
179
192
285
430
243
188
480
Flow
cfs
300.0
162.0
105.0
100.0
100.0
15.0
280.0
89.0
75.0
80.0
80.0
310.0
110.0
230.0
98.0
82.0
170.0
245.0
245.0
132.0
132.0
100.0
70.0
100.0
190.0
190.0
250.0
1260.0
360.0
460.0
365.0
135.0
78.0
82
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Water Quality Data, before mining.
Station
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
DATE
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
5/28/83
6/15/83
7/10/83
8/3/83
9/3/83
Source
EVS
CL
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
P&N
P&N
P&N
P&N
P&N
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
6/17/81
7/17/81
8/11/81
9/4/81
3/19/82
3/21/82
5/30/82
5/30/82
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/8/82
7/8/82
7/14/82
7/14/82
7/21/82
7/21/82
7/22/82
7/22/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/29/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
hard.
mg/L
123
152
110
143
176
86
99
156
184
21
93
107
147
137
155
140
151
119
!
TDS
mg/L
159
175
198
232
876
24
9
158
SO4
60
76
69.6
66.6
46.0
87.0
440.0
7.9
8.8
68.0
PH
7.9
7.8
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.4
6.7
6.1
7.0
D.O.
mg/L
13.5
12.9
11.7
10.7
10.9
0.3
13.5
9.2
Cond.
280
370
233
341
1090
154
236
Flow
cfs
100.0
78.0
770.0
73.0
11.0
200.0
67.0
50.0
60.0
60.0
32.0
76.0
35.0
28.0
123.0
50.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
22.0
26.0
27.0
32.0
126.0
58.0
83
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Water Quality Data, before mining.
Station
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 1 0
DATE
7/30/82
7/30/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/1/82
8/7/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
10/19/82
Source
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
hard.
mg/L
117
98
107
127
142
107
144
227
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
6/15/78
5/31/82
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/8/82
7/8/82
7/14/82
7/14/82
7/21/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/29/82
7/30/82
7/30/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
W&O
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
59
64
109
110
103
105
107
81
75
70
TDS
mg/L
207
210
286
SO4
75.0
102.0
124.0
PH
7.3
7.3
7.0
D.O.
mg/L
11.5
13.0
10.6
Cond.
492
315
450
Flow
cfs
66.0
108.0
80.0
36.0
27.0
32.0
80.0
27.0
3.2
3.2
(upstream of North Fork Red D
66
5.7
6.6
14.2
9.7
28
181
55.0
14.0
15.0
8.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
54.0
20.0
22.0
36.0
84
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Water Quality Data, before mining.
Station
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
DATE
8/1/82
8/1/82
8/7/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/1 3/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
10/19/82
Source
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
hard.
mg/L
75
90
93
93
96
145
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
6/17/81
7/17/81
8/12/81
9/5/81
5/31/82
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/8/82
7/8/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/29/82
7/30/82
7/30/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/1/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
129
68
134
134
155
85
84
94
88
77
TDS
mg/L
131
170
262
287
S04
108
149
120
174
95
pH
6.9
66
6.8
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.3
6.5
D.O.
mg/L
11.0
12.1
11.6
11.4
11.6
13.3
14.2
10.4
Cond.
525
265
390
237
374
63
220
Flow
cfs
29.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
76.0
12.0
1.6
27.0
8.2
6.1
22.0
8.9
85
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Water Quality Data, before mining.
Station
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
DATE
8/13/82
8/13/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
10/19/82
Source
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
hard.
mg/L
90
201
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/29/82
7/30/82
7/30/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/1/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
6/17/81
7/17/81
8/12/81
9/4/81
5/31/82
7/7/82
7/23/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
EVS
68
134
134
155
85
84
94
88
77
90
94
39
188
IDS
mg/L
187
183
210
SO4
196
324
50.0
pH
6.2
6.5
5.8
6.7
6.1
5.9
5.8
6.1
6.6
6.5
6.7
6.5
6.3
7.0
7.0
7.7
6.0
7.5
D.O.
mg/L
11.1
11.2
11.2
11.9
11.2
10.9
14.4
11.3
Cond.
276
383
650
275
373
44
255
Flow
cfs
14.0
5.6
1.3
54.0
34.0
17.0
66.0
20.0
16.0
86
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Water Quality Data, before mining.
Station
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
DATE
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/29/82
7/30/82
7/30/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/1/82
8/7/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
Source
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
hard.
mg/L
180
180
70
98
49
58
65
94
201
155
85
179
217
TDS
mg/L
SO4
87.5
98.0
PH
7.8
7.8
7.5
D.O.
mg/L
11.2
12.6
9.5
Cond.
591
352
450
Flow
cfs
16.0
18.0
74.0
34.0
54.0
76.0
53.0
19.0
15.0
16.0
92.0
14.0
8.1
87
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Metals Concentrations before Mine Development
Station
Wulik River
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
Station 02
DATE
6/19/81
7/16/81
8/14/81
9/6/81
3/17/82
6/1/82
7/9/82
8/10/82
9/1 2/82
10/16/82
Source
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
Report*
D
D
D
D
D
T
T
T
T
T
Ikalukrok Creek at Dudd Creek
Station 07
Station 07
Station 07
Station 07
Station 07
Station 07
6/18/81
9/7/81
7/9/82
8/11/82
9/12/82
10/17/82
Ikalukrok Creek
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
3/19/82
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/10/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/11/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
D
D
T
T
T
T
D
T
D
T
T
D
T
D
T
T
D
T
T
Al
mg/L
<
<
<
<
<
D = dissolved metals, T = total metals, TR = total recoverable metals.
Cd
mg/L
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.008
0.006
0.000
0.009
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.007
0.012
0.010
0.004
0.008
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.012
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.007
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.006
Cu
mg/L
<
<
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.009
0.017
0.007
0.000
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.001
0.045
0.041
0.002
0.001
Zn
mg/L
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.34
0.29
0.21
0.34
0.48
0.28
3.00
0.86
0.71
0.35
1.18
1.10
1.44
1.42
0.68
1.80
1.74
0.86
0.70
88
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Metals Concentrations before Mine Development
Station
DATE
Source
Report*
Al
mg/L
Ikalukrok Creek below Red Dog Creek
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
8/11/81
9/4/81
3/21/82
5/30/82
7/8/82
7/8/82
8/12/82
9/13/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
10/19/82
5/28/83
6/15/83
6/15/83
7/10/83
8/3/83
9/3/83
7/18/81
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
P&N
P&N
P&N
P&N
P&N
P&N
D&M
D
D
D
T
T
D
T
D.
T
T
D
T
D
T
T
T
T
D
0.02
0.02
0.14
0.17
0.02
0.14
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.08
Ikalukrok Creek above Red Dog Creek
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
6/17/81
7/16/81
8/11/81
9/4/81
3/19/82
5/30/82
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/8/82
7/8/82
7/14/82
7/21/82
7/22/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/31/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D
D
D
D
D
T
T
D
T
T
D
T
0.02
<
<
0.02
<
<
<
<
Cd
mg/L
0.007
0.008
0.034
0.001
0.016
0.014
0.025
0.019
0.020
0.038
0.034
0.004
0.002
0.004
0.007
0.004
0.014
0.010
0.002
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.025
0.025
0.025
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.002
0.002
0.022
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.004
<
<
<
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.000
0.010
0.001
0.009
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.028
0.002
0.002
0.006
0.005
0.014
0.002
0.010
0.026
0.013
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.080
0.080
0.080
<
Zn
mg/L
0.77
0.76
0.48
0.17
0.71
0.72
1.66
2.25
1.74
4.20
4.10
0.38
0.41
0.44
0.30
0.26
0.94
0.97
0.095
0.014
0.018
0.006
0.143
0.026
2.300
0.015
0.013
0.023
0.029
0.028
89
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Metals Concentrations before Mine Development
Station
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
Station 09
DATE
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/7/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
5/28/83
6/1 5/83
7/10/83
8/3/83
9/3/83
Source
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
CL
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
P&N
P&N
P&N
P&N
P&N
Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 1 0
Station 10
Station 1 0
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
6/17/81
7/17/81
8/11/81
9/4/81
3/19/82
3/21/82
5/30/82
5/30/82
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/8/82
7/8/82
7/14/82
7/14/82
7/21/82
7/21/82
7/22/82
7/22/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
Report*
D
D
T
T
D
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
D
D
D
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D.
T
D
T
D
D
T
T
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.13
0.23
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.02
1.19
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.37
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.50
0.62
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.54
0.19
<
<
<
<
<
Cd
mg/L
0.025
0.020
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.022
0.025
0.026
0.038
0.095
0.098
0.002
0.002
0.026
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.029
0.027
0.031
0.032
0.035
0.035
0.034
0.034
0.040
0.038
0.035
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.008
0.004
0.009
0.012
0.002
0.005
0.001
0.008
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.009
0.002
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.002
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.080
0.002
0.000
0.008
0.080
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.007
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.028
0.012
0.065
0.065
0.008
0.002
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
Zn
mg/L
0.023
1.660
0.023
0.075
0.054
0.025
0.032
0.032
0.031
0.017
0.012
0.020
3.90
3.44
3.47
4.03
13.00
9.20
0.66
0.57
3.00
2.65
3.32
3.23
3.71
3.70
4.18
4.11
4.68
4.50
4.28
4.04
4.54
4.80
4.73
90
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Metals Concentrations before Mine Development
Station
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 1 0
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
Station 10
DATE
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/29/82
7/30/82
7/30/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/1/82
8/7/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
10/19/82
Source
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
Report*
D
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
D
T
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
6/15/78
5/31/82
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/8/82
7/8/82
7/14/82
7/14/82
7/21/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/29/82
W&O
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
T
T
D
T
D
T
D
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
D
T
D
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.15
0.38
0.42
0.15
0.63
0.48
0.64
0.15
0.55
0.15
0.32
0.05
0.15
0.15
0.61
0.18
1.01
0.21
0.02
0.04
0.91
0.08
0.07
0.67
0.23
0.15
0.83
0.15
0.86
0.15
0.86
0.15
0.24
0.68
0.15
<
<
<
<
<
<
Cd
mg/L
0.036
0.025
0.028
0.027
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.026
0.026
0.036
0.034
0.041
0.025
0.020
0.017
0.038
0.034
0.041
0.044
0.020
0.055
0.050
0.078
0.077
0.099
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.100
0.099
0.095
0.094
0.092
0.046
0.078
0.078
Cu
mg/L
0.019
0.002
0.002
0.007
0.016
0.010
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.100
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.002
0.080
0.080
0.060
0.056
0.083
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.084
0.130
0.053
0.074
0.007
0.150
0.110
0.080
0.360
0.080
0.350
0.080
0.360
0.099
0.093
0.200
0.080
Zn
mg/L
4.76
2.45
3.68
3.50
2.87
2.59
2.81
2.73
3.29
3.29
4.29
4.23
5.06
2.06
2.67
2.50
3.81
3.46
4.30
4.58
2.63
8.33
7.54
9.40
8.90
15.00
13.70
16.20
15.60
15.10
13.40
12.70
13.40
12.90
5.88
10.40
10.20
91
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Metals Concentrations before Mine Development
Station
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
Station 20
DATE
7/30/82
7/30/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/1/82
8/7/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
10/19/82
Source
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
Report*
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
T
T
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
6/17/81
7/17/81
8/12/81
9/5/81
5/31/82
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/8/82
7/8/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
Station 30 7/26/82
Station 30 7/29/82
Station 30 7/29/82
Station 30
Station 30
7/30/82
7/30/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D
D
D
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.63
0.16
0.41
0.15
0.48
0.15
0.62
0.54
0.51
0.59
0.21
0.52
0.05
1.60
0.44
0.30
2.31
1.50
1.27
0.31
1.34
0.94
0.17
0.15
1.02
0.60
0.64
0.50
Cd
mg/L
0.064
0.062
0.060
0.059
0.068
0.069
0.120
0.119
0.064
0.120
0.057
0.043
0.047
0.107
0.104
0.140
0.137
0.088
0.110
0.184
0.182
0.091
0.084
0.115
0.114
0.210
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.180
0.940
0.078
0.075
0.140
0.140
0.120
0.130
Cu
mg/L
0.025
0.008
0.005
0.007
0..0130
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.290
0.110
0.180
0.080
0.170
0.080
0.220
0.266
0.188
0.310
0.180
0.170
0.140
0.097
0.002
0.021
0.017
0.005
0.248
0.009
0.003
0.240
0.230
0.257
0.169
1.110
0.870
0.650
0.640
0.990
0.880
0.110
0.080
0.350
0.350
0.400
0.190
Zn
mg/L
8.36
8.34
8.12
8.00
8.79
8.67
14.50
13.70
7.25
15.20
7.51
5.93
5.90
9.91
9.82
16.50
16.40
12.40
12.60
23.60
12.90
13.40
12.40
15.90
15.50
28.50
27.40
26.70
26.10
25.80
24.30
10.50
10.40
18.60
17.90
16.70
16.60
92
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Metals Concentrations before Mine Development
Station
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
Station 30
DATE
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/1/82
8/13/82
8/13/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/1 3/82
9/13/82
1 0/1 9/82
10/19/82
Source
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
Report*
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
Station 140
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/29/82
7/30/82
7/30/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/1/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
North Fork Red Dog Creek
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
6/17/81
7/17/81
8/12/81
9/4/81
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
D
D
D
D
<
Al
mg/L
0.76
0.53
0.69
0.48
0.40
0.95
0.24
1.25
0.72
1.60
0.44
2.31
1.50
1.27
0.81
1.34
0.94
0.17
0.15
1.02
0.60
0.64
0.50
0.76
0.53
0.69
0.48
0.95
0.24
Cd
mg/L
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.141
0.137
0.075
0.071
0.213
0.210
0.481
0.445
0.091
0.084
0.210
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.180
0.170
0.078
0.075
0.140
0.140
0.120
0.130
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.075
0.071
0.005
0.003
0.009
0.002
Cu
mg/L
0.028
0.019
0.007
<
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.320
0.340
0.310
0.310
0.253
0.007
0.270
0.190
0.278
0.014
0.462
0.412
0.240
0.230
1.110
0.870
0.650
0.640
0.990
0.880
0.110
0.080
0.350
0.350
0.400
0.190
0.320
0.340
0.310
0.310
0.270
0.190
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Zn
mg/L
14.20
14.00
14.80
14.60
15.80
15.10
9.12
9.06
22.40
22.20
49.80
49.20
13.40
12.40
28.50
27.40
26.70
26.10
25.80
24.30
10.50
10.40
18.60
17.90
16.70
16.60
14.20
14.00
14.80
14.60
9.12
9.06
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.01
93
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
Metals Concentrations before Mine Development
Station
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
DATE
5/31/82
7/7/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/29/82
7/30/82
7/30/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/1/82
8/7/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/12/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
10/19/82
Source
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
Report*
T
T
T
D
T
D
T
D
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
T
T
D
T
D
T
T
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.02
0.02
0.21
0.15
0.35
0.15
0.29
0.15
0.15
0.32
0.15
0.55
0.16
0.26
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.41
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.34
0.15
0.31
0.02
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Cd
mg/L
0.000
0.002
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.002
0.025
0.025
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
Cu
mg/L
0.003
0.002
0.013
0.005
0.006
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.001
0.001
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.002
0.080
0.080
0.008
0.001
0.001
0.001
<
<
<
<
<
<
Zn
mg/L
0.08
0.01
0.07
0.02
0.37
0.15
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.03
0.11
0.06
0.01
0.02
94
-------
Appendix 11, continued.
DATE
REF.
Report
Sulfur Creek, Station 34
7/15/81
8/11/81
9/4/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D
D
D
Shelly Creek, Station 38
9/4/81
7/7/82
8/13/82
9/13/82
10/20/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D
T
T
T
T
Connie Creek, Station 40
9/4/81
3/23/82
7/7/82
8/13/82
9/13/82
10/20/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
D.
D
T
T
T
T
Rachael Creek, Station 47
7/7/82
8/13/82
9/13/82
10/20/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
D&M
T
T
T
T
Cd
mg/L
0.008
0.005
0.007
0.013
0.019
0.006
0.021
0.028
0.013
0.002
0.012
0.011
0.005
0.021
0.008
0.002
0.002
0.002
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 45
6/15/81
8/11/81
9/4/81
7/6/82
7/6/82
7/7/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/23/82
7/24/82
D&M
D&M
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D
D
D
T
D
T
T
D
T
D
T
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
0.011
0.008
0.006
0.001
0.001
0.010
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
<
<
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.0719
0.2650
0.0481
0.0037
0.0220
0.0099
0.0256
0.0801
0.0041
0.0021
0.0181
0.0213
0.0158
0.0267
0.0006
0.0034
0.0005
0.0010
0.0010
0.0032
0.0010
0.0020
0.0020
0.0006
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
Zn
mg/L
0.188
0.970
1.167
0.694
0.613
0.340
0.910
2.310
0.222
0.002
0.201
0.761
0.756
2.420
0.061
0.079
0.142
0.100
1.700
0.284
0.213
0.053
0.039
0.045
0.370
0.089
0.069
0.036
0.051
95
-------
Appendix 11, concluded.
DATE
REF.
Report
Cd
mg/L
Pb
mg/L
Middle Fork Red Dog Creek, Station 45, continued
7/24/82
7/26/82
7/29/82
7/29/82
7/30/82
7/30/82
7/31/82
7/31/82
8/1/82
8/1/82
8/13/82
8/14/82
8/14/82
9/13/82
10/20/82
9/4/81
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
EVS
D&M
EVS
EVS
D&M
D&M
D&M
D
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
D
T
T
D
T
T
D
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.021
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
0.0800
0.0008
0.0040
0.0010
0.0009
0.0004
0.0152
Zn
mg/L
0.049
0.120
0.088
0.058
0.088
0.055
0.078
0.055
0.086
0.066
0.028
0.200
0.150
0.075
0.034
0.682
96
-------
Appendix 12. Water quality and metals data, 1991-1995.
Ikalukrok Creek: Station 8 and Station 73
Water Quality
Station
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Date
8/3/91
8/8/91
8/9/91
8/13/91
8/16/91
8/19/91
8/24/91
8/27/91
8/29/91
10/2/91
10/5/91
5/27/92
6/10/92
6/16/92
6/24/92
7/2/92
7/2/92
7/8/92
7/8/92
7/15/92
7/15/92
7/18/92
7/18/92
7/22/92
7/22/92
7/25/92
7/25/92
7/29/92
7/29/92
9/2/92
9/5/92
9/9/92
9/12/92
Station 08 9/16/92
Station 08 9/22/92
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
9/26/92
9/30/92
10/3/92
10/10/92
10/15/92
6/3/93
6/10/93
6/20/93
6/24/93
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
143
252
269
179
164
200
270
174
179
174
181
277
53.1
54.3
77
107
107
126
126
168
168
154
154
224
224
241
241
392
392
162
237
333
273
344
389
356
476
798
472
262
55.9
78.3
92.5
126
TDS
mg/L
174
384
406
257
299
280
369
221
232
261
251
429
64
73
95
134
134
165
165
209
209
201
201
311
311
337
337
548
548
201
312
431
376
461
540
500
699
1040
623
328
68
101
98
161
SO4
mg/L
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
TSS
mg/L
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
26
56
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
18
5
5
5
pH
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.4
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.3
5.7
7.4
6.2
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.0
8.2
7.6
8.2
8.2
8.1
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.7
7.8
7.1
Temp.
°C
11.2
6.6
5.7
10.0
11.5
10.7
5.8
5.1
4.3
2
-0.2
2.6
0.2
2.4
7.6
9.6
9.6
12.3
12.3
8.7
8.7
11.2
11.2
9.3
9.3
11.2
11.2
13.6
13.6
5.2
4.7
1.4
0.6
0.3
0
0
0
-0.5
0
0.1
3
7
11
11
D.O.
mg/L
10.6
11.1
12.9
13.6
10.3
12.8
13.1
13.2
12.0
13
15**
4
7.9
10.6
16.2"
8.9
8.9
10.2
10.2
8.3
8.3
7.6
7.6
8.6
8.6
12.1
12.1
9.2
9.2
13.2
7.3
6.5
12.8
14.8**
10.8
12.0
11.5
10.4
20
16
8.4
9.6
Turb
NTU
0.6
0.9
1.3
1.4
0.4
0.7
1.3
0.4
0.7
0.9
2.9
20
2.7
1.30
0.45
0.34
0.47
0.35
—
0.60
0.53
0.35
0.27
0.3
0.5
0.25
0.46
0.3
0.24
0.38
0.33
9.2
16
0.9
0.8
Cond
576
320
497
310
215
215
440
376
0.844
0.110
0.118
0.163
0.202
0.268
0.351
0.331
0.440
0.485
0.783
0.330
0.446
0.555
0.584
0.667
0.630
0.330
0.980
1.350
0.890
0.510
50
127
178
250
Flow, cfs
1.30
0.45
0.34
0.47
0.35
—
0.60
97
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Ikalukrok Creek: Station 8 and Station 73
Water Quality
Station
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Date
6/29/93
7/9/93
7/1 8/93
7/24/93
8/1/93
8/12/93
8/21/93
8/28/93
9/4/93
9/8/93
9/12/93
9/20/93
10/10/93
5/18/94
5/22/94
6/2/94
6/9/94
6/22/94
6/26/94
6/28/94
7/3/94
7/13/94
7/19/94
7/27/94
Station 73 | 8/5/94
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
8/11/94
8/15/94
8/23/94
9/1/94
9/9/94
9/13/94
9/22/94
9/25/94
10/2/94
10/17/94
5/20/95
5/25/95
5/30/95
6/3/95
6/4/95
6/11/95
Station 73 ! 6/13/95
Station 73 6/18/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
135
101
127
159
191
168
172
183
43.2
54.3
98.6
83.2
148
131
135
117
111
116
223
134
98.1
103
121
175
216
274
304
430
498
391
121
82.5
100
120
183
TDS
mg/L
144
125
176
182
187
181
171
229
205
200
213
188
204
57
72
136
96
181
153
168
133
143
142
144
166
109
123
166
252
307
377
386
557
658
627
159
122
130
157
260
164
254
190
304
mg/L
19
21
50
34
68
53
59
40
40
34
42
58
27
41
57
110
140
200
190
180
400
290
93
60
64
79
130
96
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
TSS
mg/L
5
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
16
22
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
41
17
6
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
5
5
PH
6.7
7.5
7.7
8.2
7.8
7.4
8.1
8
7.9
8
7.7
7.4
7.8
7.4
7.4
7.7
7.2
8.2
7.9
8.1
8
7.2
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.6
7.2
7.7
Temp.
°C
10
6
15
13.5
6.7
5
11
7
4
4
5.5
4.5
2
2
1
4
7.3
6.5
8.4
2.9
3.9
4
7.9
7.7
7.4
4.3
2.5
4
4
4
3.9
1
1
1
0
2
3
4
1
3
4
D.O.
mg/L
9.5
13.4
11.8
10.2
11.2
11.1
12.5
8.1
12.3
12.8
12.4
11.5
9.1
9.5
7.5
9.5
10.4
9.4
9.9
9.9
12.2
12.2
12.4
11.8
11.1
8.6
11.6
12.6
13.2
12.8
12.7
13
14.5
Turb
NTU
0.5
2
0.4
0.2
0.56
0.24
0.64
0.38
0.3
1.1
5.4
8.7
1.1
1.5
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
3
0.8
1.3
9.9
15
0.6
4.3
2.4
2.3
2.6
1.5
1
1
0.8
2.2
2.7
1.85
2.48
Cond
267
223
270
295
420
285
262
366
327
361
286
177
143
247
280
220
197
222
241
210
197
209
253
250
431
518
548
642
690
790
261
372
267
289
Flow, cfs
131.5
248.3
1083
1145
218
571
106
135
120
179
575
348
361
98
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Ikalukrok Creek: Station 8 and Station 73
Water Quality
Station
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Date
6/25/95
6/27/95
6/29/95
7/2/95
7/10/95
7/16/95
8/6/95
8/16/95
8/22/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
196
99.2
292
129
666
184
609
TDS
mg/L
264
118
414
681
906
209
877
SO4
mg/L
42
250
400
590
100
560
<
TSS
mg/L
5
PH
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.9
Temp.
°C
5.5
6.1
7
7
10
9.6
8.7
10.6
D.O.
mg/L
14.5
12.9
Turb
NTU
1.18
1.21
Cond
420
442
Flow, cfs
99
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Ikalukrok Creek: Station 8 and Station 73
Station
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Date
8/3/91
8/8/91
8/9/91
8/13/91
8/16/91
8/19/91 I
8/24/91
8/27/91
8/29/91
10/2/91
10/5/91
5/27/92
6/10/92
6/16/92
6/24/92
7/2/92
7/2/92
7/8/92
7/8/92
7/15/92
7/15/92
7/18/92
7/18/92
7/22/92
7/22/92
7/25/92
7/25/92
7/29/92
7/29/92
9/2/92
9/5/92
9/9/92
9/12/92
9/16/92
9/22/92
9/26/92
9/30/92
10/3/92
10/10/92
10/15/92
6/3/93
6/10/93
6/20/93
6/24/93
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.45
0.73
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.28
0.06
0.05
0.05
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Cd
mg/L
0.011
0.022
0.018
0.040
0.007
0.012
0.014
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.018
0.018
0.003
0.006
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.022
0.022
0.006
0.007
0.01
0.007
0.011
0.01
0.011
0.019
0.024
0.014
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<
Fe
mg/L
0.020
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.06
1.04
2.38
0.164
0.079
0.079
0.023
0.023
0.049
0.049
0.047
0.047
0.118
0.118
0.046
0.046
0.064
0.064
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.069
0.05
0.046
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.009
0.015
0.011
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.009
0.008
0.005
0.007
0.023
0.088
0.005
0.094
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.012
0.007
0.006
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.009
0.004
0.003
0.002
Zn
mg/L
1.900
3.610
2.700
1.420
1.070
1.540
1.920
1.610
1.630
1.570
2.850
2.660
1.100
0.721
0.305
0.484
0.484
0.370
0.370
0.362
0.362
0,344
0.344
0.903
0.903
0.826
0.826
1.950
1.950
0.771
0.914
1.310
1.010
1.240
1.390
1.440
2.230
3.120
1.900
0.790
0.164
0.16
0.143
0.389
100
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Ikalukrok Creek: Station 8 and Station 73
Station
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 08
Station 08
Station 08
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Date
6/29/93
7/9/93
7/18/93
7/24/93
8/1/93
8/12/93
8/21/93
8/28/93
9/4/93
9/8/93
9/12/93
9/20/93
10/10/93
5/18/94
5/22/94
6/2/94
6/9/94
6/22/94
6/26/94
6/28/94
7/3/94
7/13/94
7/19/94
7/27/94
8/5/94
8/11/94
8/15/94
8/23/94
9/1/94
9/9/94
9/13/94
9/22/94
9/25/94
10/2/94
10/17/94
5/20/95
5/25/95
5/30/95
6/3/95
6/4/95
6/11/95
6/13/95
6/18/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.05
0,05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.427
0.423
0.056
0.059
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.094
0.05
0.05
0.058
1.02
0.563
0.334
0.343
0.354
0.295
0.3
0.153
0.134
0.05
0.967
1.06
0.299
0.208
0.19
0.145
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Cd
mg/L
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.01
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.004
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.00332
0.00483
0.00303
0.00398
0.00379
<
<
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00442
0.0045
0.00322
0.0029
0.0034
<
Fe
mg/L
0.179
0.052
0.02
0.054
0.06
0.056
0.081
0.096
0.954
0.978
0.138
0.148
0.049
0.035
0.073
0.099
0.263
0.085
0.225
0.107
1.5
0.872
0.86
0.812
0.617
0.643
0.359
0.303
0.387
0.098
0.661
0.67
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.05
0.022
0.003
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.05
0.022
0.01
0.002
0.006
0.005
0.033
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.008
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.095
0.106
0.03
0.0081
0.00565
0.00267
0.00487
0.00555
Zn
mg/L
0.233
0.151
0.15
0.156
0.154
0.216
0.169
0.239
0.23
0.203
0.279
0.208
0.282
0.416
0.275
0.212
0.153
0.206
0.168
0.183
0.134
0.467
0.135
0.338
0.232
0.282
0.31
1.19
0.672
0.841
0.788
0.432
0.791
0.865
0.577
1.71
1.29
1.11
0.434
0.619
0.39
0.537
0.46
101
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Ikalukrok Creek: Station 8 and Station 73
Station
Station 73
Station 73
Station 73
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Station 8
Date
6/25/95
6/27/95
6/29/95
7/2/95
7/10/95
7/16/95
8/6/95
8/16/95
8/22/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.112
0.152
0.105
0.05
0.057
0.145
0.067
Cd
mg/L
0.00433
0.0055
0.00377
0.00078
0.0125
0.0152
0.0185
0.00069
0.0198
Cu
mg/L
0.0029
0.004
0.003
0.0024
0.0035
0.0031
0.0021
0.003
0.0016
Fe
mg/L
0.286
Pb
mg/L
0.00367
0.00377
0.00354
0.00135
0.0115
0.00881
0.00718
0.00058
0.00831
Zn
mg/L
0.593
0.648
0.509
0.138
1.73
1.56
1.95
0.14
2.01
102
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 10, Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Water Quality
Date
8/3/91
8/8/91
8/9/91
8/13/91
8/16/91
8/19/91
8/24/91
8/26/91
8/27/91
8/29/91
10/2/91
10/5/91
10/8/91
5/27/92
6/10/92
6/16/92
6/24/92
7/2/92
7/8/92
7/1 5/92
7/18/92
7/22/92
7/25/92
7/29/92
8/1/92
8/5/92
8/8/92
8/12/92
8/15/92
8/17/92
8/22/92
8/29/92
9/2/92
9/5/92
9/9/92
9/12/92
9/16/92
9/22/92
9/26/92
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
179
347
398
344
269
190
563
242
233
221
181
245
227
64.7
52.7
97.4
130
162
293
219
394
472
619
709
828
742
240
329
342
199
344
192
331
446
489
749
761
713
IDS
mg/L
237
546
621
552
352
610
831
346
329
207
235
331
331
91
67
123
173
205
431
302
564
675
937
1060
1230
994
346
438
195
232
505
237
447
618
689
1100
1140
1070
SO4
mg/L
pH : Temp.
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.1
6.8
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.3
7.5
6.2
7.4
6.1
7.6
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.7
7.9
7.0
7.4
8.0
7.6
7.0
8.1
7.5
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.2
°C
12.7
7.0
6.1
11.7
14.1
13.4
6.0
4.2
3.0
2
-0.2
1.9
0
2
7.9
10.5
12.4
9.7
12.3
10.3
11.9
13.9
13.2
12.4
10.1
5.4
4.4
6.7
6.5
8.2
5.3
5
1.3
1.1
0.1
0
0
D.O.
mg/L
10.9
10.7
11.8
9.9
9.5
12.2
11.5
13.0
12.8
14
14
4.9
9.8
10.2
13.4
9.0
9.9
6.8
7.1
8.0
10.9
8.7
11.0
8.7
9.2
7.3
7.8
9.8
9.7
7.7
12.5
11.3
8.4
12
12.3
Turb
NTU
0.5
1.7
0.7
1.3
0.5
1.0
3.5
0.2
0.6
0.5
1.5
3.4
20
3.7
2.50
0.27
0.36
0.21
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
1.9
0.3
0.65
0.45
0.39
0.3
0.44
0.22
0.46
Cond
665
420
575
600
285
270
542
389
0.547
0.136
0.114
0.202
0.244
0.635
0.470
1.150
1.220
1.420
1.200
0.483
0.512
0.651
0.369
0.680
0.304
0.624
0.767
0.914
1.330
1.400
1.001
Flow, cfs
0.84
0.17
...
103
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 10, Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Water Quality
Date
9/30/92
10/3/92
10/10/92
10/15/92
5/28/93
6/5/93
6/13/93
6/19/93
6/24/93
6/29/93
7/10/93
7/14/93
7/21/93
8/6/93
8/14/93
8/20/93
8/29/93
9/2/93
9/10/93
9/14/93
9/25/93
6/11/94
6/15/94
6/25/94
6/30/94
7/13/94
7/22/94
7/24/94
8/3/94
8/9/94
8/21/94
8/23/94
9/1/94
9/8/94
9/11/94
9/18/94
9/25/94
10/2/94
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
893
1540
900
421
101
136
150
191
132
157
99.3
163
233
119
131
307
416
454
773
1100
1060
TDS
mg/L
1311
1850
1290
533
50
74
103
120
242
369
177
202
227
176
269
256
330
365
233
157
244
131
166
190
253
168
195
127
203
320
168
182
447
583
659
1100
1510
1520
SO4
mg/L
58
84
85
120
59
72
43
93
140
63
64
240
320
400
680
1600
800
pH
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.6
7.2
8.2
6.8
7.2
7
7.9
7.9
7.3
6.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.5
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.3
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.7
Temp.
°C
0
-0.5
0
0.1
1
6
7
12
10
12
10
13
17
5
7
7
7
3
3
5.5
1
5
7.8
10.1
3.8
5
7.5
7.5
6.3
8.6
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
1
D.O.
mg/L
10.4
10.3
11
11.6
11.2
Turb
NTU
0.25
0.37
0.76
0.22
3.4
Cond
1.460
2.090
1.470
0.736
77
Flow, cfs
400
32.7
80.2
285
40.6
135.1
95.8
42.8
240
143
120
97
55
36
104
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 10, Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Water Quality
Date
10/14/94
6/3/95
6/8/95
6/11/95
6/13/95
6/18/95
6/25/95
6/27/95
6/29/95
6/29/95
7/2/95
7/10/95
7/12/95
7/16/95
7/23/95
8/2/95
8/6/95
8/16/95
8/20/95
8/27/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
1040
247
336
580
443
406
675
965
1070
975
TDS
mg/L
1610
171
459
525
688
588
745
824
885
824
664
610
830
1060
1240
1610
1470
1510
1380
1400
SO4
mg/L
1000
210
350
550
410
400
650
1000
940
970
pH
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.8
Temp.
°C
0
3.0
3.0
8.0
6.4
8
8
10
10
10.9
13
10.5
12.8
9.5
10.5
D.O.
mg/L
Turb
NTU
2
3
1
1
1
0
Cond
507
97
638
666
958
1029
812
1206
1499
1775
1719
1790
1769
656
Flow, cfs
105
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 10, Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Metals Concentrations
Date
8/3/91
8/8/91
8/9/91
8/13/91
8/16/91
8/19/91
8/24/91
8/26/91
8/27/91
8/29/91
10/2/91
10/5/91
10/8/91
5/27/92
6/10/92
6/16/92
6/24/92
7/2/92
7/8/92
7/15/92
7/18/92
7/22/92
7/25/92
7/29/92
8/1/92
8/5/92
8/8/92
8/12/92
8/15/92
8/17/92
8/22/92
8/29/92
9/2/92
9/5/92
9/9/92
9/12/92
9/16/92
9/22/92
9/26/92
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.89
0.07
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
<
0.05 l>
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Cd
mg/L
0.034
0.039
0.040
0.040
0.035
0.047
0.042
0.035
0.036
0.028
0.010
0.024
0.017
0.003
0.008
0.006
0.009
0.010
0.020
0.013
0.028
0.032
0.045
0.047
0.060
0.050
0.019
0.020
0.014
0.010
0.016
0.012
0.016
0.015
0.023
0.034
0.037
0.037
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
<;0.01
< 0.01
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Fe
mg/L
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.02
0.020
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.074
0.581
2.98
0.271
0.199
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.032
0.023
0.031
0.048
0.047
0.040
0.064
0.056
0.037
0.289
0.032
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.04
<
<
<
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.027
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.014
0.028
0.028
0.026
0.022
0.015
0.013
0.010
0.386
0.028
0.108
0.015
0.007
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.009
0.007
0.022
0.084
0,017
0.026
0.016
0.012
0.008
0.010
0.002
Zn
mg/L
5.740
6.080
6.360
5.800
5.090
6.540
6.210
5.890
6.050
3.890
1.580
3.460
2.380
0.699
0.822
0.884
1.210
1.060
2.450
1.350
3.110
3.130
4.290
4.770
5.920
5.130
2.270
2.580
1.760
1.420
2.000
1.710
1.890
2.070
2.580
4.060
4.380
4.650
106
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 10, Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Metals Concentrations
Date
9/30/92
10/3/92
1 0/1 0/92
10/15/92
5/28/93
6/5/93
6/13/93
6/19/93
6/24/93
6/29/93
7/10/93
7/14/93
7/21/93
8/6/93
8/14/93
8/20/93
8/29/93
9/2/93
9/10/93
9/14/93
9/25/93
6/11/94
6/15/94
6/25/94
6/30/94
7/13/94
7/22/94
7/24/94
8/3/94
8/9/94
8/21/94
8/23/94
9/1/94
9/8/94
9/11/94
9/18/94
9/25/94
10/2/94
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.31
0.24
0.14
0.05
<
0.05 !
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.061
0.69
0.05
0.108
0.066
0.05
0.175
0.05
0.21
0.232
0.064
0.403
0.263
0.259
0.298
0.19
0.067
0.05
0.05
Cd
mg/L
0.049
0.047
0.043
0.023
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.008
0.013
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.010
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.011
0.009
0.008
0.012
0.008
0.009
0.026
0.016
0.019
0.025
0.026
0.026
0.031
0.023
Cu
mg/L
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
<
0.01
Fe
mg/L
0.04
0.055
0.054
0.039
<
Pb
mg/L
0.004
0.005
0.002
0.005
0.034
0.027
0.017
0.016
0.009
0.008
0.021
0.016
0.004
0.027
0.004
0.010
0.007
0.006
0.012
0.136
0.010
0.028
0.014
0.009
0.01
0.026
0.01
0.07
0.045
0.02
0.045
0.03
0.058
0.045
0.026
0.012
0.005
0.008
Zn
mg/L
5.830
5.840
5.050
2.660
0.463
0.61
0.618
1.06
1.31
0.939
0.896
0.719
1.1
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.09
1.05
0.919
0.791
0.533
0.669
0.779
0.958
1.11
0.746
1.14
1.11
1.05
2.99
2.04
2.16
3.38
3.17
2.78
3.05
2.42
107
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 10, Mainstem Red Dog Creek
Metals Concentrations
Date
10/14/94
6/3/95
6/8/95
6/11/95
6/13/95
6/18/95
6/25/95
6/27/95
6/29/95
6/29/95
7/2/95
7/10/95
7/12/95
7/16/95
7/23/95
8/2/95
8/6/95
8/16/95
8/20/95
8/27/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
TR
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.05
0.073
0.105
0.05
0.072
0.092
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Cd
mg/L
0.029
0.12
0.0124
0.0139
0.0141
0.019
0.0196
0.0176
0.237
0.0176
0.0195
0.0202
0.0249
0.0254
0.0315
0.0308
0.0349
0.0328
0.0353
Cu
mg/L
0.0047
0.0042
0.0034
0.0027
0.0036
0.0034
0.0033
i 0.0037
0.0036
0.0043
0.0043
0.0031
0.002
0.0026
0.0023
0.0016
0.0016
0.0014
Fe
mg/L
0.184
0.237
0.1
0.136
0.066
0.059
0.06
0.057
Pb
mg/L
0.004
0.0337
0.0393
0.0226
0.0181
0.027
0.0202
0.0254
0.0189
0.0249
0.0187
0.0134
0.0165
0.0139
0.016
0.0143
0.0162
0.0131
0.0204
Zn
mg/L
2.55
1.39
1.54
1.43
1.62
1.83
2.34
2.27
2.58
2.05
2.669
2.72
2.55
3.14
3.08
3
3.67
3.31
3.56
108
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 20: Middle Fork of Red Dog Creek
Date
8/5/91
8/6/91
8/15/91
8/18/91
8/23/91
8/26/91
8/28/91
8/29/91
10/1/91
10/4/91
10/7/91
10/10/91
10/16/91
5/27/92
6/9/92
6/16/92
6/23/92
7/2/92
7/9/92
7/11/92
7/15/92
7/18/92
7/22/92
7/25/92
7/29/92
7/31/92
8/3/92
8/6/92
8/12/92
8/15/92
8/18/92
8/22/92
8/28/92
8/30/92
9/3/92
9/4/92
9/7/92
9/10/92
9/18/92
9/24/92
9/26/92
9/29/92
10/1/92
10/10/92
10/15/92
5/18/93
5/27/93
6/4/93
6/12/93
6/17/93
6/17/93
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
ADEC-Nome
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
688
210
763
751
623
355
298
315
547
354
246
215
333
349
28
36.1
44.8
95
145
145
538
411
662
791
918
983
781
1230
372
532
562
267
287
481
174
579
672
560
1240
1290
1240
1410
1510
1560
1110
32.9
74
IDS
mg/L
1020
346
1310
1240
987
631
560
527
986
564
404
370
568
410
50
54
72
143
208
230
787
642
1010
1250
1400
1470
1170
1940
566
762
828
383
447
791
250
815
958
805
1860
1890
1980
2060
2230
2210
1740
71
58
57
74
1 11
100
S04
mg/L
pH
6.5
6.8
6.0
6.4
6.6
7.2
7.6
7.4
6.0
7.0
7.5
7.3
7.0
7.1
6.4
6.5
6.1
6.7
7.2
7.0
6.7
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.4
7.1
6.8
6.2
7.7
6.5
6.9
7.5
7.5
7.7
6.7
8.0
6.8
7.2
6.9
6.8
7
6.3
6.4
6.9
7.4
7.7
7.19
6.6
Temp.
°C
13.6
16.0
16.1
13.3
5.3
5.7
12.1
3
3
-0.2
0
0
2.4
0.3
6.1
7.3
13.0
13.0
11.7
10.7
12.6
15.5
15.3
19.4
15.6
12.8
14.2
8.2
5.5
4.8
7.4
8.6
10.6
4.2
6.1
5.1
4.5
5
0
0
0
0
1.2
0.3
1.5
2
3
5.0
5
D.O.
mg/L
10.5
9.1
8.8
9.1
11.7
12.1
9.8
12
14
16
16
14
4.1
7.1
10.2
15.9*
8.6
8.7
8.8
6.2
8.3
8.5
7.6
9.3
11.0
12.0
6.6
6.9
24**
1.8
9.0
8.3
7.3
9
9.9
12.8
11
11.2
12.7
13.4
13.3
10
12.2
12.5
12.1
Turb
NTU
2.1
1.3
6.1
0.8
0.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.5
3
1.3
0.5
0.5
1.3
2
4.5
2.4
0.90
0.43
0.85
0.12
0.19
0.24
0.30
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
11.0
0.5
0.9
0.45
0.4
0.17
0.38
0.45
0.15
0.45
0.15
0.18
0.73
0.28
3.7
3
Cond
910
447
1570
455
440
490
1239
779
577
553
785
0.701
0.076
0.928
0.105
0.178
0.301
0.334
0.907
0.833
1.200
1.430
1.600
1.570
1.300
1.790
0.184
0.958
0.954
0.090
0.607
0.100
0.375
1.014
1.157
0.973
1.260
2.060
2.230
2.480
2.560
2.300
2.040
Flow, cfs
109
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 20: Middle Fork of Red Dog Creek
Date
6/23/93
6/30/93
7/8/93
7/15/93
7/25/93
8/3/93
8/11/93
8/19/93
8/27/93
9/5/93
9/10/93
9/15/93
9/25/93
9/29/93
1/1/94
1/9/94
1/17/94
1/24/94
1/30/94
5/6/94
5/10/94
5/19/94
5/25/94
7/9/94
7/13/94
7/21/94
7/29/94
8/6/94
8/13/94
8/20/94
8/23/94
8/25/94
9/1/94
9/10/94
9/10/94
9/15/94
9/21/94
9/29/94
10/8/94
10/15/94
10/22/94
10/26/94
6/1/95
6/7/95
6/9/95
6/12/95
6/15/95
6/18/95
6/24/95
6/25/95
6/27/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
218
160
271
245
273
1960
406
67.2
71.5
94
100
132
203
324
89
90.6
123
444
714
313
1280
1520
1440
1440
1450
1580
356
597
TDS
mg/L
407
751
290
194
235
190
198
362
497
961
278
160
244
355
230
391
361
404
2930
637
1 10
97
144
141
183
206
508
128
156
198
693
1080
510
1780
1970
2210
2150
2280
2440
525
1270
823
1210
135
1210
392
1450
1460
S04
mg/L
210
140
250
220
250
1900
410
63
55
68
73
96
160
300
69
82
100
410
730
300
1100
1300
1300
1300
1400
1500
360
590
800
1200
pH
7.2
6.6
6.8
7
6.8
6.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
6.7
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.4
6.9
7.4
6.4
6.8
6.8
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7
6.3
6.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
8
6.9
8
8.3
8.7
7.1
6.8
7.4
7.6
7.7
6.8
7
7.4
Temp.
°C
12
9
12
13
7
7
9
9
6
3
3
0
0
2
5
13
13
6
1
1
1
4
5
8
9
13
8
5
4
6
6
4
3
4
1
0
1
1
7
10
9.5
8
7
7.9
8
D.O.
mg/L
Turb
NTU
Cond
660
94
931
1264
233
1382
566
167
Flow, cfs
35.9
37.2
110
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 20: Middle Fork of Red Dog Creek
Date
7/1/95
7/4/95
7/7/95
7/10/95
7/14/95
7/19/95
7/22/95
7/25/95
7/28/95
7/30/95
8/4/95
8/8/95
8/11/95
8/13/95
8/17/95
8/23/95
8/25/95
8/27/95
8/31/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
138
736
1170
IDS
mg/L
168
1490
1250
1090
1640
1720
1880
2010
2100
2090
2190
2090
2060
2100
2090
2060
2140
2040
2090
SO4
mg/L
57
750
1200
1500
1400
1500
PH
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
6.6
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.8
7
7.6
7.3
7.6
7
Temp.
°c
9
9
10
7
14
12
15.2
14.8
13.2
12
13.8
13.1
12.5
13
13.4
12.5
12.4
D.O.
mg/L
Turb
NTU
1.78
0.27
1.06
0.96
0.23
0.49
0.18
0.16
0.16
Cond
1268
1691
1470
1323
1764
1880
2110
2110
1330
2380
2340
1990
2310
2390
2360
2270
226
2340
Flow, cfs
27.1
26.7
27.6
26.7
27.4
28
28.9
28.8
27.6
111
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 20: Middle Fork of Red Dog Creek
Date
8/5/91
8/6/91
8/15/91
8/18/91
8/23/91
8/26/91
8/28/91
8/29/91
10/1/91
10/4/91
10/7/91
10/10/91
10/16/91
5/27/92
6/9/92
6/16/92
6/23/92
7/2/92
7/9/92
7/11/92
7/15/92
7/18/92
7/22/92
7/25/92
7/29/92
7/31/92
8/3/92
8/6/92
8/12/92
8/15/92
8/18/92
8/22/92
8/28/92
8/30/92
9/3/92
9/4/92
9/7/92
9/10/92
9/18/92
9/24/92
9/26/92
9/29/92
10/1/92
10/10/92
10/15/92
5/18/93
5/27/93
6/4/93
6/12/93
6/17/93
6/17/93
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
ADEC-Nome
Cominco
matrix
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.06
0.05
0.48
0.13
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.19
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.23
0.14
0.13
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.16
0.28
0.12
0.13
0.053
0.06
<
Cd
mg/L
0.071
0.132
0.177
0.126
0.164
0.192
0.178
0.174
0.088
0.059
0.084
0.076
0.097
0.003
0.015
0.013
0.014
0.028
0.040
0.043
0.068
0.076
0.101
0.098
0.079
0.081
0.111
0.089
0.034
0.040
0.029
0.024
0.047
0.034
0.04
0.035
0.038
0.047
0.033
0.06
0.071
0.074
0.059
0.147
0.026
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.015
0.017
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<
<
<
<
Fe
mg/L
0.020
0.020
5.07
0.48
0.02
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.80
0.16
0.11
0.04
0.12
0.87
0.36
0.553
0.078
0.020
0.020
0.026
0.070
0.041
0.040
0.128
0.099
0.080
0.080
0.118
0.062
0.060
0.292
0.036
0.176
0.08
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.11
0.13
0.06
0.061
0.078
0.05
0.672
0.118
Pb
mg/L
0.098
0.168
0.295
0.272
0.153
0.234
0.184
0.171
0.072
0.154
0.076
0.044
0.053
0.050
0.092
0.056
0.086
0.025
0.019
0.015
0.029
0.021
12.200
0.032
0.041
0.050
0.020
0.052
0.039
0.028
0.036
0.222
0.094
0.130
0.105
0.106
0.059
0.052
0.041
0.040
0.033
0.028
0.037
0.030
0.142
0.152
0.104
0.112
0.057
0,066
Zn
mg/L
12.30
23.70
29.20
19.80
26.00
32.40
31.00
29.80
11.30
8.28
13.40
12.90
16.10
0.09
2.23
1.60
1.94
4.45
5.97
6.39
9.46
10.60
10.60
11.10
8.20
9.06
12.10
9.93
4.60
5.52
4.31
3.28
6.37
4.54
5.64
4.55
4.88
6.57
4.61
7.39
8.44
8.47
6.73
18.70
3.21
1.64
1.78
1.64
2.06
2.21
112
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 20: Middle Fork of Red Dog Creek
Date
6/23/93
6/30/93
7/8/93
7/15/93
7/25/93
8/3/93
8/11/93
8/19/93
8/27/93
9/5/93
9/10/93
9/15/93
9/25/93
9/29/93
1/1/94
1/9/94
1/17/94
1 /24/94
1 /30/94
5/6/94
5/10/94
5/19/94
5/25/94
7/9/94
7/13/94
7/21/94
7/29/94
8/6/94
8/13/94
8/20/94
8/23/94
8/25/94
9/1/94
9/10/94
9/10/94
9/15/94
9/21/94
9/29/94
10/8/94
10/15/94
10/22/94
10/26/94
6/1/95
6/7/95
6/9/95
6/12/95
6/15/95
6/18/95
6/24/95
6/25/95
6/27/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.21
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.38
0.05
0.05
0.068
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.086
0.414
0.208
0.065
0.087
0.05
0.056
0.05
0.489
0.766
0.539
0.673
0.581
0.624
1.25
0.174
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.118
0.079
0.091
<
Cd
mg/L
0.021
0.026
0.029
0.026
0.026
0.024
0.026
0.028
0.027
0.032
0.024
0.029
0.028
0.025
0.016
0.022
0.024
0.025
0.52
0.072
0.026
0.022
0.027
0.029
0.025
0.027
0.028
0.031
0.086
0.062
0.067
0.053
0.059
0.08
0.046
0.033
0.034
0.036
0.051
0.033
0.034
0.0327
0.0287
0.0296
7E-05
0.0418
0.0462
0.0394
0.0458
<
Cu
mg/L
0.03
0.049
0.01
0.0084
0.0075
0.0058
|0.0012
0.0091
0.0069
0.0071
0.0075
<
Fe
mg/L
0.193
Pb
mg/L
0.049
0.041
0.050
0.045
0,016
0.177
0.034
0.049
0.036
0.029
0.044
0.348
0.064
0.01
0.095
0.062
0.046
0.022
0.094
0.322
0.26
0.137
0.115
0.1
0.038
0.093
0.078
0.341
0.232
0.12
0.165
0.132
0.084
0.345
0.08
0.012
0.013
0.017
0.022
0.027
0.142
0.0676
0.0914
0.0651
0.0004
0.0946
0.109
0.0632
0.0704
Zn
mg/L
2.59
3.09
3.51
3.13
3.29
3.11
3.60
3.53
3.61
3.83
3.30
3.50
3.50
3.14
2.10
2.61
2.96
2.84
5.39
9.27
3.37
2.68
3.64
3.57
3.09
3.39
3.26
3.78
10.10
8.77
8.86
6.12
8.05
11.30
5.53
3.13
2.92
3.21
4.13
2.68
4.39
4.14
3.07
3.14
0.00
3.71
8.06
4.43
4.90
113
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 20: Middle Fork of Red Dog Creek
Date
7/1/95
7/4/95
7/7/95
7/10/95
7/14/95
7/19/95
7/22/95
7/25/95
7/28/95
7/30/95
8/4/95
8/8/95
8/11/95
8/13/95
8/17/95
8/23/95
8/25/95
8/27/95
8/31/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.197
0.106
0.112
0.05
0.05
0.05
Cd
mg/L
5E-05
0.0352
0.0386
0.0431
0.0395
0.0463
0.0456
0.0487
0.0458
0.0406
0.0398
0.0425
0.0432
0.0537
0.0496
0.0536
0.0538
0.0559
0.0475
Cu
mg/L
0.0008
0.006
0.0078
0.109
0.0062
0.0073
0.0038
0.0042
0.0038
0.0042
0.003
0.0062
0.0078
0.0021
0.002
0.0018
0.0023
0.0002
0.0022
Fe
mg/L
0.308
0.124
0.088
0.077
0.071
Pb
mg/L
0.0009
0.0476
0.061
0.0586
0.0501
0.0617
0.0429
0.0402
0.0363
0.0352
0.0301
0.0368
0.0374
0.0391
0.0377
0.0412
0.0444
0.0481
0.0329
Zn
mg/L
0.01
4.53
5.29
5.96
4.68
5.25
4.96
4.89
4.93
4.41
5.11
4.38
4.92
4.92
5.19
5.68
6.39
5.55
5.11
114
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 140: Bypass Channel around Ore Body
Date
6/13/92
6/15/92
6/28/92
7/4/92
7/4/92
7/11/92
7/11/92
7/15/92
7/15/92
7/18/92
7/18/92
7/22/92
7/22/92
7/25/92
7/25/92
7/29/92
7/29/92
7/31/92
7/31/92
8/3/92
8/6/92
8/12/92
8/15/92
8/17/92
8/21/92
8/28/92
8/30/92
9/3/92
9/5/92
9/8/92
9/10/92
9/18/92
9/24/92
9/25/92
9/29/92
10/1/92
5/16/93
5/19/93
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
242
25.2
49.1
75
75
109
109
118
118
127
127
146
146
159
159
173
173
190
190
209
214
109
126
120
106
123
110
116
122
130
128
155
195
197
217
232
IDS
mg/L
40
47
79
111
111
153
153
197
197
219
219
266
266
324
324
323
323
321
321
394
412
166
180
165
150
184
159
16.6
181
196
211
248
303
351
416
456
S04
mg/L
PH
6.6
6.1
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.3
6.6
6.6
6.2
6.2
6.6
6.6
5.9
5.9
5.7
6.6
6.4
6.2
7.4
8.2
7.6
6.1
8.1
6.7
7.0
7.5
7.3
6.8
6.6
6.0
6.2
6
6.2
Temp.
°C
4
4.2
6.2
10.0
10.0
12.2
12.2
8.4
8.4
11.7
11.7
12,4
12.4
12.6
12.6
15.4
15.4
13.5
13.5
13.6
10.6
5.9
3.5
4.8
6.6
7.0
8.1
3.6
3.6
3,3
3.3
1.2
0
0
0
-0.1
2
D.O.
mg/L
10.2
9.7
6.9
8.5
8.5
6.6
6.6
3.3
3.3
5.2
5.2
7.4
7.4
4.8
4.8
10.0
10.0
9.8
6.8
6.4
6.4
16**
10.0
8.0
8.3
6
7.5
10.1
7.7
12.5
11.9
10.1
7.6
5.4
13.2
Turb
NTU
5
3.7
1.8
2.10
.__
1.00
1.10
0.17
0.25
0.35
0.15
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.7
1.7
0.54
0.4
0.22
0.7
0.2
0.29
0.4
0.22
0.16
Cond
0.066
0.065
0.077
0.177
0.254
0.285
0.343
0.370
0.426
0.487
0.455
0.500
0.515
0.055
0.213
0.255
0.213
0.287
0.027
0.238
0.260
0.263
0.290
0.202
0.484
0.480
0.480
0.580
Flow, cfs
2.10
...
1.00
1.10
0.17
0.25
0.35
0.15
115
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 140: Bypass Channel around Ore Body
Date
5/25/93
6/4/93
6/9/93
6/10/93
6/17/93
6/26/93
6/30/93
7/6/93
7/16/93
7/25/93
8/2/93
8/11/93
8/18/93
8/24/93
9/1/93
9/9/93
9/14/93
9/24/93
5/19/94
5/27/94
6/8/94
6/16/94
7/12/94
7/21/94
7/29/94
8/13/94
8/23/94
9/6/94
9/23/94
10/8/94
10/27/94
6/4/95
6/8/95
6/8/95
6/11/95
6/14/95
6/19/95
6/21/95
6/23/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
TDS
mg/L
190
105
112
109
120
131
152
163
S04
mg/L
71
PH
7
7
6.6
7
7.2
7.5
7.9
7
Temp.
°C
5
5
5
6
5
3
0
D.O.
mg/L
6.8
6.3
7
6.9
6.7
6.9
6.7
Turb
NTU
0.5
1
6
5
5
1
1
Cond
300
Flow, cfs
315.3
6.2
17.4
66.4
33.7
26
16
33.7
10.6
25
11.6
24.2
20.3
20.3
17.4
12.6
20.3
6.9
116
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 140: Bypass Channel around Ore Body
Date
6/26/95
7/5/95
7/7/95
7/10/95
7/13/95
7/17/95
7/19/95
7/21/95
7/24/95
7/26/95
7/28/95
7/31/95
8/2/95
8/4/95
8/6/95
8/9/95
8/11/95
8/13/95
8/17/95
8/20/95
8/23/95
8/25/95
8/27/95
8/30/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
TDS
mg/L
273
230
232
210
298
327
327
397
428
447
490
561
566
615
624
593
587
574
557
535
535
521
542
515
SO4
mg/L
pH
Temp.
°C
D.O.
mg/L
Turb
NTU
Cond
Flow, cfs
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.6
3.4
4.1
3.2
3.2
4.4
4.9
4.9
4.1
117
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 140: Bypass Channel around Ore Body
Date
6/13/92
6/15/92
6/28/92
7/4/92
7/4/92
7/11/92
7/11/92
7/15/92
7/15/92
7/18/92
7/18/92
7/22/92
7/22/92
7/25/92
7/25/92
7/29/92
7/29/92
7/31/92
7/31/92
8/3/92
8/6/92
8/12/92
8/15/92
8/17/92
8/21/92
8/28/92
8/30/92
9/3/92
9/5/92
9/8/92
9/10/92
9/18/92
9/24/92
9/25/92
9/29/92
10/1/92
5/16/93
5/19/93
5/25/93
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.14
0.14
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.05
1.61
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.27
0.17
0.08
Cd
mg/L
0.012
0.012
0.017
0.025
0.025
0.035
0.035
0.054
0.054
0.074
0.074
0.117
0.117
0.129
0.129
0.165
0.165
0.187
0.187
0.192
0.199
0.024
0.030
0.028
0.032
0.038
0.037
0.032
0.034
0.037
0.042
0.078
0.112
0.145
0.194
0.216
0.146
0.029
0.016
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Fe
mg/L
0.396
0.354
0.169
0.083
0.083
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.023
0.023
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.047
0.134
0.063
0.055
3.690
0.055
0.111
0.13
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.020
0.020
1.68
0.584
Pb
mg/L
0.111
0.071
0.057
0.046
0.046
0.072
0.072
0.117
0.117
0.182
0.182
0.181
0.181
0.242
0.242
0.352
0.352
0.394
0.394
0.438
0.504
0.057
0.050
0.052
1.940
0.206
0.306
0.170
0.148
0.117
0.110
0.170
0.204
0.266
0.400
0.408
0.424
0.326
0.158
Zn
mg/L
1.47
2.07
2.25
3.99
3.99
5.76
5.76
9.99
9.99
138.00
138.00
21.60
21.60
23.10
23.10
28.60
28.60
33.80
33.80
34.60
36.20
3.51
5.00
4.41
3.75
5.43
4.65
4.44
4.94
5.87
7.04
14.10
20.70
26.40
34.80
39.90
16.30
3.14
1.80
118
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 140: Bypass Channel around Ore Body
Date
6/4/93
6/9/93
6/10/93
6/17/93
6/26/93
6/30/93
7/6/93
7/16/93
7/25/93
8/2/93
8/11/93
8/18/93
8/24/93
9/1/93
9/9/93
9/14/93
9/24/93
5/19/94
5/27/94
6/8/94
6/16/94
7/12/94
7/21/94
7/29/94
8/13/94
8/23/94
9/6/94
9/23/94
10/8/94
10/27/94
6/4/95
6/8/95
6/8/95
6/11/95
6/14/95
6/19/95
6/21/95
6/23/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.15
0.1
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.21
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.46
0.08
0.392
0.105
0.103
0.05
0.088
0.055
0.072
0.263
1.05
11.47
<
0.699
0.05
0.077
0.196
<
Cd
mg/L
0.012
0.016
0.011
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.012
0.019
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.025
0.023
0.017
0.032
0.035
0.024
0.012
0.015
0.029
0.032
0.031
0.039
0.1
0.114
0.137
0.148
0.15
0.058
0.033
0.034
0.032
0.032
0.033
0.037
0.039
<
Cu
mg/L
0.01
0.058
0.015
0.01
0.011
0.01
0.012
0.013
0.011
0.013
Fe
mg/L
0.17
0.101
0.236
Pb
mg/L
0.208
0.141
0.101
0.1 12
0.089
0.080
0.064
0.084
0.051
0.580
0.093
0.059
0.074
0.050
0.096
0.366
0.299
0.54
0.23
0.22
0.2
0.16
0.13
0.14
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.49
0.15
0.21
0.24
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.2
0.18
0.25
0.21
Zn
mg/L
1.63
1.62
1.13
1.10
1.34
1.27
1.32
1.97
1.89
2.92
3.08
2.69
2.60
2.77
2.63
1.89
3.53
4.11
2.62
1.57
1.81
2.57
3.88
3.23
4.37
13.20
15.70
18.50
20.00
29.50
8.69
5.03
5.74
4.78
5.59
5.87
6.60
7.50
119
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
Station 140: Bypass Channel around Ore Body
Date
6/26/95
7/5/95
7/7/95
7/10/95
7/13/95
7/17/95
7/19/95
7/21/95
7/24/95
7/26/95
7/28/95
7/31/95
8/2/95
8/4/95
8/6/95
8/9/95
8/11/95
8/13/95
8/17/95
8/20/95
8/23/95
8/25/95
8/27/95
8/30/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
matrix
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
Al
mg/L
Cd
mg/L
0.074
0.063
0.058
0.063
0.071
0.085
0.089
0.106
0.103
0.112
0.262
0.115
0.148
0.15
0.17
0.168
0.156
0.15
0.141
0.143
0.145
0.138
0.136
0.135
Cu
mg/L
0.015
0.017
0.017
0.02
0.016
0.019
0.016
0.016
0.008
0.007
0.014
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.019
0.017
0.015
0.014
0.008
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.01
Fe
mg/L
Pb
mg/L
0.24
0.17
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.35
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.2
0.16
0.17
0.22
0.18
0.22
0.16
Zn
mg/L
13.40
11.50
11.40
11.80
14.70
15.70
18.40
21.00
23.20
25.30
25.50
29.10
30.30
32.80
33.60
33.20
31.20
25.80
30.30
29.20
28.20
28.40
24.10
26.90
120
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
North Fork of Red Dog Creek
Water Quality
Station
Station 12
Station 1 2
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Date
9/7/92
9/12/92
6/1/95
6/7/95
6/12/95
6/18/95
6/27/95
7/1/95
7/7/95
7/10/95
7/19/95
7/25/95
7/30/95
8/8/95
8/13/95
8/23/95
8/27/95
Reference
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Cominco
Hard
mg/L
208
218
TDS
mg/L
248
273
101
152
155
148
225
1030
201
178
223
256
290
317
297
279
310
SO4
mg/L
55
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
TSS
mg/L
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
PH
7.7
7.8
7.5
7.7
8.1
8
Temp.
°C
3
2.8
7
7
5.2
10
Turb
NTU
0.44
0.6
2
Cond
0.363
0.357
229
121
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
North Fork of Red Dog Creek
Metals Concentrations
Station
Station 12
Station 1 2
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 12
Station 1 2
Station 1 2
Station 1 2
Date
9/7/92
9/12/92
6/1/95
6/7/95
6/12/95
6/18/95
6/27/95
7/1/95
7/7/95
7/10/95
7/19/95
7/25/95
7/30/95
8/8/95
8/13/95
8/23/95
8/27/95
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.156
0.131
<
<
<
<
<
<
Cd
mg/L
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.00009
0.00004
0.00004
0.00008
0.032
0.00004
0.00006
0.00004
0.00004
0.0002
0.0008
0.00025
0.00012
<
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0013
0.0012
0.0008
0.0025
0.0107
0.0012
0.0011
0.0011
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0005
0.0004
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.00036
0.00012
0.0002
0.00015
0.165
0.00014
0.00029
0.00009
0.00011
0.00009
0.0001
0.00039
0.00012
<
<
<
Zn
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.008
0.008
0.01
0.013
3.94
0.01
0.013
0.018
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.008
122
-------
Appendix 12, continued.
All data collected by Cominco Alaska Inc.
Date
Hard
mg/L
Connie Creek
5/12/95
5/31/95
6/7/95
6/8/95
6/26/95
7/4/95
7/24/95
7/31/95
8/15/95
9/3/95
9/21/95
10/7/95
51
79
76.2
132
148
<
<
Rachael Creek
5/12/95
5/31/95
5/26/95
7/4/95
7/19/95
7/31/95
8/15/95
9/3/95
9/21/95
10/7/95
164
256
252
413
491
Al
mg/L
0.37
0.11
0.17
0.09
0.08
0.087
0.05
0.05
0.347
0.073
0.05
0.101
1.59
2.19
1.59
1.81
1.99
1.57
1.17
1.53
1.97
3.27
<
<
<
<
Cd
mg/L
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.007
0.0006
0.0011
0.0009
0.186
0.0008
0.0007
0.0011
0.0030
0.0030
0.0023
0.0021
0.003
0.003
0.0031
0.0038
0.0033
0.0037
0.0031
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.0023
0.0021
0.0021
0.0020
0.002
0.002
0.056
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.064
0.084
0.06
0.043
0.047
0.073
0.072
0.073
Fe
mg/L
1.22
0.17
0.12
0.12
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.26
0.25
1.79
1.57
1.61
3.3
2.8
4.22
4.28
3.77
<
Pb
mg/L
0.196
0.016
0.002
0.009
0.004
0.013
0.005
0.005
0.273
0.005
0.003
0.014
0.048
0.007
0.002
8E-04
0.001
5E-04
0.002
8E-04
3E-04
4E-04
8E-04
Zn
mg/L
0.615
0.088
0.006
0.065
0.107
0.1
0.16
0.14
36.8
0.14
0.11
0.17
0.202
0.357
0.506
0.51
0.62
0.71
0.78
0.84
0.8
0.83
0.78
pH
6.60
6.70
7.00
6.60
7.40
7.3
4.70
5.10
5.80
5.9
123
-------
Appendix 12, concluded.
All data collected by Cominco Alaska Inc.
Date
Hard
mg/L
Shelly Creek
5/12/95
5/31/95
6/7/95
6/7/95
6/26/95
7/4/95
7/12/95
7/24/95
7/29/94
7/31/95
8/15/95
9/3/95
9/21/95
10/7/95
33.1
61.9
61.1
102
116
Sulfur Creek
5/12/95
5/31/95
6/26/95
7/4/95
7/12/95
7/24/95
August
87.3
130.0
133
140
<
<
<
<
no flow
Al
mg/L
0.238
0.077
0.175
0.108
0.125
0.137
0.304
0.436
0.1
0.549
0.461
0.472
0.504
0.511
5.97
0.05
0.05
0.053
0.061
0.05
<
Cd
mg/L
0.005
0.003
0.0006
0.0006
0.0104
0.01
0.017
0.0237
0.01
0.0322
0.0316
0.0297
0.0447
0.0367
0.009
0.004
0.012
0.0049
0.003
0.0096
<
<
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.003
0.002
0.006
0.006
0.014
0.015
0.021
0.019
0.02
0.024
0.021
0.02
0.01
0.0022
0.001
0.01
0.003
Fe
mg/L
0.4
0.27
0.4
0.19
0.2
0.19
0.55
0.3
0.82
0.7
0.89
1.06
1.22
20.10
0.153
0.036
0.06
0.05
Pb
mg/L
0.154
0.011
0.028
0.005
0.018
0.02
0.049
0.05
0.04
0.071
0.065
0.604
0.083
0.079
2.120
0.193
0.094
0.089
0.069
0.066
Zn
mg/L
0.29
0.4
0.47
0.09
1.35
1.28
1.89
3.23
0.86
4.2
3.59
3.55
5.1
4.13
1.240
0.494
1.900
0.7
0.4
1.68
pH
6.4
6.8
6.7
6.7
7.1
7.3
6.50
7.00
7.00
7.4
124
-------
Appendix 13. Water quality and metals concentrations in mine effluent,
Red Dog Mine Discharge, Water Quality
Date
5/9/95
5/10/95
5/11/95
5/12/95
5/13/95
5/14/95
5/15/95
5/16/95
5/17/95
5/18/95
5/19/95
5/20/95
5/21/95
5/22/95
5/23/95
5/24/95
5/25/95
5/26/95
5/27/95
5/28/95
5/29/95
5/30/95
5/31/95
6/1/95
6/2/95
6/3/95
6/4/95
6/4/95
6/4/95
6/5/95
6/6/95
6/7/95
6/7/95
6/8/95
6/9/95
6/10/95
Hardness
mg/L
1400
1310
1550
1580
1540
IDS
mg/L
1800
1300
1040
1370
2060
2000
1820
1780
2200
1210
2240
2260
2190
2300
2270
SO4
mg/L
1200
750
690
890
1400
1200
1200
1300
1600
1200
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
TSS
mg/L
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
— [
<
<
yyj.
CrATot
mg/L
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<
<
Cn/WAD
mg/L
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
pH
9.5
9.9
9.5
9.5
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.7
10
10
1 1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Temp.
°C
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
Flow, cfs
7.33
10.79
10.49
10.49
10.73
10.63
10.55
10.63
10.46
11.31
10.78
10.55
3.45
7.77
10.94
11.12
11.1
11.65
5.24
11.04
10.7
10.02
6.62
2.2
17.3
17.1
18.2
15.4
19.1
19.6
19.6
19.9
125
-------
Appendix 13, continued.
Red Dog Mine Discharge, Water Quality
Date
6/11/95
6/12/95
6/13/95
6/14/95
6/14/95
6/15/95
6/16/95
6/17/95
6/18/95
6/19/95
6/20/95
6/21/95
6/22/95
6/23/95
6/24/95
6/25/95
6/26/95
6/27/95
Hardness
mg/L
1530
1590
1590
1600
1630
6/28/95!
6/28/95 1
6/29/95
6/30/95
7/1/95
7/2/95
7/3/95
7/4/95
7/5/95
7/6/95
7/7/95
7/8/95
7/9/95,
7/10/95
7/11/95
7/12/95
7/13/95
7/14/95
7/15/95
1630
1610
1580
1600
1620
1660
IDS
mg/L
2230
2340
2370
2370
2400
2350
2370
2420
2310
2430
2390
2440
2300
2440
2310
2410
1920
2380
2340
2450
2440
2384
2290
2330
2350
2350
2300
2450
2490
2450
2410
2460
2470
2520
2500
2540
SO4
mg/L
1600
1600
1600
1600
1800
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
TSS
mg/L
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
CnVTot
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<
<
<
<
<
<
Cn/WAD
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
pH
10
10
10
10
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.6
9.2
9.4
9.7
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.7
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.5
Temp.
°C
10
10
9
9
10
10
9
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
12
11
11
11
1 1
1 1
11
12
13
14
16
15
Flow, cfs
19.8
20.1
20.5
20.7
21
21.1
21.4
20.9
21
20
20.4
16.3
15.7
13
19.1
19
18.2
14.1
25
25.4
25.5
25.6
25.6
25.5
25.2
24.8
25.4
25.6
25.7
22.6
25.3
24.5
24.7
24.8
24.5
126
-------
Appendix 13, continued.
Red Dog Mine Discharge, Water Quality
Date
7/16/95
7/17/95
7/18/95
7/19/95
7/20/95
7/21/95
7/22/95
7/23/95
7/24/95
7/25/95
7/26/95
7/27/95
7/28/95
7/29/95
Hardness
mg/L
1640
1560
1710
1730
7/30/95 j
7/31/95
8/1/95
8/2/95
8/3/95
8/4/95
8/5/95
8/6/95
8/7/95
8/8/95
1760
1880
1640
8/9/95! 1680
8/10/95
8/11/95 1670
8/12/95
8/13/95
8/14/9511650
8/15/95!
8/1 6/95 j
8/17/95
8/18/95
8/19/95
8/20/95
8/21/95
1790
1710
IDS
mg/L
2540
2500
2300
2420
2370
2400
2540
2470
2470
2470
2470
2500
2430
2430
2450
2400
2450
2420
2530
2610
2440
2450
2560
2510
2470
2460
2460
2490
2570
2490
2560
2550
2590
2460
2510
2510
2480
SO4
mg/L
1600
1600
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1800
1700
1700
1800
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
TSS
mg/L
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
CnVTot
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
Cn/WAD
mg/L
pH
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.6
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.5
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
Temp.
°C
16
15
15
14
13
13
14
13
13
13
13
14
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
15
14
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Flow, cfs
24.4
24.4
24.9
24.8
24.7
24.6
17.4
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.2
23.2
24.7
24.9
24.9
25.4
25.1
25.1
25
25.2
24.8
24.8
24.6
24.5
24.3
24.2
24.3
22.6
24.2
24
24
24.1
24.3
21.9
23.8
24.1
127
-------
Appendix 13, continued.
Red Dog Mine Discharge, Water Quality
Date
Hardness
img/L
8/22/95
8/23/95
8/24/95
8/25/95
8/26/95
8/27/95
8/28/95
8/29/95
8/30/95
8/31/95
1720
1580
IDS
mg/L
2500
2460
2510
2490
2570
2620
2490
2550
2590
2620
SO4
mg/L
1800
1800
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
TSS
mg/L
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
<
<
<
CnVTot
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
Cn/WAD
mg/L
pH
9.4
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
Temp.
°C
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Flow, cfs
24.3
23.7
24.2
24
24
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.7
128
-------
Appendix 13, continued.
Red Dog Mine Discharge, metals concentrations
All metals are as total recoverable, sampled from the mine effluent.
Date
5/9/95
5/10/95
5/11/95
5/12/95
5/13/95
5/14/95
5/15/95
5/16/95
5/17/95
5/18/95
5/19/95
5/20/95
5/21/95
5/22/95
5/23/95
5/24/95
5/25/95
5/26/95
5/27/95
5/28/95
5/29/95
5/30/95
5/31/95
6/1/95
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
6/2/95
6/3/95
6/4/95
6/4/95
6/4/95
6/5/95
6/6/95
6/7/95
6/7/95
6/8/95
6/9/95
6/10/95
6/11/95
6/12/95
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
Cd
mg/L
0.014
0.01
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.0083
0.0087
0.0095
0.007
0.0091
0.0078
0.0077
0.0081
0.0074
0.0089
0.0093
0.0096
0.0095
<
<
<
<
<
Cu
mg/L
0.041
0.071
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0149
0.015
0.0178
0.015
0.0149
0.0139
0.0127
0.0124
0.0111
0.0108
0.0079
0.0069
0.0069
Hg
mg/L
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
<
<
<
Pb
mg/L
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.012
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.00125
0.00157
0.00269
0.002
0.00094
0.00099
0.00094
0.0021
0.00096
0.00133
0.001
0.0009
0.0009
AG
mg/L
0.003
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
7E-05
5E-05
5E-05
0.01
0.01
Zn
mg/L
0.13
0.04
0.05
0.13
0.06
0.1
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
129
-------
Appendix 13, continued.
Red Dog Mine Discharge, metals concentrations
All metals are as total recoverable, sampled from the mine effluent.
Date
6/13/95
6/14/95
6/14/95
6/15/95
6/16/95
6/17/95
6/18/95
6/19/95
6/20/95
6/21/95
6/22/95
6/23/95
6/24/95
6/25/95
6/26/95
6/27/95
6/28/95
6/28/95
6/29/95
6/30/95
7/1/95
7/2/95
7/3/95
7/4/95
7/5/95
7/6/95
7/7/95
7/8/95
7/9/95
7/10/95
7/11/95
7/12/95
7/13/95
7/14/95
7/15/95
7/16/95
7/17/95
7/18/95
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Cd
mg/L
0.0092
0.0084
0.0079
0.0086
0.0079
0.0278
0.0338
0.0159
0.0136
0.0136
0.0137
0.0134
0.0163
0.0155
0.0143
0.0148
0.0135
0.0137
0.0135
0.0121
0.0113
0.0126
0.0125
0.0122
0.0123
0.0122
0.0116
0.0108
0.011
0.0112
0.0111
0.0125
0.0162
0.0188
Cu
mg/L
0.0054
0.0067
0.0069
0.0073
0.0071
0.0076
0.0081
0.0063
0.0058
0.0058
0.006
0.0054
0.0066
0.0058
0.0055
0.0068
0.0039
0.0053
0.0044
0.004
0.0044
0.0046
0.0048
0.004
0.0049
0.0047
0.0048
0.0053
0.0046
0.0039
0.0043
0.0029
0.0025
0.0026
0.0027
0.0035
Hg
mg/L
0.0001
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0002
0.0002
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Pb
mg/L
0.0009
0.001
0.00073
0.00079
0.00073
0.00052
0.00036
0.0007
0.00076
0.00045
0.00074
0.00102
0.0011
0.00054
0.00045
0.0005
0.00047
0.00057
0.00042
0.00036
0.00042
0.00035
0.0003
0.00035
0.00037
0.00041
0.00041
0.00035
0.00214
0.0005
0.00046
0.00068
0.00079
0.00076
0.00052
0.00048
AG
mg/L
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Zn
mg/L
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
130
-------
Appendix 13, continued.
Red Dog Mine Discharge, metals concentrations
All metals are as total recoverable, sampled from the mine effluent.
Date
7/19/95
7/20/95
7/21/95
7/22/95
7/23/95
7/24/95
7/25/95
7/26/95
7/27/95
7/28/95
7/29/95
7/30/95
7/31/95
8/1/95
8/2/95
8/3/95
8/4/95
8/5/95
8/6/95
8/7/95
8/8/95
8/9/95
8/10/95
8/11/95
8/12/95
8/13/95
8/14/95
8/15/95
8/16/95
8/17/95
8/18/95
8/19/95
8/20/95
8/21/95
8/22/95
8/23/95
8/24/95
8/25/95
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Al
mg/L
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Cd
mg/L
0.0181
0.0199
0.0203
0.0126
0.0111
0.0203
0.0152
0.0172
0.0159
0.0144
0.0188
0.0162
0.0157
0.0125
0.0139
0.0145
0.0125
0.0138
0.0147
0.0144
0.0142
0.014
0.0142
0.0142
0.0149
0.0193
0.0179
0.0154
0.0161
0.017
0.0166
0.0157
0.032
0.0307
0.0308
0.0172
0.0184
0.018
Cu
mg/L
0.0033
0.003
0.0029
0.0023
0.002
0.0021
0.0023
0.0031
0.0027
0.0033
0.0028
0.0039
0.0035
0.004
0.0026
0.0029
0.0029
0.0034
0.0061
0.0056
0.0055
0.0053
0.0079
0.008
0.0079
0.0011
0.0008
0.0008
0.001
0.0025
0.0011
0.001
0.0014
0.0016
0.0011
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
Hg
mg/L
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0003
0.0002
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Pb
mg/L
0.00053
0.00046
0.0004
0.00036
0.00031
0.00026
0.00033
0.00044
0.00042
0.00058
0.0005
0.00048
0.00063
0.00066
0.00114
0.00093
0.00087
0.0012
0.00107
0.00109
0.00107
0.0009
0.00099
0.00088
0.00098
0.00199
0.0012
0.00086
0.00077
0.00082
0.00092
0.00123
0.00222
0.00169
0.0018
0.00119
0.00094
0.00114
AG
mg/L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Zn
mg/L
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.34
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
131
-------
Appendix 13, concluded.
Red Dog Mine Discharge, metals concentrations
All metals are as total recoverable, sampled from the mine effluent.
Date
8/26/95
8/27/95
8/28/95
8/29/95
8/30/95
8/31/95
<
Al
mg/L
0.05
Cd
mg/L
0.0175
0.0201
0.0187
0.0175
0.0159
0.015
Cu
mg/L
0.0004
0.0005
0.0004
0.0009
0.0007
0.0008
Hg
mg/L
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002
Pb
mg/L
0.0008
0.00079
0.00108
0.00126
0.00128
0.00117
AG
mg/L
0.01
Zn
mg/L
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
132
-------
Appendix F:
Chesapeake Bay UAAs
-------
UAA for Tidal Waters of the
Chesapeake Bay Mainstem and its
Tidal Tributaries in the State of
Maryland
-------
Use Attainability Analysis for tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay
Mainstem and its tidal tributaries located in the State of Maryland.
Page 1 of 16
-------
Preamble
In April 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III issued guidance
entitled Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and
Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries (Regional Criteria
Guidance}. The development of the Regional Criteria Guidance was the realization of a key
commitment in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. In that agreement, the signatories (the
states of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake
Bay Commission and the EPA) committed to, "by 2001, define the water quality conditions
necessary to protect aquatic living resources." New York Delaware and West Virginia
agreed to the same commitment through a separate six-state memorandum of understanding
with the EPA.
The EPA, in the Regional Criteria Guidance., defined the water quality conditions called for
in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement through the development of Chesapeake Bay-specific
water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a. The EPA also
identified and described five habitats, or designated uses, that provide the context in which
the EPA Region III derived adequately protective Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria for
dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a. Collectively, the three water quality
conditions provide the best and most direct measures of the effects of too much nutrient and
sediment pollution on the Bay's aquatic living resources—fish, crabs, oysters, their prey
species and underwater bay grasses. These criteria were developed as part of a larger effort
to restore Chesapeake Bay water quality.
The Maryland Department of the Environment, as a partner working in good faith to fulfill
the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, is currently in the process of promulgating the
new Chesapeake Bay water quality standards to protect the Bay's aquatic living resources
within the State of Maryland. This Use Attainability Analysis was developed by the
Department to be a companion to the new Chesapeake Bay water quality standards
(COMAR 26.08.01.01, 26.08.02.02, 26.08.02.03-3, and 26.08.08.08). This analysis
describes the development and geographical extent of the designated uses to which the
water quality criteria may apply, and as such serves as a resource to the State and its citizens
to assist them in the monitoring, assessment, and protection of the Bays' resources.
The Use Attainability Analysis is not law or regulation; it is an assessment of the
attainability of the current Bay water quality standards as well as the newly proposed water
quality standards.
Page 2 of 16
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In May 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III issued guidance
entitled Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and
Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries (Regional Criteria
Guidance). The EPA developed this guidance to achieve and maintain the water quality
conditions necessary to protect aquatic living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
tributaries. The Regional Criteria Guidance is intended to assist the Chesapeake Bay
jurisdictions—Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and the District of Columbia—in adopting
revised water quality standards to address nutrient and sediment-based pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Part of the jurisdictions' water quality standards
development process may be to conduct use attainability analyses (UAAs). The EPA also
developed the Technical Support Document for Identifying Chesapeake Bay Designated
Uses and Attainability (Technical Support Document) to assist states in developing their
individual UAAs.
The UAA process is traditionally conducted by individual states. This UAA document
provides the technical background information for the Maryland UAA. This UAA
documents why the current designated uses for aquatic life protection cannot be attained in
all parts of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay and the associated tidal tributaries. It provides
scientific data showing that natural and human-caused conditions that cannot be remedied
are the basis for the non-attainment and proposes refined designated uses that Maryland has
considered for the current water quality standards development and adoption processes. The
document also provides scientific data indicating that the refined designated uses are
attainable in most of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay segments and documents that the refined
designated uses protect existing aquatic life uses. Finally, this UAA briefly summarizes
economic analyses based on implementation of Maryland's Tributary Strategies, including
estimates of the cost of implementation of the appropriate control scenarios.
Page3 of 16
-------
INTRODUCTION TO USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.3) defines a UAA as "... a structured
scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of a use which may include
physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors..." (40 CFR 131.10[g]). The Water
Quality Standards Regulation requires a state to conduct a UAA when it designates uses that
do not include those specified in Section 101(1)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.1 A state must also conduct a UAA when it wishes to remove a specified designated use
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or adopt subcategories of those specified uses
that require less stringent criteria.
When conducting a UAA, a state must demonstrate that attaining the designated use is not
feasible due to one or more of six factors specified in Section 131.10(g) of the Water
Quality Standards Regulation. These factors are:
1. Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use;
2. Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low-flow conditions or water levels prevent the
attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge
of a sufficient volume of effluent without violating state water conservation
requirements to enable uses to be met;
3. Human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and
cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to
leave in place;
4. Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of
the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to
operate such modifications in a way that would result in the attainment of the use;
5. Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of
a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles and the like, unrelated to chemical
water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses; and
6. Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b)(l)(A) and (B) and 306
of the Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts.
The Water Quality Standards Regulation also specifies that any change in designated uses
must show that the existing uses are still being protected. The EPA's 1983 Water Quality
Standards Handbook provides two definitions for an existing use. First, an existing use can
be defined as fishing, swimming or other uses that have actually occurred since November
28, 1975. The second definition of an existing use is that the water quality of a water body
is suitable to allow the use to be attained—unless there are physical problems, such as
substrate or flow, that prevent use attainment. The Water Quality Standards Regulation, in
turn, requires state anti-degradation policies to protect existing water quality. Therefore, any
recommendations regarding refined designated uses for Maryland portions of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries must ensure that existing aquatic life uses continue
to be protected.
Page 4 of 16
-------
ATTAINABILITY OF MARYLAND'S CURRENT WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Maryland's current water quality standards for the Chesapeake Bay include aquatic life use,
commercial shellfish harvest, and water contact recreation uses. To protect the aquatic life
uses in the Bay and its tidal tributaries, Maryland adopted a dissolved oxygen criteria of 5
mg/L applied year-round throughout all tidally influenced waters. In 1987, the Bay Program
partners set a 40 percent loading reduction goal for "controllable" nitrogen and phosphorus
to improve low oxygen conditions in the deep trench of the mainstem Bay. This translated
into an actual basinwide nitrogen goal of 20 percent reduction of the controllable nitrogen
load, while the basinwide phosphorus goal was about a 31 percent reduction from a 1985
baseline. Caps on nitrogen and phosphorus loads were established through the 1992
Amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and were allocated to each of the 10 major
tributary basins in Maryland. The State developed tributary strategies that laid out schedules
for taking the specific reduction actions needed to achieve these loading goals. In 1996,
Maryland listed all portions of the Chesapeake Bay and most of its tidal tributaries were
listed as impaired by nutrients or sediment on the States' 303(d) list. With the signing of
the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, Maryland and the other Chesapeake Bay Program
partners have committed to go beyond setting new loading caps for nutrient and sediment
and developing local stakeholder-based implementation plans. They have committed to
"correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
tributaries sufficiently to remove the Bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the list
of impaired waters (303(d) list) under the Clean Water Act."
To avoid potential negative impacts that a regulatory TMDL process might have on the
successful, cooperative efforts being used by the states' tributary strategy programs, the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement lays out a series of commitments directed towards seeking a
cooperative solution to restoring Bay water quality. An important initial commitment was
defining the water quality conditions necessary to support Bay living resources-fish, crabs,
oyster, Bay grasses in 2003 (EPA, 2003). Also, the Bay State partners (DE, MD, VA, and
the District of Columbia) agreed to adopt the new water quality standards by 2005.
As part of the new Bay water quality standards adoption process, an analysis of the
feasibility of attainment of the current water quality standards must be performed. This is
the first step in the UAA process. The determination of non-attainability of the current
water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries is based on three of
the six 40 CFR 131 (10)(g) factors noted above— (1) natural factors, (2) human-caused
conditions that cannot be remedied, and (3) hydrologic modification (Patapsco River
Navigation channels). Output from model-simulated attainment scenarios, TMDL model
scenarios for the Patapsco River, and the paleoecological record of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem provide evidence that these conditions prevent attainment of current designated
uses.
Page 5 of 16
-------
To understand the overall feasibility of attaining current designated uses in the Chesapeake
Bay and its tidal tributaries, the Chesapeake Bay Program analyzed three scenarios: 'all-
forest,' 'pristine' and 'everything, everywhere by everyone,' ortheES scenario. The first
two scenarios are the best representations of pre- European settlement conditions (to capture
natural pollutant levels). The third scenario (E3) represents the boundary of what is
considered physically implausible by Maryland and other State partners for reducing
nutrient and sediment pollution. The results of these modeling scenarios demonstrate that
even under pristine conditions, the 5 mg/L dissolved oxygen criteria is not attained in the
deep channel and deep water (approximately 3% and 1% Baywide, respectively) during the
summer months. For the E3 scenario, 59 percent, 23 percent and 2 percent
non-attainment are exhibited in the deep-channel, deep-water and open-water areas,
respectively, even after implementation of nutrient reduction measures that represent limits
of technology.
During the past decade, paleoecological studies of the Chesapeake Bay's late Holocene
dissolved oxygen record have been carried out using several proxies of past dissolved
oxygen conditions, which are preserved in sediment cores that have been dated using the
most advanced geochronological methods. These studies, using various indicators of past
dissolved oxygen conditions, are reviewed in Cronin and Vann (2003) and provide
information that puts the monitoring record of the modern Chesapeake Bay into a long-term
perspective and permits an evaluation of natural variability in the context of restoration
targets. Several major themes emerge from the time period studied.
The 20th century sedimentary record confirms the limited monitoring record of dissolved
oxygen, documenting that there has been a progressive decrease in dissolved oxygen levels,
including the periods of extensive anoxia in the deep-channel region of the Chesapeake Bay
that have been prominent during the past 40 years. Most studies provide strong evidence
that there was a greater frequency or duration of seasonal anoxia beginning in the late 1930s
and 1940s and again around 1970, reaching unprecedented frequencies or duration in the
past few decades in the mesohaline Chesapeake Bay and the lower reaches of several tidal
tributaries (Zimmerman and Canuel 2000; Hagy 2002).
Extensive late 18th and 19th century land clearance also led to oxygen reduction and
hypoxia, which exceeded levels characteristic of the previous 2,000 years. Best estimates
for deep-channel mid-bay seasonal oxygen minima from 1750 to around 1950 are 0.3 to
1.4-2.8 mg/1 and are based on a shift to dinoflagellate cyst assemblages of species tolerant
of low dissolved oxygen conditions. These patterns are likely the result of increased
sediment influx and nitrogen and phosphorous runoff due to extensive land clearance and
agriculture.
Before the 17th century (pre-settlement), dissolved oxygen proxy data suggest that dissolved
oxygen levels in the deep channel of the Chesapeake Bay varied over decadal and inter-
annual time scales. These paleo-dissolved oxygen reconstructions are consistent with the
Chesapeake Bay's natural tendency to experience seasonal oxygen reductions due to its
bathymetry, freshwater-driven salinity stratification, high primary productivity and organic
matter and nutrient regeneration (Boicourt 1992; Malone 1992; Boynton et al. 1995).
Page 6 of 16
-------
The combined results of the E3, all-forest and pristine scenarios along with the scientific
conclusions from the paleoecological record, strongly indicate that current Maryland
aquatic life designated uses cannot be achieved in the Chesapeake Bay's and tidal
tributaries' deep-water and deep-channel habitats where natural physical processes and
bottom bathymetry-related barriers prevent oxygen replenishment. Natural conditions, as
well as human-caused conditions that cannot be remedied have caused the trend towards
hypoxia and most recently (especially after the 1960s) anoxia in the main channel of the
Chesapeake Bay and some of its larger tidal tributaries. The impact of these patterns has
been observed in large-scale changes in benthos and phytoplankton communities, which are
manifestations of habitat loss and degradation.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE REFINED DESIGNATED USES
Current designated uses for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries do not fully reflect
natural conditions and are too broad in their definition of use to support the adoption of
more habitat-specific aquatic life water quality criteria. The current uses also change across
jurisdictional borders within the same water body. Therefore, the first step in this process
was to derive attainable designated uses that protect current and existing uses and propose
criteria to protect those uses Baywide. In refining the tidal-water designated uses, the six
Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia considered five principal factors:
• Habitats used in common by sets of species and during particular life stages should be
delineated as separate designated uses;
• Natural variations in water quality should be accounted for by the designated uses;
• Seasonal uses of different habitats should be factored into the designated uses;
• The Chesapeake Bay criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a
should be tailored to support each designated use; and
• The refined designated uses applied to the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributary
waters will support the federal Clean Water Act goals and state goals for aquatic life
uses existing in these waters since 1975.
The five refined designated uses reflect the habitats of an array of recreationally,
commercially and ecologically important species and biological communities. The vertical
and horizontal extent of the designated use boundaries are based on a combination of
natural factors, historical records, physical features, hydrology, bathymetry and other
scientific considerations.
The migratory fish spawning and nursery designated use protects migratory and
resident tidal freshwater fish during the late winter to late spring spawning and
nursery season in tidal freshwater to low-salinity habitats. Located primarily in the
upper reaches of many Bay tidal rivers and creeks and the upper mainstem
Chesapeake Bay, this use will benefit several species including striped bass, perch,
shad, herring, sturgeon and largemouth bass.
The shallow-water bay grass designated use protects underwater bay grasses and the
many fish and crab species that depend on the vegetated shallow-water habitat
provided by underwater grass beds.
Page 7 of 16
-------
The open-water fish and shellfish designated use focuses on surface water habitats
in tidal creeks, rivers, embayments and the mainstem Chesapeake Bay and protects
diverse populations of sport fish, including striped bass, bluefish, mackerel and sea
trout, as well as important bait fish such as menhaden and silversides.
The deep-water seasonal fish and shellfish designated use protects animals
inhabiting the deeper transitional water-column and bottom habitats between the
well-mixed surface waters and the very deep channels. This use protects many
bottom-feeding fish, crabs and oysters, and other important species such as the bay
anchovy.
The deep-channel seasonal refuge designated use protects bottom sediment-
dwelling worms and small clams that bottom-feeding fish and crabs consume. It also
protects the meiofaunal community important to biogeochemical cycling processes
in the bottom sediments. Low to occasional no dissolved oxygen conditions occur
in this habitat zone during the summer.
ATTAINABILITY OF REFINED DESIGNATED USES
The Chesapeake Bay Program assessed attainability for the refined designated uses based
on dissolved oxygen for the migratory and spawning, open-water, deep-water and deep-
channel designated uses. Attainability for the shallow-water designated use was assessed
based on historic and recent data on the existence of underwater bay grass acreage. The
Chesapeake Bay Program did not assess attainability for the chlorophyll a criteria, which
applies to the open-water designated use, because this criteria is expressed in narrative
terms and does not provide a numeric value around which to perform attainability analyses.
For the refined designated uses to which the dissolved oxygen criteria apply, the
Chesapeake Bay Program evaluated attainability by comparing the modeled water quality
response to a series of technology-based nutrient reduction scenarios. This series of
scenarios was developed to represent the watershed's nutrient and sediment reduction
potential in terms of the types, extent of implementation and performance of best
management practices (BMPs), wastewater treatment technologies and storm water
controls. These scenarios range from Tier 1, which represents the current level of
implementation plus regulatory requirements implemented through 2010, to a theoretical
limit-of-technology scenario referred to previously as the "E3" scenario ("everything,
everywhere by everybody"). Tier 2 and Tier 3 are intermediate scenarios between Tier 1
and the E3 scenario. These tiers are artificial constructs of technological levels of effort and
do not represent the actual programs that jurisdictions will eventually implement to meet the
water quality standards. Rather, the state is using the tiers developed by the Chesapeake Bay
Program as an assessment tool to determine potential load reductions achievable by various
levels of technological effort, and to model water quality responses to controls. Tier 3 level
of effort scenarios have been adopted as the starting point for the implementation of
Maryland's Tributary Strategies. More recent and precise work has indicated that a level of
effort beyond Tier 3 will be necessary to achieve water quality standards.
Page 8 of 16
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Program used the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Water Quality
Models to determine the water quality response to the pollutant reductions in each scenario
(Appendix 1) and then compared these modeled water quality observations within the five
refined designated uses to determine the spatial and temporal extent of non-attainment with
the respective dissolved oxygen criteria. Specifically, comparison of model results for
dissolved oxygen were made to a monthly average dissolved oxygen concentration of 6
mg/1 for the migratory and spawning use, 5 mg/1 for the open-water use, 3 mg/1 for the
deep-water use and 1 mg/1 for the deep-channel use.
ATTAINMENT OF PROPOSED DISSOLVED OXYGEN CRITERIA
Migratory Spawning & Nursery Designated Use: Current monitoring data and Chesapeake
Bay Water Quality Model outputs indicate that the migratory and spawning designated use
is essentially being attained in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries for dissolved
oxygen. The few segments that are not fully attaining the dissolved oxygen criterion would
fully attain this use in the Tier 1 scenario (lowest level of control technologies).
Open Water Designated Use: Appendix 1 provides the results of the attainability analysis
for dissolved oxygen for the open-water (including shallow-water), deep-water and deep-
channel designated uses, by Chesapeake Bay Program segment. As Appendix 1 illustrates,
current monitoring data (presented under the 'observed' column) indicate that the open-
water designated use (OW under the DU column) is frequently not fully attained. However,
under the "New Confirm" column attainment is more frequent and non-attainment achieves
a much smaller magnitude. Non-attainment of 1 percent or less is considered attainable due
to natural variability, anticipation of reduced phosphorus flux as a result of greater
oxygenation and reduced pollution inputs, and various uncertainties in the models and
current load measurements.
Deep Water, & Deep Channel Designated Uses: For the deep-water designated use for
dissolved oxygen criteria, very little attainment is achieved based on current monitoring
data and existing implementation, and only some degree of attainment is seen at reduction
levels equivalent to Tier 2. At the reduction levels represented by the E3 scenario,
attainment is achieved for all segments of the Chesapeake Bay except for two: the Patapsco
River mesohaline (PATMH), and the middle central Chesapeake Bay (CB4MH).
Appendix 1 also illustrates that under observed conditions, the proposed dissolved oxygen
criteria are not attained for the deep-channel designated use. With increasing load
reductions, represented by Tier 3, percent non-attainment is primarily less than 2 percent,
except in the man-made navigation channels serving the Port of Baltimore in PATMH. Due
to significant non-attainment (77% when point sources are at E3) resulting from Federally-
authorized hydrologic modification (see Appendix 3) and complex circulation patterns that
move hypoxic and anoxic waters from the Bay's main channel into the Patapsco through
advection, the State has determined that further refinement of the designated use to preclude
aquatic life use during the seasonal application period of June 1 to September 30 was
necessary. Therefore, the State has proposed a "Navigation Channel" designated use
subcategory with the applicable D.O. criteria being 0 mg/L from June 1 to September 30
inclusive.
Page 9 of 16
-------
ATTAINMENT OF PROPOSED WATER CLARITY CRITERIA
Shallow Water Bay Grass Designated Use: Attainability for the shallow-water bay grass
designated use is based on historic and recent data on the distribution of underwater bay
grasses. Detailed analyses using this data—including historical aerial photographs—were
undertaken to map the distribution and depth of historical underwater bay grass beds in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. These analyses led to the adoption of the single
best year method that considers historical underwater bay grass distributions from the 1930s
through the early 1970s as well as more recent distributions since 1978 to present. Using
this method, the Chesapeake Bay Program and its watershed partners established a baywide
underwater bay grass restoration goal of 185,000 acres. Because of limitations associated
with mapping underwater bay grasses using historical photography, the estimate of past
underwater bay grass distributions is conservative. Therefore, the restoration goals for the
Bay and its tidal tributaries (See Appendix) is conservative as well and considered
attainable.
CONFIRMATION THAT EXISTING USES ARE MET
In establishing the refined designated uses, Maryland and the state partners in collaboration
with the Chesapeake Bay Program, took explicit steps in developing the requirements and
boundaries to ensure that existing aquatic life uses would continue to be protected as the
EPA water quality standards regulation require. For some refined designated uses—the
migratory fish spawning and nursery, the deep-water and the deep-channel—the application
of new dissolved oxygen criteria will result in improvements to existing water quality
conditions. The refined open-water fish and shellfish designated use dissolved oxygen
criteria will continue to provide an equal level of protection as the current state water
quality standards afford to the same tidal waters. The refined shallow-water bay grass
designated use ensures protection of existing underwater bay grass-related uses because the
single best year method is based on historical (1930s through the early 1970s) and more
recent (1978-present) underwater bay grass distributions. This method goes beyond the
requirements of the federal clean water act that states that existing uses are those uses that
actually occurred on or after November 28, 1975.
Page 10 of 16
-------
ECONOMIC ANALYSES
The Technical Support Document summarizes three types of economic analyses that the
Chesapeake Bay Program performed in conjunction with developing revised water quality
criteria, designated uses and boundaries for those uses in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
waters. An analysis was undertaken to estimate the costs of implementing the hypothetical
control scenarios (represented by the Tier 1-3 scenarios). Maryland has performed the same
types of economic analyses on the Maryland Tributary Strategies Program, the "Tier 3"
implementation plan for meeting the new Bay water quality standards. The Bay program
also conducted screening-level analyses to rule out areas that would not experience
substantial and widespread economic and social impacts if states implemented controls
more stringent than those required by sections 301 and 306 of the Clean Water Act. The
results of analyses to model regional economic impacts are also summarized in the
Technical Support Document.
Cost
The projected total (capital and operating) costs are approximately $10 billion through
2010. This is predicated on a statewide evaluation of the sewage treatment upgrades and
best management practice implementation levels necessary to attain the water quality
standards in the Bay and tidal tributaries. Implementation measures were used to achieve
water quality standards with consideration of cost, cost effectiveness, feasibility, and
minimization of undesired impacts such as sprawl. The costs can be broken out into the
broad categories of agricultural best management practices, urban best management
practices, sprawl and septic systems, and point sources. There is considerable uncertainly
about the cost estimates in each category, particularly for urban best management practices
and sprawl and septic systems; consequently there is considerable uncertainty about the
total cost. There is additional uncertainty about the effectiveness of the BMPs and therefore
the level of implementation that will actually be needed. Nevertheless, after considerable
review by State program staff, EPA and contractors, this is the best estimate possible at the
current time. It is anticipated that as innovative and more effective management practices
are developed, the implementation will evolve and change the costs.
A reevaluation of the water quality benefits that can be achieved is scheduled for 2007 and
will incorporate a revised watershed model, a refined water quality model, better estimates
of best management practice efficiency, and the incorporation of best management practices
not currently included in the watershed model. This will likely modify the required
implementation levels and therefore the costs.
Economic impact
The relevance of the economic impact of achieving water quality standards to the Use
Attainability Analysis is dependent on several factors:
• Whether the costs that will be incurred to meet water quality standards are
mandatory or can be incurred as funds become available,
Page 11 of 16
-------
• Whether the costs result from an administrative decision such as a permit or result
from legislative action such as the Bay Restoration Fund, and
• As a corollary, whether the costs result from the regulatory promulgation of these
water quality standards or would be incurred even if this action didn't take place.
Costs are mandatory for only two components: point sources and urban best management
practices. If the costs are not mandatory, e.g., because there are no direct regulatory
controls, then economic impact is not relevant to the UAA because the costs and therefore
the impact are only incurred on a cooperative basis. It has generally been accepted among
the local governments and tributary teams, that where no regulatory requirement exists,
implementation will be dependent on providing funding and other incentives. However,
without a requirement, the economic impact will be only that which is accepted by the
public or provided by funding agencies. Those costs will be spread nationally in the case of
federal funding, resulting in a minimal impact or one absorbed into existing programs. In
the case of State funding, they will be legislatively directed as a general policy decision,
absorbed within existing programs, or will not occur. In any of these cases, the impact will
either be acceptable or not result immediately from the implementation of the water quality
standards.
For point sources, the Maryland General Assembly has acted prior to the promulgation of
the water quality standards, thus promulgation of the standards cannot be the direct cause of
any costs incurred for the Bay Restoration Fund. Further, the General Assembly has
effectively determined that the costs are not prohibitive by passing Governor Ehrlich's
legislation. This provides the funds necessary to leverage bond issuance that will cover the
full costs of enhanced nutrient removal at major wastewater treatment plants. The Fund also
provides for a significant amount of cover crops, a very cost effective agricultural best
management practice, as well as installation of denitrifying septic systems in the critical
area, where the benefit of such systems to the Bay will be greatest.
Although implementation of urban best management practices is required, it is required
under the NPDES permit system and costs would be incurred regardless of this change in
water quality standards. Further, at this time the permits are technology-based, not water
quality-based, and therefore not dependent on this regulatory action. The costs of
implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
as does the economic impact, because economic factors (i.e., number of households and
median household income) and costs vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If there are
significant and widespread impacts for stormwater permits they need to be addressed as part
of the permit conditions, not at the water quality standards level since the standards will still
have general applicability, even if this creates a problem in a particular jurisdiction. In such
a case, the issue will be handled at the jurisdiction level.
Finally, the costs for agricultural best management practices cannot be compelled under
existing regulations or permit requirements, and it has been generally agreed that
implementation will occur as funds are made available. If the funds are actually available,
then it is implicit that the economic hardship was not significant and widespread. Further,
Page 12 of 16
-------
the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 in combination with the Bay Restoration Act
funding for cover crops, were both passed prior to this promulgation, and therefore the
water quality standards promulgation can be the cause of the costs.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF IMPROVED WATER QUALITY
As stated previously, when evaluating use attainability, states may consider whether
controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b)(l)(A) and (B) and 306 of the
Clean Water Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts.
Estimating potential economic benefits also is integral to understanding the economic
impacts of improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries To
estimate the potential economic benefits of restoring Chesapeake Bay water quality, a
regional forecasting model developed by Regional Economic Modeling, Inc. (REMI), and
an economic impact model (IMPLAN) from the Minnesota IMPLAN Group was used. The
IMPLAN model indicates that the Tier 3 scenario would result in a net increase in output,
employment, and value-added in the six Chesapeake Bay watershed states and the District
of Columbia. In addition, the REMI model forecasts that gross regional product in the State
of Maryland will grow by 37 percent by 2010, corresponding to 19 percent growth in
employment and 17 percent growth in real disposable personal income. This estimated
growth is not accounted for in the IMPLAN results (which are based on current economic
conditions). The economic stimulus from Tier 3 results from increased spending in high-
wage industries (e.g., wastewater treatment technologies) as well as an influx of funds for
pollution controls (e.g., federal cost shares for agricultural BMPs); additional market
benefits likely to result from improved water quality (e.g., commercial and recreational
fishing industries) are not included. Therefore, the regional economy should expand as a
result of the tier scenarios.
Although no comprehensive estimate of the benefits from nutrient and sediment reduction
actions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is available, data suggest that the Chesapeake Bay
affects industries that generate approximately $20 billion and 340,000 jobs (including
commercial fishing, boat building and repair and tourism). Tourism, as a composite
industry, represents the 14th largest source of output, and the 8th largest source of
employment, in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It is not clear the extent to which each of
these sectors relies on Chesapeake Bay water quality; however, participation rates and
expenditures on recreational fishing suggest that a significant percentage of tourism output
is likely linked to the quality of water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay. For example, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation reports annual expenditures by fishermen of $1,261 million, and
1,859,000 fishing participants, in the states of Maryland, Virginia and Delaware.
Available studies of benefits include Bockstael et al. (1989), which estimate the total value
of 20 percent improvement in nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations in the Chesapeake
Bay to be $17 million to $76 million in 1996 dollars. Similarly, Krupnick (1988) estimated
the total value of a 40 percent improvement in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations at
$43 million to $123 million (in 1996 dollars).
Page 13 of 16
-------
REFERENCES
Boicourt, WC. 1992. Influences of circulation processes on dissolved oxygen in Chesapeake
Bay. In: Smith, D., M. Leffler and G. Mackiernana (eds.). Oxygen Dynamics in Chesapeake
Bay: A Synthesis of Research. University of Maryland Sea Grant College Publications,
College Park, Maryland. Pp 7-59.
Boynton, WR, JH Garber, R. Summers and WM Kemp. 1995. Inputs, transformations, and
transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries. Estuaries
18:285-314.
Cronin, TM and C. Vann. 2003. The sedimentary record of anthropogenic and climatic
influence on the Patuxent Estuary and Chesapeake Bay ecosystems. Estuaries 26(2A).
EPA. 2003. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and
Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries. April 2003, 231 pp and
Appendices. EPA 903-R-03-002.
Hagy, JD. 2002. Eutrophication, hypoxia and trophic transfer efficiency in Chesapeake Bay.
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Malone, TC. 1992. Effects of water column processes on dissolved oxygen: Nutrients,
plankton and zooplankton. In: Smith, D., M. Leffler and G. Mackiernana (eds.). Oxygen
Dynamics in Chesapeake Bay: A Synthesis of Research. University of Maryland Sea Grant
College Publications, College Park, Maryland. Pp 61-112.
Zimmerman and Canuel, 2002. Sediment geochemical records of eutrophication in the
mesohaline Chesapeake Bay. Limnol. Oceanogr., 47(4), 2002, 1084-1093
Page 14 of 16
-------
Appendix 1: Chesapeake Bay Program Attainment Table. MIG=Migratory and Spawning
Use, OW=Open Water Use, DW=Deep Water Use, DC=Deep Channel Use. New
confirmation run results are used to make attainment estimate. A=fully attained at nutrient
allocation. Proportion = proportion of time and volume not in attainment. Less than 0.01
(1%) within margin of error and not considered significant, greater than 1% treated by
variance in the designated uses section.
Table 1- Key Scenarios- Summary of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Attainment*
Segment
Mainstem Upper Bay (CB1TF)
Mainstem Upper Bay (CB2OH)
Mainstem Upper Bay (CB3MH)
Mainstem Mid-Bay (CB4MH)
Mainstem Mid-Bay (CB5MH)
Patuxent Tidal Fresh (PAXTF)
Patuxent Mid-Estuary (PAXOH)
Patuxent Lower Estuary (PAXMH)
Potomac Tidal Fresh (POTTF)
Potomac Mid-Estuary (POTOH)
Potomac Lower Estuary (POTMH)
Segment
CB1TF CB1TF
CB1TF CB1TF
CB2OH
CB2OH
CB3MH
CB3MH
DU Observed
CB2OH
CB2OH
CB3MH
CB3MH
CB3MH
CB3MH
CB4MH CB4MH
CB4MH
CB4MH
CB5MH CB5MH
CB5MH
CB5MH
PAXTF PAXTF
PAXTF PAXTF
PAXOH PAXOH
PAXOH PAXOH
PAXMH PAXMH
PAXMH PAXMH
PAXMH
POTTF POTTF
POTTF POTTF
POTOH POTOH
POTOH POTOH
POTMH POTMH
POTMH POTMH
POTMH
POTMH
JMSOH JMSOH
EASMH EASMH
EASMH EASMH
EASMH
EASMH
CHOOH CHOOH
CHOOH CHOOH
Choptank Lower Estuary (CHOMH1) CHOMH1 CHOMH1 MIG
CHOMH1 CHOMH1 OW
Choptank Lower Estuary (CHOMH2) CHOMH2 CHOMH2 MIG
Eastern Bay (EASMH)
Choptank Mid-Estuary (CHOOH)
MIG
OW
MIG
OW
MIG
OW
DW
DC
OW
DW
DC
OW
DW
DC
MIG
OW
MIG
OW
MIG
OW
DW
MIG
OW
MIG
OW
MIG
OW
DW
DC
OW
MIG
OW
DW
DC
MIG
OW
A
A
A
1.92
0.19
A
4.18
13.52
0.05
19.64
45.19
A
6.16
13.79
A
A
A
9.79
A
7.40
5.52
A
A
A
2.10
A
0.78
6.90
18.89
A
A
A
3.26
20.23
A
0.11
A
2.27
A
New Confirm
A
A
A
0.09
A
A
0.46
0.40
A
6.99
1.75
A
0.86
0.08
A
A
A
0.10
A
A
A
A
A
A
0.20
A
A
0.58
0.17
A
A
A
0.27
0.10
A
A
A
0.92
A
Page 15 of 16
-------
CHOMH2CHOMH2OW
Tangier Sound (TANMH) TANMH TANMH
Pocomoke (POCMH) POCMH POCMH
Chester Lower (CHSMH)** CHSMH CHSMH
CHSMH CHSMH
CHSMH CHSMH
CHSMH CHSMH
* 4/1/03, Version 15 - Changes
since version 12: SAV Re-
calibration, Wetlands Oxygen
Demand, No Seasonal Anoxic
Zone
** for information purposes only, model not sufficiently calibrated for these areas
ow
ow
ow
MIG
OW
DW
DC
0.33
0.15
A
A
5.67
0.85
11.80
A
0.33
A
A
1.98
A
A
Page 16 of 16
-------
UAA for the Federal Navigation
Channels in Tidal Portions of the
Patapsco River
-------
Use Attainability Analysis for the federal navigation channels
located in tidal portions of the Patapsco River.
-------
Use Attainability Analysis For Patapsco River Mesohaline (PATMH):
Preamble
In April 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III issued guidance
entitled Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a
for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries (Regional Criteria Guidance}. The
development of the Regional Criteria Guidance was the realization of a key commitment in the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement. In that agreement, the signatories (the states of Pennsylvania,
Maryland and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the
EPA) committed to, "by 2001, define the water quality conditions necessary to protect aquatic
living resources." New York Delaware and West Virginia agreed to the same commitment
through a separate six-state memorandum of understanding with the EPA.
The EPA, in the Regional Criteria Guidance, defined the water quality conditions called for in
the Chesapeake 2000 agreement through the development of Chesapeake Bay-specific water
quality criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity and chlorophyll a. The EPA also identified
and described five habitats, or designated uses, that provide the context in which the EPA Region
III derived adequately protective Chesapeake Bay water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen,
water clarity and chlorophyll a. Collectively, the three water quality conditions provide the best
and most direct measures of the effects of too much nutrient and sediment pollution on the Bay's
aquatic living resources—fish, crabs, oysters, their prey species and underwater bay grasses.
These criteria were developed as part of a larger effort to restore Chesapeake Bay water quality.
The Maryland Department of the Environment, as a partner working in good faith to fulfill the
goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, is currently in the process of promulgating the new
Chesapeake Bay water quality standards to protect the Bay's aquatic living resources within the
State of Maryland. This Use Attainability Analysis was developed by the Department to be a
companion to the new Chesapeake Bay water quality standards (COMAR 26.08.01.01,
26.08.02.02, 26.08.02.03-3, and 26.08.08.08). This analysis describes the development and
geographical extent of the designated uses to which the water quality criteria may apply, and as
such serves as a resource to the State and its citizens to assist them in the monitoring,
assessment, and protection of the Bays' resources.
The Use Attainability Analysis is not law or regulation; it is an assessment of the attainability of
the current Bay water quality standards as well as the newly proposed water quality standards.
Purpose:
This use attainability analysis is provided to support the proposed water quality regulation at
COMAR 26.08.02.03-3 §C (7)(f)
Executive Summary:
The current designated use for the Patapsco River (including Baltimore Harbor) is Use I,
meaning that the water quality should be expected to support aquatic life and provide for
recreation in and on the water. The Chesapeake Bay Program in collaboration with the Bay
-------
Watershed States (MD, VA, PA , NY, DE, and Washington D.C.) have recently developed new
water quality standards for the Bay mainstem and its tidal tributaries, including the Patapsco
River. The new standards proposes up to 4 designated uses for the Patapsco River applied
spatially and temporally based on the needs of living resources and the hydrology and
bathymetry of the Patapsco River.
An analysis of the existing water quality data indicates that the dissolved oxygen criteria for the
deep channel seasonal refuge use (instantaneous minimum of 1.0 mg/L, applied June 1 to
September 30) cannot be met, even after projected nutrient reductions from point sources (based
on implementation of ENR to achieve 3 mg/L TN) and the application of the Tributary Strategies
reductions for nonpoint sources. The current best projections of the water quality model indicate
a minimum 70% exceedence rate in the deep channel seasonal refuge designated use. The
dissolved oxygen criteria for the open water designated use, which applies from October 1 to
May 31, is projected to be attained within the accepted biologic reference curve.
The application of 40CFR§131.10(g) use attainability factors 1,3, and 4 are necessary based on
the analyses of existing water quality data and the Chesapeake Bay water quality model's
calculations of expected conditions following nutrient reductions projected by the
implementation of the Tributary Strategies. Further, this analysis is supported by examining the
historical background of Army COE activities conducted in the Patapsco River pursuant to the
Federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1852 and its subsequent reauthorizations. Therefore, the
Department of the Environment is proposing a modification of the designated uses and criteria
within the Chesapeake Bay Segment "Patapsco River Mesohaline (PATMH)". The proposed
modification is to the dissolved oxygen criteria for the deep channel seasonal refuge designated
use from an instantaneous minimum of 1.0 mg/L to an instantaneous minimum of 0.0 mg/L
applied temporally and spatially from June 1 to September 30. The proposed modification will
result in a further subcategorization from the designated use subcategory of "Deep Channel
Seasonal Refuge" to a limited use subcategory of "Navigation Channel", thus removing the
support of aquatic life use normally required by water quality standards.
Introduction to Use Attainability Analysis:
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.3) defines a UAA as "... a structured
scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of a use which may include physical,
chemical, biological, and economic factors..." (40 CFR 131.10[g]). The Water Quality
Standards Regulation requires a state to conduct a UAA when it designates uses that D.O. not
include those specified in Section 101(1)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The
regulation at 131.10(j) provide that a state must conduct a use attainability analysis (UAA)
whenever:
the State designates or has designated uses that D.O. not include those specified in CWA
Section 101(a)(2); or
the State wishes to remove a CWA Section 101(a)(2) use, or to aD.O.pt subcategories of
uses specified in CWA Section 101(a)(2) which require less stringent criteria.
States may remove a designated use which is not an existing use, as defined in Sec. 131.3, or
establish sub-categories of a designated use, if the State can demonstrate that attaining the
designated use is not feasible because:
-------
(1) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use; or
(2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the
attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge
of sufficient volume of effluent discharges without violating State water conservation
requirements to enable uses to be met; or
(3) Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use
and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to
leave in place; or
(4) Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment
of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to
operate such modification in a way that would result in the attainment of the use; or
(5) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack
of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water
quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or
(6) Controls more stringent than those required by33USC1301§§ 301(b)(l)(A) and (B)
and 306 of the Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social
impacts.
The Water Quality Standards Regulation also specifies that any change in designated uses must
show that the existing uses are still being protected. "Existing uses" means those uses actually
attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in
the water quality standards. Existing uses can include those uses (i.e. fishing, swimming,
navigation) people make or have made sometime since November 1975, whether or not the water
quality supports that use; and/or uses that the water quality is good enough to support, unless
there are physical problems, such as substrate or flow, that prevent use attainment.
Patapsco River Existing Use (Navigation Channel) - Historical Background:
In 1830, the Patapsco River was surveyed and it was determined that the controlling depth was
17 ft from the Chesapeake Bay to Fort McHenry. By 1836, Congress appropriated funds to
dredge the entrance channels for the Baltimore Harbor, although no channel dimensions were
specified in the law. Dredging was completed in 1838. This was the initiation of dredging
activity in the Patapsco River to enable Baltimore Harbor to remain a productive commercial
port. The following table is a summary of major activities under the Federal Rivers and Harbors
Act.
Table 1. Timeline of major ACOE activities pursuant to Federal Rivers and Harbors Act
1852
1892
1903
1917
Rivers & Harbors Act of 1852 authorized a channel 22 ft deep by 150 ft wide from Fort
McHenry to the Chesapeake Bay off Swan Point.
A 27-ft-deep Federal channel to Curtis Bay was authorized and completed
The main Patapsco River channel was deepened to a 30-ft depth.
The Act authorized the branch channels to 35 ft deep and 250 ft wide to the head of
Curtis Bay, 35 ft deep by 400 ft wide from Fort McHenry to the Ferry Bar, then 27 ft
deep by 50 ft wide to the Western Maryland Railway Bridge. The Act also authorized
-------
Federal maintenance of a 35-ft channel in the Northwest Branch
1930
The Act authorized the deepening of the Baltimore Harbor channel depth to 37 ft for the
York Spit Channel in Virginia and channels from the Baltimore Light to the Sparrows
Point entrance. The Act also authorized widening the channel angles between Fort
McHenry and the Ferry Bar Section and increasing the channel width to 400 ft for the
Curtis Bay Section.
1945
The Act authorized increasing the channel depth to 39 ft deep and 1,000 ft wide in the
Cape Henry and York Spit Channels in Virginia, and to 39 ft deep and 600 ft wide from
the Craighill Entrance to Fort McHenry. The 1945 Act also authorized the dredging of
Curtis Creek to 35 ft deep and 200 ft wide from the head of Curtis Bay to the
Pennington Avenue Bridge.
1958
The Act authorized the deepening of the main channel to 42 ft and widening the
channels from the Craighill Entrance to Fort McHenry from 600 to 800 ft and the
deepening and widening of the Curtis Bay and Ferry Bar Channels of the Harbor to 42 ft
deep and 600 ft wide.
1970
The Act authorized deepening the main channel from Cape Henry to Fort McHenry, and
the Curtis Bay Channel to 50 ft, and deepening the Northwest Branch East and West
Channels to 49 and 40 ft, respectively.
Source: http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/projects/Maryland/DMMP/history.html
Existing Conditions (Water Quality):
Dissolved Oxygen
The following plots show the calibration of the Baltimore Harbor D.O. against observed data
from 1992 to 1997. Note the anoxic conditions of the Harbor in the bottom layer at each station
during the summer months. Anoxic conditions may start as early as as March in the Inner
Harbor and May in the Middle of the Harbor Channel.
M8
Harbor Month
20 -
0
20 -
^> 15 -
Dl
E
10 -
o
a
BOTTOM (13)
365
730 1095 1460
DAYS SINCE JANUARY 1 1992
1S25
2190
-------
M16CWT5.1) Channd
365
730
DAYS SINCE JANUARY 1 1992
M28(INHB)
en
20 -
15 -_
10 -
0
20 -
15 -_
10 -
Inner Harbor
0 D
SURFACE (19)
BOTTOM (13)
365
730 1095 1460
DAYS SINCE JANUARY 1 1992
1825
-------
Note: For the graphs above, the light gray lines represent the Chesapeake Bay Model Release
4.3, the dark gray lines represent the MDE adaptation of the Chesapeake Bay Model 4.3, and the
open circles represent the data collected by the Department.
A number of sensitivity scenarios were run using MDE adaptation (MDE had finer resolution
grid for the Patapsco River) of the Chesapeake Bay Model Release 4.3. The following sensitivity
scenarios were run using the calibrated model to estimate the influence of the different loadings
sources and to estimate the extend of impairments due to natural conditions and/or man-made
conditions.
1) Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Load Allocation;
2) CBP Allocation with MDE nonpoint source (NPS) reductions;
3) CBP Allocation with MDE NPS and CBP- "E3" (Everything, everywhere, by everybody)
point source (PS) reductions;
4) CBP Allocation with MDE NPS and current permits for PS;
5) CBP Allocation with MDE NPS and "Enhanced Nutrient Removal Strategy" (ENR) PS;
and
6) Tributary Strategy (MDE proposed total maximum daily load scenario - results
shown in table below):
• Baltimore Harbor Loads
Point Source
• Flow: Maximum permit flow, and
• Major Municipal PS - ENR: total nitrogen(TN): 4 milligrams/liter
annual average: (3 milligrams/liter from May - October; 5
milligrams/liter from November - April), and total phosporus (TP): 0.3
milligrams/liter
• Minor Municipal PS - ENR: TN: 18 mg/L; TP: 3 mg/L
• Industrial PS - CBP Tier III Scenario loads
Nonpoint Source
•MDE's "Hydrodynamic Simulation Program - Fortran" model outputs x
Pass Through Efficiency
•Pass Through Efficiency = CBP allocation/CBP calibration
TN=0.33 TP = 0.33
Scenario Results
D.O. attainment check for the proposed "Deep Channel Seasonal Refuge" use:
MDE Calibration,
CBP Allocation
and Possible
TMDL Scenarios
JCBP allocation
with MDE
projected NPS
and ENR-PS
Patapsco River Mesohaline D.O. Percent non-attainment
Deep Water
June to
September
7 (3 mg/L)
Deep Channel
June to
September
79
Open Water
June to
September
0
Migratory Fish
February to May
0
Open Water
October to
January
0
-------
1. This scenario represents the current Tributary Strategies reduction based on N and P allocations produced by the
Chesapeake Bay Program (Model Release 4.3). The D.O. attainment check was run against the proposed criteria for
each applicable designated use subcategory. A restoration variance of 7% applied temporally and spatially has been
proposed for the "Deep Water Seasonal Fish and Shellfish" use, based on those same model runs.
Benthic Characterization:
The existing benthic community in the Outer and Inner Harbor deep-dredged channels can be
characterized as unstable due to frequent disturbances, such as the 42-foot dredging project,
annual maintenance dredging and prop-washes associated with ship movements, and is thought
to consist primarily of opportunistic species. The community likely to recolonize in the deep
dredged channels would be similar in nature to the existing benthic community, since the
existing benthic community is unstable and frequently disturbed, and recolonization may occur
within a relatively short time.
Conclusions:
Due to significant non-attainment (77% when point sources are at E3) resulting from Federally-
authorized hydrologic modification under the Rivers and Harbors Act and a complex pattern of
tidal circulation that move hypoxic and anoxic waters from the Bay's main channel into the
Patapsco through advection, the State has determined that further refinement of the designated
use to support only benthic species that are tolerant to periods of hypoxia and/or anoxia during
the seasonal application period of June 1 to September 30 is the highest attainable use in this
water body segment during this period. Therefore, the State has proposed a "Navigation
Channel" designated use subcategory with the applicable D.O. criteria being 0 mg/L from June 1
to September 30 inclusive. The geographic extent of this narrowly structured use is confined to
the dredged channels that begin at the mouth of the Patapsco River (confluence with the
Chesapeake Bay), and continuing in to the Curtis Bay and Creek, and the Middle and Northwest
Branchs.
-------
Appendix G:
Case Studies—March 2005
-------
Water Quality Standards:
Examples of Alternatives to Changing Long-term
Designated Uses to Achieve Water Quality Goals
- ^
•^ -
••
*Casc study examples developed by States and EPA
-------
Water Quality Standards:
Examples of Alternatives to
Changing Long-term Designated Uses
To Achieve Water Quality Goals*
March 2005
* Case study examples developed by States and EPA
-------
Foreword
FOREWORD
States, Tribes, and Regions need to share information about regulatory tools for facilitating
progress towards meeting Clean Water Act goals, particularly in impaired waterbodies.
Attainment of water quality standards may, in some instances, require relatively long time
frames (e.g., greater than five years) to achieve the State's designated use. For example, this
situation may occur with the following types of sources throughout the United States:
• Combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
• Pollution by legacy contaminants (e.g., PCBs, dioxins, some metals)
• Abandoned mines
• Urban and agricultural land use impacts (e.g., nonpoint sources)
• Nutrient enrichment
• Some industrial and POTW discharges of toxic pollutants
Some of these types of sources, such as periodic discharges from CSOs or nonpoint sources, may
cause temporary non-attainment of specified designated uses. For some pollutants, a relatively
long time frame may be required to alleviate the impairments, such as PCB contamination or
nutrient enrichment in bays, estuaries, lakes, and reservoirs. In some cases, there may not be
sufficient scientific basis for determining what uses can be attained. There also may be cases
where there is a common desire to improve conditions in the near term, even though the
achievability, or time frame of achievability, of the water quality standards in the longer term is
unknown or in question. In all of these cases, short-term mechanisms may provide a useful
incentive to make environmental improvements over current conditions. When stakeholders
believe they cannot achieve a long-term goal, some may resist the initiation of any
improvements.
Water quality standards must include designated uses consistent with the Clean Water Act goal
of "protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water"
unless there is an analysis supporting the assertion that it is not feasible to attain such a use.
Water quality standards must also include specific criteria to protect the designated uses.
Implementation of these water quality standards, through establishing permit limits on point
source dischargers or developing "Total Maximum Daily Loads" (TMDLs) for point and
nonpoint sources, must be aimed at the applicable water quality standard. TMDLs are plans to
achieve the applicable water quality standard and cannot authorize a delay in meeting otherwise
applicable regulatory requirements in and of themselves. However, mechanisms that do modify
the regulatory requirements can be used in conjunction with a TMDL.
There are several ways of adjusting aspects of a water quality-based program to facilitate
implementation of water quality standards without removing the long-term designated use.
Sometimes, these mechanisms are used in conjunction with one another to tailor a specific
approach. First, States may revise their criteria to better reflect specific protection needs. States
i March 2005
-------
Foreword
may also adjust the wasteload and load allocation portions of their TMDL to obtain an
achievable balance among sources. The next level is to examine use of schedules of compliance.
These are addressed in the Clean Water Act and in U.S. EPA's permitting regulations. They can
apply to individual dischargers and, in more recent examples, to multiple sources. Ideally,
schedules of compliance are authorized within the applicable water quality standards. States have
also used authorizing state legislation and general permits to help establish and implement
schedules of compliance. Finally, States can establish short-term goals, or variances, within their
applicable water quality standards. These are facilitated by the same water quality standards
regulatory requirements that allow removal of the long-term designated use, but are typically of
reduced scope in terms of pollutants addressed, affected sources, and time of applicability.
The tools presented here for use in attaining water quality standards can serve as alternatives to
changing long-term underlying designated uses and criteria. The following case studies,
developed by the States and EPA, provide initial examples of some approaches and tools that
have been used or are proposed for use. These particular examples focus on approaches that
combine schedules of compliance with adjustments to criteria. EPA will continue to work with
States to prepare case studies that illuminate the spectrum of approaches that utilize the
flexibility built into the water program to achieve important objectives.
March 2005
-------
Santa Monica Bay Bacteria
Santa Monica Bay Bacteria
Background Information
Santa Monica Bay lies offshore of Los Angeles County, California. The Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board developed a TMDL to address documented bacterial water quality
impairments at 44 beaches located along the coast from just south of Palos Verdes Peninsula
north to the Los Angeles/Ventura County line. The Santa Monica Bay Beaches Wet-weather
Bacteria TMDL was designed to preserve and enhance the water quality at Santa Monica Bay
beaches during wet-weather conditions, which are defined as days with 0.1 inch or greater
rainfall and the three days following the rainfall event. A separate TMDL was developed for dry
weather conditions.
An estimated 55 million people visit the Santa Monica Bay beaches each year. The primary
issues associated with bacterial contamination of the beaches include the health of swimmers and
surfers who use the beaches for recreation, the cost of health care associated with illness
originating from use of the water, and economic impacts to local economies when beachgoers go
elsewhere. For example, visitors to the beaches spent an estimated $1.7 billion locally in 2002.
Many of the beaches along Santa Monica Bay were listed on California's 1998 section 303(d)
list because elevated levels of coliform or beach closures associated with bacteria prevented the
full support of the beaches' designated use for water contact recreation. A consent decree
between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Heal the Bay, Inc., and BayKeeper,
Inc. was approved on March 22, 1999. As a part of the court order, EPA established a schedule
to complete a TMDL to reduce bacteria at Santa Monica Bay beaches. Water quality standards,
which are the basis for the targeted reduction in bacteria from dischargers identified in the
TMDL, are set at a level to ensure that the risk of illness to the public from swimming at Santa
Monica Bay beaches will be less than 19 illnesses per 1000 swimmers. This level of risk is
consistent with EPA recommended acceptable health risk levels for marine waters.
Runoff from storm drain systems was determined to be the primary source of bacterial
contamination leading to bacterial water quality impairments at the Santa Monica beaches.
Elevated levels of bacterial indicators in stormwater runoff from the storm drain system has been
linked to sanitary sewer leaks and spills, runoff from homeless encampments, pet waste, illegal
discharges from recreational vehicle holding tanks, and malfunctioning septic tanks and urban
runoff. Additional sources of elevated bacteria to marine waters could also include direct illegal
discharges from boats, malfunctioning septic tanks, illicit discharges from private drains, and
swimmer wash-off. It is also important to note that the bacteria indicators that are used to assess
water quality are not specific to human sewage. Other possible sources that can contribute to the
elevated bacterial indicator levels are fecal matter from animals and birds, vegetation, and food
waste.
March 2005
-------
Santa Monica Bay Bacteria
Treating elevated bacteria concentrations in stormwater runoff from semi-arid urban areas poses
significant challenges because of the ubiquitous nature of bacteria in the urban environment
coupled with the nature of storms and stormwater runoff in the semi-arid Los Angeles Region.
Local wet weather characterizations have shown elevated concentrations of bacteria from every
type of land use, making it difficult to prioritize and focus implementation measures in specific
geographic areas. Additionally, short, intense storms that create large peak flows and volumes
characterize the semi-arid Los Angeles Region. These large flows and volumes are difficult to
capture and treat at one point. The Los Angeles Regional Board recognized this challenge and
the need to implement stormwater capture-and-treat measures at multiple points throughout the
watershed to meet TMDL requirements. Given the lengthy and complex planning process that
would be required to implement a multi-benefit, watershed approach, the Regional Board
proposed a unique "reference system/antidegradation" (using their terminology) approach
combined with a relatively long implementation schedule, described below.
Approach
California establishes water quality standards, in part, through amendments to Regional Board
"Basin Plans". In this case, two amendments served as the water quality standards mechanisms
that facilitated this approach: one was a general authorizing provision for schedules of
compliance and the other was a specific procedure to adjust an aspect of a water quality criterion.
On February 10, 2004, EPA approved an amendment to the "Basin Plan" for the coastal
watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, which authorized inclusion of compliance
schedules in NPDES permits. Although adoption of such policies is optional for a state, such
implementation policies are subject to EPA review and approval under Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 303(c). The amendment specifies that where the Regional Board determines it is
infeasible for an existing discharger to achieve immediate compliance with an effluent limit
specified to implement a new, revised or newly interpreted water quality standard, the Regional
Board may establish a compliance schedule to implement a TMDL. An authorized compliance
schedule must include a time schedule for completing specific actions and be based on the
shortest time possible to achieve compliance.
For the Santa Monica beaches, the Regional Board proposed a wet weather TMDL to be
implemented over a period of 10 to 18 years. The relatively long implementation schedule allows
the use of an integrated water resources approach that takes a holistic view of regional water
resources management by integrating planning for future wastewater, storm water, recycled
water, and potable water needs and systems; focuses on beneficial re-use of storm water,
including groundwater infiltration, at multiple points throughout a watershed; and addresses
multiple pollutants that impair the Santa Monica Bay or its watershed. Although the general
authorizing provision for schedules of compliance is an approved water quality standard, the
specific implementation schedule for this TMDL was not subject to a specific water quality
standards review action.
A unique aspect of the wet-weather TMDL is the "reference system/anti degradation approach"
2 March 2005
-------
Santa Monica Bay Bacteria
adopted as a water quality standard. On June 19, 2003, EPA approved the "reference
system/antidegradation approach" and "natural sources exclusion approach," included as
amendments to the Basin Plan, as implementation procedures for the single sample
bacteriological objectives. A certain number of daily exceedances of the single sample bacteria
objectives is allowed based on historical exceedance levels at existing shoreline monitoring
locations, including a local reference beach within Santa Monica Bay. This approach recognizes
natural sources of bacteria that may cause or contribute to exceedances of the single sample
bacteria objectives. The Regional Board did not intend to require treatment or diversion of
natural creeks or treatment of natural sources of bacteria from undeveloped areas. This reference
system/anti-degradation approach is designed to ensure that human-generated sources of bacteria
and natural bacteria conveyed by human activities (e.g., storm water conveyances) do not cause
or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards. Additional data collection will allow
the Regional Board to better understand the contribution of naturally occurring bacteria and
refine the numeric target to address the natural sources or to adjust the objectives to recognize
naturally occurring exceedances. Arroyo Sequit Canyon, which drains to Leo Carrillo Beach was
proposed as the initial reference system. Arroyo Sequit Canyon is largely undeveloped with
about 98% open space and little evidence of human impact. The reference beach approach
ensures that water quality is at least as good as that of the reference beach.
Although not subject to formal EPA review under CWA Sections 303(c) or 303(d), the Regional
Board formally adopted a TMDL implementation schedule within a package of amendments to
their "Basin Plan". The implementation schedule contains the following flexibility:
• The use of the reference approach that allows a number of exceedance days based on
exceedances in an undeveloped reference watershed
• A re-opener in 4 years that allows for additional science to modify the implementation
plan
• Allowance for a longer implementation plan (up to 18 years) if the cities utilize an
integrated resource approach that involves water shed-wide storage and re-use and onsite
treatments instead of traditional engineering approaches of capture, treatment, and
discharge
Boundaries of Application
The California approach relies on the use of reference conditions to distinguish between natural
and human-caused bacterial contamination of Santa Monica Beaches. Long-term implementation
is required to allow time for the incorporation of changes using a multi-benefit watershed based
approach. The watershed approach will strive to incorporate groundwater recharge, water re-use
throughout the watershed, and integrate wastewater, storm water, recycled water, and potable
water needs throughout the basin feeding Santa Monica Bay.
March 2005
-------
Santa Monica Bay Bacteria
This application required multiple levels of approval since it was adopted as a water quality
standards action. This entails multiple reviews, citizen and stakeholder input, public meetings,
and formal Regional and State Board meetings. It is important to note that the "reference
system/antidegradation approach" was formally adopted in the California Water Quality
Standards. In this case, the adoption of the approach mostly occurred prior and/or concurrently
with the adoption of the TMDL. The selection of the reference locations is critical and should
reflect waters with no or virtually no anthropogenic impact. In using this approach, care must be
taken in selecting the reference location. They should not be selected solely because they are the
best, but degraded, conditions present in human-influenced systems.
Resources/References
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. 2002. Santa Monica Bay
Beaches Wet-weather Bacteria TMDL, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los
Angeles Region, California Environmental Protection Agency, Los Angeles California.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. 2002. Amendment to the
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Los Angeles Region to Incorporate
Implementation Provisions for the Region's Bacteria Objectives and to Incorporate a Wet-
weather Total Maximum Daily Load for Bacteria at Santa Monica Bay Beaches, Resolution No.
2002-022, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, California
Environmental Protection Agency, Los Angeles California.
March 2005
-------
Long Island Sound Dissolved Oxygen
Long Island Sound Dissolved Oxygen
Background Information
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP), the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) have identified nitrogen as the primary pollutant leading to summertime hypoxia (low
dissolved oxygen) in Long Island Sound bottom waters. While nitrogen is essential to a
productive ecosystem, too much nitrogen fuels the excessive growth of algae. When the algae
die, they sink to the bottom, where they are consumed by bacteria. The microbial decay of algae
and the respiration of oxygen-breathing organisms use up the available oxygen in the lower
water column and in the bottom sediments, gradually reducing the dissolved oxygen
concentration to unhealthy levels. Dense algal blooms also can inhibit light penetration,
preventing sufficient light from reaching the bottom in shallow areas to support the growth of
submerged aquatic vegetation, an important habitat for shellfish and juvenile fish. Consequently,
excessive nitrogen impairs the function and health of Long Island Sound.
Dissolved oxygen levels in the deep waters of Long Island Sound below the seasonal pycnocline
routinely fall below 2 mg/L in the summer months. These levels are too low to sustain important
fish and shellfish populations in the sound. State water quality standards for dissolved oxygen
were 6.0 mg/L for Connecticut waters and 5.0 mg/L in the New York portion. Connecticut and
New York developed the Long Island Sound nitrogen TMDL to address the hypoxia problem.
The baseline nitrogen load delivered to Long Island Sound from New York and Connecticut was
estimated to be about 48,000 tons of nitrogen per year. The TMDL, which was jointly
established by Connecticut and New York in December 2000 and approved by the EPA in April
2001, specifies that almost 24,000 tons of the nitrogen originating in New York and Connecticut
from human sources and delivered to the sound in the baseline year be reduced by 2014. This
translates into a reduction of 58.5% from the human-caused sources of nitrogen from New York
and Connecticut.
The TMDL specifies that point and non-point source discharges in New York must remove about
17,150 tons per year by 2014. In Connecticut, point source dischargers will be required to
remove about 6,670 tons of nitrogen annually from their effluent streams prior to discharge to
Long Island Sound or its tributaries. About 400 tons of nitrogen are targeted to be removed from
non-point sources, primarily urban stormwater runoff. To meet the Wasteload Allocation
established in the TMDL for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) in Connecticut, 79
POTWs will have to upgrade facilities such that the group will collectively meet the nitrogen
reduction requirements.
Approach
Connecticut used a three-pronged approach to improve the hypoxic conditions in Long Island
1 March 2005
-------
Long Island Sound Dissolved Oxygen
Sound to meet water quality standards for aquatic life support uses:
• Adopting appropriate dissolved oxygen criteria for bottom waters
• Establishing a TMDL that incorporates a phased implementation plan
• Implementing a nitrogen trading program to facilitate load reductions
Connecticut recognized that their existing general water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen,
which was 6.0 mg/L at any time, was not appropriate for application to deep waters of the sound
below the seasonal pycnocline during the summer months. Due to natural circulation patterns
and the large (>16,000 sq. mi.) watershed draining into the sound, dissolved oxygen levels below
6 mg/L in bottom waters are an expected natural occurrence when the sound stratifies during the
summer months. This condition would exist even in the total absence of human derived nitrogen.
Federal guidance (Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen
(Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatter as (USEPA, 2000) provided a comprehensive evaluation
of the effects of dissolved oxygen on aquatic life along the Atlantic coast that was necessary to
support the State's adoption of a dissolved oxygen criteria that more closely reflects natural
conditions and protects the biological integrity of the sound. Connecticut's criteria was approved
by EPA in May 2001.
Both New York and Connecticut have committed to a phased implementation of the TMDL that
will be accomplished in three steps with 5-year incremental reduction targets. Beginning in 1999,
the two states are required to reduce their annual nitrogen discharges to the Sound toward a goal
of 58.5% of baseline or about 24,000 tons at the end of 15 years. The phased implementation
requires implementing controls to achieve:
• 23.4% reduction (40% of goal or about 9,534 tons) by August 2004
• 43.9% reduction (75% of goal or about 17,876 tons) by August 2009
• 58.5% reduction (100% of goal or about 23,834 tons) by August 2014
Recognizing that the total nitrogen load entering the Sound from human sources is dominated by
point source discharges and that point sources also hold the greatest management potential,
Connecticut set a goal to meet the overall reduction by implementing technologies and strategies
to sewage treatment facilities with an aggressive cumulative goal of 64% nitrogen reduction
from municipal POTWs. Connecticut evaluated traditional approaches to facilitating the nitrogen
reductions at POTWs that require specific waste load allocations to be applied to individual
facilities. The traditional approach would require facility upgrades at all POTWs to meet the
reduced nitrogen loads specified in the waste load allocation in accordance with the NPDES
regulations governing issuance of individual permits to each facility. Connecticut's assessment
found that regulatory costs would be significant (due primarily to the need to negotiate and
reissue 79 individual permits to include nitrogen reduction requirements and compliance
schedules), overall capital improvement costs would be prohibitive (since the cost-effectiveness
of individual upgrades and local concerns regarding financing could not be considered), and that
there is not sufficient building capacity to make the simultaneous improvements across all 79
2 March 2005
-------
Long Island Sound Dissolved Oxygen
plants in time to meet the TMDL schedule.
The CTDEP asked the state legislature to approve a unique Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program.
Nitrogen trading was proposed as an innovative and cost effective method to meet the necessary
reductions identified in the TMDL. Public Act 01-180 was passed in 2001 and codified in the
Connecticut General Statutes, Sections 22a-521 through 527. These statutes authorized DEP to
issue a General Permit for Nitrogen Discharges and establish a Nitrogen Credit Exchange. The
statute also established authority to convene a Nitrogen Credit Advisory Board composed of
State Agency representatives (Treasury, Policy and Management, DEP) and appointed members
representing municipalities involved in the program.
The Nitrogen Credit Exchange provides DEP with the flexibility it needs to minimize the costs
associated with implementing the TMDL and meeting the water quality goals for Long Island
Sound. The credit exchange program encourages municipal dischargers to maximize nitrogen
removal using their existing facilities and provides an incentive for municipalities to implement
cost-effective "retrofits" or design and build complete facility upgrades to enhance nitrogen
removal. Under the terms of the General Permit for Nitrogen Discharges that regulates the 79
municipal facilities covered by the Exchange Program, each facility is assigned an annual
allocation based on a percentage reduction from their baseline load. The annual allocation
decreases each year reflecting anticipated cumulative progress towards meeting the 2014 TMDL
goal expected as new facilities for nitrogen removal come on-line at various locations around the
state. Each facility's annual allocation is thereby linked to the performance of all other plants in
the State. Facilities that remove more than their annual allocation receive credits that are sold to
the State. Facilities that discharge more nitrogen than their allocation must purchase credits from
the State to remain in compliance with the General Permit.
The value of a credit is established each year based on the capital and operation and maintenance
costs for nitrogen treatment at facilities that have completed nitrogen removal projects financed
by the State Clean Water Fund relative to the load of nitrogen removed by those projects.
Because the annual allocations to each facility decreases each year and the value of a credit
increases (as more expensive projects are completed and more facilities incur operational
expenses) the incentive to implement additional projects grows with the need to implement more
costly projects to achieve the TMDL goal. The exchange program also accounts for geographical
differences in the impact of nitrogen discharged by POTWs within the watershed (e.g., nitrogen
discharged in New London in the eastern sound has about 18% of the impact to dissolved oxygen
that nitrogen from Norwalk which is located near to the area of hypoxia). The end-of-pipe
nitrogen loads at each facility is equalized using trading rations that reflect the relative impact on
dissolved oxygen noted above to produce "equivalent nitrogen credits." All trades are based on
equivalent credits to ensure progress is measured against improvements in Long Island Sound.
Potential local impacts from nitrogen are evaluated when the individual NPDES permits are
reissued and compliance with limits to protect local water quality cannot be met through trading.
March 2005
-------
Long Island Sound Dissolved Oxygen
The EPA Approval Process and State Implementation included the following steps:
• CTDEP and NYDEC jointly established the TMDL in December 2000
• CTDEP adopted dissolved oxygen criteria for offshore coastal waters on February 21,
2001
• EPA approved Connecticut's dissolved oxygen criteria for offshore coastal waters on
May 10, 2001
• EPA approved the TMDL approved in May 2001.
• The Connecticut legislature adopted Legislation authorizing the General Permit and
Nitrogen Exchange Program on July 6, 2001
• CTDEP issued the General Permit for Nitrogen Discharges in January 2002
The Nitrogen Credit Exchanges have been successfully executed for 2002 and 2003 trading
years.
Boundaries of Application
Connecticut's approach, which centers on the Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program, required
considerable public, municipal government and legislative buy-in prior to implementation.
Frequent consultation and close coordination with EPA Region 1 was also critical to
implementing the approach. The key to the program was the State legislation that authorized the
creation of the Nitrogen Credit Exchange and creation of the Nitrogen Credit Advisory Board.
The operation of the credit exchange also requires the state to provide funds to purchase excess
credits if Connecticut facilities collectively reduce greater amounts of nitrogen than the General
Permit requires in a given year. For example, in the first year of trading, statewide facility
structural and operational improvements resulted in removal of greater than 400 tons of nitrogen
(equalized credits to the hypoxic area) less than projected when the annual allocations for 2002
were established in the General Permit. As a result, the State was required to disburse nearly 1.3
million dollars to purchase the excess credits generated. In 2003, loads were closer to projected
expectations and approximately $300,000 was expended to purchase excess credits. In the event
that the annual target is not met, funds from the sale of credits will exceed funds disbursed to buy
credits and the Nitrogen Credit Advisory Board is empowered to use this money to fund research
or other activities to promote nitrogen reduction efforts.
Changes to the Connecticut water quality criteria were possible because sound scientific studies
were available to support this effort. State and federal partnerships that supported the scientific
research on dissolved oxygen needs to support aquatic life in salt water led to EPA issuing the
revised aquatic life criteria guidance upon which Connecticut's criteria are based. Studies, such
as the National Estuary Program's Long Island Sound Study, contributed to a better
understanding of the impacts of continuous and cyclic changes in dissolved oxygen to salt water
aquatic life. Without this scientific support, the TMDL assumptions would change dramatically.
March 2005
-------
Long Island Sound Dissolved Oxygen
The CTDEP is experiencing faster than anticipated implementation of changes by facilities.
Municipalities often appear motivated as much by the stigma attached to credit purchases as by
the financial incentives incorporated into the program. This has resulted in more staff time to
review design plans and process applications for facility modifications to improve nitrogen
removal efficiency. Connecticut is also experiencing difficulties securing sufficient funding to
meet the needs of all the facilities requesting capital through the State Revolving Fund to
improve their processes to remove nitrogen. Although trading encourages implementing the most
cost-effective measures first, achieving the TMDL goal will still require a significant public
investment in treatment infrastructure. Nitrogen removal upgrade projects must compete with
CSO remediation projects and other wastewater treatment infrastructure needs for a limited
annual allocation of State Revolving Fund financing. The continued success of the program will
depend in large part on maintaining a steady supply of financial support to municipalities to
upgrade nitrogen treatment.
Resources/References
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection. 2000.^4 Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis to Achieve Water
Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY and Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, Hartford, CT.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality
Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatter as, EPA-822-R-00-012,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. Waste Load Allocation Plan:
Nitrogen Reductions Necessary to Control Hypoxia in Long Island Sound through Waste Load
Allocations, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. Nitrogen Credit Exchange:
Facilitating Hypoxia Control in Long Island Sound through a Nitrogen Credit Exchange
Program, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. The Long Island Sound TMDL
Frequently Asked Questions, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford,
CT.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. Report of the Nitrogen Credit
Advisory Board to the Joint Standing Environmental Committee of the General Assembly,
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.
March 2005
-------
Long Island Sound Dissolved Oxygen
For additional information on Connecticut's Water Quality Standards, Total Maximum Daily
Load, and Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program, visit the DEP web site at
http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr or contact us at (860) 424-3704.
March 2005
------- |