WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT: QUANTIFYING THE EFFECT OF BLACKS RUN STREAM RESTORATION AT PURCELL PARK

A proposal submitted to the Integrated Science and Technology Program at James Madison University in partial fulfillment of ISAT - 491/492/493 By Shanna Kathleen Murphy Under the faculty guidance of Dr. Robert Brent, PhD. April 2012

Submitted by: Shanna K. Murphy Approved by: Dr. Carole Nash Accepted by: Dr. Robert Brent (Signature) (Signature) (Signature)

Table Of Contents
BACKGROUND 3 INTRODUCTION.. 4 Affiliated Persons, Organizations, and Relevant Audience 4 Urban Streams in a Social Context 5 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 6 METHODOLOGY.. 8 Riparian Zone Tree Survey.... 8 Water Quality Parameters and Nutrient Analysis... 8 DELIVERABLES.... 11 LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY 11 APPENDIX A: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY.... 12 APPENDIX B: LAND USE AND IMPAIRMENT BACKGROUND... 15 APPENDIX C: SECTIONS FROM THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT.. 17

High quality water is more than the dream of the conservationists, more than a political slogan; high quality water, in the right quantity at the right place at the right time, is essential to health, recreation, and economic growth.

-Edmund S. Muskie U.S. Senator speech (1966)

Background In 1972, The Clean Water Act was established to regulate the discharge of pollutants and set quality standards for the waters of the United States. Under section 303(d) of this Act, states and other territories must provide an inventory of all impaired waters that are too contaminated to meet specific water quality standards. These waters are then placed on a federally mandated impaired waters list (VDEQ, 2012). A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must also be developed for each of these waters. A TMDL is a reduction plan that determines the total amount of pollutant that can enter a water body and still safely comply with water quality standards (Tetra Tech, 2002). Once the TMDL is approved by the state, an Implementation Plan must then be developed. The IP outlines the changes that must take place in order to reduce pollutant levels in the impacted stream, and contains information on the course of action that must be implemented, the cost, and monitoring. After developing a TMDL assessment and determining the source of the pollution, source-load reduction strategies and restoration efforts can be implemented (VDEQ, 2012).

On March 26, 2012, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) released a draft of the 2012 Virginia Water Quality and Impaired Waters Report (as required per section 305(b) of The Clean Water Act). Included in this assessment is an evaluation of the conditions in Virginias waters, as well as a list of all waters that do not satisfy the states standards for water quality. Theses standards define the quality of water that is required in order to designate certain uses for waters. According to the DEQ, there are six designated uses for surface waters in Virginia:

Aquatic life Fish consumption Public water supplies (where applicable) Recreation (swimming) Shellfishing Wildlife

A body of water will not be able to support one or more of its designated uses if the amount of contamination present exceeds the limits set by water quality standards. Out of the 52,255 rivers/streams that are located in Virginia, 18,492 were assessed for water quality in the 2012 VDEQ report. Out of those surveyed, 29% (5,347) of the rivers and streams were classified as nonimpaired, whereas 71% (13,145) were listed as impaired. In recent years, there has been a significant rise in public awareness of the necessities of healthy rivers and streams. As a result, there has been a drastic increase in efforts aimed at restoring the health of impaired waters; approximately 315 previously unacceptable water bodies have been fully restored, and over 1,500 waters have partially restored parameters (VDEQ, 2012).

Introduction

Affiliated Persons, Organizations, and Relevant Audience

The entirety of this project will be sponsored and advised by Dr. Robert Brent and the James Madison Universitys Integrated Science and Technology department. Matthew Penning, a recent graduate of the ISAT program, and Erika Harriman, a current senior, are both concentrating in the environment sector and have been working on this project tirelessly for the extent of their senior years. The project that will be discussed in this proposal will be a continuation of the efforts of these two students. In June 2011, Matt began developing a comprehensive water quality profile in order to quantify the overall effects of a stream restoration on Blacks Run in Harrisonburg, VA. Erika Harriman has taken over the project and will be continuing the monitoring efforts until December of 2012. As will be explained further in this proposal, stream flow rates are an essential parameter of a water quality analysis. A funding proposal for a HOBO U20 Water Level Data Logger is currently awaiting submission to the ISAT department; this instrument can be deployed at a particular location in the stream and will continuously calculate the flow rate of the water. If granted, this instrument will not only significantly benefit this project, but it will also become a vital tool in the environment department for future research. The Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) is a nonprofit organization that was established in 1995 to aid companies and communities in their efforts at quantifying water quality issues and implementing solutions. CVI led the Blacks Run restoration project, collaborating with the City of Harrisonburg and other organizations including: Friends of Blacks Run Greenway (FBRG), a local land trust, the
5

Nature Conservancy, and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. The efforts produced a conceptual plan for restoring the 3000-foot section of stream that runs through the park. The Virginia Aquatic Resources Trust Fund eventually contributed funding for the design and construction of the restoration project that eventually restored approximately 4,750 feet of Blacks Run and two neighboring tributaries (CleanStream.org, 2009). The initial audiences that will be reached by this project are the students and faculty of James Madison University, as well as those that will attend the 2013 ISAT Senior Symposium. Continuous monitoring efforts will provide a comprehensive and extended summary of the effects of the Blacks Run stream restoration at Purcell Park. The conclusions that result from this project are aimed at teaching the residents of Harrisonburg City and Rockingham County the benefits of a healthy and sustainable water source. If the monitoring results portray a notable improvement in stream health, this project will become a successful demonstration of the positive effects of stream restoration and the importance of environmental conservation.

Urban Streams in a Social Context

We live in the Blacks Run watershed before we get out to the river or the bay, This is our home, and our stream. The bigger picture is important, but so is taking care of our back yard.

-Thanh Dang Public Works Planner (2009)

With approximately 66% of Harrisonburgs storm water flowing directly into Blacks Run (CleanStream.org, 2009), the physical impacts are apparent in the response of the biological communities present in the stream. Unlike in underdeveloped areas where the surface flow of water is inhibited by vegetation and percolates into the ground, urbanized areas contain an abundance of impervious surfaces. This results in an increased
6

volume of storm water runoff and a significantly higher flow rate. As rainwater flows across open streets and rooftops, it will accumulate motor oil, litter, and any other debris that is in its path. Excessive contamination of runoff results in sedimentation and erosion of streams, as well as an overall decline in water quality. Many people do not realize the extent of anthropogenic impacts on water resources; as urbanization increases and development spreads, streams are often subjected to a multitude of pollutants and wastes. The perceptions of those that reside in the area play a vital role in determining whether or not stream health can be restored. Because Blacks Run has been listed as impaired for over fifteen years, many residents regard the stream as a drainage ditch rather than a recreational opportunity (Dickler, 2009). Streams that run through urban areas are frequently redirected into concrete channels to allow for new infrastructure and to prevent flooding. This results in a loss of habitat for many aquatic organisms and an increased flow rate due to a lack of impeding vegetation and natural structures (Nash, 2001). Urban streams are not only a visually pleasant and important environmental amenity, they are also becoming increasingly rare. With a constant growth of population and rapidly expanding urbanization, streams and other natural spaces are often disregarded. Urban streams were natural streams before humankind interfered with the natural processes; because of this, it is the responsibility of the citizens and surrounding communities to protect and preserve these water bodies. Statement of Problem In 1996, Blacks Run of Harrisonburg City and Rockingham County

was placed on Virginias list of impaired waters due to unacceptable levels of fecal coliform and benthic aquatic life impairments (CleanStream.org, 2009). Due to these violations, this water body does not support the recreational and aquatic life designated uses. Blacks Run is located in the South Fork Shenandoah River Basin and is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Blacks Run watershed itself is comprised of 12,255 acres. Over eight miles of the 10.74-mile stream runs through urban development before entering a predominantly rural area in the lower portion. With a predominantly urban stream such as Blacks Run, increased sediment load, channelization, and storm water runoff are all contributing factors to the streams high impairment. From a GIS land use assessment developed by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VADCR), it was determined that 66% of the Blacks Run watershed is urban/suburban, 16% is pasture/hayland, 9% is cropland, and 8% is forest (Tetra Tech, 2002). In 2006, a TMDL Implementation Plan for fecal coliform and benthic aquatic life impairments was completed for Blacks Run (Tetra Tech, 2002). Three years later in March of 2009, a massive restoration project took place in an effort to improve the overall health and habitat of the stream. Construction equipment was used to re-establish meander bends on the unnaturally straight waterway, and the previously steep and eroding banks were scaled back to accommodate new vegetation and prevent further erosion (Dickler, 2009). Approximately 3,500 oak, sycamore, ash, cottonwood, birch, redbud, dogwood, and maple trees were planted in the project zone, and over 2,000 live stakes were planted along the stream banks. Rock and log structures were also added to the channel,

which serve to slow the speed of water and provide habitats for aquatic organisms (CleanStream.org). The areas of added vegetation, or riparian buffers, stabilize the stream banks and slow the flow rate of water. Buffer zones are also vital in the regulation of sediment and pollutants that enter a water body. The dense root systems aid in the reduction of sediments flowing downstream and provide a natural filter for pollutants. Studies conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have shown that riparian buffers can reduce nitrogen from agricultural runoff by 68%. In order to acquire a full-scale look at the effects of the restoration over longer periods of time, extensive monitoring practices must be implemented and continued. The objectives of this study are to continue the efforts at measuring and quantifying the direct impacts of the stream restoration in Purcell Park on the nutrient content and sediment load of Blacks Run. Water quality data and observations of stream-health indicators will be recorded and analyzed over the next seven months in order to characterize the post-restoration condition and determine whether or not Blacks Run can meet its designated usages. Methodology Matthew Penning of the JMU ISAT program began collecting data for this project in June 2011 and continued until January 2012. Erica Harriman, also an ISAT major, joined the study in February 2012 and will be continuing the monitoring practices alongside this project until August 2012. The data and assessments for this specific project will span from June 2012 to January 2013 and will continue the collection and analysis of the restoration parameters.

Riparian Zone Tree Survey

As previously described, approximately 2,000 live stakes were planted along the riparian zone of the stream banks in order to prevent erosion, enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and contribute shaded areas to aid in temperature regulation. An extensive riparian zone tree survey will be conducted that will include vegetative species identification and monitoring of successful growth rates.

Water Quality Parameters and Nutrient Analysis

In order to establish which parameters to monitor, the intended goals of the study must first be assessed. The difficulty with managing water quality health is the necessity of adequately measuring the current state of the water source, as well as predicting the future conditions of the waters. In order to assess the health of Blacks Run as it pertains to its ability to support aquatic life, parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, turbidity, stream flow, macroinvertebrate distribution, and nutrient load will be investigated. The macroinvertebrate survey will be carried out annually, and the water quality measurements and nutrient analysis will occur twice a month during the time span of the project. All measurements will take place at four different sites along Blacks Run. The equipment required to carry out each of these measurements are listed as follows:

HydroLab multi-parameter water quality instrument Ion Chromatograph HOBO U20 Water Level Data Logger (if granted by the ISAT department)

Temperature
10

Temperature can affect the rates of biological and chemical processes by changing the oxygen content of the water. As temperature increases, oxygen levels become lower which can inhibit the metabolic rates of aquatic organisms and the photosynthetic rates of aquatic plants. Temperature changes are a result of not only weather, but can also be affected by a lack of shading vegetation along stream banks. Wastes often raise the temperature of water as well; this lowers the oxygen content of the stream, which can be detrimental to aquatic life (USEPA, 1997). Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Aquatic organisms breathe oxygen that is dissolved in water, rather than air. The velocity of the stream plays a significant role in the generation of oxygen; water that flows over rocks and logs traps oxygen and mixes it in. Pollution and other contaminants lower oxygen levels and contribute to poor water quality. When water quality is diminished, DO will become depleted and aquatic life is often hindered (Tetra Tech, 2002). Potential Hydrogen (pH) pH is a measurement of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution and is involved in a multitude of chemical and biological processes that occur in the water. At a low pH level, naturally occurring metals such as iron and magnesium are able to dissolve more readily in water. If pH levels fall outside of a certain range, the physiological systems and reproductive rate of many aquatic organisms can be inhibited (USEPA, 1997). Specific Conductivity

11

Specific conductance is a measurement of the ability of water to pass an electrical current and is proportional to the concentration of inorganic dissolved solids present in the water. A high concentration of dissolved solids will decrease dissolved oxygen levels and can interfere with the flow of water in and out of the cells of aquatic organisms (USEPA, 1997). Turbidity Turbidity is a measurement of water clarity; the amount of suspended materials in water reduces the amount of light that is passed through the water and also contributes to the color of the water. These substances, which include clay, silt, sand, algae, microbes, and other materials, will absorb heat and can increase water temperatures. As stated earlier, higher temperatures will result in a reduction of dissolved oxygen content. A higher turbidity also decreases the amount of light that can permeate the water surface, thus reducing the photosynthetic rates of aquatic plants. Excessive quantities of suspended solids can also settle on the bottom of streams, which can inhibit the normal development of fish eggs and benthic organisms (USEPA, 1997). Stream Flow Otherwise known as discharge, stream flow is the volume of water that moves over a designated point in a specific period of time. The rate of flow is a function of stream velocity and volume; thusly, the amount of water that travels down a watershed into a stream is directly proportional to the flow of the stream. This flow increases exponentially during rainstorms and decreases during the dry season. Stream flow has a direct effect on aquatic life and the habitats they reside in. Fast-moving waters will generally have elevated levels of dissolved oxygen due to increased aeration. Some organisms can survive in fast-moving water, whereas others require calm waters (USEPA, 1997).
12

The velocity of the stream and the quantity of riparian vegetation present along the banks are primary factors in determining the amount of erosion that a stream will experience. Silt and sediment from erosion will settle more rapidly in slow-moving waters, and sediment that is introduced to a stream with a higher flow rate will be suspended longer in the water (USEPA, 1997). Macroinvertebrate Survey The presence of pollutants in a stream can result in a less diverse ecosystem and a smaller distribution of biological organisms. The distribution of small, aquatic organisms called macroinvertebrates can be used as biological indicators of the health of a stream. Certain species of macroinvertebrates, such as aquatic worms and leeches, can survive in waters with low dissolved oxygen levels, which is often attributed to higher amounts of pollution. Macroinvertebrate collections will occur annually at each of the four sites and the samples will be sorted and scored using the Virginia Save Our Streams (VASOS) methods. Nutrient Load One of the primary reasons for the impairment of Blacks Run is nutrient pollution. Nitrogen and Phosphorus are a vital component of aquatic ecosystems that aid in the growth of algae and plants, but can be harmful to normal aquatic processes in large quantities. Anthropogenic activity is often the cause of nutrient overload, which can pollute the water and exceed the capacity that ecosystems can handle. Algal blooms can also be exacerbated by large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus, which will result in a depletion of the necessary oxygen levels of certain aquatic species. An overabundance of nitrogen and phosphorus in water systems is most commonly attributed to fertilizer from

13

agricultural regions and storm water runoff from urban areas (Tetra Tech, 2002). Deliverables

Comprehensive Water Quality Profile of Blacks Run stream restoration from June 2011 to January 2013 Final Report

Literature Review Summary Effective post-restoration monitoring practices are vital aspects of any stream restoration and provide the information necessary to quantify the effects and determine the success rates of any changes that were made to a water source. A number of books, reports, and field guides exist that aid in monitoring techniques and provide information pertaining to restoration. The majority of the scientific details of this project were found using government sources and websites such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Department of Agriculture. Information regarding restoration practices and monitoring parameters was gathered from the organizations that participated in the Blacks Run restoration, as well as other water sources around the United States. A detailed description of each source is provided in Appendix A. Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography

Blacks Run Impairment and Watershed Information

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report. Richmond, VA: VDEQ, 2012. Web. <http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDL S/WaterQualityAssessments/2012305b303dIntegratedReport.aspx>

14

Per requirements of the U.S. Clean Water Act and the Virginia Water Quality Monitoring, Information and Restoration Act, this 2012 draft of the Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report was the primary source used for information on water quality requirements and designated uses for waters. This report contained the most recent statistical information on the impairments of Blacks Run, as well as the conditions of all waters in Virginia.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Blacks Run and Cooks Creek: Aquatic Life Use (Benthic) Impairment . Prepared For: USEPA, Region III, VDEQ, VDCR. April 2002, Fairfax, VA.

This TMDL study used elements of the EPAs Stressor Identification: Technical Guidance Document to evaluate and identify the primary stressors that affect the benthic communities of Blacks Run. It was found that sedimentation and excessive nutrient loads from non-point sources were the primary contributors. Section 3 of this study was predominantly used and provided background information on the impacts of each parameter on Blacks Run: low dissolved oxygen, sedimentation, habitat modification, and toxic pollutants.

Stream Monitoring Parameters

Methods

and

Water

Quality

USEPA. 1997. Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual, EPA 841-B97-003, September. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, 4503F, Washington, DC 20460.

Developed by the United States EPA, this guide manual describes the methods of stream monitoring and detailed information on each parameter. In order to comprehend the necessities of each monitoring technique, each measurement is described in its relationship to stream health. The guide also includes a chapter

15

on watershed surveying, basic equipment, and descriptions for carrying out each sampling method. The majority of the information on each water quality parameter was derived from this comprehensive field manual.

Blacks Run Stream Restoration at Purcell Park

"Purcell Park Stream Restoration." CleanStream.org. City of Harrisonburg, 2009. Web. 21 Apr 2012. <http://www2.harrisonburgva.gov/index.php? id=1192>.

This article on the Purcell Park Stream Restoration included information about the project, environmental benefits, enhancing conservation, and project partners. Also provided are videos and numerous photos of the site before, during, and after the restoration, as well as excerpts from the original Blacks Run restoration proposal.
Canaan Valley Institute, Stream Restoration Becoming a Reality in Purcell Park. Echo. Issue 21 (2006), pg. 1-3, Web. 20 Apr. 2012. <http://www.canaanvi.org/canaanvi_web/uploadedFiles/News/Echo/echo21_7 nov06.pdf>.

Although published three years prior to the initial restoration, this online magazine article provided the essential background information to the project and portrayed the restoration from the very beginning. Published by the Canaan Valley Institute, the organization that eventually conducted the Purcell Park restoration, this article described the methods that would be implemented and the prospective effects. Background information on the Canaan Valley Institute was found on the CVI website: http://www.canaanvi.org/canaanvi_web/about.aspx.
Dickler, Miriam. "Ditch or Vital Natural Resource?" Virginia Town & City. May 2009: n. page. Web. 21 Apr. 2012. <http://www.canaanvi.org/canaanvi_web/uploadedFiles/News/Recent/blacks_ run_vml_vol44_no5_may09.pdf>.

16

This article from the Canaan Valley Institute website depicted the Blacks Run stream restoration at Purcell Park from the views of the local residents. Along with providing a comprehensive compilation of the entire restoration project and its future prospects, the article also portrays the advancements of the city and its residents in environmental awareness and conservation. Other Relevant Sources 2011 Chesapeake Bay and Virginia Waters Clean-Up PlanProgress Report: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_nps/nps_annualreports/201 0/2010%20VirginiaWatersCleanUpPlanFinalwithletter.pdf Restoration of Urban Streams: Practical Evaluation of Options for 319(h) Funded Projects by: Fred Nash, Resource Conservationist, USDA-NRCS, March 2001: https://docs.google.com/viewer? a=v&q=cache:8rA4UzdeMbIJ:www.nj.gov/dep/watershedmgt/DOC S/Restoration%2520of%2520Urban %2520Streams.pdf+stream+restoration+proposal&hl=en&gl=us &pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjBikORehV3R5Jdg0CFnj9d1QYtj_rgR4VsNP 9kehVS9DtoAtAONOsJmPqKCe8U7o0NY2Zzw3knh1_x6wJrZf6d1uiZvnvZNpRFey_6UB_NA 4uRjvuqzSRoIrdzrKmoUzMuJ3&sig=AHIEtbS5xnOvOz7N71KHkMhZPOBujcVI6w Social and Economic Implications of Channelizing Streams, USEPA: https://docs.google.com/viewer? a=v&q=cache:C7tOGy6Fa1AJ:www.epa.gov/region07/wetlands/pd f/ChannelizationFS04Final.pdf+channelization+of+streams&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srci d=ADGEESg0nzA8mfnckhKjVX2wyBP9q_eGPIzK9bvOUaMCD-

17

2gnT52fizB-IVB1TQ7dZ8cXyFzZlmP2z6psus8-pVCUpaCjC3cxgzx2i773X0dg86IYOf-92qs5_sZYuUZKIrhkvNOG9&sig=AHIEtbT36rWsFyRdHWT5dDs7vUPF8_YwDA Stormwater Management Program: Harrisonburg, VA http://www.harrisonburgva.gov/stormwater-managementprogram

Appendix B: Land Use and Impairment Background

18

Water Quality Implementation Plan for Blacks Run and Cooks Creek, Prepared by: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

19

2012 Draft 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Appendix C: Sections from the Federal Clean Water Act

SECTION305 WATERQUALITYINVENTORY (b) (1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a report that shall include (A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by the objective of this ACT (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; (B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water; (C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what water such additional action is necessary; (D) an estimate of (1) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and (E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an estimate of the

20

costs of implementing such programs. (2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and October 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter. SECTION303 WATERQUALITYSTANDARDS 303(d)(1)(A) Each State shall identify those waters within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by section 301(b)(1)(A) and section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters. The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters. (B) Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof within its boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges under section 301are not stringent enough to assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife. (C) Each State shall establish for the waters identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with the priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation. Such load shall be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety that takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality. (D) Each State shall estimate for the waters identified in paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection the total maximum daily thermal load required to assure protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife. Such estimates shall take into account the Draft 2012 Appendix 6 - 1 normal water temperatures, flow rates, seasonal variations, existing sources of heat input, and the dissipative capacity of the identified waters or parts thereof. Such estimates shall include a calculation of the maximum heat input that can be made into each such part and shall include a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the development of thermal water quality criteria for such protection and propagation in the identified waters or parts thereof. (2) Each State shall submit to the Administrator from time to time, with the first such submission not later than one hundred and eighty days after the date of publication of the first identification of pollutants under section 304(a)(2)(D), for his approval the waters identified and the loads established under paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(C), and (1)(D) of this subsection. The Administrator shall either approve or disapprove such identification and 104 Sec. 303 FEDERALWATERPOLLUTIONCONTROLACTload not later than thirty days after the date of submission. If the Administrator approves such identification and load, such State shall incorporate them into its current plan under subsection (e) of this section. If the Administrator disapproves such identification and load, he shall not later than thirty days after the date of such disapproval identify such waters in such State and establish such loads for such waters as he determines necessary to implement the water quality standards applicable to such waters and upon such identification and establishment the State shall incorporate them into its current plan under subsection (e) of this section. (3) For the specific purpose of developing information, each State shall identify all waters within its boundaries which it has not identified under paragraph (1)(A) and (1)(B) of this subsection and estimate for such waters the total maximum daily load with seasonal variations and margins of safety, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation and for thermal discharges, at a level that would assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish and wildlife. SECTION106. GRANTSFORPOLLUTIONCONTROLPROGRAMS (e) Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the Administrator shall not make any grant under this section to any State which has not provided or is not carrying out as a part of its program (1) the establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, and to compile and analyze data on (including classification according to eutrophic condition), the quality of navigable waters and to the extent practicable, ground waters including biological monitoring; and provision for annually updating such data and including it in the report required under section 305 of this Act; SECTION204 LIMITATIONANDCONDITIONS (a) Before approving grants for any projection for any treatment works under section 201(g)(1) the Administrator shall determine that (A) the State in which the project is to be located (1) is implementing any required plan under section 303(e) of this Act and the proposed treatment works are in conformity with such plan, or (ii) is developing such a plan and the proposed treatment works will be in conformity with such plan, and (b) such State is in compliance with section 305(b) of this Act; SECTION314. CLEANLAKES (a) Each State shall prepare or establish, and submit to the Administrator for his approval

21

(A) an identification and classification according to eutrophic condition of all publicly owned lakes in such State; (B) a description of procedures, processes, and methods (including land use requirements), to control sources of pollution of such lakes; (C) a description of methods and procedures, in conjunction with appropriate Federal agencies, to restore the quality of such lakes; Draft 2012 Appendix 6 - 2 Draft 2012 (D) methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful effects of high acidity, including innovative methods of neutralizing and restoring buffering capacity of lakes and methods of removing from lakes toxic metals and other toxic substances mobilized by high acidity; (E) a list and description of those publicly owned lakes in such State for which uses are known to be impaired, including those lakes which are known not to meet applicable water quality standards or which require implementation of control programs to maintain compliance with applicable standards and those lakes in which water quality has deteriorated as a result of high acidity that may reasonably be due to acid deposition; and (F) an assessment of the status and trends of water quality in lakes in such State, including but not limited to, the nature and extent of pollution loading from point and nonpoint sources and the extent to which the uses of lakes is impaired as a result of such pollution, particularly with respect to toxic pollution. (2) SUBMISSION AS PART OF 305(b) (1) REPORT. The information required under paragraph (1) shall be included in the report required under section 305(b) (1) of this Act, beginning with the report required under such section by April 1, 1988.

22