Final 2008 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report
June 14, 2010 The 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report was approved by U.S. EPA on June 2, 2010. See the final 2010 report here.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) Division of Surface Water (DSW) has completed the Ohio 2008 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. The report indicates the general condition of Ohio's waters and identifies waters that are not meeting water quality goals. Prepared in accordance with federal guidance, the report satisfies the Clean Water Act requirements for both Section 305(b) water quality reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters.
Minor revisions to the report were made based on public comments. The final report, including responses to public comments (Section D6), is available below.
Section 303(d) TMDL Priority List for 2008
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) priority list for 2008, as required by Section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1313(d), is contained in the Integrated Report in Section L4. The list indicates the waters of Ohio that are currently impaired and may require TMDL development in order to meet water quality standards. The waters are ranked according to level of impairment to help indicate which have the greatest need for TMDL development.
The report describes the procedure that Ohio EPA used to develop the list and indicates which areas have been selected for TMDL development during FFY 2009 through 2010.
U.S. EPA approved Ohio's 2008 Section 303(d) list on May 5, 2008.
How can I download a copy of the report?
The report is available below in Adobe Acrobat format.
Main Text
Cover, Table of Contents, Acronyms [PDF 109K]
Section A: An Overview of Water Quality in Ohio: 2008 [PDF 2,067K]
Section B: Ohio’s Water Resources [PDF 331K]. Section B consists of:
- B1: Facts and Figures
- B2: General summary of condition: progress toward the “80% by 2010” goal
Section C: Managing Water Quality [PDF 260K]. Section C consists of:
- C1: Program Summary – Surface Water
- C2: Program Summary – Environmental and Financial Assistance
- C3: Program Summary – Drinking and Ground Waters
- C4: Program Summary – Environmental Services
- C5: Cooperation among State Agencies and Departments
- C6: Economic Costs and Benefits of Pollution Controls
Section D: Framework for Reporting and Evaluation [PDF 1,270K]. Section D consists of:
- D1: Assessment Units
- D2: Ohio’s WQS Use Designations
- D3: Sources of Existing and Readily Available Data
- D4: Evaluation of the Ohio River
- D5: Public Involvement in Compiling Ohio’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters
- D5.1: Solicitation for External Water Quality Data, 2008 Integrated Report Project
- D5.2: Web Page Announcing 2008 IR Preparation
- D5.3: Notice of Availability and Request for Comments FWPCA Section 303(d) TMDL Priority List for 2008
- D6: Public Comments and Responses to Comments on Draft Report
Section E: Evaluating Beneficial Use: Human Health (Fish Contaminants) [PDF 123K]. Section E consists of:
- E1: Background
- E2: Evaluation Method and Rationale
- E3: Results
- E4: Supplemental Information
- E4.1: Calculation of Fish Concentrations from Water Quality Standards Inputs
- E4.2: What’s the Difference between the Fish Consumption Advisory Decision and the Impairment Decision?
Section F: Evaluating Beneficial Use: Recreation [PDF 96K]. Section F consists of:
- F1: Background
- F2: Evaluation Method
- F3: Results
Section G: Evaluating Beneficial Use: Aquatic Life [PDF 111K]. Section G consists of:
- G1: Background and Rationale
- G2: Evaluation Method
- G3: Results
Section H: Evaluating Beneficial Use: Public Drinking Water Supply [PDF 1,767K]. Section H consists of:
- H1: Background
- H2: Evaluation Method
- H3: Results
- h3: Supplemental Information
Section I: Considerations for Future Lists [PDF 1,982K]. Section I consists of:
- I1: Wetlands
- I2: Inland Lakes and Reservoirs
- I3: Mercury Program at Ohio EPA
- I3.1: Ohio Law
- I3.2: Ohio Projects
- I3.3: Interagency Groups
- I3.4: Ohio Resources
- I4: Preview of Potential 2010 Methodology
- I4.1: Human Health (Fish Contaminants)
- I4.2: Recreation
- I4.3: Aquatic Life
- I4.4: Public Drinking Water Supply
Section J: Addressing Waters Not Meeting Water Quality Goals [PDF 131K]. Section J consists of:
- J1: Assigning Waters to Categories
- J2: Prioritizing the Impaired Waters: the 303(d) List
- J3: Removing Waters from the 303(d) List
- J4: Schedule for TMDL Work
Section K: Maps. Section K consists of:
Section L: Summary Tables of Waterbody Conditions, List of Prioritized Impaired Waters, and Monitoring and TMDL Schedules [PDF 126K]. Section L consists of:
Section M: Water Body Assessment Unit Results. Section M consists of:
References [PDF 15K]
Maps of the Assessment Units
Note: these maps were made available for the 2002 report and have not changed.
Back to Top
What's the best way to use the report?
Your approach would depend on your primary interest - a particular area or watershed, a statewide perspective on water quality, or perhaps an interest in TMDL activity.
To locate information on a particular watershed or large river, you may want to start with the first assessment unit map to determine the coding for the watershed. You can also electronically search the tables (use the "Find" function in Adobe Acrobat™) using the stream name or code.
A collection of maps, when available, will provide an overview of water quality on a statewide basis. Section M provides a single-page summary on the quality of each of Ohio's large rivers (those with drainage areas greater than 500 square miles), watershed (HUC11) assessment units, and Lake Erie.
For a general overview of water quality conditions and issues in Ohio, consult Section A.
Those with an interest in Ohio's response to the Clean Water Act requirements or the TMDL program should start with the report text in Sections B through J.
Please note that the report is approximately 600 pages. Section M is 362 pages of that total. Readers may want to print some parts of the report and download others. One advantage of reviewing in electronic format (downloaded or Web) is the ability to electronically search for specific points of interest.
Back to Top
Summary of Changes to Document between Public Review and Approval
In addition to changes based on comments (outlined in the responsiveness summary in Section D6, the following changes were made in the final report.
- Various wording clarifications, per comments or proofreading.
- A table detailing all data used for 303(d) analyses and the qualification of the data under the Credible Data Law was inserted in Section D.
- An executive summary was added.
Back to Top
U.S. EPA Decision Document
Following the public review period of the draft report (from January 23 through February 25, 2008), the final report was submitted to U.S. EPA for approval under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act on March 31, 2008. U.S. EPA approved the report on May 5, 2008.
Back to Top
What does the report say about my watershed?
Section M summarizes the information available for watershed assessment units (11-digit HUC scale) and large river assessment units (draining more than 500 sq mi). Individual pages from Section M of the 2008 report are available via clickable maps:
Additional information for many areas may be available in detailed water quality reports, available on the Biological and Water Quality Reports page.
Back to Top
What does the report say about water quality in general in Ohio?
A 26-page "plain English" overview is included in the 2008 Integrated Report (Section A). The overview reports statewide observations for the four beneficial uses, discusses the common causes and sources of water quality problems in Ohio, and presents a regional summary of water quality conditions.
Back to Top
What's new in the 2008 report?
Compared with the 2004 and 2006 reports, the 2008 report changes are minor. Of note:
- The assessment methodology proposed in 2006 for the public drinking water supply (PWS) use is being used for the first time. Limited to just nitrates and pesticides in this initial analysis, four streams will be added to the 303(d) list for drinking water issues (six systems on the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers for nitrate and two systems for atrazine, both in southwest Ohio). A TMDL is underway in one of the atrazine areas, and monitoring for TMDLs in the other atrazine area and the Sandusky is scheduled for 2009.
- The report includes a preview of methodology changes being considered for the 2010 Integrated Report. The biggest change is moving to much smaller watershed assessment units - from 331 units now (average ~ 130 square miles each) to about 1500 smaller units (~ 30 square miles each).
- We prepared an “Overview” to make the report more approachable and to better address the Section 305(b) aspects of the report.
- The way TMDL priority points are distributed changed to include the PWS use.
- The TMDL schedule did not change significantly.
- Summary pages for each assessment unit now include information regarding the PWS use.
Back to Top
Are there more or fewer impaired waters?
Integrated
Report
Year |
Category |
1
Attaining
all WQS |
2
Attaining
some WQS |
3
Insufficient
data |
4
Impaired, no
TMDL needed |
5
Impaired,
TMDL needed |
| Number of Watersheds |
| 2002 |
1 |
11 |
105 |
9 |
205 |
| 2004 |
1 |
7 |
75 |
6 |
242 |
| 2006 |
1 |
13 |
54 |
19 |
244 |
| 2008 |
1 |
13 |
47 |
27 |
243 |
| Number of Large Rivers |
| 2002 |
0 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
15 |
| 2004 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
20 |
| 2006 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
20 |
| 2008 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
20 |
Table notes:
- Overall, the 2008 report includes assessment results on more waters, but does not indicate any substantial decline or improvement in Ohio’s waters over the past 2 years.
- Fewer watersheds are in category 3 (unknown) in the 2008 report, reflecting recent data additions. It is important to note that, while acquiring new data moves a water from category 3 to another category - usually category 5 (impaired) - the aging of data is not a reason to move waters out of category 5. The number of waters assigned to category 3 will probably continue to decline as new data are collected and waters are identified as impaired. As data age, waters can move among categories 1, 2, and 3.
- More watersheds are in category 4 in the 2008 report. This is mostly because more TMDL projects have been completed.
- The large category 5 change between the 2002 and 2004 reports was due to the revised methodology for fish tissue and the expanded data sources for bacteria data. There are fewer, less dramatic methodology changes in the 2008 report, so there are fewer changes in the results.
- Specific category changes are shown below.
Back to Top
Which specific waters were added or removed from Category 5?
The overall number of “303(d) listed” waters (impaired, requiring a restoration plan) did not change significantly. Eight waters moved into the impaired category, mostly based on new data; eight moved out of the category, seven based on approval of restoration plans and one on new data. See these changes in Table J-3 of Section J [PDF 18K].
Back to Top
What is the condition of aquatic life uses in Ohio's waters?
The upward trend in full attainment of the aquatic life use in both watersheds and larger streams continues. In general, large rivers in Ohio are meeting aquatic life use goals at a much higher percentage than smaller streams.
| Aquatic Life Use Attainment - 2008 |
| Average Watershed Assessment Unit Score |
Attainment Percentage of Large Rivers |
 |
 |
The modest increase in full attainment across all large river units between the 2006 and 2008 cycle is largely due to new intensive assessments of four large rivers, including the Tuscarawas, Blanchard and Muskingum Rivers and Paint Creek. A larger increase would be expected had several other large rivers not been removed from consideration because data are now more than 10 years in old. There was also a moderate increase in the full attainment score of watershed assessment units, from 52.5 to 54.7. The results show that biological impairment is more likely at sites on small streams and that impairment lessens significantly as sites drain larger areas.
Back to Top
For more information, contact:
Trinka Mount
TMDL Coordinator
Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water
trinka.mount@epa.state.oh.us
(614) 644-2140