UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS TX 75202-2733 MAR 10. 20tt::l;8 Mr. James Wise Water Division Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 5301 Northshore Drive North Little Rock, Arkansas 72118-5317 Re: Draft 2016 Impaired Waterbodies List Dear Mr. Wise: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft 2016 Arkansas Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Environmental Protection Agency commends the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality for the significant effort expended in assessing the State's waters and appreciates the emphasis Arkansas places on maintaining and enhancing the State's abundant natural resources. Based on our initial review, the Region 6 office of the Environmental Protection Agency is providing the attached comments on Arkansas's draft 2016 303(d) list. If you have any questions or need any clarification, please contact Laura Hunt of my staff by phone at (214) 665-9729 or via email at Hunt.Laura(Cl)epa. gov. Sincerely, . x!tR0»eJ Stacey B. Dwyer, P.E. Associate Director NPDES Permits & TMDL Branch Internet Address (URL) • http://wyJW.epa.gov/region6 Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper, Process Chlorine Free EPA COMMENTS ON ARKANSAS'S DRAFT 2016 §303(d) LIST-Public Comment A. Segments delisted from Arkansas's draft 2016 303(d) list with no rationale Arkansas's draft 2016 303(d) list did not include segments that were previously listed and no new evidence was provided supporting delisting (table 1). The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) removed listings as found on their website (see link) as part of the 2016 public comment period, however, the removed listings did not include a rationale or justification and as such do not meet the requirements for public participation. Per CFR 130.7(b)(6), "each State shall provide documentation to the Regional Administrator to support the State 's determination to list or not to list its waters as required by §§ 130. 7(b)(l) and 130. 7(b)(2)." Based on these regulations, Arkansas's rationale for delisting waters is insufficient. The rationales for delisting segments are important and are further described in EPA's 2006 guidance document which states: "States should provide detailed rationales for removing segment/pollutant combinations from their previous 303(d) lists in the record ofdecision for the list. " The public needs detailed information to determine what factors were used to remove waters. Table 1. Segments previously listed on the draft 2014 303(d) list where no new data supports delisting Stream Name Beech Creek i I HUC'; RR Parameter #Exceedances i I N , Comment ; Dissolved Oxygen 11140203 025 Previously listed by Arkansas and no new data was found to support deli sting Bodcau Creek pH 11140205 006 Previously listed by Arkansas and no new data was found to support delisting Kings River Total dissolved solids 11010001 042 10 57 Impaired and needs to be listed Prairie Creek Dissolved Oxygen 08040101 048 8 13 Impaired and needs to be listed Red River Total dissolved solids 11140201 003 17 57 Impaired and needs to be listed Total dissolved solids 11140201 007 23 55 Impaired and needs to be listed .. Red River - . - ---' RECORD OF DECISION FOR EPA ACTION ON THE ARKANSAS 2014 §303(d) LIST Stream Name Red River , Parameter ; #Exceedances: N Comment , 11140201 011 17 57 Impaired and needs to be listed 08040201 006 11 20 Temperature 11140302 006 9 56 Impaired and needs to be listed Impaired and needs to be listed Total dissolved solids Smackover Dissolved Creek Oxygen Sulphur River iRR HUC B. Segments exceeding Arkansas's site specific minerals criteria but are not on Arkansas's . draft 2016 303(d) list For assessment of site-specific mineral criteria, the state's assessment methodology for the draft 2016 303(d) list states that: "Monitoring segments with site specific standards will be listed, as non-support when greater than 25 percent ofthe total samples within the period ofrecord exceed the applicable criteria, listed in APC&EC Reg. 2.511 (Aj. " Previous versions of the state's assessment methods have applied a 10 percent exceedance frequency for determining nonsupport ofthe site specific minerals criteria (see link). To facilitate a clearer understanding for the public, ADEQ needs to provide supporting documentation describing how the exceedance rate change (l0% to 25%) is an appropriate and scientifically defensible frequency. EPA review of all available data found 33 segments (table 2) that exceeded site specific minerals greater than 10% but were not on Arkansas's draft 2016 303(d) list. Table 2. Segments exceeding site specific minerals criteria and not on Arkansas's draft . 2016 303(d) list : I Stream Name , '. I RR!I HUC Parameter N : %Exceedance: , , ; I 08040204 I0021 I 08040204 002 Red River 11140201 007 Sulfate Sulfate Total dissolved solids Tyronza River 08020203 909 Sulfate Saline River Saline River Criteria #Exceedances , - 2 I 56 82.14 78.18 23 55 55 5 13 38.46 10 10 46 43 500 30 41.81 I RECORD OF DECISION FOR EPA ACTION ON THE ARKANSAS 2014 §303(d) LIST ! Stream Name Saline River HUC 08040204 002 Saline River 009 020 .909 002 Red River 11140201 011 11140201 003 Cache River Tyronza River . Red River Cache River Saint Francis River . , RR:; Parameter 08020302 08020302 08020203 08040204 Bayou DeView c' ': 08020302 028 08020203 014 Total dissolved solids Chloride Sulfate Sulfate Total dissolved solids Total dissolved solids Total dissolved solids Sulfate Chloride ; Criteria #Exceedances: N %Exceedance 90 21 -55 38.18 20 30 30 90 19 4 4 17 56 12 56 33.92 33.33 30.76 30.35 500 17 57 29.82 500 17 57 29.82 30 10 3 15 11 57 27.27 26.31 13 Bayou DeView 08020302 004 Total dissolved .solids 270 3 12 . 25 Bayou DeView 08020302 004 08040203 011 Chloride 20 90 3 13 12 57 25 22.80 Total dissolved solids Sulfate Total dissolved solids 270 12 56 21.42 30 270 3 3 14 14 21.42 21.42 Total dissolved solids 850 12 57 21.05 100 90 190 12 11 11 57 58 58 21.05 18.96 18.96 North Fork Saline River Bayou DeView 08020302 009 Cache River Cache River 08020302 018 08020302 018 Red River 11140106 005 .. Sulphur River Mine Creek I Mine Creek 11140302 006 11140109 934 11140109 1933 I Total dissolved solids Sulfate Chloride Chloride 3 I RECORD OF DECISION FOR EPA ACTION ON THE ARKANSAS 2014 §303(d) LIST , I , Stream Name RR HUC Parameter " Criteria: #Exceedances; . . I , Kings River 11010001 042 Sulphur River 11140302 006 White River 11010003 902 L'Anguille River 08020205 Red River 11140106 Red River 11140106 North Fork 08040203 Saline River Mine Creek 11140109 Mine Creek 11140109 White River 11010001 001 005 005 011 'Total dissolved solids Total dissolved solids Total dissolved solids Sulfate Chloride Sulfate .. ,Sulfate 933 934 023 Sulfate Sulfate Chloride ., ... . ... ,I , " N ' %Exceedance; .! I 150 10 57 17.54 500 10 57 17.54 160 10 57 17.54 30 250 200 10 10 9 8 8 58 56 56 57 17.24 16.07 14.28 14.03 . . . 65 65 20 8 8 7 58 58 55 13.79 13.7 12.7 C. Segments exceeding Arkansas's ammonia criteria but are not on Arkansas's draft 2016 303(d) list Arkansas's draft 2016 303(d) list omitted 5 waterbodies (see table 3) where more than one exceedance of the ammonia criteria was found in a 3 year period. For toxics criteria, the EPA CWA section 304(a) guidance recommends an average frequency for criteria excursions not to exceed one in three years (see link). Arkansas's water quality standards for toxics states that "toxic substances shall not be present in receiving waters, after mixing, in such quantities as to be toxic to human, animal, plant or aquatic life or to interfere with the normal propagation, growth and survival ofthe indigenous aquatic biota. ". Based on EPA's guidance and Arkansas's WQS, there is sufficient data to conclude that the applicable water quality standards are not being attained and the 5 water bodies in table 3 need to be added to Arkansas's 2016 303(d) list as impaired for ammonia. 4 I RECORD OF DECISION FOR EPA ACTION ON THE ARKANSAS 2014 §303(d) LIST Table 3. Segments with more than one exceedance of the ammonia criteria and not on Arkansas's draft 2016 303(d) list Waterbody Name HUC RR, , Parameter : Criteria #Exceedances Comments i I Gilham Lake 11140109 018 Ammonia chronic 3 Lake DeQueen 11140109 027 Ammonia chronic 4 Lake Austelle 08020203 008 Ammonia Dierks Lake 11140109 Ammonia chronic/ acute chronic 12 chronic/ 3 acute 3 Whig Creek 11110203 Ammonia chronic 16 931 Exceedances are from station near the dam Exceedances are from station near the dam Exceedances are from station near the dam Exceedances are from station near the dam Exceedances are from station downstream from aWWTP D. Osage Creek and Spring Creek During the 2002 303(d) cycle, EPA added Spring Creek and Osage Creek (table 4) to the State of Arkansas §303(d) lists of impaired watersbecause of elevated phosphorus concentrations. In 2009, the Cities of Rogers and Springdale conducted a study on Osage Creek and Spring Creek which concluded that there was no violation of Arkansas's narrative nutrient criterion in these waters. During the 2010 303(d) cycle, EPA reviewed the study results and found that indicators of nutrient enrichment are still prevalent in Osage Creek and Spring Creek and that the fish assemblages in the creeks were not representative of designated uses described in the standards for an Ozark Highland Ecoregion fishery. For example, the study noted that fish collections were dominated by species typically encountered in nutrient enriched streams including Largescale Stoneroller and Central Stoneroller (figure 1), rather than the key species, such as diverse minnows, sunfishes, and darters, that define the Designated Use (Reg. 2.302(F)(3)(a)) applicable to Ozark Highland streams. Also, the study reported total phosphorus (TP) concentrations in Spring Creek and Osage Creek were at concentrations that . scientific studies associate with shifts in aquatic assemblages. Given that the study documents elevated TP and biotic responses expected with excess TP, such as shifts in fish assemblages, Osage Creek and Spring Creek are not attaining the Designated Use [Aquatic Life/Fisheries] portions of Arkansas's water quality standards (Reg. 2.302(F)(3)(a)) and associated Biological Integrity narrative water quality criteria (Reg. 2.405). Until new data indicate that the segments are no longer impaired, Osage Creek and Spring Creek need to be listed on Arkansas's 2016 303(d) list. . 5 I RECORD O F DECI SION FO R EPA ACT ION ON T HE AR KANSAS 2014 §303(d) LI ST Table 4. Osa ge C ree k and Spr ing C ree k segme nts not on Ar ka nsas's draft 2016 303 (d) list Waterbody Name HUC RR Osage Creek 111101 03 030 Osage Creek 11110103 930 Spring Creek 11110103 931 70 I o Other minnows - Stonerollers o Darters 60 I -Suckers -Sunfish 50 CIl o e III "0 c: 40 ::J .c III CIl > ;; .!!! CIl a:: 0 30 20 10 0 I -' • 0" 00 . . II II 0"" 00 0";) 0.... 00 00 0° il. 0" 4- 0"" 4- L.. 0";) 4- Site Figure 1. Relative a bunda nce of selected fish ta xa collected as part of the Ro gers and Spr ingdale study during th e 2009 Critical Seas on CSR EF=Chambers Creek Reference Site, LOREF=Little Osa ge Reference Site, OSGI -5= Osage Creek Sites, and SPGI-3=Spring Creek Sites. E. Ouachita River for To xicity EPA evaluated water and sediment toxicity data from an EPA 2007 study publication entitled Use Attainability Analysis and Water Quality Assessment of Ouachita River. 1. The Ouachita River was sampled at two stations: one located 100 yards upstream of the conflu ence with Coffee Creek and one located one-mile downstream of the confluence with Coffee Creek. 6 RECORD OF DECISION FOR EPA ACTION ON THE ARKANSAS 2014 §303(d) LIST 11. The study included toxicity analysis of water and sediment samples during five sampling events. Sediment was only collected during two sampling events (l and 4). Toxicity was observed in sediment and water samples collected at Ouachita River stations (table 5) using two standard laboratory test species, C dubia and P. promelas. Table 5. Summary oftoxicity.results for Ouachita River during five sampling events - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - Ouachita River Sampling Event below·· s 1* WS W 2 W W 3 4* S S 5 W=toxicity detected in water sample to at least one test species (Cdubia or P.promelas), S=toxicity detected in sediment sample to at least one test species (C dubia or P.promelas), *=indicates a sediment sample was collected for analysis during sampling event The State of Arkansas water quality standards (Reg 2.508) provide that "toxic substances shall not be present in receiving waters, after mixing, in such quantities as to be toxic to human, animal, plant or aquatic life or to interfere with the normal propagation, growth and survival of the indigenous aquatic biota. "Until new data indicates that the segment isno longer impaired, the Ouachita River from OUA0008B station (08040202-002) to the Louisiana state line needs to be listed on Arkansas's 2016 303(d) list. . F. Lake Ouachita Fish Advisory On August 11, 2014 the Arkansas Department of Health issued a fish consumption advisory for Lake Ouachita which included a ban of fish consumption to high risk groups (see link). Specifically, the advisory states that: "High Risk Groups (women ofchildbearing age, pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and children under the age ofseven years): Should not eat largemouth bass (13 inches or longer), white bass (13 inches or longer), or striped bass (25 inches or longer) from this lake. General Public (men, women, and children seven years and older): Lake Ouachita Fish Consumption Advisory Eat no more than 2 meals per month oflargemouth bass (13· inches or longer), white bass (13 inches or longer), or striped bass (25 inches or longer) 'from this lake. Eatingfish with mercury will not make people sick right away, but as you eat more and more, it can build up in the body and, over time, potentially cause adverse health effects. The Arkansas Department ofHealth issues fish consumption advisories when enough data indicates elevated levels ofmercury have been reached" 7 RECORD OF DECISION FOR EPA ACTION ON THE ARKANSAS 2014 §303(d) LIST Arkansas's draft 2016 303(d) list did not include Lake Ouachita based on the state's assessment methodology for fish consumption advisories which reads: "However, ifa consumption restriction is recommended, e.g., no more than two meals per month or no consumption offish over 15-inches, these waters will not be listed as non-support." Long-standing EPA guidance states that waterbodies should be included on §303(d) lists where fish/shellfish bans and fish/shellfish consumption advisories (or restrictions) have been issued, . unless the state demonstrates that the risk assessment parameters considered in developing an advisory are more protective than the applicable water quality standard (see link). EPA was not able to find where the state has demonstrated this for Lake Ouachita. Therefore, based on the applicable fish consumption advisories, there is sufficient data to conclude that the applicable water quality standards for toxic substances (Reg. 2.508) are not being attained and Lake Ouachita needs to he added to Arkansas's 2016 303(d) list. 8 &EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 1445 Ross Ave, Ste 1200 Dallas, Tx 75202-2733 1-800-887-6063 http://www.epa.govlregion6 . 6"'\V"Q.:-P REPLY TO MAIL CODE: Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. James Wise Water Division Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 5301 Northshore Drive ' North Little Rock, Arkansas 72118-5317 neopost/f 03/14/2016 l!€GMi.&J] FIRST-CLASS MAIL $001 .42 -0 ZIP 75202 041