oi? 515? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 a, 1445 R088 AVENUE, SUITE 1200 6,0 DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 2733 1 Poor July 19. 2017' Ms. Becky Keogh Director Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 5301 Drive North Little Rock, Arkansas 22113-5317!r Re: EPA Action on Arkansas?s 2010, 2012-, 2014, and 2016 303(d) Lists Dear Ms. Keogh: Thank you for your submission of the 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 State of Arkansas 303(d)f? 305(b) Integrated Reports, which contain Arkansas? Section 303(d) lists of water quality limited segments. The US. Environmental Protection Agency received the state's submissions on April I, 2010, March 30, 2012, April 1, 2014, and April 1, 2016, reSpectively. I am pleased to inform you that the EPA has coordinated its review of Arkansas? submissions and is today taking action to approve all of the waterbodies identi?ed by the State of Arkansas as impaired on all four lists. In accordance with 40 CPR. states are required to ?assemble and evaluate all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information to develop the list" required by Section 303(d) of the CWA and 40 C.F.R. The EPA has concluded that Arkansas has met the requirements of 40 C.F.R with regards to all the waters listed by the state, which are identi?ed in Enclosure. 1. Therefore, the EPA is approving the State?s decision to list these waters. While the EPA is approving all impairments identi?ed by the State of Arkansas On these four lists, the EPA is deferring action on forty??ve (45) potential water body pollutant pairs not listed by the State to allow continued review of all existing and readily available water quality related data and further discussion with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. The EPA is therefore taking a partial approvanurther review pending action on the Arkansas 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 lists. Further details of our action are provided in Enclosure 2. Thank you for your efforts in developing Arkansas's 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 Integrated Reports. If you would like to discuss this action further, please contact me. at (214) 665-7101, or yrjur staff may contact Mr. Richard Wooster, Chief, Assessment, Listing and TMDL Section, at (214) 665-6473. Sincerely, Wed/a William K. Honker, P.E. Director Water Division Enclosures cc: Sarah Clem, Water Quality Planning Branch, ADEQ Enclosure 1: State of Arkansas' Approved 2016 List with Deferred Waterbody Pollutant Pairs Waterbody Name HUC RR WQParameter Conclusion Able's Creek 03040205 '91 Turbidity Approved Alum Fork Saline River 03040203 013 pH Approved Arkansas River 03020401 00] Dissolved Oxygen Approx ed Bayou Bartholomew 03040205 006 Lead Approved 03040205 0 3 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 03040205 002 pH Deferred Action 03040205 0 l2 Dissolved Oxygen Deferred Action Bayou De L'outre 03040202 00f:- DissDIVed Oxygen Approved 03040202 000 Zine Approved 03040202 003 Sull?aies Approved 03040202 000 Copper Approved 08040202 006 Approved 03040202 00'}r Lead Approved 03040202 00? Sult?ates A pproved 03040202 001r Dissolved Oxygen Approved 03040202 00';r Copper Approved 03040202 TDS Approved 03040202 003 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 03040202 003 Zine Approved 03040202 .003 Approved 03040202 003 Sulfates Approved 08040202 008 Selenium Approved 03040202 003 Lead Approved Bayou Des Are 0302030] 000 Turbidity Approved 0302030 one Dissolved Oxygen A pproved 0302030? 007 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 0302030 006 Temperature Deferred Bayou De?v'iew 030203 02 002 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 030203 02 004- So] l'ates App roved 03020302 004 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 03020302 005 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 03020302 005 Sull?ates Approved 03020302 000 Dissolved Oxygen Approved esozcsez ees Sult'ates Approved 03020302 00'.Ir Sulfates Approved 03020302 001r Dissolved Oxygen Approved 03020302 012 Diesolved Oxygen Approved 03020302 00.9 Chlorides Deferred Action 03020302 009 Dissolved Oxygen Deferred Action Note: Approved: Water qualityr limited segments for which EPA is' in agreement with the Slate of Arkansas; Deferred ae?on=EPA action deferred for further review; Temporary reach identi?ers assigned by dissolved solids Enclosure 1: State of Arkansas? Approved 2015 303ldl List with Deferred Waterhody Pollutant Pairs Waterbody Name Bayou lrn?oeau Bayou Macon Bayou Melo Bayou Two Prairie Heal (.?reel. lleal'house Creek Heaver?npper [.al-ze {Sip Corney Creek Big Creek Big Crook lJich?I Blue Lalo: Bosl {lune-ale Slash Bols D'Ai'e Creel; Bulililo Creek Bull Creel; HUC 00040205 080403105 08040105 08050002 08050002 00020402 00020402 00020402 00020402 00020402 00020402 00020402 00020402 03040202 08040302 00040202 03040202 l 010005 03040205 l 10 lJ0 030402 06 03020304 030 203 041 03020302 3 0204 03020304 1 I I4020I I 14020I 03020302 03020301 08020301 003 00'! 00? 00'? 00? 90? 90? 000 06 206 306 03.6 90] 0 5 0 0 0 0 LI?ll) 014 008 000 001 (mg. 009 we Parameter Lead Pathogens Dissolved Oxygen Chlorides Clilondes Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen TDS Sulfates Dissolved Oxygen Priority Organics Dissolved Oxygen Turbidity Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen TDS Dissolved Oxygen Pathogens Turbidity Turbidity Chlorides Copper 'l'urhidity Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Zinc CD I?l?lu?l? Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Note: Approved: Water qualiiy limited segments for which EPA is in agreement with the State of Arkansas: Deferred aetion=EPA action deferred for furlher review: ERR: Temporary reach identi?ers assigned by TDS=Total dissolved solids Enclosure 1: State of Arkansas' Approved 2016 15 303m) List with Deferred Wateroody Pollutant Pairs Watsrbody Home (See he River Csdron Creel: Caney Creek Chamberlain Creek Chemin-A?Hsut Creek Chiekalah Creek Cos salol River Cove Creek Cox Creek Lake Crooked Creek .Cross Bayou Cypress Bayou Cypress Creek Deparlee lCreek Dierks Lake East Fork Csdron Creek HUC 08020303 03020302 03020302 03020302 11110205 08020205 08020302 03040102 03040102 08040102 03040102 03040102 08040102 03040102 03040205 11110204 11140109 03040 I02 03040102 08040101? 08040203 11010003 11010003 08040205 011020301 11110205 11010013 11010013 11010013 11140109 11110205 11110205 11110105 RR 016 016 020 020 01111 903 9'11 9'31 9'11 911 9711 971 1118 9'10 9'10 049 949 905 010 91? 020 020 020 014 002 002 005 WQParsmeter Copper Dissoived Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Sulfate Dissoived Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen p] 1 Zinc 'l?oxieity Sulfutes BeryHlum TDS Aluminum Dissoived Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Toxicity Dissolved Oxygen pH pH TDS TDS Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen pH Chlorides Dissolved Oxygen Zine Ammonia Turbidity Dissolved Oxygen Dis solved Oxygen Conel usion Approved Approved Action Deferred Action Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved A pprov ed Deferred Action Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Appro v'ed Deferred Action Approved Approved Approved Deferred Action Approvt?d Approved Approved Note: Approved= Water quality limited segments for which EPA is in agreement with the State of Arkansas: Deferred aetion=EPA action deferred for further review; Temporary reach identi?ers assigned by dissolved solids Enclosure 1: State of Arkansas' Approved 2016 303w} List with Deferred Waterhody Pollutant Pairs Waterhody Name lies! Fork Point Remove liasi Two Bayou Else 'i'rihutar} First Creek I?ourehe Creel?; Fourelie LnFro River River Friei'son Lake Gilham L'ake tileise l[Creek Ureenbrler Creek HerdingI Creek limits Creel: [lolly Creek Holman E'reeii; Creel: i-[urricane Creek Illinois Riter Endien Springs Creek HUC 11 0203 03040201 0004020 i exoqoz?l osoioznl osodozol 03020205 1i 101 0'rl i I 1020? ?11020? lill?liio lill020o I 1 I 0206 i 10206 H.010009 08020302 I1i40109 ?010013 1 0100l3 010004 08040205 l010004 l l40 09 0 000l 1 0202 0304-0203 llil0 03 I l0 03 Ill 0103 Il 0103 1i 10103 ?110103 08040 03040 I01 00040! 01 RR 01-1 905 905 606 606 606 00'? 022 022 012 024 00] 003 008 008 008 0 8 03.1 021 0i":r 902 HIS 013 050 004 020 020 023 024 024 024 902 902 002 WQPeremeter Turbidity Pathogens pH pH Nitrate Copper Dissolved Oxygen Dis solved Oxygen Temperature Turbidity Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH Turbidity Copper Ammonia Zine Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Lead Pathogens IJisSolved Oxygen TDS pH Dissolved Oxygen Sul Tales Chlorides Pathogens Chlorid es Pathogens Sulfate-s Sulfates Dissoived Oxygen TDS Conclusion Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Deferred Action Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Deferred Action Deferred Action Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Note Approved= Water limited segments for which EPA is in agreement with the State of Arkansas; Deferred awun=EPA action deferred for further review; ERR: Temporary identi?ers assigned by TDS=Totel dissolved solids Enclosure 1: State of Arkansas' Approved 2018 30301} List with Deferred Waterbody Pollutant Pairs Wateroody Name HUG RR WQParameter Conclusion Kings River 1 1010001 03'! T08 Approved 1 1010001 03? SLill?ntes Approved Anguilla River 08020205 001 Chlorides Approved 08020205 001 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 08020205 001 TDS Approved 08020205 002 Chlorides Approved 08020205 002 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 08020205 002 TDS Approved 08020205 003 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 08020205 003 Ciilorides Approved 08020205 003 Approved 08020205 004 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 08020205 004 Solletes Approved 08020205 004 TDS Approved 08020205 004 Chlorides Approved 08020205 005 TDS Apprcived 08020205 005 Sull'ates Approved 08020205 005 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 08020205 005 Chlorides Approved Lake Austelle 08020203 008 Ammonia Delbrred Aelion Lake Catherine 08040101 00l Dissolved Oxygen Deferred Action Lake Cox Creek 08040203 Unknown Deferred Action Lake DeQueen 1 140109 Ammonia. Deferred Action Lake Greenlee 08020304 Unknown Deferred Lake Ouschits 08040101 Mercury in Fish Deferred Action Lake Pickihome 08020402 Unknown Approved Lake Swepco 1 1 I 10103 Unknown Approved Little Bodeau Creek 1 140205 010 Dissolved Oxygen Approved Little River 11 001 'l?einperature Approved Linle River. Le? 08020204 001 Dissolved Oxygen Approved 08020204 002 Dissolved Oxygen Approved Lost Creek Diteh 08020302 909 Chlorades Approved 08020302 909' Dissolved Oxygen Approved Note: Approved: Water quality limited segments for which EPA is in agreement with the State of Arkansas: Deierred action=EPA sotion deferred for turther review; Temporary reach identifiers assigned by TDS:Total dissolved solids Enclosure 1: State of Arkansas? Approved M16 5 List with Deferred Waterbody Pollutant Pairs Waterhody Name HUG RR. WQParameter Conclusion LnuIre Creek 909 Chic-rides Approved 0804mm 909 Seiemum Approved 03040202 909 Suifates Approved {38040201 909 TDS Approved Luanda Creek 97"5 pH Approved Main Streei Ditch 03040205 909 Dissolved Oxygen Approved USMUEHS 909 Lead Approved MaumeHe River 1 [020? 013 Dissolved Oxygen Deferred Action 1 i 1021']? 618 pH Deferred Aetton Middle Fork Salute River 030402513 0 Dissoived Oxygen Deferred Action Mine ("reek 1' U9 U33 Sull?ates Approved Mine Creek. upper I I 149109 93-4 TDS Approved Moores Creek 1 I 1 i?lm 026 Suli'zttes Approved 1 li? Iii} I026 Pathogens Approved Moro Creek osoeosni 0m Lead Approved 0304020 901 Lead Approved {1304:1201 Dissolved Oxygen Deferred Aetion Motlnlaln i-?ork i E40108 0 l4 Temperature Approved 140103 0 l4 Turbidity Approved Muddy Creek 1 1 Int 03 02? Pathogens Approved 1 i HHUE 0'2? Sulfates Approved Mudclv Fork Illinois River 1 in Ill} 0215 Pathogens Approved North Fort; I i I 10305 15 Dissolved Oxygen Approved North Furl?; Saline River 03040393 0 1 Dissolved Oxygen Deferred Aetion (iuachita River (330m Hill 033 Dissolved Oxygen Deferred Action ?804t?i3i?i2 Util- Toxieity Deferred Action (Jt'erlioo Creek 03(140'205 903 'I'urhtdity Approved neomzos 908 Chlorides Approved F'CIIlJcal'l River 1 1(1204 ii] I 'l'urbidilv Approved Poinseite Lake {15020203 Unknown Deferred Action Note: Approved: Water quality limited segments for which EPA is in agreement with the State of Arkansas; Deferred eetion=EPA action deferred for further review; ERR: Temporary reach identi?ers assigned by EPA: dissolved solids Enclosure 1: State of Arkansas' Approved 2015 303111} List with Deferred Water-body Pollutant Pairs Waterhody Na mo Poteau iver Prairie Creel: Prairie Cypress- Red River Rodgers Lake Rolling Fork Creek 5 Fourehe LaFave River Sager Creel-r Saline River Salt Creek Saracen Lake Second Creel: Smackovcr Creek South Fork Little Red River South Fork Saline River Note: Approved= Water quality limited segments for whi actiona'E PA action deferred for further review; ERR: Temporary reach solids HUC 11110105 11110105 11110105 11110105 11110105 11110105 08030205 08040101 03020304 08020304 11140106 11140106 11140106 11140106 11140201 11140201 11140201 11140201 011020402 11140100 11110106 11110201:- 11110103 03040203 03040203 03040204 1 1 140109 0304020 I ?110337 03020205 08040201 0304020 1 08040301 11010014 0804 0203 RR 001 031 031 031 031 "131 903 048 014 014 00] 003 005 025 01 1 003 00'? 01 919 014 014 932 00? 009 002 014 1106 008 006 006 00'? 040 020 WCtParameter Dissolved Oxygen 'l'urbidity' Chlorides Sult'etes 03 ?l'ur?oidity Dissolved Oxygen Copper Dissolved Oxygen Turbidity '1"urhidity '1'urbidity Turbidity TDS TDS Dissolved Oxygen Sult?ates 'l?ernperature Diesel-red Oxygen Nitrate Turbidity Turbidity Temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH PCB Dissolved Oxygen Lead Dissolved Oxygen Lead pt I Dissolved Oxygen Conclusion Approved Approved Apprm ed Approx-L11 Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved A pproved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Deferred Aeuon Deferred Aetlon Deferred Aetion Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Deferred Action Deferred Aetion Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Deferred Aet ion Deferred Action eh EPA is in agreement with the State of Arkansas; Deferred identifiers assigned by EPA: TDS=Totat dissolved Enclosure 1: State of Arkansas? Approved 2015 303w) List with Deferred Waterbody Pollutant Pairs Waterbody Name HUC RR WQParameter Conclusion South Fork Spring River 1 iiHH ii 012 Dissolved Oxygen Deferred Action Spring ltuer i In IUD one Temperature Deferred Action SI Franers River HSDEGEUFI 003 Chlorides Approved ?3020203 UGS Dissolved Oxygen Approved DSUZOEUR Iii}? Chlorides Approved Dissolved Oxygen Approved Slone Dam Creel; I 904 Dissolved Oxygen Approved I I [0203 904 TDS Approved Ten Mile Bayou 03020203 906 Dissolved Oxygen Approved Torre Noir Creek DCIZ pH Approved {$040 ['03 {103 pH Approved 'I'el're Rouge Creek [$040103 U31 "I'IJrhiditj-r Approved ?trio in Holman (?reek i ICIIDCIUI 959 TDS Approved 'l'riiniiler} to l?o1eriu i Chlorides Approved 1 In I 05 E3l Pathogens Approved 'I'vronza River [18020203 909 Turbidity Approved Unnamed 'l'rihutary A I I ml?l pH Deferred Action Unnamed Trihumly i I IDZHE pl-l Deferred Action Unnamed 'l'ribuiary I 1 H1202 HRRISE pH Deferred Action Village Creel-c 3 i106 Dissolved Oxygen Approved I 10ml} I 3 0i]? Dissolved Oxygen Approved 1 3 003 Dissolved Oxygen Approved I ill] I 3 014 Temperature Approved Wahlraseka Bayou Dissolved Oxygen Approved Wattensaiv Bayou ii?lili??l 5 Dissolved Oxygen Approved Wesl I It) I I324 Suli'ates Approved I It"! 024 Approved Wesl Fork Point Remove 1 [[1203 Ul? Turbidity Approved 1 i II1203 ii I Turbidity Approved Vv'est l-?ork Point Remove Creek 1 018 pH Deferred Aetion West Fork While River 1 024 Dissolved Oxygen Dem-red Action Note. Ap proved: Water quality limited segments for which EPA is in agreement with the State of Arkansas; Deferred aetioo=EPA action deferred tor further review; ERR: Temporary reach identi?ers assigned by TDS=Total dissolved solids Enclosure 1: State of Arkansas' Approved 2016 303(d) List with Deferred Waterhody Pollutant Pairs Waterhody Name Whig Creek White Oak Bayou White? River Wilson Creek Yount Creel: HUC II I 10203 ?110203 11l 020'1Ir I l020? ?11020? 5111020? 08020303 11010001 110 0003 0804010] RR 93 93l 005 023 023 002 90] ERRTO WQParameter Ammonia Dissolved Oxygen ICopper pH Lead Dissolved Oxygen pl-l Dissolved. Oxygen Dissolved Oxvgen Sol fates TDS 'l'emperalure Sull'ates pH Conclusion Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Delerred Action Deferred Action Approved Approved Approved Deferred Action A [1 proved Deferred Action Note: Approved: Water quality limited segments for which EPA is in agreement with the State of Arkansas: Deferred action deferred forfurther review; ERR: Temporary reach identi?ers assigned by TDBr-Total dissolved solids Enclosure 2 Review ot?Arkansas? 2010, 2012,2014 and 2016 Section 303(d) Waterbody Lists Enclosure to letter?'om William K. Honker. P. 5.. Water Division Director. US EPA. Region 6 to Becky Keogh. Arkansas Department ofEnvironineniai Quality I. Introduction The Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA) received the State of Arkansas? 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d} lists ofimpaired waters from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality on April 1, 2010, March 30, 2012. April 1, 2014, and April 1, 2016 respectively. The EPA also received Arkansas? 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Water Quality Integrated Reports with the same submittals. Based on our review of the State?s CWA Section 303(d) water body lists (?Section and available data, the EPA is partially approving Arkansas? 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 lists with further action pending. The purpose of this review document is to describe the rationale for the EPA's approval. In March 2011, the EPA issued guidancefor integrating the development and submission of 2012 Section 305(b) water quality reports and Section 303.(d) lists of impaired waters. In September 2013, the EPA issued guidance for integrating the develOpment and submission of 2014 Section 305(b) water quality reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. These guidance documents, and previous EPA guidance, recommend that states develop an Integrated Report of the quality of waters by placing all waters into one of ?ve assessment categories. By following this guidance, Category 5 of the Integrated Report is the State?s Section 303(d) list. The action in review and approval of the State?s Integrated Reports is limited to waterbodies included in Category 5 that comprises the State?s Section 303(d) lists. The EPA reviewed the assessment methodology used by the State in developing the Section 303(d) list and the State's description of the data and information considered. The EPA's review ofArkansas? 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 Section 303(d) lists is based on the EPA's analysis of whether the State reasonably considered existing and readily available water quality-related data and information and reasonably identi?ed waters required to be listed. As it is the State?s most recently compiled list of impaired waters in the State, the 2016 Arkansas Section 303(d) list incorporates and updates the 2010, 2012, and 2014 lists of impaired waters. The 2016 Section 303(d) list the EPA is partially approving today is comprised of 148 assessment units (238 waterbody l' pollutant combinations). For all CWA purposes, the most recent EPA-approved listings constitute the applicable list of impaired waters in the State of Arkansas. States may add and take waters off their Sectioa 303(d) lists based on several factors. Enclosure 2 II. Statutory and Regulatory Background A. Identification of Water Quality Limited Segments for Inclusion on Section 303(d) list Section 303(d)(l) of the CWA directs states to identify those waters within its jurisdiction for which ef?uent limitations required by Section 301(b)(ll and (B) are not stringent enough to implement any applicable water quality standard, and to establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters. The Section 303(d) listing requirement applies to waters impaired by point andlor nonpoint sources, pursuant to the EPA's long-standing interpretation of Section 303(d). The EPA regulations implementing Section 303(d} require states to identify water quality limited segments that. need (See 40 C.F.R. Water quality limited segments are de?ned in regulation as segments ?where it is known that water quality does not meet applicable water quality standards, andfor is not expected to meet applicable water quality standards, even after the application of the technology-based ef?uent limitations required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act" (See 40 CPR. 13026)). Thus, states do not need to list waters where the following controls are adequate to implement applicable standards: technology-based ef?uent limitations required by the (2) more stringent ef?uent limitations required by state or local authority; and (3) other pollution control requirements required by state, local, or federal authority 40 C.F.R. B. Consideration of Existing and Readily Available Water Quality- Related Data and Information In developing Section 303(d) lists, states are required to assemble and evaluate all existing and readily available water quality?related data and information, including, at a minimum, consideration of existing and readily available data and information about the following categories of waters: (1) waters identified as not meeting designated uses, or as threatened, in the State's most recent CWA Section 305(b) report; (2) waters for which dilution calculations or predictive modeling indicate nonattaimnent of applicable standards; waters for which water quality problems have been reported by governmental agencies, members of the public, or academic institutions; and (4) waters identi?ed as impaired or threatened in any Section 319 nonpoint assessment submitted to the EPA (See 40 CPR. In addition to these minimum categories, states are required to consider any other data and information that is existing. and readily available. The EPA's 1991 Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions describes categories of water quality?related data and information that may be existing and readily available. (See Guidance for Water Quality- Based Decisions: The TMDL Process, EPA Office of Water, April 1991'.) While states are required to evaluate all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information, states may decide to rely on or not rely on particular data or information in determining whether to list particular waters. Enclosure 2 In addition to requiring states to assemble and evaluate all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information, the EPA regulations at 40 CPR. require States to include, as part of their submissions to the EPA, documentation to support decisions excluding particular data and information and decisions to list or not list waters. Such documentation needs to include, at a minimum, the following information: (I) a description of the methodology used to develop the list; (2) a description of the data and information used to identify waters; (3) a rationale for any decision not to use any existing and readily available data and information 40 CPR. and (4) any other reasonable information requested by the Region. C. Priority Ranking The EPA regulations also codify and interpret the requirement in Section 303(d)(1)(A} of the CWA that states establish a priority ranking for listed waters. The regulations at 40 C.F.R. require states to prioritize waters on the Section 303(d) lists development, and also to identify those targeted for TMDL development in the next two years. In prioritizing and targeting waters, states must, at a minimum, take into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters. CWA Section As long as these factors are taken into account, the CWA provides that states establish priorities. States may consider other factors relevant to prioritizing waters for TMDL development, including immediate programmatic needs such as waste load allocations for permits, vulnerability of particular waters as aquatic habitats, recreational, economic, and aesthetic importance of particular waters, degree. of public interest and support, and state or national policies and priorities. (See Fed. Reg. 33040, 33045 (July 24, 1-992), and the EPA's 1991 Guidance}. D. Applicable Water Quality Standards For purposes of identifying waters for the Section 303(d} list, the terms ?water quality standard applicableto such waters? and ?applicable water quality standards? refer to those water quality standards established under Section 303 of the Act. On April 27, 2000, the EPA promulgated a rule under which the ?applicable standard" for Clean Water Act purposes depends on when the relevant States or authorized Tribes promulgated that standard. Standards that States or authorized Tribes have promulgated before May '30, 2000 are effective upon promulgation by the States or authorized Tribes. Standards that States or authorized Tribes promulgated on or after May 30, 2000 become effective only upon EPA approval (See 40 C.F.R The EPA interprets CWA Section 303(d) to require the EPA establishment or approval of section 303(d) lists only for impairments of waters with Federally~approved water quality standards. 111. Analysis of Arkansas? Submission A. Background In reviewing Arkansas? submittals, the EPA ?rst reviewed the methodology used by the State to develop its 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 Section 303(d) lists in light ofArkansas? 3 Enclosure 2 approved water quality standards, and then reviewed the actual lists of waters. The State utilized the 2016 assessment methodology. with some revisions from the 2010. 2012. and 2014 water quality assessments. EPA reviewed the State?s 2016 assessment methodologies transmitted to EPA by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADE-Q) in April 2015, which later was included with the State's Integrated Report submission, and has concluded that the waters-the State included in the Section 303(d) lists were placed on the lists in compliance with Section 303(d) of the CWA and 40 CPR. 130.7. Because EPA had not taken ?nal action on Arkansas? 2010, 2012, and 2014 submissions before Arkansas made its 2016 submission, EPA has coordinated its review of Arkansas? four 303(d) lists. EPA is taking concurrent actions on the 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 Section 303(d) submissions, however, only the most recently approved listings will be the current list. Review of the submitted draft list yielded ?fty-two (52) water body pollutantpairs which require further investigation. Through conversations with Arkansas, it was determined that seven of these waters require no further action as EPA and Arkansas now agree on the attainment status of these waters. The EPA is deferring action on forty?five {45) potential water body pollutant pairs to allow continued review of all existing and readily available water quality related data and to coordinate with Arkansas. See section for further details on why seven (7) waters do not require further action. The review is based on an analysis of whether the State reasonably considered existing and readily available water quality-related data and information and reasonably identi?ed waters required to be listed. Arkansas considered data and information pertaining to the categories under 40 C.F.R. and the 148 water quality limited segments proposed by Arkansas are correctly listed per 40 C.F.R. In previous guidance, the EPA recommended that states develop an Integrated Report of the quality of waters by placing all waters into one. of five assessment categories {See the Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act. July 21. 2005). By following this guidance, Category 5 of the Integrated Report is the State's Section 303(d) list. The EPA's action in review and approval of this document is only on Category 5 that comprises the Section 303(d) list within the. Integrated Report. The State?s 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Integrated Reports were made available to the EPA Region 6 electronically on April 1, 2010, March 30, 2012, April 1, 2014, and April 1, 2016, respectively, and provided by ADEQ on a CD with the hardcopy submittal letter. The Integrated Report from Arkansas included the following. portions that are necessary for the Section 303(d) waterbody list: - Waterbodies and corresponding pollutants that make up the State?s Section 303(d) list - Prioritization of waterbodies for TMDL development - Identification of waters targeted for TMDL development over the next biennium The approval of'Arkansas? year 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Section 303(d) lists extends only to the items listed in Enclosure 1. a Enclosure 2 The EPA is deferring action on 45 potential water body pollutant pairs with the expectation that the deferral will be reconsidered expeditiously. The EPA is working closely with ADEQ to assemble available data for these water bodies to determine whether an assessment is possible or if we agree that there is insuf?cient data for an assessment. B. Identi?cation of Waters and Consideration of Existing and Readily Available Water Quality-Related Data and Information The. EPA has reviewed Arkansas? description of the data and information considered for identifying waters on the Section 303(d) list. The EPA concludes that the State properly assembled and evaluated all existing and readily available data and information, including data and information relating to the categories of waters specified in 40 CPR. and properly identi?ed and listed as required by 40 .F.R. 1). In particular, the State relied on information from the 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Section 305(b) water quality assessments; assessments performed under the WA Section 319 non-point source program; and data and information obtained through an extensive process to solicit information from state, federal and citizen sources. The States evaluation of data and information in each of these categories is described below. - Waters identi?ed by the state in its most recent section 305 report as "partially meeting? or ?not meeting? designated uses or as "threatened? {40 C.F.R. Arkansas produced the 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 Integrated Reports consistent with the guidance regarding combined CWA 305(b) reports and 303(d} lists. For those waters that EPA is approving, EPA concludes that Arkansas made listing decisions using all existing and readily available data and information, in development of the 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 Section 303(d) waterbody lists. - Watersfor which water quality problems have been reported by local. state. orfea'erai agencies: members oftbe public: or academic institutions (40 CPR. The State solicited data and information in preparation for its 2010', 2012, 2014, and 2016 Section 303(d) lists. For those waters that EPA is approving, EPA concludes that all data and information obtained as a result of this effort were evaluated and considered. The State?s submittal identi?ed several entities that contributed data or information and responded to public comments related to assessments for individual waterbodies. - Waters identi?ed by the State as impaired or threatened in a nonpoint assessment submitted to the EPA under Section 3219 of'tbe CWA or in any updates ofthe assessment (40 C.F.R. The State's 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Section 303(d) lists include all waters that have data to support nonpoint source pollution impairment. Arkansas? listing approach and methodologies direct CWA Section 319 activities and resources to the highest priorities. Watershed assessments are often conducted for waterbodies that are already listed in order to collect current data to support TMDL development. Based upon this review, and with the exception of the45 waterbody pollutant pairs noted above, the EPA concludes that the State?s process for developing the 2010, 2012, 2014, 5 Enclosure 2 and 2016 Section 303(d) lists meets the. requirements of40 CFR. regarding the consideration of all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information, as well as the requirements of40 C.F.R. C. Waters requiring no further action USoiine Riverfor {oioi ciissoiveo' solids One segment of the Saline River (08040204u002) is designated by Arkansas as Category 1. The preliminary review relied upon incorrect criteria (90 mg/L instead of 120 mg/L) for assessment of total dissolved solids (TDS). Evaluation of all available data using the 120 mgiL criteria show that the TDS water quality standard is attained therefore no more action is required. 2)Boyoti Two Prairie for dissoiveci oxygen One segment of Bayou Two Prairie (03020402-006) is listed as impaired due to insufficient dissolved oxygen. In 2008, there was a typo in the HUC designation for Bayou Two Prairie. Due to the process of tracking impaired waters from one cycle to the next, the EPA initially identi?ed Bayou Two Prairie as missing. from subsequent 303(d) lists; however, the state has corrected the HUC. Because the EPA and ADEQ agree that the water body remains impaired, no further action is required. 3) Big Creek for Escherichia coii Based upon communications with Arkansas, insufficient Escherichia coii data exist to assess one segment of Big Creek (110100054322). Accordingly, Arkansas has designated the segment as Category 3. 4)Muciriy Fork. Mo segments of Osage Creek. and Spring Creekfor toroi phosphorus When EPA last took ?nal action on an Arkansas 303(d) list {the State?s 2003 list), EPA added Spring Creek, 11110103-931, Muddy Fork of'the Illinois, 1 110103-021 and two segments of Osage Creek (1 11 10103-030 and 11110103330) as Category 5 waters due to total phosphorus. Since that time, Arkansas and Oklahoma have engaged in several cooperative efforts to achieve additional nutrient reductions in the Illinois River Watershed. Rather than add these waters to ategOry 5, EPA sees it appropriate for Arkansas to designate them as Category 413, because other pollution controls are in place to bring the water into attainment with the water quality standards. EPA regulations recognize that alternative pollution control requirements may obviate the need for a TMDL. Speci?cally, segments are not required to be included on the Section 303(d) list if "other pollution control requirements (cg, best management practices) required by local, State, or Federal authority" are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards (WQS) (see 40 CPR within a reasonable period of time. These alternatives to are commonly referred to as Category 413 waters. The rational for including a water in Category 4b will include a description the strategy to put in place. an estimated timeline to meet water quality standards, a schedule to achieve milestones, a description of tracking progress, and a commitment to revise the strategy as necessary. For Osage Creek, Spring Creek, and Muddy Fork, several pollution controls are in place to bring the waters into attainment with the water quality standards. These 5 Enclosure 2 requirements include: (1) the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission regulations concerning nutrient application rates in accordance with nutrient management plans; (2) ef?uent limitations in permits will control the amount ofphosphorus and nitrogen entering streams from municipal and industrial dischargers; and (3) completion of a watershed model (jointly being developed by Arkansas, Oklahoma and the EPA) to allow for further evaluation of nutrient load contributions to the stream. D. Waters Removed from the Section 303(d) list When a state includes a waterbody pollutant combination on its Section 303(d) list? it may conclude in a subsequent listing cycle that the water no longer belongs on the Section 303(d) list. A waterbody pollutant combination need not be included on a state?s subsequent Section 303(d) list when a TMDL is no longer required. The EPA has identi?ed four reasons that justify the removal of a water from a state's 303(d) list from one cycle to the next. These are: l. 3. 4. The state has prepared and the EPA has approved a TMDL for the listed water. Change in assessment methodology resulted in the water quality standard being met The state has adopted and the EPA has approved a site?specific water quality standard for the water, and the new water quality standard is being met. New data or information indicates that the applicable water quality standard for the water is being met and the desigiated uses are fully supported. An accounting of waters removed from each list cycle is provided in the electronic data that ADEQ submitted to EPA. The State?s removal decisions and stated justifications are summarized below: Number of Waterbody-Pollutant Combinations Removed from List Reason 2010 TMDL completed and approved by the EPA 31 Change in assessment methodology resulted in WQS being met 29 Change in WQS 32 New data or information indicate applicable WQS is being met 79 Total 171 Number of Waterbody-Pollutant Combinations Removed from List Reason 2012 TMDL completed and approved by the EPA 0 Change in assessment methodology resulted in WQS being met 1 Change in WQS 0 New data or information indicate applicable WQS is being met 66 Total 6? Enclosure 2 Number of Waterbody-Pollutant Combinations Removed from List Reason 2014 TMDL completed and approved by the EPA 79 Change in assessment methodology resulted in WQS being met 0 Change in WQS 0 New data or information indicate applicable WQS is being met 55 Total 134 Number of Waterbody-Pollutant Combinations Removed from List Reason 2016 TMDL completed and approved by the EPA 54 Change in assessment methodology resulted in WQS being met 4 Change in WQS 0 New data or information indicate applicable WQS is being met 101 Total 159 In reviewing the State?s 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Section 303(d) waterbody lists, the EPA carefully considered Arkansas? decision to remove certain waterbody- pollutant combinations from the State?s 2008 303(d) list, the justi?cation for those removals; and the methodology used in making those decisions. With regard to the removal decisions that EPA is approving today. EPA concludes that the removal decisions identi?ed in the Integrated Report are. based on all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information. E. Priority Ranking and Schedule for Development of for Listed Waters and Pollutants Pursuant to the listing methodologies set out in the State?s submittals; Arkansas prioritized for TMDL development into two Priority Areas: Priority 1 (Imminent human health problems; Waters where TMDL development is expected during the next two years; Waters listed for four or more causes; or Waters with documented widespread local support for water quality improvement) and Priority 2 (Waters listed for three or less causes; Waters where local support for TMDL development is expected but not documented; Waters with no evident local support for water quality improvements; or Waters where impairments are believed to be due largely to natural causes). Arkansas TMDL prioritization strategy is fully described in Arkansas? Integrated Reports. The EPA notes the State's priority ranking of listed waters for TMDL development took into account the severity of pollution and the uses to be made of such waters; as required by 40 CPR. as well as other relevant factors such as 8 Enclosure 2 imminent human health problems or local support for water quality improvement. In addition, the EPA conciuded that the State listed WQLS targeted for TMDL development in the next two years, as required by 40 C.F.R. IV. Final Recommendation on Arkansas? 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 Section 303(d) List Submittals After careful review of Arkansas? final Section 303(d} list submittal packages, the EPA has determined that Arkansas? 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 Section 303fd) lists meet the requirements ofSection 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the implementing regulations with the exception of the 45 waterbody pollutant combinations on which EPA is taking no action at this time. As a result, the EPA partially approves Arkansas? 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 Section 303(d) lists with further action pendingl. V. References The following list includes documents that were used directly or indirectly as a basis for the review and approval of the State's Section 303(d) waterbody list. This list is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all records, but to provide the primary documents the Region relied upon in making decisions to approve the State's list. I 40 C.F.R. Part 130 Water Quality Planning and Management I 40 CPR. Part 131 Water Quality Standards I July 29, 2005, Memorandum from Diane Regas, Director, Of?ce of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, US EPA to Water Division Directors transmitting ?Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b} and 314 of the Clean Water Act? October 12, 2006, Memorandum from Diane Regas, Director, Office of Oceans, Wetlands, and Watersheds entitled Information Concerning 2008 Ciean Water Act Sections 303(ri), and 31 4 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. I May 5, 2009, Memorandum from Suzanne Schwartz, Acting Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, entitled information Concerning 201' 0 Clean Water Act Sections 303ml), 305(0). and 3i integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. I March 21, 2011, Memorandum from Denise Keehner, Director, Of?ce of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, entitled Information Concerning 2012 Clean Water Act Sections 303610, 305(5). and 314 integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. 1 Additionallv, EPA discussed Arkansas? Regulation 2.511(3) pertaining to mineral Ecoregional Reference Values its recent W05 action, effective October 31, 2015. Considering that discussion and the possibilityI that ADECJ, mav take further action with respect to those values, EPA is taking no action at this time with respect to Arkansas waterbodies subiect to mineral Ecoregional Reference values. 9 Enclosure 2 I September 3, 2013, Memorandum from Denise Keehner, Director, Of?ce of Wetlands, Oceans. and Watersheds. entitled intern-ration (.?oncerning 201 -i Ciean Water Act Sections 303th?), 305th). and 3 i -t integrated Reporting anti Listing- Decisions. I August 13, 2015, Memorandum from Denise Keehner, Director, Of?ce of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, entitled in?n'nration Concerning 201' 6 Ciean Fi?ater A ct Sections 303trt}. 305th). and 3 i 4 integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. I April 1991, "Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process,? EPA 440t4-91-001. I July 24, 1992, Federal Register Notice, 40 GER. Parts 1'22, 123. 130. Revision of Regniation, 57 FR 33040. - August 3, 1997, Memorandum from Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA, regarding ?New Policies for Establishing and Implementing I September, 1997', Guidance from Of?ce of Water, Headquarters, US EPA regarding ?Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates" Supplement, I August 23, 1999, Federal Register Notice. Proposed Revisions to the Water Quality Management and Planning Regulations, 64 FR 46012. I April 27, 2000, Federal Register Notice, EPA Review and Approvai of State and Tribat Water Quality Standards, 65 FR 24641 10