-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Conclusions .......... ..............
Section
Preface ............... ................................ ......... v\
Introduction [[[ 1
State Priority Ranking Systems ................ . . . . .................. 1
Priority Ranking Criteria .................... ...................... 2
Severity or Threat of Impairment ..................................... 2
Public Value of the Water Bodies .................................... 2
Resolvability of NPS Impairment ..................................... 3
Availability and Quality of Asssessment Information ....... .................. 3
Role of Priority Ranking in NPS Programs ............ '..'.'.'. ............ 3
Priority Ranking and EPA NPS Program ................................ 3
The State Clean Water Strategy .... ............ ' .................... 4
Priority Criteria for Section 319 (h) Grants ............................... 4
Identification of Water Bodies Lacking Reliable Data ......................... 5
Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment . . ................... .... 5
Setting State Level Priorities ...................... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 6
Concerns and Interests of Participating Agencies . ........................ 6
Assess Institutional Resources and Capabilities ... .......................... 6
Section II
Illinois Lake Priority System .......................................... 7
Introduction ................ ...................... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.' ..... 7
Current Water Quality Evaluation .................... ..... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 7
Trophic State Index .......................................... 7
Use Impairment from Sediment .................................... g
Use Impairment from Aquatic Macrophytes ......................... 10
Potential Water Quality Evaluation ..." ................... ........... 10
Watershed Area/Lake Surface Area Ratio ......... ...................... 10
Mean Depth ...................................... 11
Water Retention Time ... .................................... 1 1
Lake Size .......................................... 1 1
Public Benefits Evaluation ............................... ...'.'.. 12
Public Ownership/ Access ................................... 12
Amount of Recreational Use ...................................... 12
Proximity to a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) ......... . . . . ..... 12
Availability of Other Publicly Owned Lakes .............................. 12
Public Water Supply Usage ....................................... 13
Recreational Facilities ....................... ............. 13
Environmental Uniqueness ........... . ..................... 13
-------
...... 15
Ohio Waterbody Priority System • • • • • • • , ; 15
Introduction
-------
Beneficial Uses 35
Number of Beneficial Uses Affected 35
Severity of Nonpoint Source Impacts to Beneficial Uses 35
State and National Priority Water Bodies 36
Potential for Restoration 36
Likelihood of Success 36
Demonstration Value of Proposed Project 37
References 38
-------
PREFACE
Section 319 of the 1987 Water Qufy Act proves local state ^d ^j-^^
opportunity to restore the beneficial uses of stream , l^Vg tian ^^ ^ ^^
(SPS) pollution. The Act also V^^^^^f^ meet state designated uses for drinking
bodies. Approxmiately 25 percent of the Rations waters u ked ^ the cause of impairment
«»^^
the ™« tour years to addrsss '
highest priority problems.
Con^ auchorhed S«, .illio. ^^^^ i*»gj ^ £ i-
Management Program.
-__ A^onAc nn Vinu/ efficiently available resources are
A very critical step in the success of state NFS programs depends on how e^c J^ ^^ thdr ^5
targeted to priority water bodies. This manual provides f^^^^^ Centrai to4the selection processes
projects to seek maximum public benefits from hmi e P 2)' blic value of the water body 3)
reviewed is the consideration of: 1) severity or threat of mip™™ ^ information. Statqs use a variety
resolvability of NFS impairment and 4' availabdity^and quality 01^a Adaptation of these processes,
of indices and indicators to evaluate these four cntenaror tneir refle?t accurately
spent.
VI
-------
Introduction
This manual presents six examples of how states identify their priorities for treatment of impaired or threatened
water bodies These case studies are intended to help you as a water quality manager to develop or refine your
rrheTto^rJS^S S^^^^^: ™f — d- - P'^e 'cookbS?
State and federal water quality managers are encouraged to use or adapt these examples to their state NPS
management programs where appropriate so that selected projects: 1) restore the greatest beneficLl uses at a
C°St> mCreaSe th£ likelih°°d °f 3 SUCCeSSfUl NPS P"**-^ avdhble resources and program
bl™ " because sufficient Public fund* do not currently exist to address all significant NPS
F^ovememsTu Sg EPA^°? T^ "*" b°d? imPr°Ve?.the chan<* of producing visible^ater quality
improvements (U.S. EPA, 1987b). In turn, demonstrated water quality mprovements can helo eenerate addiHnnal
public support, which is one of the key ingredients for long-term support of WS abatemenf
State Priority Ranking Systems
About 35 states currently ^use a formal process for prioritizing their water quality or natural resource programs
(not necessarily in their NPS program). The six systems (IL, OH, NY, NM, RI and CO) discussed here weTe
n ' CaQ ^^ NPS P°11Utipn Pr°blemS and rePreSCnt the "ni<>ue ^ of the other
processes.
Priority ranking systems vary substantially in their complexity and in the amount of data required to employ
them. Some states, like New York, have an extensive collection of water quality and water use data and ffi
rPP if 'M "Ir- >6 sophf lcatlon to u/e these data- ^ere data collection is less complete, using a dec sion
C may m°re Uful beCUSe k aBows g
r i ™ r ^ mana8ers " P°" » water bodes
with far less data. White mos systems discussed in this manual rank water bodies for protection or restoration
SrTn^rZ T ?° rank8.w»ter bodieus % additional information collection. New Mexico focLs esouS
for information collection on those water bodies that could produce the largest public benefit.
resoulrSe5^ 1^ °f the.^sttms reported here that use numerical ^ores to rank their lake
resources These scores depend on specific characteristics of the water body such as suspended solids mean
alake' ?5 nl^to^' ""^ ^'cance, a"d many more. In the case of suspended solids, Illinofs ksTigns
SiJSSr ^7 Mexicoxruses a decision tree .approach to rank its' water bodies (see Figure 1 page
28). Instead of numerical scores, New Mexico ranks its water bodies based on a series of quesfions Thefe
questions include: 1) are there frequent standards violations; 2) is the resource of high value- and 3) are the re
h^erboTTsTn^ V° addr£SS ^ Pr°blem' * '* » P°SSible l° anSWer "^'tO each °"hese quesS
a n^ericS %nk is ^ H HP ^T* ^ Protectl°n or restoration efforts. After all questions are answered,
a numerical rank is assigned depending on the number of questions answered with a "yes."
56 ^ !ist,of Pri°rity water bod™. In New York, this review process occurs annually
M and inAdudes the Regional Water Engineer, the Regional Fisheries Manager, and
Jv"ng a°d Afessment Bureau. The regional representatives provide knowledge and
BUrCaU DireCt°r — —^ Unifor^ » ^e process. Mother
-------
waterbody prioritization.
Priority Ranking Criteria
water quality restoration or protection efforts.
1) severity or threat of impairment;
2} public value of the water body;
*— th
water bodies.
Severity or Threat of Impairment
drinking water, cold water fisheries, or swimming.
sediments or degrade the trophic state of lakes.
Public Value of the Water Bodies
f m=,hods to ...
-------
also use related indicators such as proximity to population centers, public access, and uniqueness of the water
body. Some states use their use classifications, e.g., drinking, swimming, fishing, assigned to a water body to
quantify potential resource value. None of the state ranking processes that we reviewed assigned a monetary
value to their water bodies. }
The value of an impaired water body is also evaluated by some states in terms of the public and political support
for clean-up. Public support is important because it helps insure access to the long-term funding necessary for
most NFS projects. In addition, it signals the willingness of area residents to make changes in their land
use/management activities that contribute to NFS pollution.
Resolvability of NFS Impairment
Resolvability refers to: 1) whether the critical NPS pollutants can be controlled with the available management
m* P°l2 0™h|rf the ""Paired w*er body will recover in a timely fashion following control of pollutants
( , u ?* • P, r generally score projects higher if appropriate management tools are available and the
water body is likely to respond to control efforts.
Availability and Quality of Assessment Information
Information to establish priority for a NFS-impaired water body is frequently limited or not available To help
solve this problem, New Mexico uses a method to prioritize data collection efforts for these water bodies Under
the New Mexico system, water bodies with greater resource value and impending threats are given 'greater
priority for water quality data collection and analysis. Most state ranking processes we reviewed did not evaluate
water bodies to establish priority for the collection and analysis of additional data. Where appropriate, states can
adapt the New Mexico process to fit their information needs.
Role of Priority Ranking in NPS Programs
Priority Ranking and EPA NPS Program
Under section 319 of the 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA has issued NPS guidance that explains the role
of priority ranking in state NFS Management Programs (U.S. EPA, 1987d). This guidance recommends that
states select their highest priority NPS problem areas for the development and implementation of NPS
Management Programs. According to the guidance:
The guiding principles in evaluating a State's waters are to maximize environmental benefits
by devoting resources and efforts to water resources in a priority order that recognizes the
values of the waterbody in question, the benefits to be realized from various control actions
(including evidence of local public interest and support), and the controllability of the
problem(s) (emphasis added).
Water bodies are ranked to decide which NPS impaired or threatened water body should be treated first The
ranking process is based on a set of parameters that are indicators of the degree and type of water quality
problem, the difficulty involved in restoration and/or preservation, and the type and approximate value of
expected benefits of restoration. Each state uses its own ranking process.
PA-™ «> u W3ter b°dies is °ne part of a lar&er Prioritv settini Proce<* known as
targeting EPA s Office of Water has made targeting an integral component of its NPS policy and has issued a
technical publication titled Setting Priorities: The Key to NPS Control (U.S. EPA, 1987b). This publication explains
how to develop a targeted NPS program and set priorities at the state and watershed levels (the manual's
suggestions for setting priorities at the state level are briefly reviewed in the next chapter).
-------
The State Clean Water Strategy
^^s^^?^^^c " (SMt '' '
^^^
quality problems.
K?4£=^^
pri rity water bodies are summarized in Box 1.
Box 1
Targeting Criteria for the State Clean Water Strategy
1 What water bodies are currently or potentially most valuable from various perspectives-aquatic
habitat, recreation and water supply for example?
2. What water bodies are subject to adverse effects from both pollution and aquatic habitat
destruction (wetlands)?
3. What tools are available to address the identified problems?
4. What areas are most likely to be improved through governmental action?
5. Which problems are most amenable to the available tools and controls?
6.. What is the degree of public support (local or statewide) to protect a particular aquatic
resource?
7. How willing are other governmental agencies to take steps to use their tools and resources
to help address the problem?
8. Where would "combined actions' offer the greatest benefit relath/e to the value of the aquatic
resource?
Priority Criteria for Section 319(h) Grants
(U.S. EPA, 1987d).
-------
Box 2
Priority Grant Criteria for Section 319 Funds
1. control particularly difficult or serious nonpoint source pollution problems, includinq but
not limited to, problems resulting from mining activities;
2. implement Innovative methods or practices for controlling nonpoint sources of pollution
including regulatory (e.g. enforcement) programs where the Administrator deems appropriate;
3. control interstate nonpoint source problems;
4. carry out ground-water quality protection activities which the AdrrAiistrator determines are
part of a comprehensive nonpoint source pollution control program;
5. address nationally significant, high risk NFS problems;
6. address surface/ground-water (cross-media) issues;
7. integrate Federal, state, and local programs;
8. provide for monitoring/evaluation of program effectiveness;
9. comprehensively integrate CWA requirements;
10. demonstrate a long-term commitment to building of institutions necessary for effective NFS
management and the continuation of such institutions beyond the authorization period; or
11. EPA Regions may have additional criteria or priorities for delegating funds.
(Emphasis added)
Identification of Water Bodies Lacking Reliable Data
or threatened water bodies can place a large burden on state resources. As
encourages states to develop a strategy for the collection of additional
The State should clearly identify navigable waters where available information does not support
reliable assessment, and provide a strategy and timetable for completing the assessment of
V W3terS m e'ther the'r Assessment ReP°rt or Management Program (emphasis
This strategy should focus data collection and evaluation efforts on water bodies where NFS management is
expected to produced the greatest public benefits. Some of the ranking processes discussed in this report can help
states identify high priority water bodies for which they lack the necessary information to fulfill section 319
assessment requirements.
Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment
EPA strongly encourages states to involve other groups with water quality interests in the development of State
Management Programs and the selection of NPS priority water bodies. The involvement of local groups can be
particularly valuable where the lack of reliable data precludes the identification of priority water bodies. Most
of the case studies reported here provide opportunity for public input.
-------
Setting State Level Priorities
, «v Jmnaired water bodies for NFS control actions, states should consider a number
In developing a process tc, rank£ng«d ^J2~iibiittai of efforts and funds including, ^concerns and
of additional factors necessary to achieve an_°l™ d bilities of participating institutions. In the following
^^^S^^S^S^^ Cities at?he sta'te le^el from the Setting Pnon^s
manual (U.S. EPA, 1987b).
Concerns and Interests of Participating Agencies
SSJSi; S S^^1!^^^ TdshoeuusmDAke sure that the NPS 8
also reflects the priorities of the cooperating agencies, including USDA.
Assess Institutional Resources and Capabilities
-\«=^^^^
k important for maintaining public and legislative enthusiasm.
-------
Contact: Donna Sefton
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Rd., P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-3362
ILLINOIS LAKE PRIORITY SYSTEM
Introduction
The state of Illinois has established a four tier targeting process for selection of rural NFS abatement projects.
This process allows federal, state, and local agencies to participate in the planning, implementation, and
evaluation of rural NFS projects. The Illinois lake classification system information is utilized as input in this
process.
The Illinois lake classification system is used to screen and evaluate lakes for funding under the U.S. EPA Clean
Lakes Program (CLP). Many of the CLP's priorities parallel section 319 priorities. As a result, the Illinois
priority ranking mechanism can help states select NFS impaired or threatened water bodies for their NFS
Management Program. The Illinois State Watershed Priorities Committee uses the program to prioritize
watershed land treatment projects for funding. Since this mechanism is designed primarily to screen lakes,
application to streams will require some modification.
Illinois EPA's Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) assesses lakes for the following evaluation categories:
1) current water quality, 2) potential water quality or improvement/maintenance potential; and 3) public benefits.
Within each category, lakes are evaluated based on measurements and indicators of water quality, hydrology,
watershed characteristics, and lake use. Lakes with greater priority for rehabilitation or management receive a
higher score. Possible scores for each category are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Lake Evaluation Categories and Possible Scores
Evaluation Category Possible Points
Current Water Quality 40 . 100
Potential Water Quality 0-100
Public Benefits 0-150
Current Water Quality Evaluation
Current water quality is evaluated according to the following factors: 1) Carlson's Trophic State Index; 2)
severity of use impairment from sediment; and 3) severity of use impairment from aquatic macrophytes. Possible
scores for current water quality range from 40 to 100 points (the higher score means greater impairment and
greater priority for clean-up efforts). Scores for each water quality factor are shown in Table 2.
Trophic State Index
Carlson's Trophic State Index (TSI) gauges lake eutrophic conditions and provides a uniform measure for
comparing lakes. The TSI is commonly used by state agencies and provides a uniform basis for comparing
-------
trophic condition, aero. states and region, The 1SI is re- ,ewed in Box 3, "Measuring Carlson, Trophic
State Index."
TSI scores for each ,ake are — j^,^^
1 (Mean Tropic State ^) Jj^dK mSS^faother words, hypereutrophic lakes are considered
and hypereutrophic lakes should receive> »eJ* J ° £ , k ^ h TSI score above 70 was not given greater
Box 3
Measuring Carlson's Trophic State Index
TSI can be calculated from Secchi disc transparency in meters, chlorophyll ajn ugA and total
phosphorus ta S/LThe following equations are used to calculate the .ndex number.
Secchi Disc
Chlorophyl a
Total Phosphorus
TSISD
60 - 14.41 InSD
9-81 InCHLA + 30.6
TSIjp = 14.42 InTP + 4.15 ' ,
sarnpling data are not available LANDSAT data are used.
When interpreting TSI calculations, DWPC explains that it is important to consider a ;number of
Carlson's assumptions.
1 Secchi transparency is a function of phytoplankton biomass;
In the case of Illinois and other lakes, these assumptions may not be valid where:
crop ,rom
^"Though largl amounts of phosphorus may be present
-------
Evaluation Factor
1. Mean Tropic State
Index (Carlson, 1977)
2. Use Impairment from
Sediment
3. Use Impairment from
Aquatic Macrophytes
table 2
Current Water Quality Evaluation
(Possible score: 40 -100 points)
Weighting Criteria
a. >7Q
b. >.60 <70
c. >50 <60
d. <50
a. Substantial1
b. Moderate
c. Slight
d. Minimal
a. Substantial
b. Moderate
c. Slight
d. Minimal
See text for discussion of weighting criteria.
Use Impairment from Sediment
Points
70
60
50
40
15
10
5
0
15
10
5
0
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's initial water quality management planning efforts documented the
most severe agricultural NFS related problem in Illinois, which was soil erosion resulting in lake sedimentation
Suspended or deposited sediment is a major cause of use impairment in Illinois lakes. Based on field
observations and examination of sampling data, qualitative sediment impairment ratings have been developed
by Illinois EPA staff and Department of Conservation field biologists, and are shown in Table 3. The criteria
used to evaluate use impairment from sediment are total suspended solids, secchi disc transparency, and annual
loss in lake capacity The mean score of these criteria, from Table 3, is used to calculate the DWPC sediment
Jece vmo ' t ng substantial ™Pairment receive 15 points, while minimally impaired lakes
Table 3
Use Impairment from Sediment1
Weight
1. Total Suspended
Solids (mg/l)
2. Secchi Disc
Transparency (in.)
3. Annual Loss in
Capacity (%)
a. Substantial
b. Moderate
c. Slight
d. Minimal
a. Substantial
b. Moderate
c. Slight
d. Minimal
a. Substantial
b. Moderate
c. Slight
d. Minimal
>25
>15 <25
>5 <15
<5
<24
>24 <48
>48 <79
>79
>0.75
>0.50 <0.75
>0.25 <0.50
<0.25
Points
15
10
5
0
15
10
5
0
15
10
5
0
1™.
This table is summarized in Table 2.
-------
Use Impairment from Aquatic Macrophytes
Lakes are also evaluated for use i
range from IfTpoints for lakes with substantial macrophyte i
for minimally unpaired lakes (less than 25% coverage).
coverage or more), to 0 pomts
Table 4
Use Impairment from Aquatic Macrophytes
Criteria
Littoral Area
Covered by
Macrophytes (%)
Weight
a. Substantial
b. Moderate
c. Slight
d. Minimal
>75
>50 25 <50
<25
Points,
15
10
5
0
This table is summarized in Table 2.
DWPC cvaluaus a,»atic »ac,oph,,e tapataen,,
Potential Water Quality Evaluation
aquatic macrophytes.
DWPC uses four factors to rate each lake's potential water qualUy
Sa'SIS^b.^TU score for thele set of factors ranges
from 0 to 100 points.
Watershed Area/Lake Surface Area Ratio
The ratio of watershed area to lake surface — «£*
a significant effect where these loadings are channeled into a small water body.
Studies of Illinois lakes showed that the highest quality
^^
Table 5).
10
-------
Table 5
Potential Water Quality Evaluation Factors and Scores
(Possible Score: 0 to 100 points)
Evaluation Factor
1. Ratio of Watershed
Area to Lake Surface
Area
2. Mean Depth (feet)
3. Retention Time (years)
4. Lake Size (acres)
Weighting Criteria
a. <20:1
b. >20:1 ,<50:1
c. >50:1 <. 100:1
d.
a. >15
b. >10 <.15
c. > 5 <10
d. <5
a. >1.0
b. >0.50 <.1.0
c. > 0.25 .< 0.50
d. <0.25
a. > 100 .<500
b. > 40 .< 100 or
>500.<1000
d. .<40 or
>1000
Points
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
0
10
5
0
Mean Depth
Water Retention Time
,
volume divided by volume of watershed runoff J? i ¥ ' ^ LRetentlon time « calculated as lake
relatively greater volumes ^^^^^^^^^^"^ "^ rfetenti°n time receive
r
S.-SSSS1S
11
-------
Lake Size
A< lake size increases the control of nutrients and sediments becomes more difficult requiring a greater
toeSeJTrfSSS From the sport fisheries management perspective, lakes between 100 and 500 acres are
A^^StK^tSlplcm^oa of a management strategy (Paladino, 1983). These lakes Deceived 10
points, the highest score for this category (see Table 5). Lakes smaller than 40 acres received 0 points because
they are generally not capable of supporting a diverse sport fishery.
Public Benefits Evaluation
lakes most important to the public, DWPC conducts a public benefit evaluation of Illinois' lakes
es with thereate?t current or potential public benefit are deemed candidates for the expenditure of
ds for oroteSSn or rehabilitation. The seven factors utilized in the public benefits evaluation are listed
,n 4ao>c ofafon^ She weighting criteria and possible scores. Higher scores reflect greater public benefits.
For each lake, the potential benefit score ranges from 0 to 150 points.
Public Ownership/Access
DWPC considers public ownership and the availability of public access two of the °°* ™|£"a^/eSsTsee
evaluating a lakes' public benefits. Four levels of public ownership/access are used to evaluate benehts (see
Table 6).
1) The entire lake bottom is publicly owned and the entire shoreline is accessible to the> public,
or, the lake is dedicated to public use and the entire shoreline is accessible to the public.
2) The entire lake bottom is publicly owned but the shoreline is not entirely accessible, to the
public; or, the lake is dedicated to public use and most of the shoreline is accessible to the
public.
3} The lake is partially owned by the public and there is partial public access to Che shoreline;
or, a limited portion of the lake is dedicated to public use and access.
4) The lake is either not publicly owned and not dedicated to public use or there is no public
access.
Amount of Recreational Use
The magnitude of public benefits increases as the number of recreatiomsts increase (U.S. EPA, 1980b)
EsL™e?of usage frequency were obtained from lake managers, Illinois Department of Conservation staff or
HHnS EPA field s affq Lates with very heavy use (>200,000 visitors/year) receive the maximum score of 15
poims while lakes with light use (<25,000 visitors/year) receive 0 points, as shown m Table 6.
Proximity to a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)
In general SMSAs are large metropolitan areas and their adjacent communities with a population greater than
50,000. The location of SMSAs is available from U.S. Bureau of Census.
^/;»s^«^
maloTfactS the number ofTse^s and amount of benefits (U.S. EPA, 1980b). Scores for this factor are shown
in Table 6.
12
-------
Availability of Other Publicly Owned Lakes
In prioritizing lakes, the Illinois Department of Conservation considers the supply of lakes in the area versus
the existing or potential demand. Greater priority is given to areas where high quality lakes are scarce and
user demands are large. Availability of other publicly owned lakes is measured as the acres of publicly owned
lakes in a county divided by the county population. Where availability is low, lakes are assigned a higher score,
as shown in Table 6.
Public Water Supply Usage
Lakes that serve as a primary or alternative public water supply were considered to provide additional public
benefits. Primary water supplies received 20 points, while alternative water supplies received 10 points (see
Table 6).
Recreational Facilities
The existence of recreational facilities helps increase the public benefits associated with a lake. Recreational
facilities considered in this evaluation are: beach, boat ramp, picnic area, camping area, park, boat rental,
concession, marina, and bicycle trail. Lakes with more facilities received a higher score, as shown in Table 6.'
Environmental Uniqueness
Lakes that represent a unique or uncommon natural resource, and that provide a unique or uncommon natural
setting have "immeasurable public benefit," according to DWPC. Unique or "unmatched" lake resources receive
an additional 50 points. The criteria for identifying these lakes are: 1) oligotrophic water quality; 2) capability
to support year-round cold water fisheries; 3) capability to support rare or endangered species highly valued by
Illinois residents; and, 4) provide a unique one-of-a-kind environmental setting for Illinois.
Uncommon lake resources receive 25 additional points. The criteria for identifying these lakes is less rigid and
includes: 1) mesotrophic water quality; 2) capability to support a put-and-take trout fishery; 3) natural glacial
lakes with undeveloped shorelines and natural surroundings or which are part of a chain-of-lakes; 4) artificial
lakes in urban areas which have unusual, natural, undeveloped surroundings; and, 5) artificial lakes in rural area
which are deep with steep watershed terrains and rock outcroppings in addition to natural, undeveloped
surroundings. These scores are also shown in Table 6.
Overall Lake Classification Rating
The overall classification rating for each lake is obtained by summing the points received in the three evaluation
categories. The higher the total rating on a scale of 40-350, the better candidate the lake for Clean Lakes
funding or implementation of protection, restoration, or management measures. The classification list serves as
an initial screening tool for determining those projects which are best candidates for implementation of
protection, restoration, or management measures. It does not restrict the order that projects may be submitted
for assistance or funded. Factors such as local priorities, local interest, resource commitment, and readiness to
proceed are also evaluated in conjunction with this rating when developing the final priority ranking of
applications for various program authorities each year.
13
-------
Fualuation Factor
1. Public Ownership/Access
2. Amount of recreational
use associated with lake
Table 6
Public Benefits Evaluation Factors and Scores
Weighting Criteria1
a Entire lake bottom publicly owned and entire shoreline public access; or,
' dedicated to public us« and entire shoreline public access.
b. Entire lake bottom publicly owned but entire shoreHne notpubhc ' access.
or dedicated to public use and most of shoreline public access.
c PartlanyTubliclyowned and partially public assess; or, a limited port.on
to public use; or, no Pub,ic
access.
a Verv heavy
b Heavv
c Moderate
d Light
(> 200,000 visitors per year)
> 100,000 <2QO.OOO visitors per year)
(> 25.000 <.100,000 visitors per year)
(<. 25.000 visitors per year)
3. Proximity to Standard Metropolitan a. Within SMSA (0 miles)
b. > 0 .<25 miles
4. Availability of other
publicly owned lakes (expressed as
Public Lake Surface Area/County
Population)
5. Public water supply usage
6. Recreational facilities
7. Environmental uniqueness
a. <0.01 acres per capita
b. >0.01 .<0.1 acres per capita
c. >0.1 acres per capita
a. Primary public water supply
b. Alternate public water supply
c. Not a public water supply
a. Facilities to support four or more recreational uses, or
facilities for swimming.
b Facilities to support two or three recreational uses.
c. Facilities to support only one recreational use.
a Unique (unmatched) natural or aquatic resource and
environmental setting for Illinois. . nm(,nlai
b. Uncommon natural or aquatic resource and environmental
setting for Illinois.
c. Not a unique or uncommon natural or aquatic resource or
environmental setting for Illinois.
Points
30
20
10
15
10
5
0
15
10
5
0
10
5
. 0
20
10
0
10
5
0
50
25
0
1 See text for discussion of weighting criteria.
Reference
Springfield: February 1984.
14
-------
Contact: John Youger
Ohio EPA
1800 Water Mark Dr.
Columbus, OH 43266
(614) 644-2893
OHIO WATERBODY
PRIORITY SYSTEM
Introduction
In response to the Clean Lakes Program, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency developed a ranking process
to prioritize their lakes for restoration and protection. Ohio's ranking process is divided into four parts to
consider separately: 1) public benefits, 2) water quality and ecological value, 3) lake morphology and watershed
characteristics, and 4) local funding criteria.
Public Benefits
Proximity of Lake to Major Population Center
Under this criteria, lakes located closer to major population centers are given greater priority (see Table 7).
Cities with a population greater than 20,000 are considered a major population center. Proximity to major
population centers is considered less biased than actual lake attendance estimates because it accounts for
potential utilization. Where several smaller cities are located near a lake, their populations are summed.
Table 7
Proximity to Major Population Center*
Weighting Criteria Score
,<5 miles 10 points
>5 <.10 miles 5 points
> 10 <25 miles 2 points
> 25 miles 0 points
Major population center is defined as city with a population greater than 20,000.
Proximity to Other Public Recreational Lakes
A lake is given greater priority when alternative recreational lakes are not available to the public (see Table
8). The purpose of this criteria is to increase lake recreational opportunities where they do not currently exist.
15
-------
Table 8
Proximity to Other Public Recreational Lakes
Weighting Criteria
. miles
>10 <2Q miles
> 20 40 miles
Public Ownership of Shoreline
Public ownership of lake shoreline is use
a. lake restoration or protection project
that when private ownership of the shor
Score
0 points
3 points
5 points
10 points
; a surrogate measure of the potential public benefits derived from
. Table 9). According to Ohio EPA, it has been their experience
. is high, public access is frequently restricted.
Table 9
Public Ownership of Shoreline
Weighting Criteria
<_10 percent
>10 <30 percent
>30 <70 percent
>70 percent
Score
2 points
4 points
7 points
10 points
"percent of lake publicly owned.
Existing and/or Potential Uses and Recreational Opportunities
A lake is a* .ded five points for each available use or recreational activity listed in Table 10. Points are also
Awarded liberally for potential recreational opportunities." Lakes may only meet the criteria for Public: access
clearly marked" where public access is currently marked. Currently used public drinking water reservoirs are
always awarded points. Potential water supply reservoirs must be of significant volume and in close proximity
to a user population.
Table 10
Existing and/or Potential Uses and Recreational Opportunities
Activity
Rshing opportunity
Boating opportunity
Swimming opportunity
Public ac-* -°> clearly marked
Lake wis- • * mile of public transportation
lake is c . : be used as a public water supply
Score
5 points
5 points'
5 points
S points
5 points
J> points
*Alake may receive a total of 30 : -j for this criteria.
16
-------
Water Quality and Ecological Value
Trophic State
Lakes that score lower on Carlson's Trophic State Index (TSI)--are less eutrophic--are given greater priority
for protection or restoration (Carlson, 1977). Ohio EPA believes that the enhancement or protection of less
eutrophic lakes is more cost-effective.
The TSI is based on summer chlorophyll a,, summer secchi disk transparency, and total phosphorus For a more
complete discussion of TSI calculations see Box 3 in the Illinois case study.
Table 11
Trophic Level Classification
Weighting Criteria TSI* Score
Hypereutrophic >210 3 points
Eutrophic >.149 <210 7 points
Mesotrophic-Oligotrophic <149 . 10 points
*
As defined using Carlson's Trophic State Index
Unique Ecological Characteristics
Lakes that contain unique aquatic habitats, or plant or annual species of special significance are given additional
priority for protection or restoration (see Table 12).
Table 12
Unique Ecological Characteristics
Weighting Criteria Score
Lake contains a unique ecological habitat or plants
and/or animals of special significance. 15 points
Other lakes 0 points
Potential for Lake Protection or Restoration
Lake morphology and watershed characteristics play an important role in determining lake water quality and
the potential for long-term water quality improvements. To evaluate the potential for lake protection or
restoration, Ohio EPA assesses for each lake: 1) the ratio of drainage area to lake surface area, 2) drainage
basin sediment yield, and 3) mean lake depth. ' ^
Drainage Area to Lake Surface Area
The ratio of watershed drainage area to lake surface area is one factor that determines the quantity of sediment
nutrients and other pollutants entering a lake and the difficulty involved in controlling them. In addition lakes'
with high drainage area to surface area ratios may flush pollutants very quickly. As a result, Ohio EPA gives
greater priority to lakes with low drainage area to surface area ratios (see Table 13).
17
-------
Table 13
Watershed Drainage Area to Lake Surface Area Ratio
Weighting Criteria Score
>200 to 1 .0 P°ints
>_100<200to1 2 points
2.50 < 100 to 1 4 points
>20 <50to 1 6 points
~5 < 20 to 1 8 points
~S to 1 10 P°ints
Drainage Basin Sediment Yield
Restoration and protection efforts in lakes located in basins with lower sediment yields are more likely to
produce longer term benefits. Ohio EPA gives these lakes greater priority (see Table 14). Sediment yield
estimates for each lake were based on the publication Sediment in Ohio (Anttila and Tobm, 1978).
Mean Lake Depth
Based on work by Vollenweider and Dillon (1974), shallow lakes are more likely to become eutrophic than deep
lakes receiving the same nutrient loadings. Therefore, Ohio EPA gives greater preference to deep lakes because
they can be more easily protected from eutrophication (see Table 15).
Table 14
Drainage Basin Sediment Yield
Weighting Criteria* Score
l_ow 10 points
Moderately low 7 points
Moderate 5 points
Moderately high 2 points
High 0 points
*Basodon sediment yield map in Anttila and Tobin, 1978.
, Table 15
Mean Lake Depth
Weighting Criteria Score
<2 maters 0 points
>2 <5 meters 2 points
>5 <10 meters 5 points
>10~meters 10 points
18
-------
Local Funding Criteria
After numerical scores have been determined, potential lake projects are reviewed to evaluate the availability
of local matching funds, and placed in one of the three groups listed in Table 16. Within each of these
categories, projects are ranked according to their numerical scores. The purpose of these funding groups is to
increase the priority of lakes with low numerical scores but strong local monetary support. Only lakes in group
A receive state support. If local funds do become available, projects in group B or C can be moved to group A.
Table 16
Local Funding Criteria
In this group are those lakes for which local matching funds acf available
or might be available in the near future, and for which Phase I and Phase II*
applications are believed to be forthcoming.
In this group are those lakes where there is a viable interest in applying for '
Phase I or Phase II funding, but where local matching funds are unavailable.
In this group are those lakes recommended for inclusion on the prioritization
list but for which active local support has not been identified.
Group
Phase I applications are for feasibility studies and Phase II are for funds for restoration.
Reference
Ohio EPA. Report on Ohio's Priority Lakes for Restoration or Protection, by John D. Youger. Division of
Surveillance and Standards. Columbus: January 1982.
19
-------
Contact: Peter Mack
Monitoring and Assessment Bureau
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233
. (518) 457-3495
NEW YORK WATERBODY
PRIORITY SYSTEM
Introduction
New York issues a "Priority Problem Water List" to help guide the expenditure of water program resources
and document workload for federal grants and loans. This list covers approximately 3,500 miles of rivers and
their associated lakes, 1,500 square miles of estuaries and bavs, and the Great Lakes bordering New York.
Stream segments, which includes lakes, where designated uses are impaired from either .point or nonpoint
sources of pollution are included on the list. Each stream segment is evaluated according to its type, degree
and aerial extent of impairment. Critical pollutants and their sources are also considered, along with waterbody
value, stream flow and state water quality classification. Omitted from this assessment are legal mandates,
feasibility, and remediation or protection costs. .
The priority list is revised biannually by a panel convened at each of the nine Department of Conservation
(DEC) Regional Offices. Participants in the panel include the Regional Water Engineer, the Regional Fisheries
Manager, and the Director of the Monitoring and Assessment Bureau. The regional representatives provide
knowledge of research studies, monitoring data, and public perception of use impairment in their area, while
the Bureau Director assures statewide uniformity in the process.
In 1988, DEC initiated a program to elicit greater public input from New York citizens who fish, swim, sail, or
live at the edge of state waters. Many of these people have intimate knowledge about the use!of the state's water
bodies. The state will distribute this public input to each of the nine Regional Offices. Public complaints and
concerns can be used to modify the list of priority water bodies.
The Scoring System
Only stream segments that have demonstrated water quality impairment are placed on the priority list. Stream
segments are prioritized according to: 1) water classification, which is based on the best possible use for that
segment (types of use considered include drinking water, swimming, afld fishing); 2) severity of the problem,
which is based on the frequency of use impairment; 3) flow; and, 4) potential resource value, which for freshwater
is based on the segment's public access, uniqueness, and size. Potential resource value for marine waters is based
on shellfish productivity and presence of migratory passageway for anadromous fish.
A priority score is computed for each impaired stream segment according to the following equation:
Priority Score = PrW, + P2W2+ P3W3+ P4
where
P1 = Stream Classification Factor = 35 points
P2 = Problem Severity Factor = 30 points
P3 = Flow Factor = 10 points
P4 = Potential Resource Value = 0 to 25 points
20
-------
and
Maximum Score = 100 points
W1 = Stream Classification Weighing Factor
W2 = Problem Severity Weighing Factor
W3 = Flow Weighing Factor
Scores for stream classification (^W,),problem severity (P2W2),and flow (P3W3)will vary according to the
weighing factors (W,. 3),which are expressed in fractional values (0.1 to 1.0) Unlike P1 P?pTeCfs edas
Ba'Ton tKr"1 reS°UrC; V3lUe ^^ ThC maXlmUm SC°re a ^-segment may^e'ceive ilW potts
Table 1° imP Stfeam SegmCntS ^ e° given a high' medium' or low P"ority, as shown in
Table 17
Priority Ranking Classification
Rank
High
Medium
Low
Score
80-100 points
60 - 79 points
<60 points
Stream Classification Priority Score
The maximum score for stream classification is 35 points if the stream classification weighing factor (W, ) equals
0; ^ Jn 1S aSSlgD ? fresh7ter streams in ft* "^tural" state and saline watersTat support sllfXg
vT.,rSFge r? °r anadromo.us fish (see Tabl« 18)- Classifications for less beneficial use ircgSSl
New V± Sta^W,5 e^n T? " ^^ WJr according to the segment's "best use" as determfieTbJ
New York State Water Classification. These classifications and W, value are shown in Table 18.
Problem Severity Priority Score (P2W2)
InT
ana
^^^^
StrMm
relationhin rnh ,« ' f f , er°S1OD'
however Chan± £5 ™ threfttened Stream
undated TSdSl rf ^ ^
vies
tc^ h
stream segments show intermittent or marginal use restrictions and
65 Siti°n' 6^' °f P°PUlat£n- T^^^
k b not Possible to determine a cause and effect
the water quality currently supports use and ecosystem
^P™™* or ecosystem disruptions. Table 19 has no
Categ°rieS bCCaUSe DEC has not ««Wned these categories
ue
use
°bse™tl™ andother information sources are considered when evaluating
managers are consulted for information on consumption advisories, anomalies, and fish
21
-------
in addition to ammonia and/or chlorine toxicity from wastewater treatment facilities. State and local health
£*; tments report beach closings and restrictions, and water supply restncuons. Pub^oClaintS
are reviewed. Information of non-complying landfills and hazardous waste sites are also
Table 18
Stream Classification Weighing Factors
Best Uses
Freshwater
Natural Water1
(This water is in its
natural condition)
Best Use Impairment
Point source discharge identified.
Inadequate filtration by lateral
soil travel identified.
Weighing Factor (
1.0
Drinkable Water
Primary Contact Recreation
Secondary Contact Recreation
(Swimming, fishing, boating)
Water declared non-potable.
Failure to meet water quality
standards.
0.9
Primary Contact Recreation
Secondary Contact Recreation
(Swimming, fishing, boating)
Bathing beach closed or swimming
prohibited
No bathing warnings posted for 2
to 3 days following heavy rainfall
0.7*
Secondary Contact Recreation
(Fishing and boating)
Fish not edible due to toxic
concentration.
Rshing prohibited/restricted.
Fishkill
0.5
Secondary Contact Recreation
(Fishing and boating, however,
aquatic habitat will not support
lish propagation or balanced
fish population.)
Fishing prohibited/restricted.
0.4
Saline Water
Shellfish
(Includes primary and
secondary recreation)
Shellfishing lands closed.
1.0
Primary Contact Recreation
Secondary Contact Recreation
(Swimming, finishing, but no
shelifishing.)
Saline bathing beach closed or
swimming prohibited
No bathing warnings posted for 2
to 3 days following heavy rainfall
0.7
Secondary Contact Recreation
(Finishing, but no swimming
or shelifishing. Includes
support of viable fishing and
wildlife habitat.)
Rshing prohibited/restricted.
Fish species impaired/loss.
Rshkill
0.5
Primarily Non-Recreational
(Saline uses other than
fishing and recreation.)
Rshkill
0.4
llncludes best uses in lower classes.
2Add 0.1 if stream or lake supports trout propagation or put and take trout fishing.
-------
Severe
Moderate
Slight1
Table 19
Problem Severity Weighing Factors
A water segment is rated as having a severe problem when a designated
use is precluded or not supported by the water quality of the segment
This may include beach closures or a ban on fishing.
A water segment is given a problem severity rating of moderate when a
classified use is frequently impaired. The designated uses of the segment
are partially supported by the water quality of the segment, however
full use of the segment is not attained. Beaches that are closed by a
moderately sized storm 25 to 50 percent of the time, or waters that have
an advisory warning people not to eat the fish are considered moderatelv
impaired. '
A water segment is rated as having a slight problem when a classified
use is occasionally impaired. Typically, these segments have very
localized problems. The designated uses of the segment are basically
supported by the water quality of the segment.
Weighing Factor
1.0
0.6
0.2
°mit thlS Cat690ry in fUtUre assessments and *> ««d two new categories, stressed and threatened. See text for
Flow (P3W3)
ot concm '° flshe'me"
Table 20
Flow Weighing Factor
Row (MA7CD/10)1
Over 150 cfs, Lakes, and Estuary
150to20cfs
Under 20 cfs
Weighing Factor
1.0
0.7
0.2
Potential Resource Value Priority Score (P4)
A freshwater stream's potential resource value is measured as the sum of three factors- 1) public access 2^
mree cntena, potential resource value is measured as the sum of these different factors.
TaWeTl
Scents
tenM °f ° Percenta8e of
*
shoreline accessible to the public, as
COnStitUteS
Minimum average 7 consecutive day/10 year flow.
23
-------
The Uniqueness Factor provides four categories for evaluating stream segments. "Unique statewide fishery
resource" includes very high quality trout streams and lakes with excellent walleye fishing. ^Potentially unique
or historically significant" includes water bodies that have been selected for the states Wild and Scenic river
program. Areal Extent of Impairment Factor, like Public Access Factor, is measured coarsely and is not intended
to be scientifically accurate.
Potential resource value for saline waters, as shown in Table 21, is based largely on the existence of shellfish
beds and migratory passageways for anadromous fish (striped bass). According to DEC, high priority is given
to these resources because of intense public interest and concern (Mack, 1988).
Resolvability
Resolvability refers to whether a water quality impairment can be corrected with the available resources,
expertise, and program authority. While resolvability is not included in the priority scoring system, DEC does
consider this factor hi a later stage of ":ir water quality planning process. The list of factors DEC considers
is shown in Table 22.
Rat.
Table 21
is for Potential Resource Value
CRITERIA
.POINTS (P4)'
Freshwater
Public Access Factor
a. >5Q%
b. >10% <49%
c.
Uniqueness Factor
a. Unique Statewide fishery resource
b. Potentiaf- jnique or historically siqnificant
c. Similar .--ureas within county
d. Similar' • ources available [cca...
Areal Extent of Impairment
12
10
8
6
a. > 5 miles of streams
>100 acres of lakes
b. > 1 <5 miles of streams
> 10 ^.100 acres of lakes
c. < 1 mile of streams
<10 acres of lakes
Saline Waters
1*
a. Segment includes shellfish areas which are among the most productive in the state
for any one of following: surf clam, hard clam, oyster, bay scallop, blue mussel; or,
Segment includes migratory passageway for anadromous fish.
b. Segment includes productive or potentially productive shellfish beds.
c. Segment supports commercial use (for food or recreation) of fishery resources.
d. All other segments except (e).
o. Segments consist of a man-made backwater and is not part of a stream or rivor.
-di^r.ing factor is used for scoring potential resource value.
25
25
21
18
15
10
24
-------
a. Manageable by Regional Office
b. Requires Central Office Management
c. Needs study and a Management Plan
d. Strategy Exists, Funding Needed
e. Impairment not resolvable
f. Condition needs verification
Tabl'^22
Five Classes of Resolvability
Region has all the tools available in-house to manage the situation.
Region must look to Central Office for significant actions to manage the
issue, e.g. Clean Lakes resources, facility causing impairment is located
in another state.
Issue cannot be resolved until its solution is identified through formal
study and development of management actions tailored specifically to
the issue.
An agency or person is needed to accept financial responsibility and
provide the needed funds.
Technical, legal, social, and political concerns preclude impairment
resolution for the foreseeable future, e.g. lead runoff from the exhaust
of vehicles using leaded gasoline.
The condition is suspected but there is no or poor
documentation, or the condition may have abated but
not re-evaluated.
Reference
New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 1988 Priority Water Problem List Division of Water
Albany: April 1988.
25
-------
Contact: Jim Piatt
Mew Mexico Environmental Improvement Division
1190 Saint Francis Dr.
Sante Fe, NM 87503
(505) 827-2828
NEW MEXICO WATERBODY
PRIORITY SYSTEM
Introduction
New Mexico's Environmental Improvement Division (EID) has identified and ranked priority water bodies
since 1983. In 1987, a major change was made in their priority ranking system to assess NFS arid point source
management needs more accurately. New Mexico changed from a numerical ranking system, which was based
on mathematical formulas, to a decision tree approach (see Figure 1). Prior to 1987, up to one-quarter of the
total priority points were assigned on the basis of the need for point source regulatory control. The new system
recognizes the need to address both the impacts of points source and NFS pollution when assigning categories
of priority. Furthermore, the new ranking system considers whether water quality management tools and
information are available to assess and correct the problem. This study focuses on New Mexico's new decision
tree approach.
Indication of Problem
In the first step, EID develops a list of candidate water bodies that are impaired or are threatened with
impairment based on either documented information or best professional judgement. Criteria for inclusion on
this list include water quality standards violations, use impairment, and rapid watershed development that
threatens water quality.
In the second step, the impaired or threatened water bodies are evaluated to determine if sufficient information
exists to identify pollutant sources and assess water quality impairment. Where data are adequate, water bodies
are analyzed further to determine their priority for implementation of water quality controls. The evaluation
criteria for these water bodies are illustrated on the top limb of the decision tree in Figure 1. Where data are
inadequate, water bodies are prioritized for the collection and analysis of water quality data. These criteria are
illustrated on the bottom limb of Figure 1.
Ranking Water Bodies for Control Action
Frequent or Infrequent Standards Violations
EID considers standards Violations to include violations of both numeric and narrative standards, as well as
impairment or threatened impairment of designated uses. Standards violations are defined as frequent if, during
the previous five years, 20 percent of the samples taken from a fixed monitoring station violate water quality
standards. Where five years of monitoring data are not available, short-term intensive monitoring efforts may
provide sufficient information to assess the frequency of violations. In these cases, EID re lies'on their water
quality experts to determine whether the short-term monitoring effort is equivalent to the criteria established for
fixed monitoring stations.
26
-------
Even if standards violations are infrequent the water body could still be a candidate for management action.
As can be seen in Figure 1, this depends on the waterbody's value and the existence of management tools to
address the problem.
Waterbody Value
Impaired or threatened water bodies are given greater priority if they have a higher waterbody value. Water
bodies with any of the following attributes are considered higher value:
o domestic water supply;
o wild and scenic river;
o more than 5000 angler days per year;
o endangered species habitat;
o habitat for reproducing salmonoid population; or,
o other significant recreational or ecological value.
Water bodies with infrequent standards violations and low resource value -(see Figure 1) arc-«iimtttated-from
consideration. EID has found that two levels for resource value may be too crude a measure and that an
additional level is needed, however, this has not yet been developed.
Availability of Management Tools
Greater priority is given to water bodies where problems can be addressed by the funds, best management
practices, and program authority available to EID. The tools EID needs to correct a water quality problem
depend on the degree and type of waterbody problem; the type, magnitude and distribution of NFS and point
source pollution; and, the regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms for addressing the problem. Treatment
feasibility will also be a function of the biological and physical complexity of the water body and surrounding
watershed.
Ranking Water Bodies for Data Collection and Analysis
A water body may show signs of impairment, however, there may be insufficient information to evaluate the
frequency of water quality violations, and to evaluate the type and quantity of management tools needed to
address the problem. Where this information is lacking, the New Mexico priority ranking system helps focus
information collection and analysis funds on water bodies most likely to respond to NFS control at a reasonable
cost.
The lower limb of the decision tree in Figure 1 illustrates the evaluation criteria. Resource value is evaluated in
the same manner as other candidates. In the second step, the water body is evaluated to determine whether the
problem is expected to increase or decrease. Greater priority is given to water bodies where problems are
expected to get worse. Criteria to consider include increased population growth or increased land use activities
that disturb soil cover.
Reference
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division. Priority Water Bodies for Water Quality Management. Sante
Fe: September 30, 1988.
27
-------
Figure 1
Priority Decision Tree
Problem
Indicated
data adequate
to evaluate
problem
frequent
standards
violations
infrequent
standards
violations
higher value
water
lower value
water
higher value
water
lower value
water
H
^
H
H
Mgt. Tools
available
unavailable
available
'unavailable
available
unavailable
no ranking
data inadequate
to evaluate
problem ~~"
higher value
water
lower value
water
problem expected to increase
problem not expected to
increase
problem expected to increase
problem not expected to
increase
Priority for WQ
Control Actions
1
4
2
5
3
6
Priority for Data
Collection and
Analysis
1
2
3
-------
Contact: Elizabeth Scott
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Nonpoint Source Program Coordination
83 Park Street
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 277-3434
RHODE ISLAND WATERBODY
PRIORITY SYSTEM
Introduction
1) Protection of waters that provide the greatest public benefit or have tie highest ecological value,
""" ~" 'he •""" =»™— "'al/public health risk or pose
3) Implementation of best management practices that offer the greatest benefits with resnect to their
evaluated nonpomt sources of pollution, to Rhode Island's wSers and have a ^ probabiSy of
o drinking water supply;
o bathing and recreation resource; and
o fishery and habitat resource
29
-------
The six lists developed as a result of RIDEM's prioritizatipa procedure (i.e., drinking water supply/threatened
water drinking water supply/impaired water, etc.) contain numerical rankings of water bodies based on public
use?esour« value and "the level of nonpoint source pollution problems. With the exception of one category
(drinking water supply/impaired water which uses the top 40th percentile ranking), water bodies in the top 25th
percentile of their categories are identified as high priority waters. These hsts serve as a first cut in targeting
water bodies'for future nonpoint source management efforts.
Public Benefits
Drinking Water Supply
Water bodies designated as drinking water supplies are assessed according to their degree of public value.
Existing water supplies receive more poincs than proposed supplies and primary water supplies receive more
points than secondary water supplies. Higher priority is assigned to resources that serve larger populations (see
Table 23).
Table 23
Drinking Water Supply Evaluation Factors and Scores
ft
Evaluation Factor - £Si2!S
1. Existing water supply
Primary 1°°
Secondary 5°
Proposed water supply 8°
2. Population served
>250,000 1°°
>2,500 <250,000 8°
<2,500 5°
Bathing and Recreation
The evaluation factors for bathing and recreation assign greater priority to those water bodies that provide
creator access and facilities for the public. Higher scores are assigned to water bodies with ;more facilities tor
swimming, boating, fishing, camping and parking. Furthermore, publicly owned facilities are assigned higher
scores than private, restricted access facilities, as shown in Table 24.
30
-------
3.
Table 24
Bathing and Recreation Evaluation Factors and Scores
Evaluation Factor
1. Beach Facilities
2. Boat Ramps, Marinas, and Piers
State
Town
Private
No beach facilities
State or town facilities with parking for ^.20 cars
>J5 < 20 cars
< 5 cars
Private boat ramp, marina, pier, or boat livery
No boat ramp, marina, pier, or boat livery
Shore Access, Parks, Campgrounds, Management Areas, or Open Space
State or town facilities with parking for _>20 ears
>JS < 20 cars
<5cars
Non-designated public area
Private facilities
No shore access or facilities
Points
100
80
40
0
80
60
40
30
0
70
50
30
20
30
0
Fishery and Habitat
Fisheries and habitats are evaluated for the aquatic life they support. In stocked freshwater fisheries, "put and
g ow receives a tugner score than put and take" or those fresh water fi«hpn'p« i-hat am nnt ^tn^L-^j /->~u
natural freshwater Oshcries a,= given higher priority ,han wara SttoteH^S^^lS'S
^~^=3^TS^J^^-.5S^
Evaluation Factor
1. Stocked Freshwater Fishery
2. Natural Freshwater Fishery
3. Unique Habitat
4. Marine Finfish Resource
5. Shellfish and Crustacean
Resources
Table 25
Fishery and Habitat Evaluation Factors and Scores
Put and grow cold water fishery 100
Put and take cold water fishery
Not stocked
Cold water fishery or habitat 100
Warm water fishery
Oligotrophic waters, endangered species, anadromous
fish, migratory waterfowl habitat, etc
No unique habitat
Commercial
Non-commercial
Breeding ground
Shellfish Management Area Designation
Commercially Valuable Resource
Unique Shellfish Resource
Other areas of shellfish harvesting
Shellfish breeding grounds
Crustacean harvesting/habitat
Points
90
0
80
150
0
100
80
90
100
90
80
90
100
31
-------
Water Quality Potential
factor.
S£ by the categorization of threatened and impaired waters tobe he pM when
choosing nonpoint source control projects. Efforts to protect threatened waters are SM
than restoration projects and thus may be more readily implemented when fundmg is a
Protection of Threatened Water Bodies
Threatened water bodies that have a high risk of pollution are assigned a higher numerical
**nt°±ge^S^^^
pollution that could degrade water quality, or a documented water quality problem.
The expected response to nonpoint source controls is also an important factor for evaluation Surfa«
±fc?K
percentage of undisturbed shoreline.
Table 26
Evaluation Factors and Scores for Threatened Water Bodies
Evaluation Factor
1. Percent Change in Building Permits Issued by a Town, 1980-1987
21-30%
11-20%
6-10%
0-5%
2. Documented NPS Pollution Sites or Problems
Unknown
3. Documented Water Quality Problem
Unknown
4. Percentage of Shoreline in Undisturbed State
100%
<100%.>50%
<50% >25%
<25%
Points
100
80
70
50
100
50
100
50
150
100
50
0
Restoration of Impaired Water Bodies
32
-------
Table 27
Impaired Waterbody Evaluation Factors and Scores
Evaluation Factor Points
1. Designated Use Impairment
Partial support 100
Non-support 50
2. Population Density (population/mi2)
<500/mi2 10o
>500 <25QO/mP 80
>.2500/mi2 50
3. NPS Controls Sufficient to Improve Water Quality
No point sources or in-place sources (sediments or ambient
pollutant concentrations) of pollutant causing impairment
present 100
Point sources or in-place pollution sources present and are
estimated to contribute the following percentage of pollutants
causing impairment:
<50% 80
>50% 40
Unknown 70
Reference
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Office of Environmental Coordination. Rhode Island's
Nonpoint Source Management Plan (Preliminary Final). Providence: October 1988.
33
-------
Contact: Gregory A. Parsons \
Nonpoint Sources Coordinator
Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
" 4210 E. llth Avenue \
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 331-4756 :
COLORADO WATERBODY
PRIORITY SYSTEM
Introduction
The Water -.'uality Control Division (WQCD) of the Colorado Department of Health developed this nonpolnt
source priority mechanism in 1988 to meet the requirements of Section 319 of the 1987 Water Quality Act.
Colorado's program prioritizes projects for funding, weighing tangible and intangible benefits, with the goal of
directing funds towards the protection of high priority water bodies.
Projects are only ranked if they are listed in the Colorado Nonpoint Assessment Report and recommended for
a management program. In addition, four requirements must also be met before projects are ranked:
o Matching funds must be available from another source, and a commitment for their use on the
project must be documented. It is WQCD policy to limit state funding of any project to 50
percent;
o There must be a project implementation plan, noting the problem, lead agency for project
implementation, and anticipated results; .
o Problem assessment data must be credible, emphasizing monitored or "hard" data as opposed
to evaluated or "soft" data; and
o A maintenance agreement, insuring that the project owners or managers will arrange for life
maintenance of the improvements, is required.
Projects that satisfy these threshold requirements are ranked for funding consideration. Water bodies are first
divided into two groups; projects with :otal costs greater than $50,000 are separated from those with total costs
less than $50,000. This two tier system is intended to assure a mix of projects not favoring either high or low
cost projects.
The ranking procedure gives two NFS priority lists, one for fundable and one for contingency projects. The
fundable list contains those projects that have their funds and are ready to proceed. The contingency list has
projects that will proceed if additional funds become available.
Projects are presented to WQCD and ranked once a year. If a project has not started within the year, it is
reranked and may change priority depending on current criteria or competition. The yearly prioritization exercise
provides an ongoing evaluation of statewide nonpoint source needs.
Project rank is ^ased on the waterbody"s beneficial uses and potential for restoration. The beneficial uses
category determines how many beneficial uses are impaired, the severity of impairment, and whether it is a
state or national priority water body. The potential for restoration category has two areas of review: the
likelihood of success and the demonstration value of the project. Sixty points are available under each category,
with a total of 120 points available to NFS projects. Final state funding priorities are determined by WQCD.
34
-------
Beneficial Uses
Number of Beneficial Uses Affected
Priority is assigned to water bodies based upon the number of beneficial uses (agriculture, aquatic life water
supply, and recreation) that are impaired by nonpoint sources. Table 28 presents the number of points a project
receives for each waterbody use that is affected fmcu.
Table 28
Number of Beneficial Uses Affected
Evaluation Factor
One Use
Two Uses
Three Uses
Four Uses
mmmmmmmmmmmmm m*mi i ini,«1
Points
4
6
8
10
Severity of Nonpoint Source Impacts on Beneficial Uses
The severity of impact on beneficial uses is quantified based on the number of miles of stream or the surface
acres of lake or reservoir affected by the nonpoint source and the degree of impact (see Table 29) While a
number of beneficial uses might be affected, only the most severely impaired use is evaluated
Table 29
Severity of NPS Impact to Beneficial Use
Evaluation Factor
1. Low Impact-
little evident impact
to beneficial uses
Weighting Criteria
a. <5 miles or 200 acres
effected
b. 5-10 miles or 200-2000
acres
c. > 10 miles or 2000 acres
Points
1
3
5
2. Moderate Impact-
some impact to
beneficial uses,
not severe
a. <5 miles or 200 acres
affected
b. 5-10 miles or 200-2000
acres
c. > 10 miles or 2000 acres
10
15
25
3. High Impact-
beneficial use
severely impacted
a. <5 miles or 200 acres
effective
b. 5-10 miles or 200-2000
acres
c. > 10 miles or 2000 acres
30
35
40
35
-------
State and National Priority Water Bodies
The state and national priority evaluation provides recognition of the special status of certain waters or the
special uses those waters provide. Waters of national priority must provide habitat for a threatened or
endangered species, be located in a Wilderness Area, or be a Wild and Scenic River. State priority water bodies
include Gold Medal Fisheries or Wild Trout Streams, State Parks or Recreation Areas, or waters classified by
WQCD as high quality water bodies (see Table 30). It is possible that one water body could receive points for
the national and state categories.
Table 30
State and National Priorities
Evaluation Factor
National Priority
State Priority
Points
5
5
Potential for Restoration
Likelihood of Success
WQCD reviews each project implementation plan to evaluate the likely effectiveness of the proposed project.
The expected degree of effectiveness is the basis for prioritization, distinguishing between waters with low,
medium and high severity of impairment from nonpoint sources, as shown in Table 31.
Table 31
Likelihood of Success if BMPs are Installed
Evaluation Factor •
1. Minor improvements
or beneficial uses
maintained
2. Partial restoration
of use or reduction
of severity
3. Substantial restora-
tion of use or reduc-
tion of severity
Weighting Criteria
a. low severity waters
b. medium severity waters
c. high severity waters
a. low severity waters
b. medium severity waters
c. high severity waters
a. low severity waters
b. medium severity waters
c. high severity waters
Points
4
8
12
10
20
30
15
30
45
36
-------
Demonstration Value of Proposed Project
JvhleJinCati0nal Vap* °f thC rOP,OSed Pr°ject t0 °ther ^ sites in Color*d° is considered by WQCD in the
evaluat10n process. Pnontv is^ based upon transferability of a project's technology. As shown in TabTeSZ p rTonty
. transferability is limited, moderate, or extensive.
Table 32
Demonstration Value of Proposed Project
Evaluation Factor
Limited use of project technology may result
Moderate use of project technology may result
Extensive use of project technology may result
Points
5
10
15
Reference
37
-------
REFERENCES
Anttila P W and R L. Tobin. "Fluvial sediment in Ohio." Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 2045. U.S.
' Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: 1978.
Bachmann, R.W. "Small, shallow lakes-Iowa's glacial legacy." The Iowa Starter. Iowa State University, Ames:
September 1983.
Boland DHP et al. Trophic classification of selected Illinois water bodies: Lake
amaizamation of LANDSAT multispectral scanner and contact-sensed data
Environmental Monitor. Sys. Lab. U.S. EPA, Las Vegas: 1979.
Carlson, R.E. "A Trophic State Index for Lakes." Limnol. Oceanogr. Vol. 22, No. 2 (1977).
Coffey, S. "Water Quality Indices" (Preliminary Draft). North Carolina State University, Water Quality Group.
Raleigh: December 1988.
Colorado Water Quality Control Division, in association with the Colorado Nonpoint Source Task Force.
Colorado Nonpoint Source Management Program (Final Draft). Denver: November 1988.
Dillon PJ. "The PO4 budget of Cameron Lake, Ontario: The importance of flushing rate to the degree of
eutrophy of lakes." Limnol. Oceanogr. Number 20 (1975).
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division. Priority Water Bodies for Water Quality Management. Sante
Fe: September 30, 1988.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 1988 Priority Water Problem List. Division of Water.
Albany: April 1988.
Omernik J.M. "Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States." Annals of the Association of American .
Geographers. Vol. 77, No. 1 (1987).
Painter, William and William Ely. "Priority Setting Methodologies for Waterbodies" (Draft). U.S. EPA, Office
of Water. Washington, D.C.: August 1988.
Personal Communication with Lynn Carlson, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (1989).
Personal Communication with Peter Mack, NY Department of Environmental Conservation (1988).
Personal Communication with Palladino, Illinois Department of Environment Conservation Division, Fish and
Wildlife. Springfield: 1983.
Personal Communication with Gregory A. Parsons, Colorado Department of Health (1989).
Personal Communication with Jim Piatt, NM Environmental Improvement Division (1988).
Personal Communication with John Youger, Ohio EPA (1988).
Peterson, S.A. Sediment removal as a lake restoration technique (EPA-600/3-81-013). U.S. EPA. Corvallis,
Oregon: 1981.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Office of Environmental Coordination. Rhode Island's
Nonpoint Source Management Plan (Preliminary Final). Province: October 1988.
38
-------
Sefton, D.F. Assessment and classification of Illinois lakes. Vol. I, II. Illinois EPA. Springfield: 1978.
Sefton, D.F., M.H. Kelly, and M.Meyer. Limnology of 63 Illinois lakes, 1979. Division of Water Pollution Control
IEPA. Springfield: 1979.
Sefton, D.F. and J.R. Little. Classification/Needs Assessment of Illinois Lakes for Protection, Restoration, and
Management (Illinois EPA/WPC/84-005). Division of Water Pollution Control. Springfield: February
Sefton, D.F., and M.Meyer. "Assessment of Illinois impoundments: relationship of water quality to watershed
characteristic, hydrology, and lake morphology." Proc. Symp. Surface Water Impoundments. Minneapolis
MN: June 1980.
U.S. EPA. A Report to Congress: Activities and Programs Implemented Under Section 3 19 of the Clean Water Act
as Amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.: December 1987(a).
U.S. EPA. Setting Priorities: the Key to Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Washington, D.C.: July 1987(b).
U.S. EPA. Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change. Office of Water and Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: September 1987(c).
U.S. EPA. Nonpoint Source Guidance. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C.: December
1987(d).
U.S. EPA. State Clean Water Strategies: Meeting the Challenges of the Future. Office of Water. Washington, D C •
December 1987(e).
U.S. EPA. Clean Lakes Program Guidance Manual (including program regulations) (EPA-440/5-8 1-003). Office
of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C.: 1980(a).
U.S. EPA. Guidance for Priority Ranking of Potential Clean Lakes Projects. Region V. Chicago, IL: 1980 (b).
Vollenweider, RA. and PJ. Dillon. "The application of the phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication
research." NRC Associate Committee on Scientific Criteria for Environmental Quality, Canada Centre
for Inland Waters. Burlington, Ontario: 1974.
Youger, J.D. Report on Ohio's Priority Lakes for Restoration or Protection. Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Surveillance and Standards. Columbus: January 1982.
39
-------
c/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington. DC 20460
Official Business
Penally for Private Use
S300
-------