v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(WH-553)
EPA-841-B-93-001
February 1993
Geographic Targeting:
Selected State Examples
EH Medium/Low
• High
CH No Rank
• Priority Watershed
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed on paper that contains
at least 50% recycled fiber
WATERSHED
PROTECTION
• An Integrated, Holistic Approach *
-------
-------
Geographic Targeting:
Selected State Examples
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
March 1993
-------
Cover graphic: Results of a priority ranking of watersheds in Wisconsin based on
stream water quality data and the potential for improvement. Additional rankings are
done for lakes and ground water prior to final targeting of Priority Watersheds (see
Chapter 2). Source: Wisconsin's 1992 305(b) report.
-------
FOREWORD
Government agencies are increasingly using the concept of geographic
targeting to improve environmental protection. Geographic targeting provides a
way to focus resources, facilitate program coordination, and achieve integrated
decision-making. As a society, we now recognize the complexity and scope of the
issues involved in managing many environmental problems and that various
ongoing environmental management programs need to be integrated and address
issues at larger geographic scales. We also recognize that government cannot do
the job alone and that local stakeholders must be involved.
This document is intended to help government managers and others
implement geographic targeting. In this document we present the rationale for the
concept, various targeting approaches, issues involved in targeting, and several
examples of ongoing targeting efforts at the State level.
We hope that the document will serve to introduce geographic targeting as
a common theme among water quality managers as the emphasis in water resource
protection moves from compartmentalized solutions to watershed-based water
quality approaches.
Robert H. Wayland, HI
Director, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
HI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was developed under the direction of Peggy Michell and the
Watershed Branch. The principal author was J. M. McCarthy of the Research
Triangle Institute. Assistance was provided by Thomas Belk and John Simons of
the Groundwater Office. We wish to thank the people from various States whose
programs are described here. We also wish to thank all those who reviewed the
document, both at EPA and at other Federal Agencies.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter
List of Figures Vl
List of Tables vii
List of Sidebars .~> viii
1. Rationale for Geographic Targeting 1-1
1.1 What is Geographic Targeting? 1-1
1.2 An Evolving Approach to Priority Setting and Targeting 1-2
1.3 Why Target Watersheds? 1-6
1.4 Purpose of This Report 1-7
2. Ranking and Targeting Approaches 2-1
2.1 Generic Steps in Ranking and Targeting Watersheds 2-1
2.2 Ranking and Prioritization Techniques for Waterbodies and
Watersheds 2-4
2.2.1 Numeric Index Approach 2-4
2.2.2 Decision Tree Approach 2-11
2.2.3 Data Layer Overlay Approach 2-12
2.2.4 Multiagency Selection 2-19
2.3 Making the Final Selections 2-22
3. Concepts and Issues in Targeting 3-1
3.1 Ranking Criteria 3-1
3.2 Geographic Framework 3-2
3.3 Incorporating Ground Water Concerns 3-4
3.4 Incorporating Riparian Values 3-5
3.5 Degree of Public Involvement 3-6
3.6 Institutional Capability 3-6
3.7 Involvement of Federal, State, and Local Agencies 3-7
3.7.1 Federal Programs . . . . 3-8
3.7.2 State and Local Programs 3-9
4. Data Sources for Targeting 4-1
4.1 EPA Databases 4-1
4.2 Other Data Sources 4-6
References
5-1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1-1
1-2
2-1
A Generic Approach to Ranking and Targeting Watersheds
Useful Documents for Geographic Targeting
Considerations for Ranking and Targeting
Page
1-3
1-5
2-2
VI
-------
Number
1-1
4-1
4-2
LIST OF TABLES
Types of Targeting Activities by Spatial Scale and Purpose 1-4
Relevant EPA Data Systems 4.2
Other Useful Data Sources 4.7
vii
-------
LIST OF SIDEBARS
Page
Oregon's Clean Water Strategy Ranking System • 2-6
Oklahoma's Watershed Cluster System • 2-8
Lake Indexes in Vermont and Maine • 2-10
New Mexico's Decision Tree Approach • 2-13
The Ohio Target Waterbodies Map Overlay Technique 2-16
A Basinwide Screening Approach • 2-17
The Puget Sound Local Consensus-Based Ranking System 2-21
Wisconsin's Priority Watershed Program • 2-23
South Platte River Greenway 3'10
t
Local Committees in Florida 3'11
Anacostia River Restoration Project • 3~12
Protecting Idaho's Snake River Aquifer--A Watershed Approach 3-13
Targeting and Protecting an Aquifer by Missoula City-County Governments . . 3-15
Data Management For Basinwide Planning And Targeting In North Carolina . . 4-11
viii
-------
1. RATIONALE FOR GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
CHAPTER 1
RATIONALE FOR GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
1.1. What is Geographic Targeting?
The term geographic targeting as used in this report refers to the
selection of a geographic area for focused remedial or preventive
attention and involves marshalling resources and expertise to provide
the most efficient and cost-effective solutions for water quality
problems. Geographic targeting is typically guided by such factors as
Data availability
Severity of risk
Impairment to the waterbody (documented or potential)
Resource value of the waterbody to the public
Resolvability of the problem (adequacy of available technology)
Availability of staff and resources to correct the problems
Overall planning goals (e.g., statewide or basinwide goals)
Willingness to proceed on the part of the agencies and the public.
Geographic targeting has been carried out in various forms since the
passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972. Many
water quality programs under the Act and subsequent amendments
call for targeting activities: identification of waters needing control
actions under Sections 303(d) and 304(1) of the Act, the National
Estuary Program, the Clean Lakes Program under Section 314,
nonpoint source control programs under Section 319, and others.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, targeting is carried out in
response to Sections 1424(e) and 1428. The focus of water quality
control since 1972 has steadily broadened from finding end-of-pipe
solutions to seeking solutions to all the water quality problems in a
watershed concurrently.
As envisioned in this report, geographic targeting addresses activities
at the watershed or waterbody level and considers point and nonpoint
source (PS/NPS) impacts due to traditional chemical pollutants as well
as nontraditional stressors such as habitat destruction or physical
alteration. A "watershed" is assumed to include ground water as well
as surface water resources.
1-1
-------
1. RATIONALE FOR GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
Figure 1 -1 shows a generic State approach to targeting watersheds.
Steps above the dashed line in Figure 1-1 refer to prioritizing or
ranking of individual waterbodies. This ranking step is emphasized
under Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 303(d), 304(1), 314, and 319.
Selected high-priority waterbodies or watersheds are then targeted for
immediate management attention and implementation of controls.
The State of Wisconsin followed a somewhat similar procedure,
which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
The importance of targeting scarce resources becomes obvious when
one considers that even Wisconsin, with a relatively well-developed
and well-funded nonpoint source program, begins comprehensive
control activities in only a few of its 330 watersheds each year.
The last two boxes in Figure 1-1 deal with selecting high priority
watersheds and then targeting sites within these watersheds for
controls. These steps are further explored in Table 1-1, which shows
that geographic targeting can be done on several spatial scales.
Basins are often several thousand square miles in size, while
watersheds for integrated PS/NPS planning may range in size from
less than one hundred to several hundred square miles. Scale issues
are further discussed in Chapter 3.
Table 1 -1 also shows the two types of geographic targeting that
typically occur during the evolution of a watershed project-targeting
during initial selection of watersheds for management attention, and
later when specific sources and controls are selected for
implementation within targeted watersheds. Geographic Targeting:
Selected State Examples is concerned mainly with the shaded portion
of Table 1-1, that is, with targeting watersheds for management
action.
Within-watershed targeting (see the far right column in Table 1-1) is
highly site-specific and is discussed in technical manuals of the Soil
Conservation Service, the Forest Service, and numerous other Federal
and State agencies. Some concepts of within-watershed targeting
are also presented in a separate U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) report on conducting individual watershed projects
(EPA, 1993).
1.2. An Evolving Approach to Priority Setting and Targeting
EPA and the States have been using geographic targeting approaches
for some time. Figure 1 -2 lists recent EPA documents that address
priority setting and geographic targeting. Most of the ranking and
targeting activities carried out by States since 1972 have been tied to
deadlines for technology-based controls in the Clean Water Act. An
important early use for such rankings was the Construction Grants
1-2
-------
1. RATIONALE FOR GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
DC
o
oc
Q.
O
1
TECHNICAL/
PROFESSIONAL INPUT
Best Professional
Judgment (BPJ)
Ambient chemical
data
BPJ
NPDES data
Develop Ranking
Approach
Biological/habitat
data
Human health
risk data
Groundwater data —
Drinking water .
compliance
Priority lists from
other programs
Data Gathering
and Analysis
(Including Assessment
of Use Support)
Waterbody
Ranking/Priority tists
Hydrology
Landforms
Ecoregions
Function and value
of resource
Implementability
of controls
Degree of
pollution reduction
Site-specific data —i
OTHER INPUT
Experience in
other States
Public input
(public meetings,
committees,
questionnaires)
Delineate
Watersheds
Target Selected
Watersheds
Watershed modeling —
Target Sites within
a Watershed for Controls
Hydrologic
boundaries
Administrative
boundaries
Institutional
strengths,
authority, interest
of local agencies
Private funding of
controls
Public funding/
incentives
Local regulations/
support
Figure 1-1. A generic approach to ranking and targeting watersheds.
1-3
-------
1. RATIONALE FOR GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
Table 1-1. Types of Targeting Activities by Spatial Scale and Purpose
Spatial Scale
Type or Purpose of Targeting Activity
Targeting Watersheds for
Management Actjpn
Targeting Specific Areas
for Controls Within a
Watershed
River basin
Selection of a basin for
integrated PS/NPS controls
under a National Estuary
Program study; selection of a
basin for monitoring,
modelfnjrp^rmltsy arid SMPs
under a basiriwtde planning
process," "_""" ^^
Selection of basinwide
controls (e.g., phosphate
detergent bans or nitrogen
management);, selection of
watersheds for additional
study and controls.
Large or medium-
sized watershed
Selection of a watershed for
integrated PS/NPS controls
based on a prioritization
system, local interest, and
other factors.
Selection of individual PSs
and NPSs and specific
control measures, e.g.,
targeting high erosion-
potential farms and
uncontrolled animal
operations for BMPs.
Small, use-oriented
watershed or
individual waterbody
(surface water)
Selection of a small water
supply watershed for
protection from development
pressure; selection of a
stretch of river for a TMDL*
Selection of individual
sources and specific control
measures.
Aquifer or portion of
an aquifer
Selection of an aquifer or
portion of an aquifer
designated as sole-aquifer.
Selection of Federally-
financed projects to assure
non-endangerment.
Wellhead protection
area (WHPA)
Selection of part of an aquifer
(WjHPA) Because of potential
impact of land use.
Management of existing
sources and management of
use of the land within the
WHPA.
BMPs = Best management practices.
TMDL = Total maximum daily load.
PS/NPS = Point source/nonpoint source.
1-4
-------
1. RATIONALE FOR GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
• Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems,
Volume I: Overview {OPPE, February, 1987, EPA/230/2-87/025a, available as
NTIS PB88-127048)
• Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection (SAB,
September 1990, SAB-EC-90-021 and Appendix A, SAB-EC-90-021A, and
Appendix C, EPA-SAB-EC-90-021C)
• State Clean Water Strategies: Meeting the Challenges for the Future (OW,
December 1988).
• Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process (OW, April 1991,
EPA 440/4-91-001)
• A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative Impact Assessment: A Proposed
Methodology (ORD, October 1992, EPA/600/B92/167)
• Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Projects (OW, August 1991)
« Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1992 State Water Quality Assessments
(OWOW, August 1991)
• Setting Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source Control (OWRS, July 1987).
• Selecting Priority Nonpoint Source Projects: You Better Shop Around (OW and
OPPE, August 1989, EPA 506/2-89/003)
• The Lake and Reservoir Restoration and Guidance Manual, 2nd Edition (OWRS,
EPA 440/4-90-006)
• Final Guidance on the Award and Management of Nonpoint Source Program
Implementation Grants Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act (OW, January
1991)
• Rural Clean Water Program: Lessons Learned from a Voluntary Nonpoint Source
Control Experiment (OW, 1990, EPA 440/4-90-12)
• Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s (EPA 21Z-
1020, July 1991)
• Protecting Local Ground-Water Supplies through Wellhead Protection
(EPA 570/09/91-007, May 1991)
• Guidance for Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas (EPA 440/6-87-010, June
1987)
Figure 1-2. Useful documents for geographic targeting.
1-5
-------
1. RATIONALE FOR GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
Priority List. A municipal treatment plant's position on these priority
lists was used in targeting grant funds for facility planning and
construction. Since 1972, however, it has become increasingly clear
that water quality management programs must address all types and
sources of pollutants and stressors.
EPA now encourages geographic targeting at the watershed level as a
more holistic approach; that is, dealing with all problems in a
watershed, not just those easily resolved. Problems may include point
and nonpoint source impacts as well as such nontraditional stressors
as habitat degradation and loss of riparian areas. Once they have
been identified, needed controls, regulatory authorities, and resources
can be focused on the targeted watershed.
The ability to target is improving. State and EPA databases are
becoming more comprehensive and compatible and advances in
technology such as geographic information systems (GISs) and remote
sensing are making targeting activities more manageable for many
water quality control programs.
1.3 Why Target Watersheds?
Targeting specific watersheds for management attention makes sense
in the 1990s for technical, financial, and institutional reasons that
include the following:
• The watershed is the unit of choice for integrated PS/NPS
management since reduction of inputs from all significant sources
in a watershed is often necessary.
• Targeting selected watersheds for cleanup can integrate the
technical skills and pool the financial resources of multiple
agencies.
• States need success stories to demonstrate the value of
integrated PS/NPS controls for the future.
• Geographic targeting aids in planning long-range activities and
provides a basis for setting management priorities.
• A watershed approach encourages the involvement of local
governments and nongovernmental organizations.
• Geographic targeting helps focus the attention of the public on
the water resource being restored or maintained, increasing public
interest and support.
1-6
-------
1. RATIONALE FOR GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
1.4 Purpose of This Report
This report presents information on the geographic targeting of
watersheds and waterbodies for special management attention. EPA
strongly encourages States to take the lead in prioritizing and
targeting. However, the information should be useful at the Federal
and local levels as well.
The report delineates the principal components to be considered in
geographic targeting: assessment, ranking, public participation, and
selection. It also discusses several approaches that States have used
in targeting: the weighted factors approach, the decision tree
approach, data overlay techniques, and consensus-based targeting.
For each approach, an example is given, including the following
information:
• description of the approach and how it works
• strengths and weaknesses
• examples of applications
• name of a contact person for additional information.
EPA also intends this document to establish geographic targeting as a
common theme among existing water quality programs - water
quality management planning, the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) including stormwater permitting, total
maximum daily load (TMDL) development, water supply watershed
protection, the Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
Program, wetlands protection, and the Clean Lakes and Nonpoint
Source Programs.
The concept of geographic targeting is compatible with EPA's
Watershed Protection Approach (WPA), which also encourages
integration of these existing water quality programs on a watershed or
basin level. The WPA is described in a separate set of documents:
• The Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview (EPA, 1991 a)
• Final Watershed Protection Framework Document (EPA, 1991 b)
• Watershed Events: An EPA Bulletin on Integrated Aquatic
Ecosystems Protection (EPA, 1992b)
Both the WPA and this geographic targeting report are also intended
to focus attention on the importance of habitat and riparian protection
and restoration and issues such as spatial scale, coordination with
other agencies, and degree and timing of public involvement.
1-7
-------
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
CHAPTER 2
RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
in general. State processes for ranking waterbodies are well defined
and lend themselves to objective procedures such as index formulas.
The process of targeting watersheds for integrated point/nonpoint
source controls is less common, and few States have clear,
documented procedures for doing so. This chapter includes examples
of several States' ranking and targeting approaches.
Conceptually, ranking waterbodies and targeting watersheds can be
treated as separate processes; for example, EPA's Water Quality
Management Regulations and TMDL guidance (EPA, 1991c) discuss
ranking and targeting as separate steps in water-quality-based control.
In practice, ranking and targeting are often more of a continuum.
Figure 2-1 lists typical considerations in State ranking and targeting
processes.
2.1 Generic Steps in Ranking and Targeting Watersheds
A ranking system that leads to a candidate pool of high-priority
waters can simplify the task of selecting watersheds for focused
management action. The challenge is to create a ranking system that
breaks the total population of water resource units into a smaller
number of categories, such as high-, medium-, and low-priority
waterbodies. A ranking methodology is particularly helpful when a
State is revising its strategic approach to watershed management.
Well-defined methodologies that can be summarized through
equations, flow charts, or graphics facilitate communications with
other agencies, interest groups, and the general public.
EPA encourages States to make use of their existing ranking
methodologies whenever possible. However, some States do not
have such a method, and others could benefit from a revaluation of
their methods-e.g., to place their approaches into a watershed
perspective. Some existing ranking systems may have been created
for specific program purposes, for instance, to target publicly owned
treatment works (POTW) facility upgrades or to prioritize needs for
water quality standards development. Such systems may fail to give
adequate emphasis to a wider variety of factors, including such issues
as habitat and riparian protection and restoration.
2-1
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
1. Which waterbodies are most valuable from a functional perspective, for
instance, for aquatic habitat, recreation, and water supply?
2. Which waterbodies are impaired due to pollution, loss of aquatic habitat,
or riparian or terrestrial area destruction?
3. Which waterbodies are threatened? Which waterbodies, wetlands or
riparian areas are most sensitive to impacts?
4. Which waterbodies cause known or potential human health impacts (e.g.,
due to pathogens or fish tissue contamination)?
5. Which watersheds have contaminated ground water? To what extent
does this contamination affect or threaten residents?
6. Which surface waterbodies are impaired by ground water pollution?
7. What is the availability of information needed to target waterbodies and
watersheds and to develop and implement effective management
strategies?
8. What tools (technical methods and measures) are available to address
adverse effects?
9. Which candidate areas are most likely to be improved through
governmental action?
10. Which problems are most amenable to the available tools and controls?
11. What is the degree of public support (local and Statewide) to protect a
particular aquatic resource?
12. How willing are other governmental agencies to take steps to use their
tools and resources to help address the problem?
13. Where would combined actions (involving government agencies, citizens,
interest groups, or nongovernmental organizations) offer the greatest
benefit relative to the value of the aquatic resource?
14. What activities are required to support base program needs (e.g., TMDLs,
NPDES permits) and where can these programs be improved?
Figure 2-1. Considerations for ranking and targeting (adapted from EPA, 1988).
2-2
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
A ranking and targeting approach can be developed using the
following steps:
1. Select agencies to be involved in the development process (e.g.,
natural resource agencies; funding and cooperating agencies).
2. Review ranking/targeting approaches, matching them with
available data and the need for public involvement.
3. Select a method and the factors to be considered in the analysis.
4. Test the approach with a subset of waterbodies or watersheds,
adjusting the method as appropriate.
5. Present the approach and preliminary results to the appropriate
decisionmakers (i.e., Federal, State, and local agencies), to
citizen groups and to the general public for comment.
6. Conduct final ranking and targeting.
7. Seek formal approval of the approach and results from State
regulatory commissions and the public.
The testing step (#4) is important because ranking systems include
subjective components. Before release of a new ranking system, the
developers should determined that the results make sense to
knowledgeable professionals. That is, the listing of high-priority
candidates should be reasonable in terms of the factors emphasized in
the ranking procedure. These factors can be drawn from those in
previous EPA guidance for State Clean Water Strategies, NPS
targeting guidance, 303(d)/TMDL guidelines, 319(h) grant guidance
for watershed projects (see Figure 1 -2 for references) or from State
legislative requirements.
Section 2.2 provides examples of several ranking and targeting
approaches. The examples are taken from systems actually used by
States over the last 10 years. The basic logic of each technique is
outlined and its application illustrated with diagrams or sample
calculations. The strengths and weaknesses of each method are also
noted. Each actual State approach is assigned to a category (e.g.,
the "numeric index approach") for ease of presentation. In reality.
State approaches do not fit neatly into categories, and the categories
themselves are not mutually exclusive. For example, the Wisconsin
Priority Watershed Approach has components of both "multiagency
selection" and "numeric index" approaches.
2-3
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
2.2 Ranking and Prioritization Techniques for Waterbodies and Watersheds
2.2.1 Numeric Index Approach
Description
The most common ranking technique applies a weighted numeric
index to each water resource unit (e.g., waterbody). Such an index
typically combines multiple factors for a waterbody's importance and
the severity of its water-quality problems into one overall score. The
index is applied to all waterbodies and used to assign a priority
ranking to each waterbody. The priority rankings are then used to
select and schedule additional assessment and control activities.
The use of numerical scores is attractive because the results are easy
to communicate, the ranking system can be computerized to simplify
updates, and a wide range of factors can be taken into account.
A typical numeric index approach uses formulas such as:
Score = (P1 x W1) + (P2 x W2) + ... (Pn x Wn) [additive model]
Score = (P1 x W1) x (P2 x W2) x ... (Pn x Wn) [multiplicative model]
where the Ps are values assigned to the waterbody based on the
degree of beneficial use impairment, and Ws are weights assigned to
each P factor (e.g., to give more weight to impairments affecting
outstanding resource waters or public water supplies). Numeric
indices can vary widely in form. In the additive model, the sum is
used to determine the overall ranking score. In multiplicative models,
the overall score is often determined through other calculations (e.g.,
the geometric mean).
Additive models tend to equalize the influence of all factors while
multiplicative models tend to emphasize the differences among
factors. As a result, an additive model tends to produce scores
within a narrow range, while a corresponding multiplicative approach
generates a much wider range of scores.
Strengths and Weaknesses
A numeric index approach to ranking and targeting can be based on
quantifiable criteria important to water quality. If the approach is
developed with input from multiple agencies, the rankings can provide
a single, integrated list of waterbodies for all programs that set
priorities (e.g., NPS, permits, estuaries, drinking water, ground water,
and fisheries programs). Furthermore, the results of such an
approach are standardized and reproducible.
2-4
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
A potential limitation is that the more complex the index, the more
difficult it is to explain the system to the general public. Another
potential disadvantage is that an index tends to dampen out a severe
problem that might appear in only one factor. For this reason, water
quality indexes tend to obscure toxics problems in otherwise normal
waterbodies. Sometimes choosing a multiplicative rather than additive
framework may solve such problems because a single high factor has
a much greater impact on the overall score.
The goal in constructing an index should be to combine factors that
measure different aspects of water quality integrity. A potential
drawback to the numeric index approach is that the wrong choice of
variables may yield a poorly performing index. This drawback can be
prevented by pilot testing. For example, the factors in an index
should be examined to make sure they are each adding relevant
information to the overall index. If one factor is supposed to respond
to water quality features impacting aquatic life and another to
recreational use, then the factor scores should not show a strong
degree of correlation (e.g., based on calculation of Pearson correlation
coefficients or other statistical test of association). If factors are
strongly correlated, then the types of information used in developing
the factor scores should be reevaluated.
A final consideration is whether the resulting index actually helps in
designating a small number of high-priority waterbodies or watersheds
from the initial, and much larger, candidate field. Common
approaches are to look at the highest 10 to 25 percent of the scores
as a breakpoint for defining the highest priority waterbodies. If the
ranking system fails to generate an appreciable spread in the index
values, it may be difficult to justify placing one waterbody in the
"high" priority class and another with a marginally lower score in a
lower priority category. Any system that collapses a large volume of
information into a single index loses its decisionmaking effectiveness
if all the values cluster in a narrow range. Such a result indicates the
need to reexamine the logic behind the index.
Example Applications
One of the best-documented applications of a numeric index approach
is the Oregon Clean Water Strategy (see sidebar). Oregon's system is
straightforward and easy to explain to the public. It provides a
centralized list of ranked waterbodies for use by Oregon's natural
resource agencies in setting priorities (EPA, 1990). A geographic
information system (GIS) is used to manipulate data and present
results in graphical (map) form. Oregon anticipates using the full
power of its GIS as additional data layers (computer files of spatially
distributed data) become available.
2-5
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
OMGOW'S
WATER
ftANKINS SYS11M
Oregon assigns 9 severity score *o each waterfaody ba$**f on impacts &
threats to beneficial UJWK& Three primary use factors are taten Into
accounts """"," f '" " -
• ;husman health factor (drirfcing water and shellfish)
*r recreation factor
" * aquatic IfFe factor* ", '"
Each berjteflcial use factor Is assigned severity paints as follows;
on*
O points —
Xs si point « moderate problem
\$ points iw severe problem
Each waterbody is also assigned a value factor (or weight) related to its
importance as a drinking water'supply, its recreational value, and its fishery
and; aquatic life functions. For instance, the scoring system for recreational
valuers: , '
Fair
recreational value - 1 point
- 2 points
«. 3 points
excellent - 4 points
Wild or Scenic River - f extra point*
For each beneficial use factor, » sub-index is calculated as the product of
the use factor or severity score {a number from 0 ,to 3) multiplied by the
value/ factor weight (a number from 1 to 8). the total water iquality Index Is
the sum of the resulting products for the health, recreation, and aquatic life
factors, plus an optional aquatic impact factor for habitat.
SXAMWJ; CALCULATION FOR A STBEAM
Beneficial Use Severity x Value « Total
Human health
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
In contrast to Oregon's ranking system for prioritizing waterbodies,
Oklahoma's Watershed Cluster System applies a numeric index to
watersheds (see sidebar). Each watershed is less than 200 square
miles in size, or about one-third the size of a typical county. For each
watershed having adequate data for at least three waterbodies, the
following sub-indices are calculated (Cooter, 1990):
• An overall beneficial use factor
• A human use factor based on local population and presence of
recreational areas
• A high-quality/nondegradation factor based on presence of special
standards designations and sensitive areas.
For the beneficial use factor and the high quality factor, scores are
initially assigned to separate waterbodies within each watershed
cluster. These waterbody scores are based on information in the
State's Section 305(b) report and the EPA Waterbody System (WBS).
Information must be available for at least three waterbodies before an
index value will be developed for a cluster. Where adequate
assessment data are available, a cluster score is derived as a
weighted average based on size classes assigned to lakes and rivers.
The Oklahoma system was developed using a modified-DELPHI
approach (see Section 2.2.4), with sample results being presented to
a panel of water quality experts from several State natural resource
agencies. The methodology was then applied on a State-wide basis.
Although the primary focus was on ranking watersheds for NPS
management needs, the systems could easily be adapted to address
combined point and nonpoint source control concerns. Statistical
analyses show that the three sub-index factors are not significantly
correlated. The system considers habitat and ecological impacts and
provides a straightforward way to generate a ranking system based
on watershed units.
As an example of State lake protection efforts, many States have
adopted special measures to protect the sensitive areas on lakeshores
and in lake drainage areas as part of Section 314 Clean Lakes
Program projects. Maine and Vermont have developed Lake
Vulnerability Indices (see sidebar). These indices help target
management attention to lakes that show sensitivity to siltation or
eutrophication due to physical factors or development trends. Where
increased development appears likely, special preventive measures are
taken to keep degradation trends from becoming actual use
impairments.
2-7
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
fS WATERSHED CLUSTER SYSTEM
Oklahoma has delineated approximately 300 watersheds, or clusters, for
IPS targeting purposes. This delineation scheme took into account
logistical consideratrans {e*g^ setting up monitoring networks) and
institutional considerations 5,000 acres 4
11.
Human u$e factor-is based on resident population;
Population " ' J>co;fe
< 10,000 1
10,000-30,000 2
30,000-60,000 3 ,,- -
> 60,000 * 4
If the watershed contains a major recreational attraction
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
QRIAHOMA'S WATERSHED CLUSTIft SYSTEM fcorttlrtued}
Waterbody scores are then weighted according to waterbqdy size as
with the beneficial use factor.
SXAMPtE CALCULATION *OR A WATERSHED
A watershed cluster has assessment information for;
* a small lake assessed as not
* a medium stream assessed as partially supporting
* & large take assessed as threatened,
The watershed has 35,000 inhabitants, and includes a Corps of Engineers
Recreation Area. All assessed waterbodies ate rated as drinking water
x 4 + 2 x 3 * 3 x 2} / (1 +2 4-3} - 2.67
3 4- ? ~ 4.00
3,00
\ 9t67
1. Beneficial Use factor;
IL Human Use Factor*
III, HighhQuality Factor;
Overall Index:
This watershed index: Is considerably greater than average taboiit 7.0> and
indicates a high priority fo? management action,
USES
The system is ^sed mainly to select candidates for Section 31 9 NFS
Targeted Watershed ©rants. The watershed ranking information is also
useful for the USDA's Water Quality Initiative aetiv&ies, which seek to tafce
fato account State assessment systems. The system also helps State
monitoring programs identify major data gaps,
Contacts
Oregon Clean Water Strategy:
Neil Mullane (503) 229-5284
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Oklahoma's Watershed Cluster System:
John Hassell (405) 521-4829
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
2800 Lincoln Blvd., Suite 160
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
2-9
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
s / LAKE INDEXES IN VERMONT AND MAINE
V v
Maine aW Vermont have iar&e numbers of small lakes, often of slactal
origin and with outstanding ecological and recreational values, to many
cases, the chief concern is degradation associated with activities in the
Jakeshore or watershed areas. A proactive prioritization system is helpful to
tarjM prevention and protection efforts at the mo,s| v^lnejablejake
drainage areas, s ,,,--'
Maine's Lake Vulnerability Index uses the hydralogic characteristics of a
lake and the rate of watershed development to predict increases in the „
mean lake phosphorus coneengajiion OVer time^ Residential and comnaercJal
development are the major sources of Increased nutrient levels in most
Maine lakes since the amount of a$ricukural land is relatively stable.
Computerized tax records provide data ort the fate of developmentx
The Index 1$ y$ed to evaluate the relative vulnerability of a large number of
lakes having limited data, Maine reports these lakes as 'threatened" In its
30S(b) reports and also makes use of the vulnerability ratings in the Section
314 Cleans take program and in land use pjanning programs at the State
and local levels, In selecting lake projects for funding, the State looks for
vulnerable lakes that have active citizen organizations and public support for
planning, - -
% •< 2 •• "* "^ ""
Vermont is currently developing a lake index to identify lakes needing
spectat protection. The Vermont index takes into account the presence of
unique features^ whether the lake is threatened {e«gv by rapid
development}, and whether the lake i$ vulnerable to impacts te-gv has
phosphorus concentrations in transition between mesotrophlc and eutrophlc
levels). „,, -
Maine Lake Vulnerability Index:
Jeff Dennis (207) 287-3901
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
State House, Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
Vermont Lake Index:
Kitty Enright (802) 244-6951
Vermont Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671
2-10
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
2.2.2 Decision Tree Approach
Description
A decision tree approach provides a clear overview of the ranking
process and is based primarily on the best professional judgment of
water resource managers. In this approach, available information on
water resource units for the entire State is assembled. A series of
questions are then posed to water resource managers (see some
example questions in Figure 2-1).
Based on the answers to these questions, waterbodies are placed into
a limited number of priority categories. As each question is
answered, the number of waterbodies available for each priority
category decreases. The decision tree ultimately provides a small set
of high-priority waterbodies. Waterbodies with adequate information
on water quality problems may be assigned to one series of priority
classifications while waterbodies needing additional monitoring and
assessment may be classified into separate priority categories for data
collection.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The main attraction of a decision tree system is that it provides a
clear overview of a ranking process. A decision tree can often be
illustrated in a concise diagram. This feature is helpful when the
decisionmaking process involves interagency coordination and public
participation. The basic logic underlying the ranking system can
easily be communicated, facilitating discussions and consensus
building. If the decision tree becomes too complicated, its value as a
summary product may decrease. Similarly, if too many of the
decision nodes develop large numbers of possible responses, the
decision tree begins to turn into a flow chart for a numerical indexing
approach.
By comparison, the numeric index approach described in Section
2.2.1 provides greater flexibility where there is a basis for quantifying
factors for an index and where a wide range of factors is possible or
desirable. However, where data availability will not support numerical
scores, or where only two or three responses are possible, a decision
tree approach may be more appropriate. In either case, drawing a
decision tree can also help make clear which decision nodes require
scrutiny to avoid routing too many candidates into the higher priority
categories.
2-11
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
Example Application
New Mexico has used this approach in the past to set priorities for
pollution control and data collection (see sidebar). Referring to the
figure, a waterbody with adequate data, frequent standards
violations, and a high resource value would receive a priority rating
depending on whether management tools exist that could achieve
water quality standards. If management tools (models, best
management practices [BMPs], cost sharing) are available, such a
waterbody would receive the highest priority for management action
(Priority 1); if tools do not exist, the waterbody would receive low
priority (Priority 4). A similar waterbody with inadequate assessment
data would be prioritized for monitoring, with rank depending on
whether or not problems are expected to increase in coming years.
Contact
New Mexico Decision Tree:
Jim Piatt (505) 827-2793
New Mexico Department of Health & Environment
1190 Saint Francis Road
Santa Fe, NM 87503
2.2.3 Data Layer Overlay Approach
Description
This section describes an emerging approach for evaluating many
different types of geographically distributed data (e.g., land use, soils,
hydrography, topography). Each of these data types, or data layers,
can be displayed graphically and overlaid with other layers to help
target watersheds. Successive overlays reveal the spatial correlations
among different water quality problems and are especially useful in
summarizing the results of complex environmental analyses.
In the 1960s, landscape planner Ian McHarg pioneered the use of
overlay techniques in environmental suitability analysis with a series
of mylar maps displaying different ecological features (McHarg,
1971). A system of shadings was developed to indicate the relative
sensitivities of areas within a landscape to development impacts.
Today, these techniques are being automated through the use of
geographic information systems (GISs). A GIS is typically a PC- or
work-station-based data management system for spatially distributed
data. By providing a way to consider multiple environmental features,
a GIS provides a powerful visual and analytical tool for locating highly
sensitive areas.
2-12
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
MEXICO'S DECISION TREE APPROACH
Mexico*® decision tree approach groups waterbodies into priority categories,
from which a class of high-priority candidates can be identified* The process is
organized in the forrn of a $erie$ of questions and decision responses. If the
response i$ simply a "yes" or a *no,w then the waterbody i$ advanced into one of
two branches on the decision tree, Some decision nodes have numerous
branches,
One of the main objectives Is to distinguish between waters having adequate data
for a management response versus waters with extremely limited tfata. Where
date asps are apparent priorities car* be established for conducting additional
monitoring work. Where existing *«•"*
Frequent water 1— Mgt tools unavailable
r- standards —
violations [_ Lowervalue f~ MgL tools available
Data adequate to water 1— Mgt toote unavailable
evaluate problem
r— Mgt tools available
r— Highervalue —
Infrequent water 1— Mgt tools unavailable
"— standards —
violations Lowervalue
*— water No ranking
_ Problems expected
Higher 1 to increase
r— vaios — 1
w«w |_ Problems not expected
__ . . , . . to increase '
___ Data inadequate to _
evaluate problem
Problems expected
Lower |~ to increasa
•— value
wator 1_ Problems not expected
to increase
PRIORITY
FOR CONTROLS
^^™«™ 1
4
2 '
5
•«^^«> 3
6
PRIORITY FOR
DATA COLLECTION
2
^^^•«. 3
2-13
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
To apply the data overlay approach to prioritizing and selecting
watersheds for management action, the following data layers can be
analyzed:
• Land use/land cover (agricultural, urban, forested)
• Development pressure
• Highly erodible soils
• Hydrography
• Public water supplies
• Outstanding resource waters
• Sensitive wetlands
• Riparian buffer zones
• Ground water recharge zones
• Waters with water quality standards violations
• Waters with fish consumption advisories, closures, or recurring
fish kills
• Waters with contaminated sediments
• Waters not supporting uses.
To be effective, data layer techniques must be used in conjunction
with either a numerical index approach or a decision-tree approach.
That is, even when all data layers are available, the agency must still
establish a decision strategy for analyzing the data and ranking
waterbodies or watersheds.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The strength of the data layer overlay approach lies in the ability of
today's data processing platforms to handle geographically oriented
data. Until recently, spatially distributed data types such as soils,
wetlands, land cover-and many other key landscape and water
quality features-could not be readily analyzed. Now they can be
analyzed and presented to decisionmakers and the public in a highly
visual form (e.g., multicolor maps, computer demonstrations). Once a
GIS is adapted for targeting and the data layers are in place, the
ranking procedure can be modified and updated regularly.
2-14
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
A GIS can be used in several ways, including
• Pre-processing data-analyzing and reducing large volumes of
spatially distributed data.
• Screening-simulating cause/effect relationships and screening for
water quality problems in the absence of extensive ambient data.
• Visualization of problems-illustrating with maps and computer
graphics the geographic distribution of water quality problems,
potential sources, monitoring locations, etc.
• Strategy testing-developing and testing management scenarios to
predict the effects of PS and NPS controls.
The main weakness of the approach is that these data analysis tools
and data layers are not yet widely available to State water quality
agencies. Furthermore, the lack of standardized national data for
such key features as land use means that each State must develop its
own data layers, an expensive and lengthy process. In most
successful applications to date, the GIS is used as a preprocessor for
spatially distributed data and as a post-processor for graphical
presentation of results. Intermediate steps (e.g., modeling) are
performed on other computer platforms.
Example Applications
Ohio developed a map overlay approach to waterbody targeting that
used mylar maps (see sidebar). Many States are developing GISs,
although few are to the point of using the systems to rank and target
waters. (The Oregon Clean Water Strategy discussed in
Section 2.2.1 features GIS mapping, but the ranking process does not
involve extensive use of GIS data layers).
A GIS-based approach to locating priority watersheds is being used in
the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study of the National Estuary
Program. Some of the data layers being developed and analyzed for
this study are: land use/land cover, point sources of nutrients and
toxics, nutrient loading by watershed, ambient toxic hot spots,
primary nursery areas. Outstanding Resource Waters, submerged
aquatic vegetation, fishing practices, algal blooms, and wetland
habitat (Dodd et al., 1992; Cunningham et al., 1992). The Basinwide
Screening Approach (see sidebar) is an example of use of a GIS as a
tool for analysis of spatial data along with other computer platforms
and data types. This component of the Albemarle-Pamlico Study
focuses on targeting based on nutrient loading.
2-15
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
s tHfe.OHIO TARfeET WATEBBODJES lYfA> QVEftlAY TeCHNKXUE
Assart of its Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan, the State of
Ohio implemented »targeting system using map overlay techniques. Each
mylar map dismayed information orv natural resource conditions (see
diagram*. Shadings were used to show different degrees of each factor
(e.g., darkly shaded streams might Indicate severe habitat destruction).
When the mylar sheets are superimposed, some areas stand Out as being
heavily impacted or In need of'action based on the density of shaded areas.
The method works well for locating problem areas where multiple layers
Indicate pollution problems or degradation threats,
the Ohio Target Waterfoodies System was based on nine major map
overlays: (1) significant public water supplies according to the frequency of
maximum contaminant level tMCD violations; &) locations of landfill sites;
(3) locations of hVsardous waste disposal *itesi|4) locations of significant
fish kills; <5) NPDHS discharge locations; {6} agriculturat land use; {7) „,,
priority areas with documented water quality concerns; (8) major
ground-water use areas; and <9> significant (sensitive} environmental
resource areas. " -- '
Ohio's maj> overlay process has seen limited use since the mid+tS80Sx
Ohio EPA is currency Increasing the number of watershed units it uses for
its ranking procedures and is working with major State and Federal agencies
to encourage the *i$f of consistent data sources* With steady
improvements in GlScapabitities, Ohio anticipates developing a more
sophisticated overfay system in the future*
Water Supplies
Agriculture
Priority Areas/Sensitive Areas
NPDES Discharges
Landfills/Hazardous Waste Sites
Fish Kills
Ground water Use Areas
2-16
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
A BASINWIDE SCREENING APPROACH
The Albemarle-Pamtico Estuarine Study is sponsoring development of a
nutrient screening tool for six river basins comprising approximately
3Q,OQQ square mites in North Carolina and Virginia, The screening too*
targets watersheds for focused point and nortpoint source nutrient
management. North Carolina plans to incorporate the approach into
the State's Basin wide Planning and 303 (d} process.
The screening approach uses computerized databases and export
coefficients to estimate PS and NPS nutrient loadings for each
watershed in a basin. {Watersheds in this case are State sub-basins
averaging 200 to 300 square miles in size.) Estimated loadings are ,
then compared to measured loadings at gaged watersheds, and nutrient
mass balances are prepared, A comparison of loadings among
watersheds, and identification of sources And sinks wkhinthem,
provides input for targeting watersheds and for scenario testing of
PS/NPS management measures,
State-maintained databases are used whenever possible, supplemented
by Federal data sources. Key input data include:
LANDSAT land use/land cover data {1387-88}
Flow records arid water qualify data at gaged stations
Point source effluent data {1989-1990}
Areal loading rates for phosphorus and nitrogen by land use type
Mid-1980s atmosphericdeposition rates fornitrogen
Digital watershed and county boundaries
County-level agricultural r fertilizer use rates,
nutrient removal by crop harvesting}.
Several of these data types were obtained and processed as GIS data
layers.
SUITABIUTY
The approach is suitable for targeting watersheds for nutrient controls.
Currently, the method applies the best information available at the
State level. The technique could be adapted to smaller watershed sizes
te,fl,. Soil Conservation Service watersheds^ and to geographically
referenced, site-specific crop and BMP data.
The screening tool will be used initially for targeting watersheds and
may be used for TMDL implementation. Management scenarios will be
tested to predict water quality improvements within targeted
watersheds, These management scenarios might consist of, for
example, different levels of point source controls, BMP implementation,
and riparian buffer restoration.
2-17
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
; A BASINWIDE SCREENING APPROACH (continued)
-; -" ' ^ - - •; - \ t.i'^.f s<-'
COMPUTER PLATFORMS
PC-based spreadsheets and SAS® programs are used for most of the
data analysis and loading computations. Some data layers (e,&., land
yse/land cover) are transferred between the UtflX-based GlS system
and the PC environment as needed:. The yse of the GlS for visual
outputs Is expected to greatly enhance the system's usefulness to
water quality managers. ,
' f'fj:
GIS technology is also being used to target BMPs within watersheds.
The Virginia Geographic Information System (VirGis) has been
developed as part of a broader Federal and State program focusing on
the protection of Chesapeake Bay. One goal of VirGis is to develop
objective procedures for identifying and prioritizing agricultural land
within watersheds needing NPS management (Hession et al., 1992;
Tippett, 1992). Another objective is to develop procedures for
evaluating BMP strategies. The geographic database includes seven
base layers to support modeling-soil type, elevation, agricultural land
use, hydrologic unit boundaries, surface drainage (hydrography),
political boundaries, and transportation. The York and Rappahannock
drainage basins have been the initial focus for data gathering,
modeling, and targeting of BMPs (Shanholtz et al., 1991).
Contacts
Ohio Target Waterbodies Approach
Ed Rankin (614)777-6264
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
Reach File:
John Clifford (202) 260-7017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
2-18
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study and Basinwide Screening
Approach:
Randall Waite {919) 733-0314
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
VirGis:
Mike Flagg (804) 786-2064
Virginia Division of Soil & Water Conservation
203 Governor Street, Suite 206
Richmond, VA 23219
2.2.4 R/Sultiagency Selection
Description
Multiagency selection emphasizes broad participation by State, local.
Federal, and public groups or committees. The central feature of the
approach is consensus building. Multiagency committees review
technical information from a water quality agency and move toward
agreement on ranking techniques or on high-priority waters.
Consensus is reached when all parties agree on decisions, or at least
agree to support the decisions of the larger group. Assuming a final
plan emerges with a sound technical basis, the chances for
implementation are enhanced considerably by this type of State/local
consensus. Often, skilled facilitators are brought in to lead
consensus-building sessions.
Another form of consensus building is the DELPHI approach, in which
a panel of experts completes a sequential series of questionnaires
about the topic of interest (e.g., important factors for a ranking
index). The use of the questionnaires replaces committee debate,
with its negative characteristics such as pressure from dominant
members and lengthy discussions. Each round of questionnaires
builds on feedback from previous rounds to bring panel members'
views closer together until they are in approximate accord (Dinius,
1987).
A modified DELPHI approach can be used to develop a priority ranking
system or index in a reasonable time frame. For instance, the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) completed a three-round modified
DELPHI procedure in 7 months (Butkus and Anderson, 1989; Dodd et
al., 1990;). The TVA approach determined which parameters to
include in a new water quality index, as well as weightings and
2-19
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
ratings for these parameters. If the membership in a DELPHI panel is
chosen to represent a wide range of opinions, then the odds are
maximized that the final product can be defended during a public
participation process.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The strength of the approach lies in the widespread acceptance of the
end product. When successful, multiagency selection of targeted
waterbodies or watersheds maximizes future cooperation and the
sharing of resources and expertise. A challenge of a consensus-based
approach is that water quality issues of importance to technical
experts may not initially be important to lay persons involved. For
example, trace levels of toxics may be perceived as a serious problem
to the public, when actually nutrients pose more of a threat. Another
limitation is that the local institutions must be in place and have a
responsibility and interest in water quality management. This is not
yet the case in many States where county governments do not have a
strong water quality function.
Example Applications
Programs featuring multiagency committees and local consensus
building include the Puget Sound Local Consensus-based Ranking
System and the Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program (see sidebars).
The Wisconsin program actually uses a numeric index approach as
well, but is featured here because of the othtr aspects of the
program.
Contacts
Puget Sound Consensus-based Ranking System:
Cheryl Strange (206) 459-6101
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program:
Becky Wallace (608) 266-9254
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7291
Madison, Wl 53707
2-20
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
THE PUGET SOUND LOCAL CONSENSUS-BASED RANKING SYSTEM
The State of Washington has completed a final Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMB for Puget Sound under the
Mational Estuarine Program. To produce the final CCMP and two interim
management plans starting in 1987* the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority coordinated efforts with a variety of Federal and State agencies
as well as the numerous local governments in the 12-eounty study area
(CoJe, 1990}.
TARGETING PROCESS
One of the Authority's main challenges was to conduct a local watershed
planning process. The State of Washington had created a special
Centennial Clean Wafer Fund, and resources were available to initiate up to
12 earty»action watershed projects (one for each countyK The emphasis
was on addressing major problems associated with nonpoint source
impacts. To choose candidate watersheds, the Authority and a
Federal/State Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Study Team worked
with the county governments to set up special committees. A Watershed
Ranking Committee-was organized in each county to prioritize watersheds
within the county, Separate Watershed Management Committees were
also formed to prepare coordinated action plans for the chosen watersheds.
The membership in these committees was drawn from local government,
agriculture and business groups, citizen and environmental organizations,
and tribal governments. Representatives from natural resource agencies
assembled water quality information and presented this material to the local
Watershed Ranking Committees. Using consensus-based approaches, the
local committees then determined how to prioritize the managemeht needs
for water resource areas within their counties, High-priority candidates
were pooled from the entire study area for use by the Washington
Department of Ecology in targeting the award of the early-action watershed
grants,
ORTTEWA FOR TARGETING
The watershed rankings were carried out in each of the twelve Puget Sound
Counties using the general guidance contained in the Puget Sound
Authority's "ItfonpoiW Rule* {Chapter 400-12* adopted in 1983- The basic
ranking criteria used to assign scores to each watershed included the
following:
1 * Assign differential scores where a beneficial use such as recreational or
commercial shellfish beds, fish habitat, or drinking water is impaired or
threatened by pollution from nonpoint sources.
2x Consider If a watershed has a likelihood of intensified land or water
including a likelihood of being logged, in the next 1Q years. "
2-21
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
THE PU6ET SOUND LOCAL CON$EN$US-fcA$ED
SYSTEM (continued)
3,
Consider special local environmental factors such as sol), slope, and
precipitation on land and/or limited flushing in the Sound, that might
, increase the probability of present or'future water quality degradation*
v ^ «, v *V •vi*«w f-f-ff s ; ;
•> "i i
4, Consider whether a watershed produces liuwe'cbntaminants (loadings)
or causes greater harm to a beneficial use than other watersheds,
,£acn county was'allowed to'adapt these general principles in A flexible
manner, l^ost counties adopted a two-phase approach- Vary simple
scoring; rules were developed and applied to identify a consensus list of high
priority watersheds. More detailed scoring and evaluation methods were
then applied to'assign relative ranks to the Wah priority candidates. Each
county"pfovfJed documentation for the ranking approaches they used.
-. ss.4 v, :-: •s " f ^ f
Although there was'nb uniform set of technical criteria in this strategy, the
Puget Sound approach has proven productive in many respects. The
process Itself incorporated heavy public participation, Because the priority
rankings from each local group were based on a consensus drawing on
many diverse viewpoints, the final recommendations usually met with
widespread public acceptance and political support*
^ % % WA.'VMA"' f fff f f f ff f
2.3 Making the Final Selections
Successful targeting involves developing the technical basis (e.g.,
through data gathering and a ranking process as discussed above) and
making the final watershed selections. Most States have focused
their data gathering and ranking on waterbodies, so the process of
selecting watersheds must involve a synthesis of waterbody-specific
results.
Because each State's data gathering/ranking approach is different,
EPA only suggests factors to be considered in targeting of
watersheds for priority action. In addition to the ranking values
developed for each watershed, the following technical and
nontechnical factors could be expressed as ratings and summarized in
one matrix for all watersheds (see also Figure 2-1):
Basin planning cycle
Other programmatic needs
Adequacy of available data
Adequacy of predictive tools (models)
Technical feasibility of controls
Cost of controls
Cooperation of the affected public (e.g., landowners)
Backing of citizens groups and local people
2-22
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
WISCONSIN'S PRIORITY WATERSHED PROGRAM
In 1979r Wisconsin began a comprehensive NPS program with watersheds
as the management units. The program resulted from State legislation to
promote NPS controls {Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
EWDNRf, 19S$K WDNR has delineated 33G watersheds averaging about
100,000 acres in size. To dater 56 of these watersheds have been
targeted for intensive NPS management, located in seven regions, each
watershed has characteristic water resources, soils, population* land ose
and topography*
RANKING PROCESS
The initial step in the selection of a watershed lor «PS source controls is
the ranking of the individual waterbodies it contains, iaeh waterbody is
ranked using a numeric system based on present water quality, NPS
pollution impacts on the waterfaody, and whether or not the problem can be
controlled through BMPs. The watershed Is then assigned low, medium or
high priority, as determined by the rankings of Its lakes, streams and ground
water resources.
Stream Evaluation
x
A series of yes/no o^westions about endangered resources, the fishery,
water chemistry, rnacroinyertebrates, vegetation and physical habitat are
used to determine ths extent of water quality problems* Each perennial
stream within a watershed receives a rating, A stream may receive a high,
medium or tow ranking, depending on'the Identification of a water quality
problem that is supported by data and whether or not the problem shows
potential for improvement. Streams without supporting data am
automatically ranked low. Each perennial stream within a watershed
receives a rating* A high rating is worth 10 points; medium and low ratings
receive 5 and *ero points respectively. Streams are ranked high only if they
have the potential to be improved by the implementation of NPS controls,
A watershed stream rating is calculated based or* a weighted mean* which
is .determined by multiplying each stream's mileage by its points, sarnmlng
the points for the watershed and dividing by the total stream miles in the
watershed, in order for a watershed to receive a watershed stream rating,
50 percent of the total perennial streams must be rated based on data, If
there are not enough data to support a rating,, then monitoring
recommendations are made for streams within the watershed;*
Lake Evaluation
The lake evaluation is based primarily on a lake's sensitivity to phosphorus
loading and whether the potential for a positive response to NPS controls
exists, Deep lakes with excellent water quality are classified as 1A lakes.
If a 1A lake Is threatened by a NPS, then ^ is ranked high. Class tB or 2A
2-23
-------
RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
; PRIORITY WATERSHED PROGRAM (continued)
&. <• < :: f J Vffff ; jf f J •" f
,ww .^.s. poorer water quality or are shallower than 1A lakes; these lakes
are only ranked high if they show potential for ^positive response to
control measures. ' v-,-,— ',,,,"'*-
-K
takes having high resource value or recreaiional use receive a separate
ranking. If these lakes hawV documented water quality problem or threat
and the potential to respond to controls, they are ranked medium or high
depending on the extent of avaitabje data and modeling.
Like the stream ranking system, a numeric score'is assigned to each lake in
the watershed~1Q points for a high ranking, 5 points for medium and zero
for a tow rank. A watfrsh^d lake rating is then calculated based on a
weighted mean,>hich is determined by multiplying each lake's acreage by
Its points, summing the points for a watershed, and dividing by the total
acres in the watershed. A watershed is only given a ranking for lakes If
sufficient data exists for more than 50 percent of total lake acreage
"• •" $s/3 * f
Ground Water Evaluation , ,
Because of the lack of established ground water monitoring programs, the
ground wafer evaluation is less quantitative than that for streams or lakes.
A watershed's score for ground water resources is determined by
, the susceptibility of the ground water to contamination
•,*•"• X-> t
i the potential for water quality improvement due to NPS controls
v availability Of data confirming that water quality problems ,are a result of
NFS pollutants, "" 'y1*"
A single watershed ranking is given for ground water on the same scale as
that of Streams and lakes {high, medium or low),
". " - '", ' '''•• - '''
The stream, Jake, and ground water scores are then used to determine if a
watershed »s suitable for a large-scale project. Further consideration for
large-scale projects is given to tHose watersheds with the highest scores.
PROCESS
Draft water quality management plans for each drainage basin, which
include the NFS rankings, are subject to review by representatives from
State, regional and county conservation committees, local organizations
involved in water quality^and soil conservation programs, and the WDNR
District Watershed Selection Advisory Committees. These committees
compare and rank 'high-priority projects for the year based on district
workload and priorities, county ability to manage a project and landowner
willingness to participator Project selections are then made to the WDNR
2-24
-------
2. RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
WISCONSIN'S PRIORITY WATERSHED PROGRAM ^continued)
District Director, who submits a final list ,of priority watersheds to the
Director of the State Bureau of Water Resources Management, Approval
for final projects is then coordinated jointly by WDMR and Wisconsin's
Ctepartment of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP).
IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS
A water duality management plan is then developed for each targeted
watershed following a land use inventory and water resource appraisal
process. WDNR and the designated local agency fog* a county land
conservation department} jointly prepare this plan. This process Indicates
the water resource potential or objectives and the estimated pollutant load
reduction necessary ir* order to reach these objectives, The results are then
used to formulate a management strategy for installing the BMPs necessary
to achfeve the desired pollutant reduction*
The implementation of watershed management plans is carried out at the
local level by cities, counties and villages with assistance from a variety of
federal State and tocai agencies. Grants, provided fay the Wisconsin
fctonpoint Source Watet Pollution Abatement Program, are intended: for
helping landowners and communities cover the costs of installing voluntary
SMPs. WDNR supplies Local Assistance Grants to support Staff who
monitor implementation at local levels* Research and development of
computer models to estimate pollutant load reduction from the
recommended practices is carried out by WDNft In conjunction with other
agencies and funded by the U.S* EPA.
Implementation occurs over an eight-year period, including a three-year
period for choosing a cost share plan and five years for installation of the
SlVtPs In conformant with watershed plan recommendations. To date,
approximately nine of the 56 priority watershed projects have been
completed, 23 are in the cost-share phase and 24 are sfili m planning
stages {WDNRr
Cooperation of local agencies
Possibility of pooling resources
Court mandates
Transferability of lessons learned to other watersheds
Likelihood of showing improvement in a reasonable timeframe
States have limited experience in selecting watersheds greater than
demonstration size. However, Wisconsin and Oklahoma have
oriented their NPS programs toward this end (see previous sidebars).
In the case of Oregon, Critical Basins have been designated for
integrated PS/NPS control based on a combination of factors (Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, 1988). An Oregon Critical
Basin is a large watershed requiring a TMDL that involves both PS and
2-25
-------
RANKING AND TARGETING APPROACHES
NFS inputs. The Oregon Clean Water Strategy ranking system was
supplemented by Oregon's Section 319 Nonpoint Source
assessments, which assigned high, medium, or low priority based on
professional evaluations and public input. In addition to the State
Clean Water Strategy and NFS rankings, Oregon's selection of Critical
Basins has been shaped by court orders requiring TMDLs. In fact,
court-ordered schedules have played the dominant role in Oregon's
watershed targeting activities, although the Clean Water Strategy
ranking system has been useful for many other purposes.
2-26
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTS AND ISSUES IN TARGETING
This chapter discusses technical and institutional factors that States
should consider when prioritizing and targeting waters. Many of
these factors are taken into account in the example approaches
presented in Chapter 2.
3.1 Ranking Criteria
Most States have used some type of formal process for prioritizing
their waterbodies or watersheds. Certain ranking criteria are common
to many State prioritization approaches; however. States weigh these
criteria differently according to their own needs. The following
criteria, adapted from Adler and Smolen (1989), are especially
appropriate to the waterbody ranking/watershed targeting process
depicted in Figure 1-1.
• Severity of impairment-typically, the degree of impairment of
designated uses as reported in State 305(b) reports or as
determined through public input. This ranking criterion can ensure
that waters most ecologically damaged get special consideration
in the decision process. Frequently, a qualitative statement (low,
moderate, severe) is translated into a numerical value for ranking
purposes.
• Risk of impairment—A determination of risk or sensitivity to
impairment is usually more subjective than the above, but is an
important factor for threatened waters or waters where trend data
are lacking.
• Ecological value-This ranking criterion can ensure that waters of
special ecological value get special consideration in the decision
process. These waters might include cold water fisheries, native
aquatic life habitat, primary nursery areas, and outstanding
resource waters.
• Resource value to the public-Many ranking systems assign high
value to waters designated as public water supplies and
recreational waters. This criterion ensures that waters most
valued by the public or having the potential for public use receive
3-1
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
consideration. Public support helps ensure funding and may
indicate a citizen willingness for NPS control efforts.
• Data availability and quality-Rather than make judgments about
water based on insufficient information, some States establish
minimum data requirements. Waters may be ranked for data
collection to ensure that those having great resource value or
those threatened are studied first.
Moving from a ranking process into watershed targeting requires the
ability to implement effective controls. These factors include:
• Resolvability of the problem-ability of existing management tools
(e.g., BMPs or riparian buffer protection) to solve the water
quality problem expeditiously
• Institutional feasibility-sufficiency of institutional arrangements to
put these tools in place
• Financial and human resources-availability of funding and skilled
personnel from various agencies. These resources may take the
form of payments for controls or technical and management
expertise to carry out a watershed management plan.
Implicit in the above criteria is the issue of whether to give highly
valued waters priority over systems of lower value to the public (e.g.,
due to severe impairment or inaccessibility). Each State must resolve
this dilemma for itself. Successful programs seek to educate the
public about the need to correct severe impacts, but because of
limited resources and the need for public support. States often weight
value to the public highly in their targeting approaches.
The following sections describe other key issues that States should
consider in developing a watershed targeting approach.
3.2 Geographic Framework
One basic issue that must be considered is how to delineate
watersheds for planning and targeting. Key to this issue is selecting
watersheds of sufficient size to achieve results in large areas while
not overextending available resources. States select the watershed
size that is most effective given technical and institutional factors.
The following factors should be considered in setting watershed
boundaries for targeting and other management activities:
• Type of waterbodies affected-Watersheds containing a number of
headwater stream segments may be much smaller than
watersheds delineated to protect a major lake or estuary.
3-2
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
• Administrative boundaries-A State may find it important to make
watershed boundaries generally consistent with administrative
units such as 305(b) waterbodies or State regions. Also, if
regional citizen groups or committees exist, their areas of interest
might affect the delineation of certain watersheds.
• National watershed delineations-States may benefit by delineating
watersheds that are compatible with national watershed
delineations. Compatibility implies that State-delineated
watersheds lie within or are identical to the national boundaries.
For example, some Soil Conservation Service (SCS) offices at the
State level are in the process of delineating small SCS watersheds
to nest within (share common boundaries with) U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Cataloging Units and State agency watersheds.
States will benefit in the future as national databases adopt
standardized watershed boundaries. Soils, land use, and animal
data could eventually be made available on the basis of these
standardized watersheds. Lack of compatible watershed
boundaries could cause severe problems among agency GISs.
• Ecoregion concerns-NPS problems and instream effects may vary
across ecoregion boundaries. Large hydrologic basins, however,
do not always correspond to patterns in land forms, vegetation,
land use, soils, and other factors that affect water quality
(Omernik and Griffith, 1991). Therefore, States should consider
delineating watershed boundaries within ecoregions to the extent
possible.
• Ground water/surface water interactions--! n some parts of the
country, these interactions are highly complex and hinder the
delineation of watershed boundaries. For example, in Karstland or
arid regions of the West, surface water may enter the ground and
discharge well beyond small watershed boundaries.
• Model limitations-Water quality models to be used in predicting
the impacts of point and nonpoint source controls may limit
watershed size. For example, the agricultural NFS model AGNPS
currently is limited to watersheds of less than about 100,000
acres.
Examples of State Watershed Delineations
Several States have completed the process of delineating watersheds
for planning purposes. Oklahoma has delineated approximately 300
watersheds, covering the entire State, for IMPS planning purposes (see
"Oklahoma's Watershed Cluster System" in Chapter 2). The
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has delineated 330
watersheds for NPS planning. South Carolina has used SCS
Conservation Needs Inventory watersheds in delineating their 305(b)
3-3
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
waterbodies. The State contains approximately 316 SCS
watersheds.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has divided the State into
93 "subbasins" of roughly county size to match county-level water
quality efforts by SCS and others. Within these subbasins are 983
watersheds at the level of second-order streams.
In Virginia, the SCS has delineated 491 "hydrologic planning units" of
approximately 40,000 to 60,000 acres for NPS planning purposes.
Boundaries are related loosely to prior SCS watersheds and are
subsets of USGS Cataloging Units. Local Hydrologic Planning Unit
Committees will be established to assist with problem
characterization and development and implementation of local
solutions.
North Carolina's traditional planning units are 135 subbasins of
approximately 250,000 acres in size. However, the State SCS staff
are delineating watersheds that are smaller than SCS Conservation
Needs Inventory watersheds and fully compatible with (i.e., nested
within) USGS Cataloging Units and State water quality subbasins.
These new, smaller watersheds will be available on the State CIS and
may replace the sub-basins as watershed planning units.
3.3 Incorporating Ground Water Concerns
Protection of ground water resources is an issue of overriding concern
in many arid parts of the country where there is limited availability of
surface supplies for drinking water or where Karst topography
prevails. EPA encourage States to prioritize the vulnerability of
ground water resources to pollution impacts, with special emphasis
on wellhead protection areas, sole source aquifers, and major aquifer
recharge zones.
In addition, many regions show significant connections between
surface and ground water hydrography. For instance, cooperative
studies by the USGS, the EPA, and the USDA on the Upper
Mississippi River Basin are exploring the movement of atrazine and
other herbicides into alluvial aquifers, where they can then be
reintroduced into the baseflow of streams. For many waterbody
types, including large alluvial streams, a sizable portion of the surface
water moving though the system is supplied from ground water
sources. In addition to the possible implications for human health,
pollutants in these linked surface water/ground water systems could
adversely impact aquatic life. In fact, some aquatic organisms live —
at least for certain life stages - in transition zones between surface
and ground water.
3-4
-------
CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
For a variety of reasons, therefore. States may want to define ground
water resources as candidates for prioritization and targeting. EPA
Guidance on the Award and Management of Nonpoint Source
Program Implementation Grants Under Section 319(h) of the Clean
Water Act provides for resource units such as wellhead protection
areas or aquifer recharge zones to be treated as "watersheds." The
EPA Ground Water Protection Division has also prepared technical
assistance documents suggesting the relevance of ground water
pollutants to the estimation of TMDLs for surface waters (e.g., EPA,
1991d). EPA's Ground Water Strategy similarly encourages States to
prioritize the relative vulnerability to pollution risk of aquifers or
ground water supplies.
Although the example methodologies presented in Chapter 2 focus on
surface water, modifications can be made to incorporate ground
water factors. The major issue in applying geographic targeting
concepts to ground water is often whether there should be a separate
prioritization system for these ground water resources or whether an
integrated approach is warranted when there are significant
geohydrologic linkages with surface water systems.
3.4 Incorporating Riparian Values
Riparian areas are lands adjacent to creeks, streams, and rivers where
vegetation is strongly influenced by the presence of water. Riparian
areas can be important in any part of the country but are especially
critical in the western United States. Ranking and targeting systems
should take into account such special regional concerns.
Some features within western riparian areas may fall under standard
wetlands classification schemes (and thus engender special
protection), but this is not always the case. Riparian areas may
comprise less than 1 percent of the area in the western United
States, but they are among the most productive and valuable of all
lands, strongly influencing how watersheds function. By influencing
the timing and quality of water produced, the condition of riparian
areas can have far-reaching economic and environmental
consequences.
In addition to being the lifeblood for indigenous aquatic life forms and
many other types of wildlife, riparian areas are usually the most
valuable sites for agriculture and livestock activities. Many western
riparian zones have been subject to severe disruptions in their
ecological functions due to farming and ranching, mining activities,
diversions of surface flows, depletion of local ground water supplies,
and, more recently, urban growth. In some locations, native riparian
vegetation has been replaced by exotic grasses and shrubs that
provide inferior habitat. Finally, changes in sediment yields and flood
frequency patterns below large hydrostructures have caused beach
3-5
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
erosion, changes in water temperatures, and alterations in river
substrates.
3.5 Degree of Public Involvement
Public involvement is important during all stages of watershed
management projects. For example, public input during the ranking
and targeting process leads to stronger local support during the
implementation phase. Virtually all watershed projects to date have
demonstrated that local management is necessary to stimulate the
interest needed for a successful project (Brichford and Smolen, 1990;
Wisconsin DNR, 1986).
Public involvement can be incorporated so that it is technically valid
and promotes integrated PS/NPS management. Technical validity is
often maintained by entrusting data analysis tasks and final selection
of targeted watersheds to the State water quality agency.
Wisconsin's approach is to involve regional committees early in the
watershed targeting process (see Wisconsin's Priority Watershed
Program in Chapter 2). These committees recommend watersheds
for a pool of candidates from which State resource managers make
the ultimate selections for funding. Other approaches include using
questionnaires to survey citizens or local professionals and
consensus building (see Puget Sound Consensus-based Ranking
System in Chapter 2).
Involving local citizens in ranking and targeting requires a commitment
of time and effort. During development of Oregon's Clean Water
Strategy, the Department of Environmental Quality found that citizen
committees required significant water quality training before they
were ready to participate in ranking techniques. This level of training
places a burden on agency staff and seems to impede progress. In
the long term, however, failure to provide the necessary level of
training can result in frustration for staff and the public.
3.6 Institutional Capability
As part of an approach to watershed targeting, it is worthwhile to
assess the relative adequacy of State and local institutions for the
management challenges facing them.
Technical feasibility is usually easier to address than the more
qualitative institutional considerations. Methodologies are also
available for evaluating the effectiveness of existing agency
programs. One such technique is called implementation analysis
(Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1979). Originally applied to an assessment
of coastal zone management programs in California, this type of
approach has been adapted to evaluate the effectiveness of programs
affecting water quality in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuaries (Nichols et
3-6
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
•Mi^HMHim^^UBHi
a!., 1990) as well as water quality-related initiatives under the 1985
Farm Bill in the Pacific Northwest, the Upper Midwest, and the
Chesapeake Bay region.
In implementation analysis, conditions such as the following are
evaluated for each agency or program being studied:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Tractability, or the relative ease with which a problem can be
solved when behavioral changes are required of the affected
public
Clear and specific program objectives
A sound technical basis for the program's activities (e.g., basis
for believing an agency's BMP program will achieve water quality
goals)
Adequate incentives and sanctions to induce desired behaviors
(e.g., participation in cost-share programs or compliance with
permits)
Adequate resources for the implementing agencies, and full use
of available resources in the past
Access to support of constituency groups
Adequate training, technical assistance, and education for the
affected public and agency staff
Commitment of implementing agencies to program objectives
(e.g., agencies with water quality improvement as a primary
mission).
A simplified analysis could be done for targeting purposes by rating
each agency or program for these conditions on a scale of 1 to 5 or
on a yes/no basis. The scores for a number of high-priority
watersheds could then be compared to assist in pinpointing
candidates with the more fully developed institutional frameworks.
3.7 Involvement of Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Targeted watersheds ideally have outstanding prospects for an
interagency pooling of resources and skills. This is especially true for
watersheds with significant NPS problems. The following are some
of the Federal, State, and local agencies that may be involved in a
watershed implementation project:
• State water quality agency
• State NPS agency (if different)
3-7
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
State fisheries agency
State soil and water conservation agency
State agricultural agency
State natural heritage agency
State coastal management agency
State cooperative extension agency
Local soil and water districts
City and county governments
SCS offices at the State and local levels
USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
U.S. Geological Survey.
Where local. State, or Federal agencies have already made major
resource commitments, targeting a high-priority watershed in the
same geographic area may represent an effective use of resources.
By the same token, a State decision to target a watershed for
management attention may help trigger support from a variety of
other agencies.
3.7.1 Federal Programs
A number of ongoing Federal programs are adopting basin and
watershed orientations. For instance, the USGS National Water
Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) has identified 60 prospective
study areas including hydrologic basins and major aquifers or recharge
zones.
Under the President's Water Quality Initiative and the 1990 Farm Bill
reauthorization, several agencies within the USDA are working to
address agriculturally related water quality problems. Many of these
USDA initiatives have a watershed orientation. The USDA has
committed itself to a series of Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) projects,
with hundreds of study areas to be identified over the next several
years. The HUA projects, and other USDA activities, seek to take
into account State priority areas with major water quality problems or
protection needs. The SCS hydrologic unit planning process in
Virginia and North Carolina, described in Section 3.2, is an example of
a USDA initiative with a watershed planning orientation.
EPA and other Federal agencies such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the USDA have promoted
geographically focused institutional frameworks through the
Chesapeake Bay Program, National Estuary Program initiatives such
as the Puget Sound Project, and Remedial Action Plans under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
More recently, EPA and NOAA have been charged with assisting
States in updates to their Coastal Zone Management programs to
enhance State capabilities to address NPS pollution issues. The
3-8
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
success of these initiatives is related to the emergence of
geographically focused efforts by State agencies, local governments,
and a variety of supportive nongovernmental organizations.
Other pertinent Federal programs include:
• The eight-State Upper Mississippi River System Environmental
Management Program, designed to restore and protect fish and
wildlife habitat along the Mississippi floodplain area upstream of
the Ohio River confluence (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991).
This program involves the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and three
District Offices in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
• The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, building on
long-established management efforts in the four major flyways for
migratory birds (Eldridge, 1990; Wagner, 1990). The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service works with State agencies and wildlife
conservation groups to promote habitat protection programs
focused in seven high-priority areas.
• The National Park Service's work with State agencies,
management authorities such as the Bonneville Power
Administration, and with conservation groups such as American
Rivers to carry out surveys to identify and assess the
management potential of scenic river corridors (Eugster, 1989).
Statewide River Assessments have been conducted in Maine,
New York, Maryland, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, '
Texas, and South Carolina, with surveys pending in other States.
• The Bureau of Reclamation's Fish and Wildlife 2000 Plan, building
partnerships with State and local governments and other
conservation groups in habitat restoration projects on public
lands. Such efforts are especially important in the western United
States, where over 100 projects have been initiated (Bureau of
Land Management, 1990).
3.7.2 State and Local Programs
In addition to the Federal sources of assistance, there are numerous
State and local activities with a geographic focus on natural resource
management issues. Most are affiliated with government agencies,
although the lead agency will not always be a State's water quality
agency.
Some States have special programs for ongoing management of
critical areas of outstanding regional ecologic importance. Examples
include New York's Adirondack State Park and the New Jersey
Pinelands. The Adirondack Park is funded exclusively by the State,
with the Adirondack Park Agency having management oversight for
3-9
-------
CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
the State-owned Adirondack Forest Preserve; oversight extends into
surrounding areas where a variety of land uses take place subject to
rules designed to preserve the traditional open space character of the
region (State of New York, 1990). The New Jersey Pinelands were
established as a National Reserve Planning Area under a special
provision of the 1978 National Parks and Recreation Act. Federal
assistance was a factor in the organization of the New Jersey
Pinelands Commission, which has oversight for multipurpose land
uses (Carol, 1987).
In addition to programs to protect such special areas, many States are
in the process of adopting growth management programs, which
allow State-level oversight of resource planning activities based on
the zoning authorities of local governments (Kusler, 1983; Mantell et
al., 1990). States with such systems already in place are Oregon,
Washington, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and
Florida. Similar growth management legislation is being considered in
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia,
and California. Water quality protection is often prominent in these
growth management programs.
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, Great Lakes Program, and National
Estuary Program have helped in the development of State and local
programs with a geographic targeting orientation. These government
programs have in turn encouraged the growth of various
nongovernment organizations (NGOs) with a similar geographic focus.
NGOs are university groups, nonprofit land trusts, regionally oriented
foundations, or citizen groups concerned with natural resource
conservation.
SOUTH
* f f •&* f *
•, •• •."' -, 'ff ^f •" ' "" f
Special governmental agencies and"faurtdaiions have beer* formed to
supervise the management of river Corridors and greenways, often involving
open space? in urbanized areas. A good example is Denver's South Platte
River Qreenway {ManfeR et al., 1991], begun in 1974. Ongoing restoratmn
areas nave turned a i&mite reach of stream through the heart of Denver
Into a maifor rec'reationat resource. The greenway is managed through the
Denver Urban Drainage and flood Control District and the: City of Denver's
Parks Department. Citizen involvement is coordinated through a special
Platte River Qreenway Foundation- Ther« are long-term plans to fink the „
Denver system with open space and trail systems in neighboring Arapahoe
and Adams Counties, forming, a continuous 4S»m»le protected zone along
the Platte. The Denver experience has served as a paradigm for other
efforts at urban ecology restoration around the country* —/
-. //"• ' v'^Sv'U'' •• "
3-10
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
NGOs with a strong regional or geographic focus will generally make
sincere attempts to work with units of government. Although NGOs
by their nature will always preserve a strong degree of autonomy,
they can provide excellent mechanisms to generate popular support
for watershed-oriented projects. Examples of such geographically
oriented groups include the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Narragansett
Bay's Save the Bay group. New York's Adirondack Council, the
Natural Resources Council of Maine, California's Planning and
Conservation League, and some of the Last Great Place initiatives of
the Nature Conservancy.
Especially where NGOs are well-institutionalized, they often sponsor
independent research and policy studies. Such activities can serve a
proactive function, helping to suggest protective measures long
before major degradation occurs. NGOs can also play vital roles in
the areas of stewardship (especially land trust-oriented groups),
mobilization of volunteer labor or other resource contributions, public
education and outreach, or consensus building and dispute resolution.
Where such groups already exist, they should be considered in the
selection of targeted watersheds. The targeting process can also
serve to sharpen the geographic and water quality orientation of
NGOs.
LOCAL COMMITTEES IN FLORIDA
In Florida, special fluasi-governmental committees? have proved successful
in working with landowners and local governments to facilitate
waiershed'oriertted management solutions, For instance, the £i$s*mmee
River Coordinating Council helped facifitate a set of *ecomrneridatk>ns for
the South Florida Water Management District as part of the ongoing efforts
to address the pollution and habitat problems of Lake Okeechobee and the
Everglades*
Tne Indian Lagoon area to the north of Palm Beach tias benefited from the
activities of the Marine Resources Council
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
ANACOSTIA RIVER RESTORATION ^PROJECT
% s ' " ' ' •• •• ''''•:/, y, / ' , _.
in t9&7, an ambitious agreement was signed to restore the Anaeostfa Rwer
Basin, with commitments from some 60 local, State, and regional
government agencies, The Anaeostia joins the Potomac River within the
District of Columbia add features some of the last surviving tidal wetlands
within bur Nation's capital. The nontidal, freshwater portion of the 170
square aiile oasfo exiend$ info Marylandl, With much of the drainage nighty
urbanised.
Most of the Anacostia's water Duality problems are associated with ;
nonpoint source pollutants from surface runoff and a progressive loss of
habitat. Key agencies involved ?n the ongoing efforts to restore the
ecological integrity of the Anacostia Basin include the District of Columbia
Department of Public Works, the Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commissfotirthe Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
(MCdOj, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the
Maryland Depa'rtmenlfo? Natural Resources^ and such Federal agencies as
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service, and the U.S.
EnvironmentaflProteetion Agency,
The total action plan for the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement
focuses on six primary goals {ft/ICOS, 1$30 and I99£|j
«, Reduce pollutarit loads fron> CSO and stormwater Inputs and eliminate
illegal dumping of trash and other debris'
f *r '.-f.-,
* f
*,-To the maxtmum degree possible, apply stream restoration (retrofit*
techniques to enhance habitat and ecological integrity of heavily
of the drainage
»; Remove man»made barriers to anadromous fish migration and
spawning and reirrtroduce runs of suitable fish
* Augment natural pollution filtering capacity of the system by sharply
Increasing acreage of tidal and nontidal wetlands
« Expand forest cove> in watershed, especially along riparian corridors
» Conduct a broad-based public awareness and outreaoh program and
work to encourage Involvement by citteen volunteers In cfeanup
^'efforts- ' , ' '„,„
The Anacos^a program has been a major proving ground for urban
ecological restoration in the eastern United States.
3-12
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
PROTECTING IDAHO'S SNAKE RIVER
AQUIFER-A WATERSHED APPROACH
On October 7, 1391 the Eastern Snake RiVer Plain Aquifer in southern tdaho
was designated as a sofa source aquifer fay the USEPA* Designating sole
source aquifers represents a proactive approach to ground water protection
that is much more cost effective than cleaning up contamination after the
CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION
Section 1424{e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act allows aquifers
requiring special protection to be designated as sole source aquifers,
Federally financed projects proposed In such designated areas are subject to
iPA review to ensure that they are designed and constructed to protect
water quality,
The criteria for the sole $ource aquifer designation are?
1 « The aquifer must be the sole or principal source of drinking water
for the area. The Snake River supplies aH of the drinking water for
the 27S,GOO people that live in the Snake River plain, which is
over a quarter of Idaho's population.
2. No economically feasible alternative drinking sources exist within
the area or nearby that could supply all those who now depend
upon the aquifer as their source of drinking water.
3, If contaminated, a significant hazard to pubflc health would result,
Although not a formal criterion, EfWs designation review also evaluates
streamflow source areas-that is, headwaters of streams like the Snake
River that lose flow into ground water as they move through a recharge
area, Jhis watershed approach allows consideration of possible sources of
contamination from areas far removed from the river or aquifer,
CONTAMINANTS or CONCERN
Almost all of the people living in the eastern Snake River plain five within
10 miles of the Snake River, most of them or* farms and ranches, Irrigated
agriculture and related Industries dominate the economy. Recharge to
ground water occurs from percolation of surface water used for irrigation
(60%), underflow from tributary drainage £20%}, rain %}. Therefore, activities fn the watershed have the
potential of contaminating the aquifer as well as the Snake River. Oround
water Is generally of high quality, but human-Induced contamination has
been documented in widespread areas-,ai levels below drinking water
standards, and in JocafoasGl areas at above drinking water standards. Waste
disposal practices at the Idaho Engineering Laboratory have resulted in
ground water conlarriination. Radioactive waste disposal
" """ *
3-13
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
IDAHO'S SNAKE RIVER
™'- AT&UIFER--A WATERSHED APPROACH
-H-"- , n , ;_ • ~~
through injection welte began in 1952, and was halted in 1984. Waste
disposal lagoons continue to leak a mixture of contaminants to ground
water. Ttie nuclf ar research and production facility has been designated a
Superfund site by EPA, In addition, there is widespread use of Class V
injection welfs'to dispose of excess irrigation water, urban storm runoff and
septic system effluent. Another concern is open hole well construction that
allows water from one contaminated aquifer Jayer to mix with another layef
of higher quality. These concerns prompted local citizens to target the
Snake River aquifer for special protection under the Sole Source Aquifer
Program1;/ * ' '"""* " , ,, '" - , •
DESIGNATION PROCESS
Under the SDWA, EPA or the public can begin proceedings to designate an
aquifer. To date all 56 sole source aquifers' designated in the U.S. have
been by public petition. In the case of the Snake River aquffer, Hagerrnan
Valley Citizen's Alert requested the designation, This grass roots origin
guaranteed strong public involvement. However, not everyone supported
this project and the process included extensive public hearings to hear all
viewpoints. After all information was received, EPA made the final decisiqn
to designate the Snake River aquifer as a sole source aquifer. The
designation was complicated by the sheer size of the area under
consideration. The eastern Snake River plain covers about 10,800 square
miles of southern Idaho/Wyoming and Oregon," involving EPA Regions 8, 9
and tO, Coordination of this designation, with its geographic scope, large
numbers of affected people, multiple government agencies, and differing
viewpoints was accomplished through EPA's Region 10 office.
3-14
-------
3. CONCEPTS AND ISSUES
TARGEFING AND PROTECTING AN AQUIFER BY
MISS10ULA CITY-COUNTY GOVERNMENTS
The residents of the IMissouia Valley of Montana have historically used both
surface water and around water for drinking water, Gfardte was discovered
in Rattlesnake Creek in 1983. This creek was at the time supplying
approximately 50 percent of the drinking water for Missoula, The Giardia
contamination prompted Mountain Water Company flMWQ, which operates
the municipal water supply, to abandon the use of Rattlesnake Creek,
MWC switched to the sole use of ground water from the Mfesoula Vailey
Aquifer for the muriicipai water supply. About 40 public water supply wells
located throughout the Missoufa Valley now supply water to the City.
TARGETING THE AQUIFER
The Missoula Vafley Aquifer was targeted for intensive protection and
management, The selection process was not based an a ranking system/
but rather on the clear need to protect the aquifer for drinking water
purposes. After delineating the boundaries of the aquifer, the Missoula
City-County Government (MCCG) petitioned the Administrator of the Et*A
to designate the Missoula Valley Aquifer as a Sole Source Aquifer. This
designation was made in 1$88, Sole Source Aquifer designation means
that no Federally funded project can be carried out within the recharge zone
of that aquifer if the project may lead to contamination of the aquifer'
The MCCG then proposed to EPA a fully integrated demonstration project
which had a project area of approximately 116 square mites. Several
programs were involved in this project, including the UICr PWS5~ UST, and
RCRA programs. An inventory of potential contamination sources was
conducted within this area,
Within-watershed targeting was further refined by identifying the wellhead
protection areas for the 40 water supply wells serving the city* Different
ievelsftypes of control may be applied to sources within the various areas
depending on the threat posed.
To solidify this approach to geographic targeting and to make it available to
all areas of the State, the MCC<3 worked with the Montana Environmental
Quality Council of the Legislature to draft and pass a bill which established
the Missoula Water Quality District and allows other jurisdictions to
establish additional Water Quality Districts,
3-15
-------
-------
4. DATA SOURCES FOR TARGETING
CHAPTER 4
DATA SOURCES FOR TARGETING
The main purpose of this chapter is to identify data sources that may
be useful in ranking and targeting, including sources that are not
commonly used by State water quality agencies.
4.1 EPA Databases
Table 4-1 lists EPA databases that may prove useful in ranking and
targeting. Each of these systems can be accessed through EPA's
National Computer Center mainframe computer.
In Statewide waterbody rankings like those described in Chapter 2,
many of the data needs are met by the State's Section 305(b) or 319
assessment databases. Most States now use, or are planning to use
EPA's PC Waterbody System (WBS) for managing information on use
support, causes and sources of impairment, and other waterbody-
specific information. The remaining States have developed their own
assessment databases.
The WBS contains over 100 data elements (i.e., types of data) for
each waterbody. A waterbody can be a stream segment, a lake,
portion of an estuary, a wetland area, a stretch of coastal or Great
Lake shoreline, or a small watershed. No raw water quality data are
stored; rather, WBS contains the final results of data analysis by
State staff.
Many WBS data elements are relevant to ranking and targeting,
including:
Waterbody name and description
Waterbody size
Geographic locators (e.g., latitude/longitude; Reach Number)
Designated uses
Extent and type of monitoring
Use support status; trophic status
Water quality-limited/total maximum daily load (TMDL) status
Sources and causes (pollutants) resulting in impairment
4-1
-------
M
i
CO
€
Q
LU
CD
OC
4
UI
CD -2
$ -a
m "- C '«
« O Q.
gs^
•Is £3
8
io co re
0,0 +3
c co
4-2
-------
T3
0)
O
u
CO
8
+*
IS
0
1
-i
:I
B
1
£
eu
!
1
1
t
: ID
Q
I-
to
- in
j£ 0
£ 6
CD '^ Jt O
^- > ^ "O
3 w Q_ r-
O < UJ CO
O
£
0
0? 0
«t^ ^"
— - If)
§0 i
"- CM
C ^ .
SCM
3 °
^ C
Provides sophisticated
integrated assessments fo
lakes. Basic techniques
could be extended for basi
planning and targeting
j=
r- •*-* CO
S CO 0)
.2-0 DC
Provides data integral
using number of EPA
files with mapping
capabilities using the
File
Data analysis system
for significant publicly
owned lakes under
CWA Section 31 4
program
&
!
Jo
CO >
c >
ȣ
O uj
O n
*=» CO
> 00
06
» CO
O> CM
_co «N
U)
*J r"
Estimating point source
loadings and screening for
areas with significant poin
source compliance problen
o>
Ji
o
Compliance status tra
system for major
dischargers
Locations and discharge
characteristics for about
7,100 major and
56,300 minor NPDES
facilities
g o
c uj
8 §1
m "c ®
.2 H- o
|Q? 8 ff€
O ~~" »fc > E
.*; | O § Q
§ tt< co "0
Q. CO UJ "5 cl
^
o
^00
^^
ri ^^
§ '
"
CN
e _
1 §
^
National-level screening fo
pollutant loadings
associated with specific
industry categories; some
information outdated
L_
C
Locations, flows and
receiving waterbodies
industrial discharges a
POTWs
Information for about
120,000 NPDES
dischargers; also
Superfund sites
k»
w Q w
"~ »*—
'" = o
t w .9
co o> $:
fc w 0
M £ »
•i.2^
.E Q LLI
O
> OT
O^ 5
•*
^ i
C CO
UJ CM
^P CM
l§
Combination of STORET
chemical data, BIOS and
CETIS provide a balanced
way to document severity
of ecological impacts
To 'x
-------
T3
CD
1
U
I
•Ji
. c
o
• ^r
cA
:«:
••*b'
f
1
f
1
1
1
w
1?
1
O
05
«= o
O CO
*• r»«
•n LO
e in
• .£ CO
x "Si
CD a, 5
"2 o w
_ u: CD
^^ -— - *^ o
•— Q » 3
* Q. C
1- £ LU CO
O
0 ™
^5
rjf^
VJJ |
.s 6
i£ CO
^CN
g CN
!§
>.
Can assist in assigning
priorities for water suppi'
protection purposes
Data on waterbody, flow,
and locations of mainly
surface water intakes
Information on 7,650
public and community
surface water supplies
CD
iZ
"5.
a
CO
u.
«5 o
o> ^
c — O
12 CO »
c § ^
*^» ^5 G^
LJ ^^- LU
|
O ro
uT 1**
S CN
.= 6
CD CD
?> tN
= 0
CD
U O)
C ,_ ^
Detailed data on complia
with Safe Drinking Watei
Act requirements includil
monitoring
CD
Detailed data on complianc
with Safe Drinking Water
Act requirements including
monitoring
Information about public
supplies
i,.
CD
« -o 5
« ?g >
O 3 a
S c
o Q "S '•=
QLOC 0>
_ . *t m ^
™™ C *• \ ** Cj
1- CD » CD ^
^ •* ^ CO O
CD ^^ 0* !^> c^
LL CO LU •$• ~.
9
is
^5
Q ^"S*
.So
^/ CO
-^
l§
E5
Useful in identifying strei
reaches where data may
available for estimating
pollutant loadings
Summaries of mean annual
and critical low flows and
other data collected. Sites
indexed to Reach File
Information on some
36,000 stream gage
locations
|
— ^
1 1 f^
CD -
CD ft
O '"
O
5 CO
^^
rri f^
.S CD
s,/ CO
-j CN
8 CN
I§
I
Useful when ranking
waterbodies that may sh
point or nonpoint urban
impacts
Background data with lists
of streams for each city,
census population, county
land/water area (coastal
counties)
Location information
and census data for
53,000 municipalities
and all counties
CO
CD
LZ
00
-oZ
c O
re ^
>• ^
•— Q-
(J LU
4-4
-------
IB
j
i
i
•o
o>
C
1
o
co
§
00
o
)
.£ 6
(O
£
I
I
l?l
•* CD
§n.
s^i
1275
-5o
l»l
121
ex?
S m
| CD
S "w
0 .hs
Information on locations
of 68,000 damsites and
associated reservoirs
al
iZO
TO Q.
O ui
oc
o «
o? O
il
E
na "O
C £ w
c « S
8 8°
&5 £
CO „ TO
£3.1
5o =
% CD S
3§£
o
(/>
_ (O
C Q
^S M OC
• S 1
«•£•£
ls
OC
Ofo
q? O
co CO
CL »5
DC
W
O ,_
o-2,
O Jg CD
CO SJ J=
21 s
IP
111
151
2 TO1!
a. -o 5
ex
I
2>
3
o S
CO CD
o 2
O Q.
0) Q.
o re
.£ w
"~ W 3
CO
CO
CO
CO
_ §
«o -o (j
Q) O ,
~o « of
r
IS
aj
g
GI
repository for m
S data layers alo
ith a selection of
e EPA
A
GI
wi
applications on
NCC mainframe
O^gy
DC «9
O C DC .,
_
1 £2
C3 .E (/> uj
4-5
-------
4. DATA SOURCES FOR TARGETING
The national data systems in Table 4-1 vary in data completeness and
data quality; such characteristics should be evaluated for a given
State before a system is used for ranking and targeting. The most
complete and reliable national data systems tend to be those in which
the State regularly updates information (e.g., STORET, WBS, and the
Permit Compliance System (PCS) in many States), and for which
rigorous quality assurance features have been incorporated (e.g..
Reach File; ODES). Most of the information in Table 4-1 is taken
from the Office of Water Environmental and Program Information
Compedium FY92, EPA 800-B92-001.
4.2 Other Data Sources
Table 4-2 lists sources of information available from agencies and
organizations other than EPA, and relevant features for ranking and
targeting. Many of these sources are readily available but not
normally used by State water quality programs.
Typically, State water quality agencies rely on a combination of EPA
data systems and their own systems for up-to-date information for
ranking and targeting. Supplemental information is obtained from
other State and Federal agencies (e.g., fish and wildlife and
agricultural agencies) when such data can readily be acquired.
Reliable data on rural sources are especially difficult to obtain in many
States. The best information often comes from State departments of
agriculture, which compile county statistics annually and make them
available relatively quickly (e.g., data on crop and livestock
production). Data on crop cover, agricultural BMPs, and animal units
are typically available only as county summaries, although hard copy
files and maps showing exact locations may be available at the Soil
and Water Conservation District level. For watershed targeting,
county-level data may be sufficient.
Land use/land cover (LU/LC) data are among the most important types
of information for targeting integrated PS/NPS controls. The
availability of LU/LC data is very State specific. Several States have
acquired and translated recent satellite imagery for use on geographic
information systems. South Carolina has acquired SPOT LU/LC data
for the entire State. Unfortunately, for most States the latest
available LU/LC data are from the 1970s.
Current LANDSAT sensors are well suited for large-scale applications
such as watershed targeting. LANDSAT data are becoming available
at about 1 ha resolution, but use classifications can be fairly gross for
some LU types. For example, LANDSAT imagery is generally
processed to lump all agricultural land uses into two categories-
cropland and pastureland.
4-6
-------
0
w .£ .
« s-e
.§ &-
•O _ m O
« «s " s
•= S c 2
t: o
3 .;= w
o >|
c co >
W OO O 3 SI
HI «
•c re k.
0 > 0)
llll
(/} at n >
cilitate
ulatory
logical
ation
to
i
I
re
S
Q
ID
CO
+•*
o
CN
4
o fa
reg
ecol
tora
se to
mits,
, and
its,
nd
re
ba
ntral datab
iew of per
uirements
prese
progr
Cent
revie
requi
rvaton
ams.
ides
ectio
tificat
idenication of "gaps" when
comparing existing protected
areas with regional habitat
distributions.
embles information fro
ional Park Service river
ss
ati
rv
A
Na
sueys, Northwest Power
Planning Council's Protected
Areas Program, Nature
Conservancy Priority Aquatic
Sites and other major sources
6§ S
O 'is Q>
"o o >
r- CD »=• O
C Q>
CD >
a)
>
w O
•2 I
4= O
*^ *j H= T3
to to 0 c
C CD (0 CB O
O .N u. Q- fe
11 * * 8
iolii
< t- c S w
2; S ° -^ -
•3 (1) *
|1| II
2> CD 'p CD
2 ? > I 2
Q. re .E o. o)
re
i_ re
»
§ = - -S
§|-I1
m « -— CM OT
E §03
< w Cio
4-7
-------
I
CM
4
W
1
_1J_._
§**
'IT-.
Primary Functions
J|
c
.a
0
1
t
,»
CD
CD
J= ®
O M
CO 3
g 15
'•P O
js re
03 2
IS
ill
!.E!
Contains data on types of
recreation, visitor days, and
participation by activity.
re
,g
•_•» flj
CD ~-y
§^_
•*3-E
S w
§2 -
£ re g
!1|
co w CO
re CD .,
•ssS
§l£
§ E g
if co'i
i- >• CD f A
o to o OT
Recreation Inf
Management
(202) 205-17
USDA, Forest
o>
*g5
^3 ^ ^^
^ o 5
i||
"O "-^ "-ff
« 11 .
O 5 CD <°
E£ S-g
CD.E-S J
^"S « 1
>CD § ^
3 §1 S
5S§5
Shows locations of vegetative
community types using a FWS
classification scheme.
05
E
o>
o
to .
i-n W
™ ru
.E S
Q. 2
re""3
£"S
T3.|
V C
•S3
0) 0>
+•• 1-
3 +*
is
(3°
CD
& "
2 1
m V
Z £
M 2
1 5?
•£! CM TJ
<5 CM C
? I*S
2 °™iL
o 12 fS
• — ^ »^l w
I l§§
^_
(Q
"o
Q>
Q.
O3
b>
*t"~
S2
CD
'= |
o> p
2 Q.
Identifies waters with potential
for National Wild and Scenic
Rivers status.
»- CD
CD £5
> re
'= E
o 'x
o g
»-^ Q.'tO
C f^\
21?
w gco
_J CO CD
g
C ®
CD .£
— in co ,a
co (O (O C/)
5: ~co = co a.
« o^ i|$re
O c J^ fJcN °
1 ASS £81
•o
m ^
5
c '^
"^ re ^
5? CD &
5 § °-
a •- co
c J= .2
S*i
»1^
sis
i_ Q..E
O C C
u. .E re
For identifying waters importan
for rare plant and animal
species protection.
M
0>
'5
3.
CO
CD
•s I
O w
CO «
re .+;
>l
"^^ ^*
ra_S
I?
_i re
.2
*•? ^
re ^
i I
O tf
S sj
^ +J V- V
(0 CO 5^* -
"a" " -
o re co „
1 « ^5
m Q Ct |-
^3 re
c -ti .
re -O c
^ -a re o
CD CD •*•• *u
5 c S c 2
M_ .— O) O o
g, « *2 C* g
o «~ ^» *55 ^
ilili
= £ S 2 S
< re en o. a.
CO
To prioritize Federal and State
efforts related to the
Emergency Wetlands Resource
Act of 1 986 to promote
acquisition or other protection
measures for major wetland
tracts.
1 a.
re «5 o:
| re^ SO
^ <1) « ™
"C CO ^ " co
O ^ -O ^~ *^
5SII§
« •- 9- 2 >
•* T3 CD •" -£
J o Q. w -J5
CL O fi ff^ " M
CD .1 § Jg re §•
q
a
re
CO Q M-
l^co 5^
g- co 51 = cb *
eg*- 5 J« -g
0) " Q. a CO ~
0 5 g T-, _ U-
Us lii
4-8
-------
'
co .« 0 to
CO
CO 8 .i .2
o>
c
o
o
CM
CO
CO
**
po
to
of
Provide data to sup
initiatives related to
Grant and Coastal Zone
Management Programs.
O -11 O C
J; S is CO CO
Ci C— ^ II
to ™ S g a,
§ =33 .2 § CD «
•S ° i * I 2
.2 ..J 0» "S '£ v.
o> S o CD — 2
0)
o ~
to co
in
D
§ §
•*= *=
P "5
I*
if
CD T
It
O 3
CO O
i_ O
*s
2 §
C o
O ft
S
ff
o c
I1.
.Sl
Ii
CO *C
CD CD
•O CO
I
3=
S
V)
§ o-
oxo
— 5 Q
o
1
CD
a>o o
Q CM c/j
"
O *i
<-< C
C CD
> £
S CO
.= CO
„ CD
2 W
DO
»
g
®
E
- .
III fill
II
Ss
4-9
-------
4. DATA SOURCES FOR TARGETING
Each State with the capability to use spatially referenced LU/LC data
should consider acquiring satellite data. Regarding future satellite
systems, LANDSAT's sensors are currently failing, and the next
generation (LANDSAT6) is behind schedule. The Nation is probably at
least 10 years away from being able to distinguish crop type using
satellite imagery. Merging data from more than one remote sensing
platform (e.g., SPOT and LANDSAT) is promising but currently
expensive for large rural areas. Aerial photography can provide highly
detailed LU/LC information, but is expensive and can require multiple
flyovers for certain applications (e.g., determining crop cover). Aerial
photography and the use of multiple platforms may be more suited to
detailed modeling within selected watersheds than to screening or
targeting activities.
Table 4-2 contains several national sources of NFS information that
may supplement State sources for targeting. These include
agricultural census data and U.S. Census Bureau data, the National
Wetlands Inventory, and the SCS National Water Quality Technology
Development Staff. Even within a State agency, access to needed
data sources can be a problem. The North Carolina Basinwide
Planning example presents one State's view on the need for data
integration and the proposed solution (see sidebar).
Contacts
North Carolina Basinwide Planning Initiative:
Trevor Clements (919) 733-5083
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
South Carolina SPOT LU/LC Data:
Richard Lacy (803)734-9100
South Carolina Land Resources
Conservation Commission
2221 Divine Street, Suite 222
Columbia, SC 29205-2474
4-10
-------
4. DATA SOURCES FOR TARGETING
OATA MANAGEMENT POR 8ASINWID6 PLANNING AND TARGETING
IN NORTH CAROLINA
TheNdrth Carolina Division of Environmental Management S3EM) is
developing Baslnwide Water Quality Management Plans for each of the
State's 17 major basins. National Pollutant Discharge Oimfnation
System $$>DES) permitting^ nonpoint source management, and
targeting for TMDL development for a given basin will be completed In
the same year, and documented in a single Baslnwide Plan, The first
plan was published in 1992; the plan for each basin will be updated
every 5 years* By focusing or» a few basins each yeaCDEM staff will
be better able to consider the impacts of ail sources of impairment, not
just NPDES dischargers. The agency anticipates increased cost
effectiveness due to staff efficiency, reduced travel for monitoring; and
consolidated public hearings.
For this initiative to succeed, DEM management believes that all
technical staff must have access to key information sources, DEtM has
identified over 40 State data sources relevant to integrated point and
nonpoint source management efforts- Nearly half of these sources; are
of .primary importance fre,, are needed by staff throughout the
agency). These primary sources include the following databases;
* Permit tracking -
* Permit compliance {discharger self-monitoring)
* facility Information
« Effluent toxicity
« State waterbody water quality assessment
*•• Classification schedule
* Wetlands , - ,,,
-* Flow statistics
» Pretreatroent databases,
Most of these data sources are related to PS controls, NPS information
is found in data layers from the State GlS, Federal agricultural
statistics, and in results from the Alfaemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study,
discussed in a separate sidebar in Chapter 2,
DEM found various barriers to the use of these multiple data sources,
such as difficulty in accessing certain electronic databases and paper
files. As a result, the agency embarked on a systems development
project to provide common, wser-friendly access for staff to primary
data sources, €ach database was evaluated as to current and potential
users, the best computer platform, and how to make the database
more widely available, Following the systems analysis, DEM will
acquire one or more minicomputers and other hardware to link as many
feottttntted}
4-11
-------
4. DATA SOURCES FOR TARGETING
DATA MANAGEMENT FOR BASINWIDE PLANNING AND TARGETING
IN NORTH CAROLINA (continued}
primary databases as possible in one network. Software will be
purchased: or written to bring about compatibility among existing
computer platforms/so that current hardware and data files can stilt b*
used. For databases that cannot be networked, other means will be
found to provide staff access, '"„','
This systems
-------
5. REFERENCES
CHAPTER 5
REFERENCES
Adler K. and M. Smolen. 1989. Selecting Priority Nonpoint Source
Projects: You Better Shop Around. EPA 506/2-89-003. EPA Office
of Water. August.
Barile, D. D., C. A. Panico, M. B. Corrigan, and M. Dombrowski.
1987. Estuarine Management -- The Indian River Lagoon. In Orville
T. Magoon, Hugh Converse, Dallas Miner, L. Thomas Tobin, Delores
Clark and George Domurat, eds. Coastal Zone '87, Vol. 1, pp.
237-249. NY: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Brichford, S. L. and M. D. Smolen. 1990. A Manager's Guide to NPS
Implementation Projects. North Carolina State University Water
Quality Group. Raleigh, North Carolina, October.
Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Fish and Wildlife 2000: Annual
Progress Report, Fiscal Year 1990. Washington, D.C.: U.S., Dept. of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Riparian-Wetlands Initiative for
the 1990's. BLM/WO/GI-91/001+4340. Washington, DC: USDOI,
Bureau of Land Management.
Butkus, S. and D. W. Anderson. 1989. Development of a Reservoir
Water Quality Index. Chattanooga: Tennessee Valley Authority.
Carol, D. S. 1987. New Jersey Pinelands Commission. In David J.
Brower and Daniel S. Carol, eds. Managing Land-Use Conflicts: Case
Studies in Special Area Management, pp. 185-219. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Cole, C. 1990. Ranking of Puget Sound Watersheds for the Control of
Nonpoint Source Pollution: An Evaluation Report. Prepared for Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority. Seattle, Washington.
Cooler, W. S. 1990. Report on Statewide Nonpoint Source Cluster
Ranking System. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Conservation
Commission for the Oklahoma Pollution Control Coordinating Board.
5-1
-------
5. REFERENCES
Cunningham, P. A., R. E. Williams, R. L. Chessin, J. M. McCarthy, K.
W. Gold, R. W. Pratt, and S. J. Stichter. 1992. Areawide Watershed
Planning in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System: Report 3 -
Toxics Analysis. Prepared by Research Triangle Institute for the
Albemarle/Pamlicp Estuary Study. A/P Project 92-04. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Dinius, S.H. 1987. Design of an Index of Water Quality. Water
Resources Bulletin, 23(5): 833-43.
Dodd, R. C., J. M. McCarthy, K. W. Little, P. A. Cunningham, and J.
M. Duffin. 1990. Background Paper: Use Support Assessment
Methods. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Research Triangle
Institute. Prepared for EPA Office of Water.
Dodd, R. C., G. McMahon, and S. Stichter. 1992. Areawide
Watershed Planning in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System:
Report 1 - Annual Average Nutrient Budgets. Prepared by Research
Triangle Institute for the Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary Study. A/P
Project 92-03. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Eldridge, J. 1990. Ecology of Northern Prairie Wetlands. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Leaf let 13(2.1). Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
EPA. 1988. State Clean Water Strategies: Meeting the Challenges of
the Future. Office of Water.
EPA. 1990. The Oregon Clean Water Strategy.
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
Washington, DC:
EPA. 1991 a. The Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview.
EPA/503/9-92-001. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1991b. Final Watershed Protection Framework Document.
Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1991c. Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL
Process. EPA 44/4-91-001. Office of Water.
EPA. 1991d. A Review of Methods for Assessing Nonpoint Source
Contaminated Ground-Water Discharge to Surface Water. EPA
570/9-91-010. Office of Ground-Water.
EPA. 1992b. Watershed Events: An EPA Bulletin on Integrated
Aquatic Ecosystems Protection. Office of Water.
5-2
-------
5. REFERENCES
EPA. 1992c. Kissimmee River Environmental Restoration. EPA News-
Notes, Number 18, January-February, pp. 1-18. Office of Water,
AWPD, Nonpoint Source Information Exchange.
EPA. 1993. Watershed Protection Approach: A Project Focus (draft).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
Eugster, J. G. 1989. Statewide River Assessments. In Jon A.
Kusler and Sally Daly, eds.. Proceedings of the International Wetland
Symposium: Wetlands and River Corridor Management, July 5-9,
1989, Charleston, South Carolina, pp. 470-473. Berne, NY:
Association of Wetland Managers.
Hammill, S. M., Jr., J. C. Keene, D. N. Kinsey, and R. K. Lewis.
1989. The Growth Management Handbook: A Primer for Citizen and
Government Planners. Princeton, NJ: The Middlesex Somerset
Mercer (MSM) Regional Council.
Hansen, P. and K. Merriman. 1992. Our Endangered River: Plight of
the Upper Mississippi. Outdoor America 57(1): 25-27.
Hession, W. C., J. M. Flagg, S. D. Wilson, R. W. Biddix, and V. O.
Shanholtz. 1992. Targeting Virginia's Nonpoint Source Programs.
Presented at the 1992 International Summer Meeting, Paper No. 92-
2092. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Ml.
Konrad, J. G., J. S. Baumann, and S. E. Bergquist. 1985. Nonpoint
Pollution Control: The Wisconsin Experience. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, Vol. 41, No. 1: pp. 55-61.
Kusler, J. A. 1983. Regulating Sensitive Lands: An Overview of
Programs. In James H. Carr and Edward E. Duensing, eds. Land Use
Issues of the 1980s. pp. 128- 153. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University, Center for Urban Policy Research.
Linstone, H. A., and M. Turoff. 1975. The DELPHI Method.
Reading: Addison- Wesley.
McHarg, I. L. 1971. Design With Nature. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday/Natural History Press.
Mantell, M. A., S. F. Harper and L. Propst. 1990. Creating
Successful Communities: A Guidebook to Growth Management
Strategies. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). 1990.
The State of the Anacostia: 1989 Status Report. Washington, DC:
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments for the Anacostia
Watershed Restoration Team.
5-3
-------
5. REFERENCES
MWCOG. 1992. Watershed Restoration Sourcebook. Washington,
DC: Prepared for the Anacostia Restoration Team.
Neumann, J. 1991. State Growth Management Legislation: A
Comparative Analysis of Legislative Approaches and Administrative
Provisions. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs, Princeton University.
New Jersey State Planning Commission. 1991. Communities of
Place: The Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan for
the State of New Jersey. Trenton: NJSPC and New Jersey Office of
State Planning.
Nichols, R. C., J. M. Duffin and J. M. McCarthy. 1990. Evaluation
of State Environmental Management and Resource Protection
Programs in the Albemarle-Pamlico Region. Prepared by Research
Triangle Institute for the A/P Estuary Study. A/P Project 90-01.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Omernik, J. M. and G. E. Griffith. 1991. Ecological regions versus
hydrologic units: Frameworks for managing water quality. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 46, No. 5: pp. 334- 340.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1988. 1988 Oregon
Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution.
Portland: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Ott, W. R. 1978. Environmental Indices: Theory and Practice. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991. Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Plan. Seattle, Washington.
Sargent, F. O. 1976. Rural Environmental Planning. Burlington:
University of Vermont.
Shanholtz, V. O., et al. 1991. Agricultural Pollution Potential
Database for Peaks of Otter (Bedford County) Soil and Water
Conservation District. Interim Report ISSL 91-4. Blacksburg,
Virginia: Agricultural Engineering Department, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
State of New York. 1990. The Adirondacks in the Twenty-First
Century. Albany: State of New York, Commission on the
Adirondacks in the Twenty-First Century.
5-4
-------
5. REFERENCES
Tippett, J. P. 1992. TMDL Case Study: Nomini Creek Watershed.
Prepared by Research Triangle Institute for EPA Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
November, 1992.
Thrall, G. I., and J. W. McCartney. 1991. Keeping the Garbage Out:
Using the DELPHI Method for GIS Criteria. Geo Info Systems:
Application of GIS and Related Spatial Information Technologies,
January 1991: pp. 46-52.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Operation Plan: Long Term
Resource Monitoring Program for the Upper Mississippi River System.
Report Number 91-02. Environmental Management Technical Center.
Onalaska, Wisconsin: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wagner, S. 1990. Bottomland Hardwoods. Outdoor Oklahoma
Special Bottomlands Hardwoods Issue. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1986.
Nonpoint Source Pollution: Where to Go with the Flow. Susan
Bergquist, Editor. Department of Natural Resources Special Report.
Madison, Wisconsin.
WDNR. 1992. Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report to
Congress 1992. Publication Publ-WR254-92. Madison, Wisconsin.
5-5
-------
-------
-------
------- |