FOREWORD
This document was originally prepared by Jackie Little and David L. Eskew of
TN&Associates, Inc. for U.S. EPA, ORD, NCEA, under contract no. 68-C6-0024. The
report was edited and revised by Joseph P. Schubauer-Berigan, Randall J.F. Bruins,
and Victor B. Serveiss of U.S. EPA, ORD, NCEA. The document outlines and reviews
the various types of information used in 10 different watershed assessments. Data
tables are included that describe the data types, sources of data, data reliability, and
study contacts as well as other information used in each of the 10 assessments. The
document summarizes how the information was collected, used and evaluated by each
of the 10 watershed assessments and outlines some of the types and sources of data
that are available. The purpose of this report is to provide those conducting watershed
ecological assessments with an introduction to the types and sources of information that
are available and have been used by others in conducting such assessments. This
document is intended for ecologists, hydrologists, biologists, geologists, engineers and
water resource managers seeking assistance on gathering, organizing and analyzing
data to improve the use of sound science in watershed scale decision making.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. STUDY OBJECTIVES 1
1.2. BACKGROUND: THE IMPORTANCE OF WATERSHED
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 1
1.3. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT 5
2. DATA SOURCES FOR WATERSHED RISK ASSESSMENT 6
2.1. WATERSHED/SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY 6
2.2. STREAM REACHES 7
2.3. OTHER WATER BODIES 8
2.4. MAJOR ROADS, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES 8
2.5. BEDROCK/GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 9
2.6. PRECIPITATION, EVAPORATION AND WIND SPEED 9
2.7. NPDES OUTFALLS (EFFLUENT LOCATION AND
CONCENTRATION) 9
2.8. FLOW GAUGING AND/OR STREAM GRADIENT 10
2.9. STREAM USE, WATER SUPPLY INTAKE AND REGULATED
FLOW STRUCTURES 11
2.10. STREAM WATER QUALITY 12
2.11. STREAM SUBSTRATE, STREAM BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES 13
2.12. ENDANGERED SPECIES 13
2.13, WETLANDS 13
2.14. RIPARIAN CHARACTERISTICS 14
2.15, SOIL CHARACTERISTICS 14
2.16. LAND USE/LAND COVER 15
2.17. SUPERFUND SITES/LANDFILLS 15
2.18. LOCAL POPULATION ESTIMATES 15
3. METHODS FOR SELECTING AND ANALYZING TEN EXAMPLE
WATERSHED STUDIES 17
3.1. GENERAL APPROACH 17
3.2. WATERSHED SELECTION 17
3.3. DEVELOPING THE MATRIX 21
4. OVERVIEW OF TEN EXAMPLE WATERSHED STUDIES 25
4.1. MIDDLE SNAKE RIVER 25
1
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont.
Page
-^^
«
4.1.1. Location 25
4.1.2. Study Goals 25
4.1.3. Study Methods and Status 25
4.2. MIDDLE PLATTE RIVE FLOODPLAIN 28
4.2.1. Location 28
4.2.2. Study Goals 28
4.2.3. Study Methods and Status 29
4.3. WAQUOIT BAY 29
4.3.1. Location 29
4.3.2. Study Goals 29
4.3.3. Study Methods and Status 29
4.4. CLINCH RIVER VALLEY 31
4.4.1. Location 31
4.4.2. Study Goals 33
4.4.3. Study Methods and Status 34
4.5. BIG DARBY CREEK 36
4.5.1. Location 36
4.5.2. Study Goals 36
4.5.3. Study Methods and Status 38
4.6. LAKE CHELAN 38
4.6.1. Location 38
4.6.2. Study Goals 40
4.6.3. Study Methods and Status 40
4.7. WEST FORK CLEAR CREEK 42
4.7.1. Location 42
4.7.2. Study Goals 42
4.7.3. Study Methods and Status 42
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont.
4.8. INDIAN/DEADWOOD WATERSHED 43
4.8.1. Location 43
4.8.2. Study Goals 43
4.8.3. Study Methods and Status 43
4.9. EDISTO RIVER BASIN 45
4.9.1. Location 45
4.9.2, Study Goals 47
4.9.3, Study Methods and Status 47
4.10. LAKE MENDOTA 48
4.10.1. Location 48
4.10.2. Study Goals 48
4.10.3. Study Methods and Status 48
5. SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES FOR TEN EXAMPLE WATERSHED
STUDIES 51
5.1. WATERSHED/SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY 51
5.2. STREAM REACHES 51
5.3. OTHER WATER BODIES 52
5.4. MAJOR ROADS, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES 52
5.5. BEDROCK/GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 52
5.6. PRECIPITATION, EVAPORATION AND WIND SPEED 53
5.7. NPDES OUTFALLS (EFFLUENT LOCATION AND
CONCENTRATION) 53
5.8. FLOW GAUGING AND/OR STREAM GRADIENT 54
5.9. STREAM USE, WATER SUPPLY INTAKE, AND REGULATED
FLOW STRUCTURES 54
5.10. STREAM WATER QUALITY 54
5.11. STREAM SUBSTRATE, STREAM BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES 55
5.12. FISH HATCHERIES 55
5.13. ENDANGERED SPECIES 55
5.14. WETLANDS 55
5.15. RIPARIAN CHARACTERISTICS 55
5.16. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS 55
5.17. LAND USE/LAND COVER 56
5.18. SUPERFUND SITES/LANDFILLS 56
5.19. LOCAL POPULATION ESTIMATES 56
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont
Page
6. REFERENCES 57
7. GLOSSARY 61
APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF INFORMATION USED IN THE WATERSHED
STUDIES A-1
APPENDIX B INFORMATION SUMMARY BY WATERSHED B-1
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Keywords Used for Electronic Literature Search 20
2 Contacts for Each Watershed Study 22
A-1 Information Used in the Watershed Studies A-2
B-1 Information Summary for the Middle Snake River B-2
B-2 Information Summary for the Middle Platte River Floodplain B-5
B-3 Information Summary forWaquoit Bay B-7
B-4 Information Summary for the Clinch Valley B-9
B-5 Information Summary for Big Darby Creek B-11
B-6 Information Summary for Lake Chelan B-13
B-7 Information Summary for West Fork Clear Creek B-15
B-8 Information Summary for the Indian/deadwood Watershed B-18
B-9 Information Summary for Edisto River Basin B-22
B-10 Information Summary for Lake Mendota B-25
VIII
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LIST OF FIGURES
He
Map Showing the Location of the Watersheds Selected for Study .................... 19
Map of the Middle Snake River Study Site [[[ 26
Map of the Waquoit Bay Study Site [[[ 30
Map of the Clinch River Valley Study Site [[[ 32
Map of the Big Darby Creek Study Site [[[ 37
Map of the Lake Chelan Study Site [[[ 39
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFS AIRS Facility Subsystem
AIRS Aeromatic Information Retrieval System
ARS Agricultural Research Service
BASINS Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMP Best Management Practices
CCC Cape Cod Commission
CDH Colorado Department of Health
CDNR Colorado Department of Natural Resources
CDW Colorado Department of Wildlife
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CFF cartographic feature file
cfs cubic feet per second
CWA Clean Water Act
CWQCD Colorado Water Quality Control Division
CWQS Colorado Water Quality Standards
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DLG Digital Line Graph
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOC Department of Commerce
DOE (Washington State) Department of Ecology
DOH Department of Health
DOW Division of Wildlife
DWR Department of Water Resources
EROS Earth Resources Observation Systems
ESDLS EPA Spatial Data Library System
ESRl Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
GAP Gap Analysis Program
GICS Grants Information and Control System
GIRAS Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System
GIS geographic information system
GLIS Global Land Information System
GPS global positioning system
HUC hydrologic unit cycle
IBI Index of Biological Integrity
ICI Invertebrate Community Index
IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources
I HA Indicators of Hydrological Activity
IR infrared
MIWB Modified Index of Well-Being
MSS multispectral scanner
t
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS cont.
t
NAPP National Aerial Photography Program
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NHAP National High Altitude Program
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRDSS Natural Resources Decision Support System
NSDI National Spatial Database Infrastructure
NSLRSDA National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive
NTIS National Technical Information Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NWQA National Water Quality Assessment
NWS National Weather Service
OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCS Permit Compliance System
POC Pollutants Of Concern
P&PF Planning & Problem Formulation Reports
RCRIS Resources Conservation and Recovery Information System
RF1 Reach File Version 1.0
SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SCWRC South Carolina Water Resources Commission
SDLS Spatial Data Library System
STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database
STORE! Storage and Retrieval of U.S. Waterways Parametric Data
TDML total daily maximum limit
T&E threatened and endangered
TIGER Topologicalty Integrated Georeferenced Encoding System
TM thematic mapper
TP total phosphorus
TRIS Toxic Release Inventory System
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
USAGE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOI United States Department of the Interior
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
XI
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS cont.
USNPS United States National Park Service
VADEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
WATSTORE Water Data Storage and Retrieval System
WBLMER Waquoit Bay Land Margin Ecosystems Research
WBNERR Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WERA Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
WQCD Water Quality Control Division
WSDOE Washington State Department of Ecology
t
XII
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our thanks go out to the many individuals that took time from their busy
schedules to provide us with maps and information that made this document possible.
They include Carolyn Rumery Betz, Steve Butkus, Pat Cirone, Chris Crofford, Jerry
Diamond, Bob Fenemore, Maggie Geist, William Marshall, Susan Norton, Marc Smith,
Craig Snider, Pamela Wright, John Yearsley and Bruce Zander. In addition, we
appreciate the thoughtful reviews and helpful suggestions provided by the following
indviduals: Kay Austin, Carolyn Rumery Betz, Jerry Diamond, Bob Fenemore, Christine
Gault, William Marshall, Susan Norton, Mike Troyer, John Yearsley and Bruce Zander.
xiii
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. STUDY OBJECTIVES
This report is intended to assist watershed assessors in the gathering of
information for watershed ecological risk assessments. Ecological risk assessment can
improve the monitoring and assessment process in watershed scale evaluations and
add scientific rigor to management decisions. Using this approach, environmental
managers can better protect environmental resources by accurately and efficiently
prioritizing and managing environmental risk. One important aspect of the watershed
ecological risk assessment process is the collection of many different types of
watershed information, a sometimes daunting task. By examining 10 watershed
assessments in various stages of development, this report demonstrates by example
how other assessors have approached the data collection problem. Information on the
types of data collected and the data sources used is compiled and summarized.
1.2. BACKGROUND: THE IMPORTANCE OF WATERSHED ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT
Streams, lakes, rivers, estuaries, groundwater and other aquatic resources are
among our most valuable assets. They support a wide range of human activities. They
are an important source of drinking water and water for agriculture, industrial and
recreational activities. They also have important ecological values. Besides comprising
critical habitat for countless species of animals and plants, they also provide important
ecological services, such as degrading and detoxifying toxic chemicals and nontoxic
organic wastes. Perhaps most importantly, by transforming and transporting chemicals,
nutrients, sediments and other elements, these waters provide critical links within and
1
-------
between landscapes and ecosytems. Surface and ground waters also link impacts from
human activities in watersheds to adverse effects in rivers, lakes and estuaries down
gradient and potentially far removed from the source of the impacts.
Great strides have been made in reducing loads of a number of Pollutants Of
Concern (POC) to lakes, rivers, estuaries and groundwater over the past 20 years.
Much of this progress has been achieved through legislation and enforcement that has
focused on specific industries and point sources of pollution. Although this approach
has been highly successful, particularly for toxic chemicals, the quality of aquatic
habitats in many parts of the United States is still declining (U.S. EPA, 2000a). For
instance, the 1994 U.S. EPA National Water Quality Inventory indicated that 23% of
streams, 43% of lakes and 47% of estuaries surveyed were listed as impaired. In
comparison, the 1998 survey (U.S. EPA, 2000b) indicated an increase in two of three
of these categories (35% of streams and 45% of lakes listed as impaired) and little
change in the third (44% of estuaries listed as impaired). Finally, evidence from the
recent NOAA Estuarine Eutrophication Survey (Bricker et al., 1999) indicates that 89%
of the U.S. coastal estuaries show signs of impairment.
It is increasingly clear that a larger-scale watershed approach that addresses
changing land use patterns, habitat alteration and loss, non-point source pollution, over
enrichment, hydrologic modification, and sedimentation is necessary to prevent further
degradation of public water resources. The Watershed Approach, a larger scale
approach that is organized around the guiding principles of partnerships, geographic
focus, and management based on sound science and data, is being used more
frequently to address environmental problems (U.S. EPA, 1996g). In contrast to the
pollutant-by-pollutant approaches of the past, the Watershed Approach incorporates a
-------
comprehensive strategy which enables the interested parties who must live with
environmental decisions to participate in making them. This is especially important since
watersheds usually cross political boundaries. The Watershed Approach seeks to
involve local government, users of watershed resources, environmental groups, those
believed to be causing environmental problems and the public in the process of
developing solutions to problems. This approach ensures that participants better
understand problems, identify with and accept goals, select priorities and choose and
implement solutions.
Once the partnerships and hydrologic boundaries are established for watershed
management, the challenge is to incorporate sound science into the watershed
management process. This is difficult because multiple physical, chemical and
biological stressors resulting from multiple human activities impact numerous ecological
resources, through a network of inter-related environmental conditions. In addition,
political, economic and social factors based on subjective value judgments also are
usually part of the decision process.
Ecological risk assessment is a process to collect, organize, analyze and present
scientific information to improve the use of science in decision making. U.S. EPA's Risk
Assessment Forum developed a general ecological risk assessment methodology,
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992), and subsequently
expanded the guidance in Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S.
EPA, 1996a) which was finalized in 1998 (Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment,
U.S. EPA, 1998). These documents define ecological risk assessment as a process for
organizing and analyzing data, information, assumptions, and uncertainties to evaluate
the likelihood that one or more stressors are causing or will cause adverse ecological 4fc
9
-------
t
effects. Briefly, the risk paradigm has three analytical components: problem
formulation, analysis, and risk characterization. During problem formulation, the
assessors, in an active dialog with risk managers and other interested parties
(stakeholders), consider what is known and not known about a problem and its setting,
while explicitly addressing uncertainty. It is during this phase that an attempt is made to
integrate the available information, develop a conceptual model, establish assessment
endpoints and devise an analysis plan. During the Analysis Phase, an attempt is made
to characterize both exposure to stressors and ecological effects. Characterization of
exposure and effects includes technical analysis and evaluation of stressor-response
relationships of ecological receptors. During the first two phases of the process, data
required for the assessment are acquired and the results of the assessment are
monitored. These processes are completed iteratively as needed. During the final
phase of the assessment, the Risk Characterization Phase, risks are estimated,
described and communicated to the risk managers and stakeholders. Key to the
success of the process is keeping the process transparent and maintaining an active
dialog between the risk assessors and managers and the stakeholders.
Ecological risk assessment has been applied successfully and extensively in
source- and pollutant-based approaches (such as those focused on particular chemical
contaminants), yet its place-based applications (such as those conducted on a
watershed-wide scale) are still limited (U.S. EPA, 2000a). General guidance for
applying ecological risk assessment in a watershed context is currently being developed
(e.g. see Serveiss et al., 2000). In these larger scale risk assessments, the analytical
focus shifts to hydrologically defined drainage basins rather than politically defined
boundaries or individual point-sources. Analysis at the watershed scale includes all the
-------
land that drains into a stream, lake, estuary, wetland, or other water-body, thus ^^
integrating all the activities that occur within the watershed. In large river basins such
as the Mississippi, using a hydrologically driven analysis allows aquatic risks to be
evaluated and managed in an integrated manner even when the cause and effects of
the impacts are separated by large distances (e.g., eutrophication of estuaries, coral
reefs and other coastal habitats). This approach also provides a basis for management
of complex multi-state, multimedia (air, land, and water), multi-stressor environmental
issues. Ideally, ecological risk assessment applied hierarchically within the spatial
context of watersheds, landscapes and regional basins should better protect aquatic
resources.
Watershed Risk Ecological Assessment (WERA) integrates the collective
benefits of the Watershed Approach and Ecological Risk Assessment to improve the
use of science in watershed scale decision making. The approach provides watershed
management groups with a logical and systematic method to incorporate scientific
information into decision making (Serveiss et al.t 2000) and places an increased
emphasis on community involvement (U.S. EPA, 1996b,g, 1997a,b). Use of WERA I
should encourage scientists and resource managers at the local, state, and federal
levels to form partnerships, which can be used to identify and manage risks and help
insure the protection and sustainabilty of healthily, viable, watersheds.
1.3. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
Section 2 of this report presents and explains the primary information sources,
including World Wide Web addresses, for the key categories of information needed for
most watershed ecological risk assessments. Used in conjunction with Appendix A,
t
-------
I
Section 2 constitutes a useful reference for the acquisition of watershed data; the
remainder of the report serves as supporting information.
Section 3 explains the steps that were followed in selecting, acquiring and
analyzing the 10 watershed studies that serve as the basis for this report.
Section 4 provides background information on each of the 10 watershed studies,
to allow an appreciation of their variety in terms of physical setting, purpose and
approach. The same information, with additional detail, is presented in tabular format in
Appendix B.
Section 5 summarizes the approaches used by the 10 watershed studies to
address each of the key information categories. The same information, with additional
detail, is presented in tabular format in Appendix A.
Section 6 lists references to literature cited in the report.
Section 7 contains a glossary of terms related to watershed data acquisition
(refer also to the front-matter listing of Acronyms and Abbreviations).
2. DATA SOURCES FOR WATERSHED RISK ASSESSMENT
Section 2 of this report presents and explains the primary information sources,
including World Wide Web addresses, for the key categories of information needed for
most watershed ecological risk assessments.
2.1. WATERSHED/SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY
A watershed is the area of land in which rainfall drains to a common point. It is a
fundamental management unit that federal and state agencies are using to protect and
restore aquatic ecosystems. A common approach for watershed boundary delineation
is the use of hydrologic unit maps {Seaber et al., 1987). The coverage is available
online from metadata file links, at no charge, in Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS)
-------
format and in ARC/INFO Export format. It may be retrieved as a single file for the entire ^^
United States or by water resources region. The data for this coverage was originally
collected for the Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS) to
provide the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) study units with an intermediate-scale river basin boundary. The data sets
are intended to support watershed analysis within U.S. EPA and may be accessed
using U.S. EPA's BASINS 2.0 watershed analysis system. This system provides users
(with ESRI's ArcView® software) with the capability of performing rapid subwatershed
delineations on-screen using a digital elevation model (DEM) display and a mouse.
Another method of delineating watershed boundaries from a DEM basemap has been
developed for the Texas environmental regulatory agency (the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission). The application is being developed by ESRI
(http://www.esri. com/) and the University of Texas using ArcView Version 3.0 with the
Spatial Analyst extension.
2.2. STREAM REACHES
U.S. EPA's Reach Files are a series of national hydrologic databases that
uniquely identify and interconnect the stream segments that comprise the country's
surface water drainage system. Reach delineation is important in watershed analysis
because the attributes which define connectivity also provide hydrologic ordering of
stream locations. This allows the user to know what is upstream and downstream of a
given point in the stream network. The three versions of the Reach File (RF1, RF2,
RF3-Alpha) were created from increasingly detailed sets of digital hydrography data
produced by USGS. U.S. EPA enhanced these datasets by assigning a unique
identifier to each stream segment (i.e., the Reach Code). The codes provide a common
t
-------
I
t
nomenclature for federal and state reporting as required under the Clean Water Act.
Reach File Version 1.0 (RF1) supports broad-based national applications. Reach File
Version 2.0 (RF2) added a new level of reaches to RF1. Development of Reach File
Version 3.0-Alpha (RF3-Alpha) is currently underway. It will provide a more
comprehensive, nationally consistent, hydrologic database consisting of both spatial and
attribute data. Currently, data in the RF3-Alpha file is unvalidated and the developers
recommend that a conservative approach be taken when processing and applying these
data. The unique reach code assigned to each reach has been linked to several U.S.
EPA national databases, (e.g., STORET, http://www.epa.QOv/QWOW/STORET/). Water
Quality Sampling Sites, Municipal and Industrial Facility Discharges, and Drinking Water
Intakes). Files RF1 and RF2 may be accessed using U.S. EPA's BASINS 2.0
watershed analysis system (http://www.epa.gov/ost/basins/Qisdata.htmi).
2.3. OTHER WATER BODIES
Other water bodies refers to waters other than streams and rivers, such as lakes
or wetlands. Sources of wetland data are discussed below in Section 2.13. Complete
digital line graph (DLG) hydrography data coverage of the United States is available at
both the 1:250,000 scale and the 1:2,000,000 scale from USGS
(http://water.usQs.gov/data.html). "Cartographic Feature Files" are also used to
delineate other water bodies.
2.4. MAJOR ROADS, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
Both small scale (coarse resolution) mapping from the National Highway
Planning Network (1:2,000,000) and larger-scale (finer resolution) DLGs (1:1,000,000
and 1:250,000) from the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing System, or TIGER data (from the U.S. Census Bureau,
8
-------
http://tiaer.census.gov/) are available to delineate major roads and municipal ^^
boundaries.
2.5. BEDROCK/GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
The underground flow of water can be an important analytical component in
watershed studies. In many locations, underground flow (base flow) can account for a
significant portion of the downstream river flow. The primary source for base flow
information is USGS open-file reports (http://water.usas.gov/ogw/). However, when
groundwater is a significant pathway, additional information is usually required, such as
an intensive, site specific mapping and monitoring effort.
2.6. PRECIPITATION, EVAPORATION AND WIND SPEED
Meteorological data are available from NOAA
fhttp://www.nws.noaa.,qov/oso/fospage.shtmI) and the USGS (http://water.usgs.Qoy/).
One online source which has compiled data from the National Climatic Data Center
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/) archives, state climatologists, and published literature is
the Historical Climatology Network (HCN), available at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory web site (www.orni.gov). This data set extends through 1994 and reports
monthly total precipitation and temperature data from 1219 weather stations that have
at least 80 years of data collection. The information is searchable by state.
2.7. NPDES OUTFALLS (EFFLUENT LOCATION AND CONCENTRATION)
The Non-point Discharge Emission Standards (NPDES) program
fhttp://www.epa.aov/OWM/aen2.htrn) was established by the Clean Water Act. The Act
makes it illegal to discharge pollutants from a point source into surface waters without a
permit. Regulated by U.S. EPA, NPDES permits define compliance monitoring and
reporting requirements and establish site-specific discharge limits. NPDES permits
t
t
-------
9
9
regulate sanitary waste, toxic pollutants, and other pollutants such as nitrogen. To
ensure compliance by NPDES permit-holders, U.S. EPA reviews permit data and
inspects discharge points.
To track NPDES permit information, Permit Compliance System (PCS) was
developed in 1974. PCS is a national management information system containing data
from issued NPDEiS permits and NPDES-permitted facilities. PCS tracks the issuance,
limits, and monitoring data of NPDES permits. The PCS database can be accessed
from the U.S. EPA web site (http://www.epa.gov/owm/npdes.htm). A PCS Query Form
and User's Guide is provided.
2.8. FLOW GAUGING AND/OR STREAM GRADIENT
Stream velocity, gradient, and discharge are components of baseline water
quality. Velocity (cm/s) is measured in terms of the distance water travels in a unit of
time. Gradient (cm/km), or slope of the stream bed, is one of the determining factors of
velocity. Discharge is the quantity of water that passes a given point in a unit of time
(cfs). The most common source for flow information is the USGS open-file reports. The
Water Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE,
(http://ak.water.ysQS.gov/Publirations/Water-^ is an online
national database maintained by the USGS that contains historic and current stream
flow data. Processed records from the WATSTORE data base are available online in
the Hydro-Climatic Data Network (HCDN,
(http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usaswrd/hcdn.htrnl} for the period 1874 to 1988
(Slack and Landwehr, 1998). Each of the 1659 sites has daily, monthly, and annual
mean discharge values, and minimum and maximum values.
10
-------
2.9. STREAM USE, WATER SUPPLY INTAKE AND REGULATED FLOW
STRUCTURES
Stream use describes impairments caused by both point and non-point sources
according to stream reach. The Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Water Quality Report
and database prepared by states is a common source for this information (see
http://www.epa.Qov/ow/states.htmn. Section 305(b) requires each state to prepare
biennial drinking water use assessment reports. Reports are collected and sent to
Congress by U.S. EPA. Each report assesses the proportion of water sources that
meet their drinking water designated use, the pollutants that inhibit designated uses,
and pollutant sources. U.S. EPA's Waterbody System (WBS) is a state and national
database that stores drinking water use assessment information for waterbody units.
The WBS is useful in the preparation of Section 305(b) reports. The WBS waterbody
categories include estuaries, lakes, rivers, shorelines, and wetlands.
Geocoding locations of waterbodies and their segments with the U.S. EPA
Reach File Version 3.0 (RF3) aids in the development of a CIS that can be used for the
Section 305(b) reporting process, spatial analyses, and modeling pollutant fate and
transport processes. States can use the PC Reach File (PCRF) or ARCINFO software
to create CIS layers of waterbody locations. Once GIS coverages are indexed or linked
to RF3 subsets, a desktop mapping software such as ArcView GIS can be used to view,
manipulate, query, and analyze the data. Geocoding waterbodies to RF3 is a state
task.
t
11
-------
*
f
2.10. STREAM WATER QUALITY
Stream water quality is an essential component of a baseline monitoring
program. The watershed studies follow a general pattern of piecing together available
data from all available federal {STORET), state, and university sources.
STORET (http://www.epa.QOv/OWOW/STOREm U.S. EPA's largest
environmental data STOrage and RETrieval system, contains parametric data from the
U.S. Water Quality System and data from biological field surveys, stream flow, and
geographical data. There are several methods of accessing STORET data. Individuals
or companies can invest in a private account, a request may be submitted through the
Freedom of Information Act, temporary access may be granted to contractors, U.S. EPA
approved access for non-U.S. EPA government agencies may be approved, and access
may be granted for U.S. EPA employees. Contact STORET User Assistance at
1-800-424-9067 for help on requesting data and for information on STORET user
training, or send an email to STQREI@epa.ggy.
U.S. EPA first released BASINS, Better Assessment Science Integrating Point
and Nonpoint Sources, in September 1996. Developed in ArcView GIS, the BASINS
system integrates national spatial, environmental monitoring, and point source data with
assessment, environmental interpretation, and modeling tools. BASINS is used to
evaluate watersheds, water quality, and point and non-point sources. BASINS includes
data on water quality monitoring, bacteria monitoring, fish and wildlife advisories, and
the Clean Water Needs Survey. Sites contributing point source data include IFD,
Superfund's National Priorities List (NPL), PCS, and the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Information System (RCRIS). Some of the spatial data integrated with
BASINS includes state and county boundaries, roads, hydrologic unit boundaries, soils,
12
-------
elevation data, federal and Indian lands, RF1 and RF3, land use, land cover, and urban
areas. BASINS 2.0 can be downloaded from the U.S. EPA web site at
www.epa.gov/OST/BASINS.
2.11. STREAM SUBSTRATE, STREAM BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
Stream substrate and biological community data are endpoints in many
watershed assessments and are fundamental components of a baseline monitoring
program. Ideally, sampling sites should measure both water quality parameters and
aquatic biological communities at the same location. Monitoring is frequently conducted
by states, and data availability varies by state and locality.
2.12. ENDANGERED SPECIES
Locations and habitat requirements of threatened and endangered species are
frequently considered in watershed assessments. Locational data generally are
available from Natural Heritage programs (http://www.heritage.tnc.ore;/) in state
government and in recovery plans developed by the USFWS
(http://endangered.fws.gov/recoverv/index.html). Often exact locations are not known,
particularly in remote areas, or they are considered too sensitive for publication. In the
latter case, known locations are described by county.
2.13. WETLANDS
The most common source of information used for delineating wetlands is the
1989 National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP,
http://edc.usQs.Qov/glis/hyper/Quide/napp). based on National Wetlands Inventory (NWI,
http://www.nwi.fws.QOv/) classification (Cowardin et al.t 1979). Attributes include
flooding regimes and wetland type. Another source for wetland maps is the wetland
inventory conducted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
13
t
-------
s
t
t
Aerial photography is available from the National High Altitude Photography
(NHAP) program. From 1980 to 1986, cloud-free aerial photographs of the 48
contiguous United States were taken centered on 7.5 minute quadrangle maps at
40,000 feet. The NHAP was later renamed the NAPP. Aerial photographs for NAPP
were taken at 20,000 feet altitude centered on maps that were one-quarter of a 7.5
minute quadrangle. Photographs are in black-and-white or color infrared. The goal of
NAPP is to cover the United States on a 5-year cycle. The spatial resolution of
NAPP/NHAP film is 1 to 2 meters. Original and working master archives are maintained
by the EROS Data Center (http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/eros-home.html). Sioux Falls,
South Dakota, and by the USDA Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO,
http://www.apfo.usda.gov/).
2.14. RIPARIAN CHARACTERISTICS
The riparian zone is a distinct ecosystem that forms at the waters edge. It is
periodically inundated by high water and influences the stream ecosystem. The
riparian zone can be mapped from remote sensing data and aerial photographs.
2.15. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil data provide baseline information for the calculation of potential sediment
load. Sediment load is frequently identified as a stressor. It can impair or eliminate fish
habitat, impair water quality for municipal and agricultural use, increase stream
temperature, and reduce intergravel dissolved oxygen.
The primary source for soils data is county soil survey maps developed by the
SCS (now NRCS, http://www.ncg.nrcs.usda.QOv/nsdi_node.html). They were mapped
at the 1:20,000 scale. The soil survey maps were generalized and digitized and are
available at 1:250,000 for the United States in the State Soil Geographic Data Base
14
-------
(STATSGO, http://water.usQS.QOv/GIS/nietadata/usQswrd/ussoils.htmn. Attributes for
each map unit include soil composition, soil properties, and interpretations. The
STATSGO database is not detailed enough to make interpretations for local areas in a
county. It is appropriate for the regional, multi-county, or river basin scale. NRCS Field
Office Technical Guides (county level) are also sources of information for non-point
source best management practices (BMPs).
2.16. LAND USE/LAND COVER
Regional land use/land cover data provide useful background information about a
watershed. The most common source is the Land Use Data Analysis (LUDA) Program
(USGS), which collected data in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The source materials
were black-and-white NHAP, collected at 1:80,000, and compiled at 1:125,000. Another
land cover classification effort, the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP,
http://www.csc.noaa.aov/ccap/V is in the process of mapping groundcover along the
nation's coastal zone using a combination of satellites, aircraft, and field work.
Groundcover being classified includes forested areas, wetlands, submerged lands, and
all areas in between. The U.S. EPA also maintains a National GIS Spatial Data Base
(http://www.epa.gov/ngispr/).
2.17. SUPERFUND SITES/LANDFILLS
Information about Superfund Sites and their locations can be obtained from the
U.S. EPA Superfund Program (http://www.epa.gov/suDerfund/index.htm).
2.18. LOCAL POPULATION ESTIMATES
The TIGER Mapping Service (U.S. Census Bureau, http://tiger.census.aov/) is
the most common source of Census statistical data. The categories of data contained
in TIGER include states, counties, highways (labeled), streets (no labels or addresses),
15
s
t
-------
s
some parks, congressional districts, railroads, tracts and block groups, rivers, water
bodies, military sites, and Indian reservations.
t
16
-------
3. METHODS USED FOR SELECTING AND ANALYZING TEN EXAMPLE
WATERSHED STUDIES
3.1. GENERAL APPROACH
This study extracted and compiled information about the data sets and data
sources used for 10 watershed risk assessments in an effort to identify, compare and
contrast data sources that can be used in the Problem Formulation and Analysis phases
of a generic watershed ecological risk assessment. The study was organized into three
phases. Phase one included: selection of the study sites; gathering, comprehensive
review and categorization of supporting documentation; and development of a data
matrix in which the first dimension was the information category and the second
dimension was a series of issues or questions related to that information category. In
phase two of the study, a data matrix was filled out for each site by reviewing available
documents. The final phase of the study, included revising each data matrix based on
in-depth interviews with the individuals who worked on the assessment and returning
the completed information summary and matrix to the study manager for verification. In
preparing the summary data matrix, special attention was given to emphasizing any
difficulties that were encountered, such as lack of information on critical categories, poor
quality of information, and information bias. The completed matrix is presented as
Appendix A; additional information on each watershed study is compiled as Appendix B.
3.2. WATERSHED SELECTION
A total of 10 watershed ecological assessments were selected. Five were under
study by the U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Forum and reports had been completed
s
S
17
-------
t
t
I
covering the planning and problem formulation (P&PF) phase at the time the current
study was initiated. The WERAs include Big Darby Creek, OH
(http://www.epa.gov/ncea/bigdarby.htm): Clinch River Valley, VA
(http://research.esd.ornl.gov/CRERP/INDEX.HTM): Waquiot Bay Estuary, MA
(http://www.capecod.net/waquoit/era.htm): Middle Platte River Floodplain, NE; and
Middle Snake River, ID (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/midsnake.htrn) (Figure 1). A literature
search was conducted to help identify 5 additional watershed ecological assessments
for analysis (Figure 1). Abstracts found in following databases and time ranges were
examined: Enviroline from 1970 to November, 1997; NTIS from 1964 to 1997; Pollution
Abstracts from 1970 to November 1997; Aquatic Sciences Fisheries Abstracts from
1978 to November 1997; Federal Research in Progress (FEDRIP) up to October 1997;
Dissertation Abstracts Online from 1961 to December, 1997; and Conference Papers
Index from 1973 to 1997. The keywords used to search the literature were separated
into four major subject categories; physical setting, biological resources, waterbody, and
landuse (Table 1). The search strategy required that one term from each of the four
categories be found in the title, key words, or abstract of the database record. The
search of Enviroline, NTIS, Pollution Abstracts, and Aquatic Sciences Fisheries
Abstracts yielded a total of 514 "hits", and the search of FEDRIP, Dissertation Abstracts,
and Conference Papers Index yielded 22 "hits". From the 536 "hits", the second set of
five watershed assessments were selected based on the following criteria: study area at
the watershed spatial scale, use of an integrative analytical approach at the watershed
scale, methodology with an analytical component that has been described in the
literature, use of a Geographical Information System (GIS), unique environments or
18
-------
111
a:
ID
^
U.
t
f
-------
t
I
s
Map showing the location of the watersheds selected for study. The 5 U.S. EPA Risk
Assessment Forum WERA sites are represented by stars and the 5 additional sites
indicated by the circles.
regions of the United States not represented in the WERAs, and involvement of local,
state, or federal authorities.
TABLE 1
Key Words Used for Electronic Literature Search
Physical Setting
watershed
basin
drainage
landscape
Biological
Resources
ecosystem
biodiversity
aquatic ecology
ecoregion
ecological risk
assessment
Waterbody
river
floodplain
estuary
geomorphology
Land Use
land use
management
water quality
The five additional watershed case studies identified for analysis from the
process described above were (Figure 1):
• two state studies, Edisto River Basin, South Carolina
(http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/water/envaff/ri^^ and
Lake Mendota, Wisconsin
(http://www.dnr.state.wi. us/ora/water/wm/nps/pdf/mendota,ps,pQ'f):
two Total Maximum Daily Lead (TMDL) studies, West Fork Clear Creek,
Colorado (http://www.epa.gQV/OWQW/tmdl/cs3/cs3.htm). and Lake
Chelan, Washington (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/trndl/cs11/cs11 .htm):
and
20
-------
one USFS study, Indian/Deadwood, Oregon
(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw/).
3.3. DEVELOPING THE MATRIX
Once the 10 watersheds were selected, supporting documentation was obtained
from the primary contact (Table 2). After a comprehensive review of these documents,
information contained in each study was categorized for entry into a data matrix
presented as Table A-1. The first dimension of the matrix was the information category,
and the second dimension was a series of issues or questions related to that
information category. Information categories, which appear in Table A-1 as bolded,
upper-case titles dividing the rows, are of two types: base mapping requirements and
analytical data. Base mapping coverages included a geographic management unit (i.e.,
river basin, watershed boundary, subwatershed boundary), major hydrology (i.e., map
of stream reaches, other waterbodies), major roads, and political boundaries (i.e.,
county, municipal). Analytical data included bedrock geology/groundwater hydrology,
meteorology (precipitation, evaporation/wind speed), hydrology (NPDES permitted
outfalls, flow gauging/stream gradient, stream use information, water supply intake
locations and descriptions, regulated flow structures, streambed substrate, and stream
water quality), aquatic biological resources (fish hatcheries, stream biological
communities, endangered species), terrestrial biological resources (wetlands, riparian
corridor characteristics, soil characteristics), land use/land cover; historic land use
(present and historic), Superfund sites/landfills, and local population estimates.
Six questions were asked about each type of information listed above, and the
responses constitute the columns of Table A-1:
Question 1. Was the information obtained for this assessment?
21
i
I
-------
Possible responses: no/not needed, no/not available, no/plan to obtain, yes
t
t
22
-------
TABLE 2
Contacts for Each Watershed Study
Case Study
Middle Snake
River
Middle Platte
River Floodplain
Waquoit Bay
Clinch Valley
Big Darby Creek
Lake Chelan
West Fork Clear
Creek
Indian/Deadwood
Watershed
Primary Contact
John Yearsley
Bob Fenemore
Christine Gault
Patti Tyler
Jerry Diamond
Susan Norton
Susan Cormier
Marc Smith
Steve Butkus
Bruce Zander
Craig Snider
Affiliation
U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA
98101
U.S. EPA Region 7, 901 N.
Fifth St., Kansas City, KS
66101
Waquoit Bay NERR, PO
Box 3092, 149 Waquiot
Hwy., Waquiot, MA 02536
U.S. EPA Region 1
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 021 73
TetraTech, Inc., 10045
Red Run Blvd., Suite 110,
Owings Mills, MD 21 117
U.S. EPA, NCEA, {8623-
D), 401 M St., SW, Wash.,
DC 20460
U.S. EPA, NERL, 26 W
MLK Dr., Cincinnati, OH
45268
Ohio EPA, 1685W. Belt
Dr., Columbus, OH 43228
Washington Department of
Ecology, PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504
U.S. EPA Region 8, 999
18* St., Suite #500,
Denver, Co 80202
USFS, Siuslaw National
Forest, 4077 Research
Way, PO Box 1148,
Corvallis, OR 97339
Phone and Email
206-553-1532
vearsley.johniSDepa.aov
913-551-7745
fenemore.roberteDa.state.oh.us
360-407-7241
stbu461<£8ecv.wa.aov
303-312-6846
zander. bruce<3>epa.qov
541-750-7077
cbsnider{<3)fs, fed. us
t
23
I
-------
Case Study
Edisto River
Basin
Lake Mendota
Primary Contact
William Marshall
Carolyn Rumery
Betz
Affiliation
South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources,
2221 Devine Street, Suite
222
Columbia, SC 29205
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, Bureau
of Watershed
Management, PO Box
7921, Madison, Wl 53707
Phone and Email
803-734-9096
marshaliS>water.dnr.state.sc. us
608-266-9262
betza@dnr.state.wi.us
I
t
24
-------
Question 2. What was the source of the information?
Possible responses: local/state/federal government agencies (e.g. USFS,
Suislaw National Forest, USFWS, USNPS, USGS); university
Question 3. What format was the information obtained in?
Possible responses: aerial photographs, computer databases, modeling output,
GIS data (e.g., DIG, DEM, and TIGER), paper maps (e.g., soils maps,
topographic maps), remote sensing data, laboratory measurements, field
measurements or monitoring data, literature files
Question 4. What is the temporal range and coverage of the data?
Possible responses: e.g., 1989-1998, diurnal, annual
Question 5. What is the spatial scale or resolution of the data? (Note: this is
different from the scale of the analysis.)
Possible responses: 1:24,000 scale, 30 meter resolution
Question 6: What were the limitations or problems with the data?
Possible responses: variable description
t
25
t
-------
•»
4. WATERSHED STUDIES
This section provides background information on each of the 10 watershed
studies selected for this analysis, to allow an appreciation of their variety in terms of
physical setting, purpose and approach. The same information, with additional detail, is
presented in tabular format in Appendix B.
4.1. MIDDLE SNAKE RIVER
4.1.1. Location. The Middle Snake River lies in the west-central Snake River plain of
southern Idaho (Figure 2). The upstream study area boundary is Milner Dam and the
lower boundary is at King Hill, approximately 160 km downstream where flow shifts from
north to west (U.S. EPA, 1996b). The river basin encompasses 22,326 km2 and
includes some of the most populous areas in Idaho.
4.1.2. Study Goals. This reach of the river was identified as one of the most severely
degraded in the state. Primary uses of the river are for hydropower, irrigation,
commercial fish hatcheries and recreation. This usage has resulted in flow alteration
and sediment and nutrient loadings. The primary management goal is to restore the
cold water biota and reduce plant biomass in the river. Three assessment endpoints
have been identified: growth and recruitment of cold water fish (rainbow trout, white
sturgeon, and mountain whitefish), growth and recruitment of endemic, threatened and
endangered macro-invertebrates, and reduction in the growth of aquatic macrophytes
and algae.
4.1.3. Study Methods and Status. The U.S. EPA risk assessment
(http://www.epa.gov/ncea/midsnake.htm) is one component of an integrated effort with
the state of Idaho and local officials to address cumulative impacts to the Middle Snake
26
-------
IDAHO
USGSHytMogic Basins
FIGURE 2
Map of the Middle Snake River Study Site (from U.S. EPA, 1996b)
27
-------
s
s
River. Idaho has completed the first phase of a TMDL for total phosphorus and a
Nutrient Management Plan (Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, 1996). A group
of local officials comprise the Middle Snake River Planning Group, which has served as
the policy advisory committee for the Nutrient Management Plan. Idaho State University
and the University of Idaho conducted field studies and in-stream testing throughout
1992,1993, and 1994 to describe the physical, chemical, and biological condition of the
river. The draft P&PF was concluded in June 1996. The final risk analysis is being
published by NCEA (contact Victor Serveiss serveiss.yictor@epa.gov for more
information). It should be available by late 2000 (Patricia Cirone, personal
communication). The information summary for this study is based on the draft risk
analysis report (Yearsley et al., 1998) and discussions with John Yearsley (U.S. EPA).
The primary analytical tool is a water quality model (Yearsley, 1991). The
watershed nature of the study is implicit in the modeling approach (i.e., tributary flow
into the main stem is a sum of the upstream state variables). There are two
components in the risk analysis: exposure analysis and effects analysis. The model
simulates the chemical, physical, and biological dynamics in the water column and the
benthic plant community attached to or associated with the river bottom. The study
area was divided into homogeneous river segments. The water column in the reservoir
was vertically stratified to simulate water quality. The model uses a daily timestep to
develop cumulative distribution functions of the environmental factors (i.e., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and primary productivity) important to target
coldwater species. Probability densities are estimated by monte carlo simulation; model
uncertainty were determined by comparing simulation results with field data.
28
-------
4.2. MIDDLE PLATTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN
4.2.1. Location. The middle segment of the Platte River (the middle Platte River)
watershed drains two-thirds of the state of Nebraska. The study area is confined to the
floodplain of the river reach from the confluence of the North and South Platte Rivers
near North Platte, downstream to the Hamilton and Merrick County lines near Grand
Island (U.S. EPA, 1996c). The 200-km reach and floodplain encompasses 2000 km2.
The study area is a vital link in the central flyway for migrating birds. Most of the native
habitat has been extirpated or severely altered by agriculture, urban or rural
development. Dams and water diversions have reduced the river's natural water flow
and sediment depositional patterns. This has resulted in the historic wide, treeless and
braided channels being replaced with fewer and narrower channels and woody
vegetation becoming established on sandbars. Native vegetation exists in isolated and
scattered remnant patches in an agricultural setting.
4.2.2. Study Goals. The study goal is to protect, maintain, and where feasible, restore
biodiversity and ecological processes in the Middle Platte River floodplain, thereby
sustaining and balancing ecological values with human uses.
Nine assessment endpoints were selected. These include floodplain structure,
function and change; open channel configuration and distribution; side channel and
backwater connectivity to main channels; wet meadow composition and abundance;
sandhill crane and breeding bird abundance; and riverine and backwater invertebrate
and amphibian species survival and reproduction. Stressors include altered surface
water flow, decreased sediment supply, habitat loss, and floodplain disturbance and
development.
29
s
s
-------
s
s
4.2.3. Study Methods and Status. The Middle-Platte River Floodplain was selected
by EPA for study in 1993. This study was developed using the Proposed Guidelines for
Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1996a). The conceptual models and analysis
plan were included as part of the Problem Formulation prepared by Dennis Jelinski
(Queen's University, Ontario) and currently under review at U.S. EPA Region 7. In
addition, Ben Parkhurst (Cadmus, Inc.) has analyzed data for the nine assessment
endpoints. The information summary is based on discussions with Bob Fenemore and
Maria Downing (US. EPA, Region7).
4.3. WAQUOIT BAY
4.3.1. Location. Waquoit Bay is a tidal estuary located on the southern shore of Cape
Cod, Massachusetts (htt£//www...capec^ (Figure 3). The study site
boundaries are naturally defined, and the complete watershed, including the estuary, is
53 km2, 6.5 km2 of which is surface water (U.S. EPA, 1996d).
4.3.2. Study Goals. Problems include nitrogen enrichment, decline in water quality,
loss of eelgrass, decline of shellfish, and an increase in fish kills and mats of
macroalgae. Study goals are to reestablish and maintain water quality and habitat
conditions in Waquoit Bay and associated wetlands, freshwater rivers, and ponds to
(1) support diverse, self-sustaining commercial, recreational, and native fish and
shellfish populations; and (2) reverse ongoing degradation of ecological resources in the
watershed.
4.3.3. Study Methods and Status. In 1994, the ecological risk assessment team
began work on the conceptual model (http:/Avww.(apecod.net/waquoit/era.htrn). risk
hypotheses, and scope of the assessment. The site is a National Estuarine Research
30
-------
Waquoit Bay
Watershed
FIGURE 3
Map of the Waquoit Bay Study Site (provided by Chris Crofford, WBNERR)
31
-------
s
s
Reserve (WBNERR), has been extensively studied and has high stakeholder interest.
The P&PF was completed in the spring of 1996.
The ongoing analytical phase has two components:(1) the estimation of nitrogen
loads, the most important stressor, into Waquoit Bay, and (2) evaluation of the response
of eelgrass to nitrogen loading. In support of this effort, Valiela et al. (1997) have
developed and verified (Valiela et al., 2000} a regional mathematical model which
estimates nitrogen loading to Waquoit Bay. Other ongoing tasks include assessing the
effect of salt marsh uptake on nitrogen; adding direct atmospheric deposition; re-
evaluating the relationship between the corrected nutrient load and its effect on
eelgrass; estimating net loss/gain in excess of dilution; and quantifying the uptake,
storage, and recycling of land-derived nitrogen. The updated information summary is
based on a discussion with Maggie Geist (Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve) and review of several reports which describe the research (Cadmus, Inc.,
1995; Sham et al., 1995; Valiela et al., 1997).
4.4. CLINCH RIVER VALLEY
4.4.1. Location. The Clinch River Valley is located in southwestern Virginia and
northeastern Tennessee ( http.V/research. esd. orn I .go v/CR ER P/f N PEX, HTM) (Figure 4).
The initial focus of the study is on three pilot sub-watersheds which encompass 1,131
km2 (U.S. EPA, 1996e). The topography is characterized by dramatic relief, deep
stream channels, and high storm runoff. The free-flowing sections of the basin have
one of the most diverse fish and mussel assemblages in North America (Ahlstedt,
1984a; Neves, 1991). Many of these species are endemic to this basin due to
geographic isolation and destruction of habitat in downstream regions, primarily from
impoundment (Ahlstedt, 1984b; O'Bara et al., 1994). Despite its high species diversity,
32
-------
z
•iff-
FIGURE 4
Map of the Clinch River Valley Study Site (provided by Jerry Diamond, Tetra Tech, Inc.)
I
33
-------
s
s
most of the mussel beds and native fish locations in the watershed have declined
dramatically or been eliminated. Recent fish and mussel surveys suggest that despite
implementing recovery plans for most federally protected species in this basin, there is
a continuing decline of rare species in this part of the basin (Jones et al., 2000). Coal
mining, agriculture and logging dominate the region. Stressors in the watershed include
altered hydrologic flow and a number of non-point source of pollutants such as, acid
mine drainage, sediment (from agriculture and logging), coliform bacteria, and toxics.
The Clinch and Powell workgroup agreed to focus the assessment on the unimpounded
stream segment above Morris Lake, since only that portion of the watershed provided
suitable habitat for the fish and mussel species of concern.
4.4.2. Study Goals. The goal of the assessment is to provide scientific information to
help implement management actions to maintain or re-establish the unique, native biota
of the Clinch and Powell watershed. Examples of actions that will be considered based
on the risk assessment findings include:
• Restoring additional abandoned mine lands throughout the watershed.
» Studying further the chemical make-up of discharges from coal mining and
processing facilities and the toxicity of these discharges to aquatic
species.
Increasing the extent of forested riparian areas adjacent to and upstream
of critical aquatic habitat sites for mussels and fish.
The study goal is to establish and maintain the unique, native biological qualities of the
Clinch and Powell surface watershed and subsurface aquatic ecosystem, (i.e.,
supplement existing recovery plans for threatened and endangered species, particularly
mussels, fish, cave fauna), and supporting riparian habitat. Assessment endpoints that
have been identified include reproduction and recruitment of threatened and
34
-------
endangered fish and mussel populations; abundance, diversity and fecundity of cave
faunal assemblages (this endpoint is deferred for lack of available data); and riparian
corridor integrity.
4.4.3. Study Methods and Status. A risk assessment work group for the Clinch River
Valley watershed analysis was convened in 1993. A 1994 survey indicating water
quality as a priority concern was adopted in lieu of stakeholder participation. Problem
formulation was completed in 1996 (U.S. EPA, 1996e). The analytical phase began in
1998. It was to be accomplished in three stages, using GIS and multivariate statistical
analyses. In Stage 1, indices of stress were to be developed from percent of riparian
cover versus upland land use and upstream distance of the stressor. In Stage 2,
stressor-endpoint relationships were to be quantified using a subset of the
measurement endpoints in Copper Creek, a subwatershed with good existing data. In
Stage 3, the analysis was to be implemented throughout the upper Clinch and Powell
watersheds.
The two assessment endpoints selected in this assessment were: (1)
reproduction and recruitment of threatened, endangered or rare native freshwater
mussels; and (2) reproduction and recruitment of native, threatened, endangered or rare
fish species. If data relating the assessment endpoint to human activities are not
available, a surrogate indicator called a measure of effect may be used. Since data on
mussel species were limited in this assessment, data on an appropriate surrogate
indicator, the fish IBI (an Index of Biotic Integrity for fish based on the mix of species
found at a site) may be used. By dearly defining the ultimate focus of the assessment
(e.g., mussel species reproduction and recruitment), the uncertainties in the
35
s
s
-------
f
s
assessment can be better described (e.g., extrapolating between fish community
integrity and mussel response).
The Copper Creek subwatershed assessment addressed two analysis objectives
central to this assessment: 1} identify the appropriate spatial scale to test relationships
between land use activities or stressors and measures of effect; and 2) identify whether
the benthic macroinvertebrate measure (i.e., EPT index) or fish IBI is a reliable
surrogate measure of effect for predicting the status of native mussel assemblages.
Achieving the latter objective was especially desirable because it was known at the
outset of this study that available native mussel data were more limited than either EPT
or fish IBI values.
To address the first objective above, Arcview (v. 3.0, ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA)
was used to examine several different stream riparian widths and several different
distances upstream of each sampling point. Results of pilot analyses indicated that it
was useful to analyze biological measures of effect such as fish IBI in relation to riparian
corridor integrity, land use and stream habitat quality measures. This analysis also
determined the optimal spatial scale to determine the relative influence of riparian
corridor or valley agricultural activities on resulting biological integrity or habitat quality
at a site. Data were entered into a CIS (Arc/INFO, v. 7.04, ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA)
and partitioned in various ways using ACCESS® (Microsoft) to obtain databases that
were amenable to various statistical analyses (Statsoft, v. 5.0, Tulsa, OK, USA). Both
univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify relationships between
stressors or sources and biologically relevant measures of effect. Data layers included
land cover, stream drainages (USGS Stream Reach File 3), road density, locations of
point source discharges and mines, fish community integrity (IBI), native mussel species
36
-------
richness and abundance, macroinvertebrate Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT) family index, and stream habitat quality indices. When extending
these analyses to the entire upper Clinch and Powell watershed, sites included were
limited to a 350-450 m elevation range to minimize confounding effects of elevation.
This information summary is based on an interview with Jerry Diamond (Tetra Tech,
Inc.).
4.5. BIG DARBY CREEK
4.5.1. Location. Big Darby Creek drains 1443 km2 in west-central Ohio (U.S. EPA,
1996f) (Figure 5). The waterbody type is fourth-order stream.
4.5.2. Study Goals. Big Darby Creek is a high-quality ecosystem in a predominately
agricultural area, however, industrial/urban Columbus is encroaching upon the
headwaters of the watershed. Principal issues in the watershed are conversion of
agricultural land to urban use (urban sprawl) and implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for urban and agricultural runoff. A dominant theme in discussions
with stakeholders and community groups ( http://www.epa.gov/ncea/biodarbv.htm ) was
the desire to protect and maintain native stream communities. Three management
objectives were identified: attain criteria for designated uses, maintain exceptional
warm-water criteria in reaches having that designation from 1990 to 1995, and ensure
continued existence of native species. Stressors in the watershed include altered
stream morphology, increased flow extremes, sediment, nutrients, temperature, and
toxic chemicals. Two assessment endpoints were identified. The first endpoint, species
composition and diversity and functional organization, is being evaluated using three
biological indices: the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI), calculated from attributes of the
37
s
s
-------
,
\.
North ibewis
^
Big Darby Creek
Plain Citjk
*V".v;i.^ ^
Big Darby Creek
Big Darby^Creek
Stre a m s
\Va te rs h e d Bo u n d a ry
FIGURE 5
Map of the Big Darby Creek Study Site {from U.S. EPA, 1996f)
38
-------
fish community; the Modified Index of Weil-Being (Mlwb), calculated from the structure,
abundance, evenness, and biomass offish communities; and the Invertebrate
Community Index (ICI), calculated from macroinvertebrate community structure. The
second endpoint is sustainability of native fish and mussel species.
In addition, four major research components were undertaken by the Big Darby
study: development of empirical models to relate the IBI to land use (lead by Steve
Gordon, Ohio State University); development of a mechanistic model of runoff to
forecast the effect of agricultural management (lead by Andy Ward, Ohio State
University); an investigation of implications of the extent and spatial geometry of the
riparian zone on stream community structure (lead by Dale White, Ohio State
University); and development of an approach to use biological communities to diagnose
the principal causes of stress (lead by Susan Cormier and Susan Norton, U.S. EPA).
4.5.3. Study Methods and Status. The results of the Big Darby Creek risk assessment
Problem Formulation were recently published by Cormier et al. (2000), as was a recent
evaluation of Big Darby watershed ecological status and trends (Schubauer-Berigan et
al., 2000). Results related to the four major research components discussed above has
also become available recently (see Gordon and Majumder, 2000; Jones and Gordon,
2000; Norton et al., 2000). The risk assessment is currently proceeding to the Risk
Characterization phase of the study. The information summary for this study was based
on interviews with Susan Norton (U.S. EPA), Susan Cormier (U.S. EPA), and several
other study members.
4.6. LAKE CHELAN
4.6.1. Location. Lake Chelan is located in the northern Cascade Mountain Range
(Figure 6). It is approximately 100 miles east of Seattle and 50 miles south of the
39
-------
Washington State
Puget Sound
FIGURES
Map of the Lake Chelan Study Site (from U.S. EPA, 1994)
40
-------
Canadian border. The lake is over 50 miles long with an average width of 1 mile. It has
a surface area of 134 km2 and a watershed of approximately 924 mi2 (2393 krn2). Lake
Chelan discharges to the Chelan River at a small hydroelectric dam in the city of
Chelan. The dam, which was constructed in 1927, raised the level of the lake by 24
feet. Beyond the dam, the Chelan River flows only a few miles before its confluence
with the Columbia River.
4.6.2. Study Goals. Lake Chelan, the longest and deepest natural lake in the state of
Washington, is located in a largely undisturbed watershed. The intrinsic value of the
lake and the interest of local residents prompted the state to conduct a comprehensive
water quality assessment (Patmont et al., 1989). The investigation had three goals: (1)
provide baseline data for future comparisons, (2) evaluate existing and potential nutrient
sources and their impact, and (3) provide recommendations that would protect the
lake's existing ultra-oligotrophic condition as future development occurs
(http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/cs11/cs11 .htm).
Increasing development pressures have raised concerns about maintaining the
lake's high water quality. During 1989, in an effort to protect this unique and highly
valuable natural resource, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)
conducted the Lake Chelan Water Quality Assessment, which attempted to determine
nutrient loading limits that would maintain the lake's ultra-oligotrophic condition. A
steady-state mass balance model and Monte Carlo analysis techniques were used.
4.6.3. Study Methods and Status. To document the improvements that result from
controls, a baseline monitoring program was initiated early in the planning phase.
Extensive field investigations were performed from November 1986 through December
1987. An analytical model of phosphorus movement in the Lower Basin was developed
41
t
-------
from the field data, Completed in 1989, the Lake Chelan Water Quality Assessment
considered seasonal conditions and predictive uncertainties. Based on model results, a
15% or less increase in the average amount of phosphorus discharged to the lake from
the lower basin drainage area was deemed acceptable.
In 1990, the Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee prepared a water quality plan
based on the assessment (Beck et al., 1991). The plan included a list of action items
for controlling nutrients and bacteria from on-site septic systems, underground sewer
lines, agricultural runoff, and urban stormwater runoff. The water quality plan also
included a TMDL analysis for total phosphorus in Lake Chelan (Pelletier, 1991). DOE
conducted a monte carlo based modeling analysis based on potential development
patterns in different portions of the basin. The most-likely option was chosen and a
phosphorus TMDL of 51 kg/day was submitted to and approved by U.S. EPA Region 10
(U.S. EPA, 1994). Additional total phosphorus (TP) loadings to the lake from new
development (over the 1986-1987 load) are considered acceptable only if there is less
than a 5% chance that such additions will cause in-lake TP concentrations to exceed
4.5 ug/L, the generally accepted value for the ultra-oligotrophic classification.
Management goals are expressed in terms of their effect on the lower basin because
the lower basin is relatively shallow and consequently more prone to the effects of
increased phosphorus loads. The Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee is responsible
for implementing and monitoring compliance with the water quality plan. The committee
is currently investigating various controls such as sewer line replacement, sewer system
extension, boat sewage pump-out facilities, agricultural runoff management, and
stormwater management. The information summary is based on an interview with
Steve Butkus (Washington State DOE).
42
-------
4.7. WEST FORK CLEAR CREEK
4.7.1. Location. The confluence of Woods Creek and the west fork of Clear Creek is
approximately 8 miles above the town of Empire, Colorado in the southern Rocky
Mountains, and is located in U.S. EPA Region 8. The subwatershed above the
confluence comprises 19.8 square miles (51.3 km2). Clear Creek eventually discharges
into the South Platte River, downstream of Denver, Colorado.
4.7.2. Study Goals. The West Fork Clear Creek analysis was performed as a TMDL
case study (http://www.epa.Qov/OWOW/tmdl/cs3/cs3.htm) study to fulfill U.S. EPA's
responsibility under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (U.S. EPA, 1988, 1991).
The watershed is impaired by trace metals from mining activities at the inactive Urad
mine and mill and the active Henderson mine and mill. The primary designated uses of
the affected reaches are cold water aquatic habitat and recreation. The waterbody's
use as a habitat for aquatic life, however, is most greatly threatened by metal-containing ^P
runoff.
4.7.3. Study Methods and Status. The creek is impaired by trace metals from mining
activities. A TMDL was calculated using a simple mass balance equation based on the
effluent and stream flows and pollutant concentrations in the monitoring data. The
TMDL was subsequently incorporated into an updated permit for the Urad mine site that
became effective June 1,1992. The in-place and planned BMP include the plugging of
the inactive Urad mine portal, isolation of the tailings from runoff, and installation of toe
(groundwater) drains in the tailings piles. Monitoring on West Fork Clear Creek,
immediately below Woods Creek, has shown that plugging the Urad mine portal
resulted in improved stream biology. A dramatic increase in the density and variety of
t
43
-------
macroinvertebrate populations and sharp growth in trout population are a good
indication that BMP is helping to achieve water quality objectives.
4.8. INDIAN/DEADWOOD WATERSHED
4.8.1. Location. The Indian and Deadwood watersheds lie in the southern half of the
Oregon Coast Province about 27 miles up the Siuslaw River from the Pacific Coast and
about 12 miles from Mapleton, Oregon (USDA Forest Service, 1996) (Figure 7). All of
the 74,000 acre (3.0 km2) watershed is within Lane County. The watershed includes
Indian Creek, Deadwood Creek, Green Creek and the lower portion of Lake Creek just
before it empties into the Siuslaw River. The watershed is bounded by Windy Peak on
the east, Taylor Butte and Klickitat Mountains on the north, and Saddle Mountain on the
west.
4.8.2. Study Goals. The watershed analysis is intended to provide guidance on how to
best implement the Northwest Forest Plan at the watershed scale. The main goal of the
aquatic portion of the watershed analysis is to protect the highest concentrations of the
best remaining aquatic habitat, especially anadromous salmonid habitat, and those
areas that could quickly provide good habitat after improvements were made. The goal
for the terrestrial portion of the watershed is to manage the Late-Successional Reserve
lands to sustain viable populations of several species associated with mature forests,
such as the northern spotted owl, a federally listed threatened species.
4.8.3. Study Methods and Status. Stressors in the study area are fire and logging.
Information is maintained for the Siuslaw National Forest in a GIS map of logging and
fire activity. The database was initiated in 1980; records after 1980 are accurate. Best
estimates were made from old logging records and photographs from the time logging
was started in about 1950. Endangered species, including bald eagle, marbled
44
-------
Indian Deadwood
Vicinity Map
/V ATM fccsds
XV
Analysis Asa*
f
FIGURE 7
Map of the Indian/Deadwood Study Site (from USDA Forest Service, 1996)
45
t
-------
murrelet, norther spotted owl, and the anadromous fish populations, are the assessment
endpoints. These endpoints are mandated by the National Forest Management Act,
Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Northwest Forest Plan.
The Indian/Deadwood watershed analysis was conducted as part of
implementing the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI, 1994). The analysis report was
completed in June 1996. With completion of the Indian/Deadwood watershed analysis,
65% of the Siuslaw River Basin (http;//www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw/) has been analyzed;
the three remaining watersheds were to be completed in 1997.
This watershed analysis is a component of the Aquatic Conservation strategy
developed for the Northwest Forest Plan. The purpose of the analysis was to assess
current conditions of the forest resources compared with past conditions, and to develop
an understanding of the processes, both natural and human-caused, that led to the
current conditions. Currently about 44% of the watershed contains late-successional
conifer forests which provide habitat to species such as northern spotted owl, pileated
woodpecker, marbled murrelet, and flying squirrel. The watershed contains over 360
miles of perennial fish-bearing streams, of which 150 miles are anadromous fish habitat.
Stream habitat for these fish species is far below its potential throughout the watershed.
The watershed has been extensively characterized, and high-quality information is
available.
4.9. EDISTO RIVER BASIN
4.9.1. Location. The Edisto River Basin is a 3120 square mile (8080 km2) area that
includes portions of 12 counties in south-central South Carolina (SCDNR, 1996) (Figure
8). The watershed is drained by the Edisto River, one of the longest free-flowing
46
-------
EDISTO RIVER BASIN
PROTECTED AREAS
FIGURE 8
Map of the Edisto River Basin Study Site (provided by William Marshall, SCDNR)
47
t
-------
blackwater rivers in the United States. The basin extends approximately 130 miles
across the coastal plain to the Atlantic Ocean.
4.9.2. Study Goals. The Edisto River Basin Project
(http://www.dnr.state.sc.usAwater/envaff/m/e^^ was developed to
provide an assessment of the economic, ecological, cultural, and recreational resources
of the region and to provide goals and recommendations for the future use and
management of these resources.
4.9.3. Study Methods and Status. Stressors include cumulative impacts of human
activity in the watershed, particularly intensive forest management and agriculture.
Assessment endpoints were defined by the task force committees. Each committee
used GIS information to value different land uses from their perspective. A number of
management goals were developed by this process. These include: 1) maintaining
exemplary water quality, 2) preserving the natural hydrologic regime of the watershed,
3) maintaining large areas of natural vegetation coverage with high connectivity and
buffer areas around the streams, and 4) preserving native animal populations,
particularly threatened and endangered species (Marshall, 1993).
South Carolina is attempting to automate data integration at the watershed scale
of analysis. They are making extensive use of GIS to evaluate the resources of the
river basin in an effort to provide recommendations for more sustainable development.
The project includes ecological, socioeconomic, and public opinion assessments, citizen
participation, resource evaluation, and policy recommendations.
Initial characterization of the Edisto River Basin was based on an initiative
entitled the "Natural Resources Decision Support System (NRDSS) Project", fostered by
the South Carolina Water Resources Commission (SCWRC), restructured in 1994 to
48
-------
become Water Resources Division of the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources (SCDNR). The NRDSS project is a multiyear research and demonstration
project begun in 1988 and funded by the NOAA, and the state of South Carolina.
The Basin Task Force first met in November 1993. The project has become a
very useful management and planning tool. The CIS data base development has been
expanded from the original Edisto River Basin to the entire coastal plain area of South
Carolina, and is currently being expanded to include parts of the Piedmont region.
4.10. LAKE MENDOTA
4.10.1. Location. Lake Mendota is a 10,000-acre glacial lake, used extensively for
fishing and water sports (Figure 9). It is located in south central Wisconsin adjacent to
the city of Madison. About 60% of the 230-square mile (596 km2) watershed is
agricultural.
4.10.2. Study Goals. The primary goal of the project is to reduce non-point source
pollution to Lake Mendota by 50%. The lake's water quality problems arise primarily
from current and past rural and urban runoff, resulting in excessive phosphorous
loading. Dairy farming accounts for most of the farm income in the watershed.
Approximately 50% of the original wetlands in the watershed have been drained or
filled. Erosion from agricultural land was estimated to contribute 58% of total sediment;
however, gully and stream bed erosion were not determined to be significant non-point
sources in the Lake Mendota watershed.
4.10.3. Study Methods and Status. River basin planners within Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) collect all available data and rank individual
watersheds based on their potential to respond to control measures. Data sources are
water quality documents prepared by the WDNR biologists. A Citizens Advisory
49
t
-------
Lake Mendota Priority Lake Project
LEGEND
Lake Project Boundary
Township Boundary
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.. Highway
County Boundary
l Municipality
I Open Water
FIGURE 9
Map of the Lake Mendota Study Site (provided by Carolyn Rumery Betz, WIDNR)
50
-------
Committee is also involved in setting goals as required by state statute. Once a
watershed has been selected, an 18-month planning process is initiated. Stream
biologists from WNDR spend up to 1 year collecting field data on macroinvertebrates,
fish populations, stream width, erosion etc. Data are also collected on barnyards, farm
land, wetlands, and urban areas. Models are subsequently developed to estimate
loadings from different sources. The assessment endpoints are water quality, turbidity,
and fish and wildlife habitat.
The WDNR has delineated 330 watersheds for its statewide non-point source
program. Approximately one-fifth of the watersheds have been targeted over the last
20 years for priority status. Each of these projects has included evaluation monitoring
to assess water quality improvement. The Wisconsin State Legislature created the
Wisconsin State Water Pollution Abatement Program in 1978. The intent of the
Program was to improve and protect the water quality of streams, lakes, wetlands, and
groundwater by reducing pollutants from urban and non-point sources. There were 86
similar watershed projects statewide in which non-point source control measures were
being planned or implemented at the time the Lake Mendota plan was published in May
1997. The Lake Mendota watershed was designated a "priority watershed" in 1993. A
recent study of the watershed was completed in 1997 (WDNR, 1997). As an outgrowth
of the study, implementation control measures were initiated in the summer of 1997.
Funding for implementation is shared between local and state sources. Individuals,
municipalities and other governmental units signed cost-share agreements for the first 5
years of the project.
51
-------
s
5. SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES FOR TEN EXAMPLE
WATERSHED STUDIES
This section summarizes the approaches used by the 10 watershed studies to
address each of the key information categories. The same information, with additional
detail, is presented in tabular format in Appendix A.
5.1. WATERSHED/SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY
Of the 10 studies reviewed, 5 studies (Middle Platte, Middle Snake, Clinch
Valley, Indian/Deadwood, and Edisto River) used USGS hydrologic unit maps to
delineate watershed and/or subwatershed study boundaries. Lake Mendota and
Waquoit Bay delineated watershed boundaries from USGS DIG data. Big Darby Creek
achieved finer resolution by using USGS 7.5 minute DEM data. The two studies that
did not use a GIS, Lake Chelan and West Fork Clear Creek, relied on USGS 15-minute
topographic maps for base mapping. Four studies (Waquoit Bay, Clinch Valley,
Indian/Deadwood and Edisto River) delineated subwatershed areas.
5.2. STREAM REACHES
Three studies, Middle Platte, Clinch Valley, and Big Darby Creek, used U.S.
EPA's Reach Files to delineate stream reaches; four studies used topographic maps to
visually identify homogeneous stream segments (Middle Snake River, West Fork Clear
Creek, Indian/Deadwood Watershed and Lake Chelan) and three studies used the
hydrography data layer available in the DLG format (Edisto, Lake Mendota, and
Waquoit Bay).
52
-------
5.3. OTHER WATER BODIES
Two of the studies used DIG hydrography data. Edisto River Basin study used
DLG hydrography data at 1:250,000 scale and the Middle Platte River study used DLG
hydrography data at 1:2,000,000 scale. DEM data with 3-arc resolution was used in the
Clinch River Valley study. The Indian/Deadwood study relied on "Cartographic Feature
Files" to delineate other water bodies. These digitized maps were constructed from
USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps by personnel in USFS. The information they
contain is updated by field personnel every 7-10 years.
5.4. MAJOR ROADS, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
The larger river basin studies (Middle Platte River, Clinch River Valley, and
Edisto River) used small scale (coarser resolution) mapping from the National Highway
Planning Network (1:2,000,000) and DLGs (1:1,000,000 and 1:250,000) to delineate
major roads in the vicinity of the watershed. Big Darby Creek used larger-scale (finer
resolution) TIGER data available from the U.S. Census Bureau.
County and municipal boundaries were generally delineated by the case studies
from TIGER and DLG data layers, according to the scale appropriate fora particular
study. The exception was the Middle-Platte River study, which used USGS Land Use
Data (1:250,000) to delineate municipal boundaries.
5.5. BEDROCK/GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
The underground flow of water was an important analytical component in several
of the watershed studies. On the Middle Snake and Middle Platte Rivers, where much
of the river flow is diverted for agricultural use, groundwater recharge accounts for a
significant portion of the downstream river flow. In the Waquoit Bay and Lake Chelan
watersheds, groundwater discharge into receiving streams and the estuary is a pathway
53
s
-------
f
of concern for nitrates and phosphates associated with on-site wastewater disposal.
The Clinch River Valley study is concerned with the extensive karst system, which is
inhabited by unique cave fauna.
USGS open-file reports were used as the primary source for baseline information
for most of the case studies. However, the Lake Chelan study (Patmont et al., 1989)
conducted an extensive hydrogeologic investigation to investigate the suitability of the
soils adjacent to the lake for on-site septic systems. The investigation focused on the
area where development is occurring. First, existing literature and aerial photographs
were reviewed. This information was used by field crews to guide an intensive mapping
effort. The result was a terrain unit map. Monitoring wells were also installed.
5.6. PRECIPITATION, EVAPORATION AND WIND SPEED
Precipitation, evaporation and wind speed data were needed by all of the
watershed studies because stream flow is a key analytical component. Several study
managers said there was limited spatial coverage because of too few meteorology
stations in their study area. There are six National Weather Service Stations within the
Edisto River Basin. Statistical analysis for consistency in the precipitation data among
the stations indicated that data from one station was not predictable by the precipitation
at another station. The coefficient of determination (R2) was about 0.50 (Marshall,
1993).
5.7. NPDES OUTFALLS (EFFLUENT LOCATION AND CONCENTRATION)
NPDES data were available and used to some degree in all of the watershed
studies except Indian/Deadwood and West Fork Clear Creek. Most study managers
reported problems with the data. Problems commonly mentioned include inaccurate
locations (i.e., post office boxes, specific sampling location in the river not indicated),
54
-------
inaccurate monitoring data, and poor quality control when the data are transferred from
permits (paper) to a computerized database. The Big Darby Creek project worked with
the NPDES data and corrected outfall locations to within 15 meters. Before the
corrections were made, locations were often inaccurate by as much as 100 meters.
5.8. FLOW GAUGING AND/OR STREAM GRADIENT
Estimates of stream flow were used in all of the watershed studies. There was at
least one USGS flow gauge in all of the watersheds except Indian/Deadwood. USFS
guidance assumes that there will not be current or historic flow records for streams
within Forest Service watersheds (Regional Ecosystem Office, 1995). The guidance
recommends use of USGS Surface Water Supply Papers which cover streams nearby.
Streamflow data were collected continuously at four stations in the Edisto River Basin
from about 1939 to 1990. Statistical analysis showed that streamflows were highly
correlated (coefficient of determinations greater than 0.90) among the stations. There
was only one gauge in the Lake Chelan basin, but it was on the stream that contributes
about 70% of the average annual discharge to the lake.
5.9. STREAM USE, WATER SUPPLY INTAKE, AND REGULATED FLOW
STRUCTURES
Stream use, water supply intakes, and regulated flow structures were collected
for all the watershed studies.
5.10. STREAM WATER QUALITY
The watershed case studies followed a general pattern of piecing together
available data from all available federal (STORET), state, and university sources.
s
55
-------
s
5.11. STREAM SUBSTRATE, STREAM BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
Stream substrate and biological community data are endpoints in most of the
watershed studies. A monitoring program was best developed at Big Darby Creek.
Researchers used several biological indices to monitor stream quality at 63 sites
throughout the watershed.
5.12. FISH HATCHERIES
Information on ftsh hatcheries was obtained for 5 of the 10 watershed studies,
and in one of those, Middle Snake River, hatcheries were evaluated as a stressor.
Information source was different for each location.
5.13. ENDANGERED SPECIES
Locations and habitat requirements of threatened and endangered species were
explicitly considered in four of the watershed analyses: Middle Snake River, Middle
Platte River, Clinch River Valley, and the Indian/Deadwood watershed.
5.14. WETLANDS
Wetland locations were identified in five of the watershed studies: Middle Snake,
Middle Platte, Waquoit Bay, Clinch Valley, Indian/Deadwood, Edisto, and Lake
Mendota.
5.15. RIPARIAN CHARACTERISTICS
Five of the watershed studies explicitly considered the riparian zone in their
analyses.
5.16. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Sediment load was identified as a stressor in most of the studies. The Edisto
River Basin project used soils data remapped by SCDNR to 1:24,000 scale using zoom
56
-------
transfer scope methods. Attributes in the data layer include slope, hydric class, site
index, and crop productivity (SCDNR).
5.17. LAND USE/LAND COVER
Regional Land use/land cover data was an essential component in the watershed
analysis for Waquoit Bay and Edisto River Basin. For the Edisto study, SCDNR
derived land use from photography (scale = 1:40,000 and mapped at 1:24,000 scale, 10
acre resolution). Classification was based on Anderson Level II (Anderson et al., 1976);
classes include urban or built-up, agriculture, rangeland, forest lands, and water.
5.18. SUPERFUND SITES/LANDFILLS
There was only one Superfund Site in the watershed studies, the Massachusetts
Military Reservation located just north of Waquoit Bay watershed. Although watershed
ecological risk assessment can be used in conjunction with Superfund Site
assessments, each of the watersheds reviewed in this report was analyzed for other
concerns and Superfund Sites were not important.
5.19. LOCAL POPULATION ESTIMATES
Population estimates were mostly used for background information; however, the
Waquoit Bay analysis correlated population growth with nutrient enrichment in the
estuary.
s
57
-------
*
6. REFERENCES
t
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1984a. Twentieth century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna of the
Clinch River (Tennessee and Virginia). Walkerana. 5:73-122.
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1984b. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program: Mussel surveys
in six Tennessee Valley streams. Walkerana. 5:123-160.
Anderson, J.A., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach and R.T, Witmer. 1976. A land use and land
cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. United States Geological
Survey. Professional Paper 964.
Beck, R.W. and Associates. 1991. Lake Chelan water quality plan. Report to the Lake
Chelan Water Quality Committee, Wenatchee, Washington.
Bricker S.B., et al. 1999. National eutrophication assessment: Effects of nutrient
enrichment in the nations's estuaries. NOAA National Ocean Service, Silver Spring,
MD.
Cadmus, Inc. 1995. Nitrogen loading to Waquoit Bay: Existing models and
recommended modeling approach. Prepared for U.S. EPA Health and Ecological
Criteria Division, U.S. EPA Office of Water.
Cormier, S.M., M. Smith, S. Norton and T. Neiheisel. 2000. Assessing ecological risk
in watersheds: a case study of problem formulation in the Big Darby Creek watershed,
Ohio, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19(4): 1082-1096.
Cowardin, L, V. Carter, F. Golet and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deep water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington
D.C..FWS/OBS-79/31.
Gordon, S.I. and S. Majumder. 2000. Empirical stressor-response relationships for
prospective risk analysis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19(4:2) 1106-1112.
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. 1996.
Middle Snake River watershed management plan, Phase 1 TMDL total phosphorus.
Jones, A.L. and S.I. Gordon. 2000. From plan to pracxtice: Implementing watershed-
based strategies into local, state and federal policy. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
19(4:2)1136-1142.
Jones, J., M. Patterson, C. Good, A. DiVittorio and R. Neves. 2000. Survey to evaluate
the status of freshwater musel populations in the upper Clinch River, VA. Final Report.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Abingdon, VA.
58
-------
Marshall, W.D. 1993. Assessing Change in the Edisto River Basin. South Carolina
Water Resources Commission, Report No. 177. South Carolina Water Resources
Commission, Columbia, SC.
Neves, RJ. 1991. Mollusks, In Terwilliger, K. (ed), Virginia's endangered species.
The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia, pp. 251-320
Norton, S.B., S.M. Cormier, M. Smith and R.C. Jones. 2000. Can biological
assessments discriminate among types of stress? A case study from the eastern
combelt plains ecoregion. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19(4:2)1113-1119.
O'Bara, C.J., M.A. Eggleton, L.M. McAdoo et al. 1994. Clinch River biotic assessment
part 1: macrobenthic and fish communities. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
Nashville, TN. p. 75.
Patmont, C.R., G.J. Pelletier, E.B. Welch and C.C. Ebbesmeyer. 1989. Lake Chelan
water quality assessment. Prepared by Harper Owes, Inc. for Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Pelletier, G. 1991. Lake Chelan TMDL for total phosphorus. Memorandum of April 5 to
B. Hashim and J. Milton. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington.
Regional Ecosystem Office. 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale: Federal
guide for watershed analysis, Rev. August 1995, Ver2.2, Portland, OR.
Schubauer-Berigan, M.K., M. Smith, J. Hopkins and S.M. Cormier. 2000. Using
historical data to evaluate status and trends in the Big Darby Creek watershed (Ohio,
USA). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19(4): 1097-1105.
Seaber, P.R., P.P. Kapinos and G.L. Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S.G.S.
Water-Supply Paper 2294. p. 63.
Serveiss, V.B., D. Norton and S.B. Norton. 2000. Watershed Ecological Risk
Assessment; The Watershed Academy, US EPA; on-line training module at
http://www. eoa .Qov/owow/watershed/wacademv/acad2000/ecorisk
Sham, C.H., J. Brawley and M.A. Moritz. 1995. Quantifying nitrogen loading from
residential septic sources to a shallow coastal embayment. Int. J. Geog. Infor. Sys.
9(4):463-473.
Slack, J.R. and J.M. Landwehr. 1998. Hydro-climatic data network (HCDN): A U.S.
Geological Survey streamflow data set for the United States for the study fo climate
variations, 1874-1988. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-129.
s
59
-------
*
t
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 1996. Managing
Resources for a Sustainable Future: The Edisto River Project Report. South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Division.
USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision
for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning
Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR.
USDA Forest Service. 1996. Indian/Deadwood Watershed Analysis. Unpublished
Report. Siuslaw National Forest, p. 106.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Final guidance for implementation of requirements under section
304(1) of the Clean Water Act as Amended. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Regulations and Standards and Office of Water Enforcement and
Policy, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guidance for water quality-based decisions: The TMDL process.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment
Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-92/001.
U.S. EPA. 1994. TMDL Case Study, Lake Chelan, Washington. EPA841-F-94-001.
U.S. EPA. 1996a. Proposed Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Federal
Register. 61(175):47552-47631, Sept. 9, 1996.
U.S. EPA. 1996b. Middle Snake River Watershed. Ecological Risk Assessment, draft
Planning and Problem Formulation. EPA630/r-96/008A.
U.S. EPA. 1996c. Middle Platte River Floodplain Ecological Risk Assessment.
Planning and Problem Formulation.
U.S. EPA. 1996d. Waquoit Bay Watershed, Ecological Risk Assessment. Planning
and Problem Formulation. EPA/630/R-96/004A.
U.S. EPA. 1996e. Clinch Valley Watershed, Ecological Risk Assessment. Planning
and Problem Formulation. EPA/630/R-96/005A.
U.S. EPA. 1996f. Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment. Planning
and Problem Formulation. EPA/630/R-96/006A.
U.S. EPA. 1996g. Watershed Approach Framework. Office of Water, Washington DC
20460. EPA-840-S-96-001.
60
-------
U.S. EPA. 1997a. People, Places and Partnerships: A progress report on community-
Based Environmental Protection. Office of the Administrator. Washington, DC 20460.
EPA100-R-97-003.
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Designing an information management system for watersheds.
EPA841-R-97-005.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment
Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-95/002F.
U.S. EPA. 2000a. Deposition of air pollutants to the Great Waters: Third report to
Congress. EPA/453/R-00-005.
U.S. EPA. 2000b. The quality of our nations waters. A summary of the National Water
Quality Inventory: 1998 report to Congress.
Valiela, I., G. Collins, J. Kremer et al. 1997. Nitrogen loading from coastal watersheds
to receiving estuaries: New method and application. Ecolog. Appl. 7(2):358-380.
Valiela, I., M. Geist, J. McClelland and G. Tomasky. 2000. Nitrogen loading from
watersheds to esturines: Verification of the Waquoit Bay loading model.
Biogeochemistry. 49(3):277-293.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Nonpoint Source Control Plan for
the Lake Mendota Priority Watershed Project. Department of Natural Resources,
Bureau of Watershed Management, Madison, Wl.
Yearsley, J.R. 1991. A Dynamic River Basin Water Quality Model. EPA/910/9-91-019.
U.S. EPA, Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Yearsley, J., P. Cirone, G. Filbin and D. Kama. 1998. Middle Snake River Risk
Analysis. Draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
61
-------
s
7. GLOSSARY
Aerial photography
ARC/INFO
ArcView GIS
AVHRR
0
Bedrock geology
CFF
Color infrared
DEM
DLG
EROS
f
Photographs taken of the Earth's surface features from an
airplane. Usually differentiated from remote sensing date
due to the difference in media.
A high-end GIS software by ESRI, it is used to create spatial
databases and perform spatial analysis. Add-ins provide
spatial modeling, 3-D visualization, and surface analysis.
ARC/INFO runs on Unix and Windows NT operating
platforms.
A data integrating and viewing software by ESRI, this
software allows the user to view, query, and create full color
maps of existing spatial data. ArcView GIS runs on Windows
and Unix platforms.
Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer is the broad-
band, multi-channel scanner carried on NOAA's POES. This
scanner senses visible, near-infrared and thermal infrared
wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The geology of the solid rock foundation usually overlain by
unconsolidated soil and vegetation.
Cartographic Feature Files (USFS) are edgematched
digitized vector files of USFS-administered lands produced
by (Geometronics Service Center) GSC. GSC digitizes
USGS topographic quadrangles to 0.005" accuracy and
adds USFS information to produce CFFs.
Used especially to detect change in vegetation.
Digital Elevation Model contains elevation (X,Y,Z) data in a
continuous or gridded surface.
Digital Line Graphs (USGS) are vector representations of
map features digitized using USGS topographic quadrangles
and aerial photographs. It is also a data format to which
ARC/INFO reads and writes.
USGS Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center
is an archive for remotely sensed data such as aerial
photographs and satellite land remote sensing data. The
Center is located near Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
62
-------
GLOSSARY cont.
s
ESRI
National Geospatial
Data Clearinghouse
GIS
GIS layer
Glacial lake
GPS
Hydrologic unit
Land cover
Landsat
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., a producer
of commercial GIS software, including ARC/INFO and
ArcView.
The USGS node of the Geospatial Data Clearinghouse
contains metadata on geospatial data available from USGS.
The Clearinghouse is part of NSDI.
Geographic Information Systems integrate database
operations with the visualization capabilities of maps. Images
are stored as spatial data and can be linked to data in
relational databases. In a GIS, the results of a database
query is displayed on a map.
A coverage representing a single theme. Types or themes of
spatial data are usually stored separately, such as roads,
buildings, streams, trees, land use, land cover, etc.
A lake formed in the trough created by the migration of a
glacier.
Global positioning system. A system using satellites to
determine coordinates on the Earth's surface. Base station
and hand-held receivers receive positional information from
the satellites. Coordinates can be obtained in real-time or by
computing differential conversion.
A component of a four level system of division which
organizes the hydrology of the United States into regions,
sub-regions, accounting, and cataloging units.
Mapped using aerial photography or satellite imagery, land
cover types identify the natural features on the Earth's
surface.
An Earth resources satellite, Landsat 1, formerly Earth
Resources Technology Satellite-A (ERTS-A), was launched
by NASA in 1973. Landsat 2 (ERTS-B) launched in 1975.
Subsequent launches were Landsat 3 (1978), Landsat 4
(1982) and Landsat 5(1984). Landsat 7 is expected to
launch in February 1999.
63
t
-------
s
GLOSSARY cont.
Land use
Metadata
MSS
Reach Files
t
Remote sensing
Resolution
Spatial data
STATSGO
STORET
TIGER
The classification of human use of land cover features on the
Earth's surface.
Data about data. Metadata provides information on the
statistics and characteristics of datasets.
References Landsat multispectral scanner land surface
information data from the early 1970's to 1992. The MSS
sensor recorded the reflected radiation from the Earth's
surface in the visible and mid-infrared wavelength bands of
the electromagnetic spectrum.
Hydrologic databases created by USGS and U.S. EPA that
identify and connect the stream segments of the US surface
water drainage system. These databases support mapping
and spatial analysis applications. Three versions, RF1, RF2,
and RF3, are currently available.
Information about the Earth's surface features collected by
sensing the electromagnetic energy they disseminate.
The measurement of the ability of a remote sensing system
to distinguish between close or similar objects in a remotely
sensed image.
The topology and coordinates of geographic features.
The State Soil Geographic Data Base, a soil survey product
developed by the USDA NRCS, is for state and regional use
as a reference tool. It contains vectorized map data and
associated relational tables of soil and vegetation
information.
Storage and Retrieval of U.S. Waterways Parametric Data.
STORET is EPA's national water quality data system.
The Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing system and database of geographic information
developed by the Census Bureau. The geographical data
contained in the TIGER database is available to the public
for use with mapping and GIS softwares. TIGER is a
registered trademark.
64
-------
GLOSSARY cont.
s
TM
Topology
Topographic maps
U.S. EPA data
References Landsat thematic mapper land surface
information data from the early 1980's to the present. The
TM sensor records images spanning the visible, mid-
infrared, and into the thermal-infrared wavelength bands of
the electromagnetic spectrum. Landsat data is archived by
the USGS EROS Data Center.
The relationships between adjacent or coincident spatial
features. Topology eliminates duplication of coordinate
information to describe coincident features. For example, for
two adjacent polygons that share a common boundary,
topology requires only one set of coordinate and vector
information for that boundary to successfully recognize either
or both polygons.
Maps that show a horizontal or plan view of features on and
elevation contours of the Earth's surface.
The Presidents Executive Order 12906 (Coordinating
Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National
Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) mandated each Federal
Agency or Department to establish a Geospatial Data
Clearinghouse. U.S. EPA is developing its own node on the
National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. The Spatial Data
Library System (ESDLS) is a major component on the node.
It provides a consistent Agency-wide spatial data
management infrastructure.
ESDLS contains the following coverages: TIGER 92;
coverages of EPA regulated entities; GNIS2; TIGER 90
Block and Block Group boundaries and point centriods; 1:2M
DLG for roads, hydrography, and state and county
boundaries; U.S. EPA Reach File Version 1.0 (RF1);1:250K
land use/landrover GIRAS spatial data; and Fish and Wildlife
Refuge and National Park Service boundaries. The EPA
point coverages will be generated from the Agency's
ENVIROFACTS database which contains information on
EPA's regulated facilities. ESDLS also contains statistics
from the Bureau of the Census STF-3A and PL/94-171 files
in the Oracle data base.
U.S. EPA has assembled its regulatory data in Envirofacts,
provides access to the Census Bureau's demographic data
in Oracle through mapping applications developed by the
65
-------
s
GLOSSARY cont.
WBLMER
WBNERR
Agency. The Envirofacts database consolidates regulatory
data from six EPA national data systems: the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), the Permit
Compliance System (PCS), the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Information System (RCRIS), the Toxic Release
Inventory System (TRIS), the Grants Information and
Control System (GIGS), and the Envirofacts Aerometric
Information Retrieval System/AIRS Facility Subsystem
(AFS). The Safe Drinking Water Information System may be
added by now.
Waquiot Bay Land Margin Ecological Research project
sponsored by the National Science Foundation.
Waquiot Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
t
66
-------
s
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION USED IN THE WATERSHED STUDIES
A-1
t
-------
s
TABLE A-1
Information Used in the Watershed Studies
Watershed
Obtained?
Source
Format
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
Limitations or
Problems
WATERSHED BOUNDARY OR STUDY AREA
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquott
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chela n
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
uses
USGS
CCC,
WBLMER
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
Paper/HUC map
GIS/HUC map
GIS/DLG
GIS/HUC (fourth
field)
GIS/DEM
Topographic map
Topographic map
GIS/HUC (fourth
field)
GIS/HUC
GIS/DLG
1:500,000
1 :250,000
1:250,000
1 :250,000
30m
15 minute
100ft
contours
1:250,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
Limited
resolution
Some maps
outdated
SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquort
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
WBLMER,
Univ
USGS
USGS
USGS
GIS
GIS/DLG
GIS/HUC (sixth
field), topographic
map, aerial photos
GIS/HUC
1:100,000
1:1,000,000
1:250,000
1:24,000
A-2
-------
TABLE A-1 cent.
Watershed
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Not
needed
Source
Format
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
Limitations or
Problems
MAP OF STREAM REACHES
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chela n
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
USGS
USEPA
USGS
USEPA
USEPA
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
Topographic map
RF1 (inside basin)
GIS/DLG
RF3
RF3
Topographic map
Topographic map
GIS/Topographic
map, aerial photos
GIS/DLG
GIS/DLG
1 :24,000
1 :500,000
1 :2SO,000
1:100.000
1:100,000
15 min
1:24,000
1:12,000
1:24,000
1:250,000
Several
intermittent
streams
missing from
topographic
map
OTHER WATER BODIES
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
GIS/DLG
hydrography (for
outside the basin)
Maps. GIS
DEM
Topographic map
Topographic map
1 :2,000,000
NA
3 arc
resolution
15 min
1 :24,000
s
A-3
-------
s
TABLE A-1 cont.
Watershed
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Source
USDA
uses
Format
GIS/Cartographic
Feature Files (CFF)
GIS/DLG
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
1 :24,000
1 :24,000
Limitations or
Problems
MAJOR ROADS
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Oedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Not
needed
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
US Federal
Highway Adm
USGS
US Census
Bureau
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
National Highway
Planning Network
GIS/DLG
GIS/TIGER
Topographic map
GIS/CFF,
topographic map,
aerial photos
GIS/DLG
GIS/DLG
1 :2,000,000
1:1,000,000
15 min
1 :24,000
1 :24,000
1:250,000
Obtained
commercial
version from
ESRI
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
USGS
US Census
Bureau
USGS
USGS
Paper/DLG
GIS/TIGER files
GIS/DLG
GIS/TIGER files
1:2,000,000
1:100,000
1:250.000
1:24.000
A-4
-------
TABLE A-1 cont
Watershed
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source
uses
State
USGS
WDNR
Format
Topographic map
GIS/CFF
GIS/DLG
GIS/DLG
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
1:24,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
1 :24,000
Limitations or
Problems
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquort
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Not
needed
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
USGS
GIS/Land use data
GIS/TIGER files
GIS/DLG
Topographic map
GIS/DLG
GIS/DLG
1:250,000
1:100,00
1:24,000
15min
1:24,000
1:24,000
BEDROCK GEOLOGY/GROUND WATER
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquort
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
USGS
USGS,
Nebraska
DEQ, DOH
USGS, CCC,
WBLMER,
Univ
Va Cave Bd
Open file report
Literature files, field
data
Literature files, field
data
Significant karst
areas
1902-1992
Days
Many points
m
Need study
s
A-5
-------
s
t
TABLE A-1 cont.
Watershed
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source
USGS,
Washington
DOE
WQCD
USGS
USGS
USGS, Geol.
and Nat His.
Sur.
Format
High altitude photos
(NHAP), field survey
Expert knowledge
Geologic
quadrangle map
Literature files
Literature files
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
1967,
1971, 1987
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
1 :25,000
(color);
1 :60,000 (U-
2 false color
infrared)
1 :250,000
Limitations or
Problems
Limited
resolution
PRECIPITATION
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
National
Weather
Service
National
Weather
Service
CCC, USGS,
WBLMER,
Univ
NWS
USGS
State
climatologist
Federal
State
climatologist
Monitoring data
Monitoring data
Literature files, field
data
Monitoring data
(totalizing
anemometer)
Database
GIS
Database
GIS
1951-1973,
monthly
mean
Variable
Continuous
Monthly
20 years/
monthly
Annual
Monthly
Point data
3 sites
Not needed
6 stations
Scattered data
points
Limited
coverage
A-6
-------
TABLE A-1 cont.
Watershed
Obtained?
Source
Format
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
Limitations or
Problems
EVAPORATION/WIND SPEED
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Not
needed
Not
needed
Not
needed
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
No
National
Weather
Service/
Pacific NW
Riv Bas
Comm
WBLMER,
Univ
USGS
Monitoring data
Literature files, field
data
Literature files
1 928-1 994,
daily min-
max/
monthly
average
2 points
Data from
different
watershed
NPDES OUTFALLS (location and effluent concentration)
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
No
USEPA
Nebraska
DEQ, DON
USEPA
Ohio EPA
Permits
Monitoring data
Monitoring data
Monitoring data
Monthly
Monthly
Variable
Point data
Point data
Point data
Point data
Poor quality
control in data
transfer
Locations
were not
accurate,
corrected to
within 15m
s
A-7
-------
s
t
TABLE A-1 cent.
Watershed
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Source
SCDHEC
State
Format
Permits
Database
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
1 :24,000
Limitations or
Problems
Original
location data
often
inaccurate
FLOW GAUGING/STREAM GRADIENT
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chela n
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
(stressor)
Yes
Yes
Yes
(stressor)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
USGS, Idaho
DWR, Idaho
DEQ,
consultants
USGS,
Nebraska
Conservation
and Surveys
Division
USGS,
WBLMER,
Univ
USGS, TVA
Ohio EPA
USGS
USGS and
permit holder
USGS
USGS
Open file report
(USGS), field data
Monitoring data
Literature files, field
data
Monitoring data,
calc. from DEM
Computer database
Open file report
Database
Monitoring data
Literature files
1928-1994
Variable
1902-1985
Not needed
Monthly
Daily
4 points
Stream
reaches
Point data
0.1 river mile
Point data
4 stations
Used model to
estimate
current daily
flows
Not enough
data points
t
A-8
-------
TABLE A-1 cont.
Watershed
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Not
available
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source
Idaho Dept
Water Res.
Nebraska
DEQ
Ohio EPA
WDOE
WQCD
Forest
Service and
State Permits
Task Force
WDNR
Format
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
STREAM USE
Field data
Monitoring data
Field observation
Research data
Database
Database and files
Research
GIS/River Basin
Reports
1990-1994
-5 year
Seasonal
One-time
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
Point data
River mile
River
segment
1 :24.000
Limitations or
Problems
Incomplete
Limited time
frame
WATER SUPPLY INTAKES (location and description)
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquort
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Idaho Dept
Water Res.
Nebraska
DEQ, DOH
EPA, VADEQ
Ohio EPA
WDOE
WQCD
Forest
Service and
State Permits
Field data
Monitoring data
Permits
Field observation
Research data
Database
Database and files
1990-1994
-5 year
Seasonal
Point data
Point data
Point data
River
segment
Point data
Incomplete
s
t
A-9
t
-------
t
Watershed
Edisto
L. Mendota
TABLE A-1 oont.
Obtained?
Yes
Yes
Source
SCDOC
Drinking
Water Bureau
WDNR
Format
GIS
Files
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
1:100,000
Limitations or
Problems
REGULATED FLOW STRUCTURES
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Wa quoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
(stresses)
Yes
(stressor)
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Idaho Power
Nebraska
DEQ, DOH
TVA
Ohio EPA
WDOE
Permit holder
USFWS
Water
Regulation
and Zoning
Section
Historical
Historical
Topographic map
Field observation
Historic
Not needed
Interviews and
historical maps
GIS/National
Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Files
1902-
present
~5 year
Point data
Point data
River
segment
Point data
1 :24,000
STREAM WATER QUALITY
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Yes
(stressor)
Yes
(stressor)
Yes
(stressor)
Idaho DEQ,
Idaho St
Univ, ARS,
Idaho Power
USGS,
NDEQ,
NDOH, NRD
USGS,
WBLMER,
Univ
Monitoring data
Monitoring data
Research data,
monitoring data
1 990-1 995
Variable
River Mile
Point data
Interpolation
was necessary
for the daily
time step
Not enough
sampling
points on
tributaries
A-10
-------
TABLE A-1 cent.
Watershed
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Cheian
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Yes
(stressor)
Yes
(stressor)
Yes
(stressor)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source
TVA, VA,
FWS, Univ
Ohio EPA
Canada
Centre for
Remote
Sensing,
WDOE
Permit
holder.
USFS,
USGS, CDH,
CDNR
USFS
SCDHEC
WDNR
Format
STORET
STORET, field
observation
Landsat, field
sampling
Database
Stream survey field
data
monitoring data
River Basin Reports
and Literature
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
1985
91-95/0.5
hr
Monthly
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
River
segment
30m
20%
coverage
11 stations
Limitations or
Problems
STORET data
is being
modified for
inclusion as a
GIS layer
Limited
historical data
STREAMBED SUBSTRATE
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Cheian
Yes
(endpoint)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
USFWS,
Idaho Power
Nebraska
Games and
Parks,
USFWS,
Nebraska
Power
Trout
Unlimited,
WBLMER,
Univ
TVA, VA,
FWS, Univ
Ohio EPA
Washington
DOE
Habitat Suitability
Curves
Monitoring data
Research data
Monitoring data
Monitoring data
Monitoring data
1990-1995
Variable
Variable
1992-1993
1987
River Mile
Point data
63 sampling
points
-20 sites
Yes
*
A-11
-------
s
t
TABLE A-1 cont.
Watershed
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Not
needed
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Source
USFS
WDNR
Format
Stream survey field
data
Field analyses
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
20%
coverage
Limitations or
Problems
Incomplete
data
STREAM BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
(endpoint)
Yes
(endpoint)
Yes
(endpoint)
Yes
Yes
Yes
(endpoint)
Yes
Not
available
Yes
Yes
Univ of Idaho,
FERC,
USFWS
USFWS,
DEQ, private
USGS,
WBLMER,
Univ
TVA, VA.
FWS, Univ
Ohio EPA,
Ohio St. Univ
Washington
DOE
WQCD, Dept
of Wildlife
(DOW),
Permit holder
SCDNR
WDNR
Field data, literature
review
Monitoring data
Research data,
monitoring data
Field data, literature
review
Field data
Field data
Field measurements
Stream survey field
data
Field analyses
1990-1995
Variable
1989-93
(TVA)
1992-1993
1982-84,
1986, 1987
River mile
Point data
Point data
River mile
63 sampling
points
Limited data
FISH HATCHERIES
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Yes
(strsssor)
Not
needed
Not
needed
Univ
Idaho/ARS
Field data
1990-1991
144 points
A-12
-------
TABLEA-1 oont.
Watershed
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L Mendota
Obtained?
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source
Consulting/
Local
USFS
USFWS
WDNR
Format
Monitoring data
Stream survey field
data
Literature files
Field analyses
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
1987
Variable
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
Point data
20%
coverage
Unknown
Limitations or
Problems
Incomplete
data
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
Yes
(endpoint)
Yes
Yes
(endpoint)
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
USFWS
USFWS,
DEQ, private
MA Natural
Heritage,
WBNERR,
WBLMER,
Univ
TVA, FWS,
TNC
USFWS,
DOW
USFS, State
SCDNR
WDNR&
USFWS
Snake River Aquatic
Recovery Plan
Historical
Research data,
monitoring data
Field data, literature
files
Database
Database
GIS/Field surveys
Database
1995
Variable
Variable
Point data
Point data
Point data
1:24,000
Limited
surveys, No
data for many
areas
t
t
f
A-13
-------
s
t
t
TABLE A-1 cont.
Watershed
Obtained?
Source
Format
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
Limitations or
Problems
WETLANDS
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
Yes
Yes
(endpoint)
Yes
Not
needed
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
IDEQ
USFWS
MADEP
USFWS
USFWS
SCDNR/USF
WS
WDNR and
NRCS
Literature files, field
data
GIS/NWI
Aerial photos
GIS/NWI
GIS/NW!
GIS/NWI
Digitized maps
1994
Scattered
River mile
1:24,000
Variable
1:24,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
1 :24,000
RIPARIAN CHARACTERISTICS
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Yes
Yes
(endpoint)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
IDEQ
TNC,
Nebraska
Games and
Parks
USGS,
WBLMER,
Univ
NASA
USEPA, Ohio
EPA
Project
Literature files, field
data
Research data
Research data
Land sat
EMAP/REMAP
Aerial photos,
remote sensing
1994
Variable
River mile
River mile
30m
1:12,000
See
discussion
A-14
-------
TABLE A-1 cont.
Watershed
Edisto
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Yes
Yes
Source
SCDNR
County Land
Conservation
Depts. (LCD)
Format
Aerial
photos/Landuse
inventory
County aerial photos
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
1:24,000
1 :24,000
Limitations or
Problems
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
(endpoint-
sediment)
Yes
Yes
Yes
(stressor-
sediment)
Yes
(stressor-
sediment)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ARS, IDEQ,
Univ Idaho
SCS
uses,
WBLMER
NRCS
Ohio DNR
Washington
DOE
Permit holder
USDA-NRCS
USDA-NRCS
USDA-NRCS
County Soil
Surveys, River
Basin Reports
County Soil Surveys
County Soil
Surveys, research
data
County Soil Surveys
STATSGO
Field data
County Soil Surveys
County Soil Surveys
County Soil Surveys
Soil Survey Map
1976-1981
1987
1:250,000
1 :20,000
1 :20,000
1 :20,000
Biased to
agricultural
use
LAND USE/LANDCOVER
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NASA
USGS
uses,
Municipalities
NASA
NASA
USGS
Landsat
GIS/GIRAS
Landsat, parcel data
into ARC/INFO
Landsat
Landsat
Literature file
1976
30m
1:250,000
30m
30m
30m
t
A-15
f
-------
TABLE A-1 cont
Watershed
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source
Permit holder
USFS, State,
County
SCDNR/USF
WS
WDNR,
County Land
Conservation
Depts.,
NRCS
Format
Research data
USFS permits,
county tax files,
state land ownership
Aerial photos
Computer database
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
1:12,000
1 :24,000
1 :24,000
Limitations or
Problems
HISTORIC LAND USE
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
Yes
(stressor)
Yes
Yes
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Idaho DEQ
Federal
State,
Municipalities
TVA
USFS
USDA and
Forest
Service
WDNR&
Country LCD
Literature files
Historical
Aerial photos, parcel
data into
ARC/INFOA/IEW
Aerial photo
Logging history data
base, history of
human settlement
Literature files, Ag
census, Forest
survey
River Basin Reports
1907-
1950-
present
10 year
1 :900,000
3m
1:12,000
County
Skewed to
present
Does not
include private
land
SUPERFUND SITES/LANDFILLS
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Not
needed
Not
needed
A-16
-------
Watershed
VUaquoit
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Obtained?
Yes
Not
needed
Yes
Not
needed
Not
needed
Not
needed
Yes
Yes
Source
HAZRAP,
AFCEE
USEPA, Ohio
EPA
SCDHEC
WDNR
TABLE A-1 cont.
Format
Research data,
monitoring data
Database
Files
Temporal
Range and
Coverage
Spatial
Scale or
Resolution
Limitations or
Problems
LOCAL POPULATION ESTIMATES
Mid-Snake
Mid-Platte
Waquoft
Bay
Clinch
Big Darby
Lake
Chelan
WFkCI
Crk
Ind-Dedwd
Edisto
L. Mendota
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
US Census
Bureau
Nebraska
DEQ
Municipalities
US Census
Bureau
US Census
Bureau
US Census
Bureau
US Census
Bureau
US Census
Bureau
US Census
Bureau
Regional
Planning
Commission
Database
Database
Database
GISmGER
GIS/TIGER
Database
Database
Database
Database
1920-1990
10 year
10 year
10 year
1990-1996
1 902-1 990
10 year
10 year
10 year
1 6 sq. miles
Obtained
commercial
version from
ESRI
A-17
-------
APPENDIX B
INFORMATION SUMMARY BY WATERSHED
B-1
-------
5
ir
2
(0
CO
0>
•o
T3
^ 5
m ®
•H ^
m £
•Q H-
< ^
r~ eo
E
E
^
nformation Si
S-
$
s
i
V.
0
<
s
1
i.
z
>
a.
^
T
L
<
1 Base Mapping
4-1
'c
D
i
E
5
8 Geographic Manag
I*
O)
c
2
S
(0
Q
5
_c
1
.*=
cz
I
*-•
1
/area extends a
•5
(0
CD
f
o
re
E
$
re
XI
re
0)
re
>»
•D
3
CO
T3
JJ
re
CO
1
B
c
CD
i
to
s
•5
£
X)
3
CO
>>
^
•o
U
.»
I! Subwatershed bour
I! Major Hydrology
CO
1
re
re
o>
£
£
B
re
•o
D)
c
•-D
CO
••?
(I)
£
0=
to
re
o
ire identified on topographi
%
1
CD
tb
leous reach eso
i_
(U
c?
I
CO
CU
.C
II Map of stream reac
s
•13
i
0)
£
^c
sre not in eluded
5
-8
re
o
Of.
CO
T7
S
DC
.5,
re
S
/A
1 Political Boundaries
g
•£>
I
1
re
re
€
-ffi
°CO
4)
£
.c
s delineated was induded
o>
1
is
c.
i
£
?
o
i
"5
a
re
<
&
c
o
O
>,
TJ
3
O
£
£
I
CO
0)
c
"55
•a
"o
_: CT «
•E re u,
unit of the Snake River P\<
rgest and most productive
springs. Monitoring data i
c re £
& CD ^
t>£ o
re ^, t
o> ir£
C-E 1
*> re .2
II «
f°£
> 3 C
8.2"i
"I5
fe"s
™ x: «
^k ' rti
•o'h~ •§
•9 cd X)
5*1
f 1§
,_
&
Bedrock/Groundwa
| Meteorology
(/i
£
c
o
CO
E
S
D
£
£
•*-^
is evenly distributed excep
H~
S
ion averages 27
S
'5
•Q
CD
ol
II Precipitation
>N
l_
re
jl
ra i_
TJ£
,«
§re
Ll_
CD c
« "i
?H
§£
f— fry
H fe
O>
co V
'CO Jf-
>-•£
re ®
re T3
jc.2
CO >f!
._ g^
?i
£ 0
li
H
CU <1>
i E
.-e-f
"D re
"e c
2 s
ed and relative !•
dely spaced. Mi
'C for July.
0) '5 ?0
*ia
C.ETJ
s S c
> Q. re
Evaporation rates
*-
li Stream Environmer
co-
co
*»
'o
S5
fi
a.
O
'E
1
£
re
c
^
CO
U
o
^rf
$
1
^
D>
"o
-------
1
o
CO
UJ
2
3
V.
-2.
•5.
a
j.
>
|
LL
_
o
to
C 0) QJ
|| i §
" '"S « ^
1 i 1 1
& CO^l
USGS maintains gauging stations at several locations, including both the uppermost and low
segments. USGS also maintains gauges at important infiowpoints. Until 1 992, the entire ri\
for agriculture. The current FERC license requires a target fiowof 6cmVsecond, if available.
in the system were considered in the hydrological component of the model. Gradient was ca
existing cross-sectional studies for the analytical report
.1
CO
b>
|
w
TO
C
'en
3
CO
at
o
LL_
I Stream use is mostly for irrigation, municipal withdrawals, trout hatcheries, and recreation.
o
(0
o
c
o
|
o
T3
ro
§
or
c
o
V
'8
Q.
*
A roughness coefficient was calculated using methodology developed by USAGE. Sedimeni
smothers macroin vertebrates and promotes macrophyte growth. More field work is required.
1
.a
"O
0)
e
ca
CO
L_
"*~
D)
2 *-
§2 £
81
II
Field data collected by the state and universities from 1 990-1 995 was combined to provide g
the study area, particularly from Milner Dam to Lower Salmon Falls. Suspended sediment ai
enrichment were identified as primary sfressors.
TS
^
E
CO
to
o
8
or
8
u
•SB.
O
O
o
CO
o
CO
1
nj
Q)
-------
^J
c
8
i
CO
'ABLE
~
"
5
jn
^
:
<
2
••
Z
>
2
t.
C
J
<
a
5
J
8
i
w
0>
5
3
£
a5
IE
4)
ro
w
o
J^
Ml
1
1
^
£
4)
<6
LL
(0
"O
n
_j
o
1
I
"S
i
i
=6
^_t
0
Z
_a>
£
ra
1
35
TJ
c
1
a.
to
2
n
TJ
^
05
£
O
g
15
(0
0)
"ra
a
0
3
E
?
1C
C
03
^
^
i
o
a:
•«
i
u
£
V.
in
"0
j=
n
T
C
0)
£
"o
§•
in
(i
|
E
=s
111
1
^
£
(
a.
"n
-
-------
c
'to
Q.
O
O
U_
L_
S
to
TABLE B-2
Information Summary for the Middle PI
>
i
**
2
s
i
c
F
**
a
LL
Z
a
o
a
u
o
Base Mapping
'c
D
S
1 Geographic Managem
M
•*
8
o
(N
CO
u>
CO
CO
ra
Q
8
c
ra
T3
J5
1
CD
B
ae study area extends 200 km from North Platte
t-
Q.
ra
n
«
fSubwatershed bounda
II Major Hydrology
01
i
L_
S
-D
C
ra
i
2
TJ
;§
^
S
I
«=
c
schematic shows locations of dams, tributaries,
<
rn
|| Map of stream reaches
ra
ra
$
CO
tershed
i
LG data was used for water bodies outside the '
Q
w
Eio
10
V $
C 1*
ra ra
£ E
ra Jj
* £
CD (0
3 3
SCI)
<5 to
Q. —
T3 "5
S*
ra >,
c ^
£ £
js forma
oundwa
2 O
ie Middle Platte river valley is underlain by a po
lales, forming the "high plains aquifer system."
idpoint that needs more study.
(-"So
Bedrock/Groundwater
1 Meteorology
nnual precipitation averages 57 cm.
<
| Precipitation
ne study area is considered semihumid.
P
1 Evaporation rates
i-
c
ra
•c
5
"5
CO
ra
E
1
ra
u CO
•8 c ^
o « c
I 11
« gg?
0 . £ S ^
E S?? 8
ie analytical portion of the study will use an IHA
odel considers the following variables:
l magnitude of water condition,
l timing of occurrence of a specific water conditi<
1 frequency of occurrence of a specific water cor
l duration of time over which a specific water coi
l rate of change of the water condition over a sp
l- E^CMro^in
Stream Environment
O
Q
c
ra
PDES data is available from the Nebraska DEQ
z
B NPDES outfalls
CD
-------
TABLE B-2 con t
z
S
5
«
2
2
£
i.
*
•r
I
5
Tf
CU
i^
CO *-•
<1) C
E g
w S
i°
J >
Is
g 0
II
Ef
TO --
" O
ll
(0 >
r~ ttJ
TO "°
® C
||
Data include longitudinal river stage (schemati
some calculated. Stream gradient information
S
ti
I Flow gauging/stream gre
(0
•i*
CQ
_*
<^.
1
£•
£
CO
TJ
CO
?>•
agricultui
«
u
CO
3
8"
1
,
Q.
Q.
^
*
8
€
T
»
0
c
—
CD
^
1
%
Nebraska DWR is responsible for tnstream flo'
supply the water.
c
o
1 Water supply intake Iocs
I Low head dams are used for irrigation.
CO
0 Regulated flow structure
II Stream bed substrate
0>
|
I
CO
01
.c
1
o
T5
o-
^
Q)
To
^
I
«*%
There are some concerns about the distance t
|| Stream water quality
0)
o
|| Aquatic Biological Resoi
•5
&
a
i
0)
£
0
TJ
TO
CO
CO
b
!e
Research data related to food source for sandl
|| Primary shellfish waters
There are no hatcheries in the study reach.
|Fish hatcheries
U)
0)
'c
1 Stream biological commi
^
"j»C
O)
c
"o.
"Q.
TJ
c
CO
c
^
w
ro
-1
s
CO
a
§.
Sightings and migraf on corridors for the whoo
also occur within the study area.
ll Endangered species
CO
8
a
i Terrestrial Biological Re!
in
TJ
l_
2
TJ
C
n
T»
(A
S
0
o
a
c
TJ
2
S
1
o
a
>
CU
^3
4_r
B
co
a>
5
1 Wetlands have been characterized according 1
D Wetlands
TO
O
f^
O
0)
c
ra
1
cu
||
"TO S3
TO I
'S£
Q. O
||
I/I CO
8 —
£
c c
if
S .£
The analytical phase will address landscape si
migrant birds, and species and habitat survey
8
!B
| Riparian corridor charac
The soil is primarily alluvial.
ll Soil characteristics
c
TJ
fl)
U/
f*»
2
i
0)
"o
c
8
&
I
Lu
(ri
"re
c
CO
f\
^f
0
o
Land use land cover data is available from Nel
private ownership and used for agriculture.
U Land Use/Land Cover
I
TJ
5
o
1
±
(/I
llSuperfund Sites/Landfill;
o
8
3
4_
0
jz
TO
"o
^
o
CO
a
TO
1 Grand Island, the lamest atv in the studv. has
t/]
P Local Peculation Estima
m
2
-------
>^
CQ
CO
'5
2
CT
TABLE B-3
Information Summary for Wai
v
y
£
5
— r;
/,
2
±!
—
s
CO
o>
£
t
o
CO
0)
JZ
£
1
L-
^
CD
^
.
•5
Li
"
J2
^
a
•D
cu
a
E
o
4=
.—
^
CO
10
CD
a>
One hundred percent of Ihe freshwater entering th
|| Precipitation
Evaporation rates are considered in the analysis.
1 Evaporation rates
1 Stream Environment
NPDES data was not used In the analysis.
(0
1
o
CO
UJ
0
CL
| Flow estimates are available from research data.
0)
'a
m
|j Flow gauging, stream g
cb
c.
E
_E
i
T3
C
co
di
c
!c
1C
—
| Aquatic activities include recreational boating, she
p
c
0)
35
CO
CD
CO
| Intake locations were not considered in the analys
CO
o
CO
1 Water supply intake loc
CO
3
-------
§
u
CO
1
m
3
1
2
i
a
z
*
L
Z
i:
I
=t
TJ
M
ra
c
E
c
•o
%
s
E
Q.
_0
>
«
1
W
1
The aquifer, and sole source of drinking water, is under pressure
by plumes from a Supertund site.
1 Bedrock, groundwater
hydrology
1
The estuarine substrate is composed of loose glacial sand and Q
| Bed substrate, habitat
Eutrophication causes water quality problems in the Bay.
I! Stream water quality
(A
§
—1
|| Aquatic Biological Resoi
The eelgrass beds provide habitat for fish nurseries.
|Fish hatcheries
ra
m
o
o>
0
£
O)
ra
d
CD
0)
TJ
ra
10"
CO
Land u se/landrover maps were generated for 1 951 , 1 971 , 1 980,
for 24 land use classes was generated.
•
^j
£
20
L.
ra o
o ^^
c 2
ra Q-
* Q.
fe "o
i -K
EH
si
Population data for the last 5 years, for the previous 5-10 years,
correlated with groundwater travel time to tidal area to estimate 1
loadina in the estuarv.
(0
4S
| Local Population Estima
CO
m
-------
3T
TABLE B-4
Information Summary for the Clinch Vail
^
5
2
5
r*
u«
5
i
LL
•p
w'
D)
1
1
(0
DO
»-
D
II Geographic Management
The Clinch River Basin covers an area of about 11 31 km2.
D Watershed boundary
1
o;
1
o
D-
D
•Q
^
n
a>"
>
on
-5
C
o
a>
a
a
«
Three subwatersheds were selected for analysis: Cooper Cre
|| Subwatershed boundary
1 Major Hydrology
Stream reaches were considered in the GIS base map.
|| Map of stream reaches
| Other water bodies were included in the GIS base map.
B Other water bodies
Major roads were included in the GIS base map.
•8
CTJ
0
o:
.0,
ro
•5.
I Political Boundaries
County boundaries were included in the GIS base map.
f
o
O
Municipal boundaries were considered in the GIS base map.
| Municipal
1 Analytical Data
£
TJ
c
1
m
01
in
t
Gradient was calculated from DEM data. Sfreamflow ranges
'c
~
llFlowqauqinq. stream qra
"ro
"ecreation
.j-,
c
CO
1
V
.>
T3
(0
Of
(U
'"5
15
g.
'E
Rivers and springs provide drinking water for households, mu
opportunities for the local population.
| Stream use information
••s
0
c
QJ
(U
£
T3
T3
TO
CO
O
1 Water intake locations from permits were incorporated in the
w
o
11 Water supply intake locati
G>
ob
-------
c
-t
0
CD
£
0)
jj
8
£
<
H
CO
Q
•c
o
•fi
U/
8
£
"to
CO
•S-
^
There are no regulated flow structures in the s
both the Clinch and Powell Rivers.
| Regulated flow structures
TABLE B-4 cont
1
2
i
«
z
2
X
J.
X
I
Field data is available from Virginia and TVA
"o
IStreambed substrate, qua!
habitat
CO
C CO'
•?E
lfl
0)-§
| |
— o
0 =
E 8
Era
0 0
•n -^
c o
ro orj
LU *a
QC n
P '5
w-s
«Tii=
g'E
•J= CU
IP
C3)&
"5 «
Sa
•p: -«-*
1 | g^
»
CO
s-
11
* 0
°f
11
8> °>
fc -g
=6 "s
*-» ^
8 CO
~ w
E ~
« s
ll
.2 -c
CO £
The assemblage of fish and freshwater mussel
stream biology during the 1 970's - 1990's. His
co
0)
II Stream biological commun
«
'E
i*
c
c
%
CO
n
fe
0
c" co
il
£ $
«I
tm
Q
^
•C ^
-------
f
f
^,
o>
E
0
I*
CO
TABLE B-5
Information Summary for Big D
^
y
<
5
5
c7
z
5
1
LL
>
X
U CATFGi
ft Base Mapping
=
D
g
01
y Geographic M ana
B
UJ
Q
1
T3
CD
CL
i
i_
CD
II Watershed bound
CL
UJ
O
.a
S
(Q
0)
C
T3
01
C
'35
0)
CD
>.
0)
f
•a
•5
a-
Not applicable.
1 Water bodies
fi
^^
™5
§• w
Q) ^
| ^
<0 |
_ ^
"= CO
SI *
j= 5
cu
Ofs
ro
1 1 n
ii- w
^C
7T O
O O
? 75
*- 5
0 >
J-8
y o
TIGER data files were obtained from ESRI with pu
immediate compatibility with the GIS software. PL
1 Major Roads
CO
tn
I! Political Boundarit
County boundary delineations provided by ESRI.
c
o
O
Municipal boundary delineations provided by ESRI
| Municipal
Analytical Data
Geology was not included in the study.
"5
llBedrock/Groundw
| Meteorology
Precipitation was not included in the study.
I! Precipitation
Evaporation rates were not included in the study.
| Evaporation rates
£
| Stream Environmi
to
0
CD
.c
ft
W
J2
The NPDES data was converted for use as a data
INPDES outfaiis
?
01
1
CQ
1
CO
O
i
z
c
~
2
01
E
CD
0>
4a
CO
J3
m
1
km.
D)
1 There is one station in study area. Staff are lookin
1 by OEPA.
c
0)
^
D)
CO
1 Flow gauging/sire
1
V)
CD
2
i
"c
'o
0
c
£
k_
"^
CL
UJ
O
^3
CO
CD
•c
s
E
£
| Field data was collected for Big Darby Creek and i
|
CO
1
0)
CO
i
49
CO
1
-------
t
4-1
§
•9
m
UJ
V
^
S
M
Z
^
«
S
t£
O
J.
a.
C
e
LL
4
n the study area.
Low head dams are located ii
in
| Regulated flow structure
orated into the 161.
1 Habitat degradation is incorpi
|Streambed substrate
§
•
'5
o»
£
cu
m
(V
fc
S3
CO
CO
8
=6
c
75
u
TO
o
o
0>
0)
e
0)
£
Water quality was estimated
in the study.
is
1
CO
CO
0)
o
y Aquatic Biological Resoi
•
_
S
JD
._
>.
JO
0)
.
to
Q
a
in
^c
a?
'Hi
1
=6
I
S
T5
1
O
U
CO
n
jz
43
to
Q
|| Primary shellfish waters
S
n
"O
CO
0)
£
c
There are no fish hatcheries i
II Fish hatcheries
«
2
i—
oL
>
•»
considered in the anal
Historic land use is not being
1
•o
5
o
1
X
n the watershed.
Harshburger Landfill occurs ii
^n
II Superfund Sites/Landfill;
*~
a.
W
UJ
cu
8
n
'O
duded from a commer
| Population estimates were in
-------
t
t
TABLE B-6
Information Summary for Lake Chelan
>-
1
INFORMATION SIW
>
H CATEGOF
O)
c
Q.
i
CD
'c
•*-•
c
r 'a
ffl
co p re -Q
• 5 js5
'B! c i E
c <0 gi 3
rr *s CW
O 73 in CO
~ co" _£> te
J(0 9
- «•§ 8
»- c/> cu eg
0 o o To
^.^ ** _Q
s 8! § ^
Surficial soil and rock outcrops ware mapped to evaluate the s
disposal. Fifteen monitoring walls were installed downgradien
also installed upgradient and in agricultural areas. The object!
attenuation wthin the basin. Groundwater contributions to the
|
TJ
§
Bedrock Geology/Gr
| Meteorology
CO
5
"§
o
Q
£
-o
re
E
'"In
0
CO
^
1
•55
g
Al
There are three rain qauqes in the study area. Atmospheric d<
II Precipitation
§
ro
1
1
1*
'^
13
-t:
S!
-*=
re
0)
^
^_,
ft)
1
A totalizing anemometer was used to measure daily total wnd
provided continuous data.
flEvaporatjon rates
I! Stream Environment
,_•
$
cc
.2
E
"o
O
0)
£
o
"c
CD
D)
(0
8
^
CO
"c
0)
3
P
| Wastewater treatment is provided by the City of Chelan; the et
|[NPDES outfalls
to
o
w
<0
E
1
c.
-------
t
TABLE B-6 cont
3
5
5
z
<
5
i
Z
X
i
4
Municipal intakes are located under tie lake.
(0
1
fl Water supply intake loc
to
(U
o
A hydroelectric dam was built in 1927 within the City of
to
a\
1 Regulated flowstructun
£
03
E
1
£
•o
c
re
8
3
ra
mulation versus 1
3
Sediment in the lake was sampled to evaluate toxic ace
sedimentation rates.
5
5
&
.0!
Surficial soil and rock outcrops were mapped to evaluat
disposal.
ilSoil characteristics
0)
£
"5
1
CD
Q.
O
U,
8
•*=
03
^
£
V)
u.
in
-O
The dominant land use is undeveloped forest managed
watershed is developed, primarily for apple orchards.
iLand Use/Land Cover
Historic land use is not applicable to the study.
1 Historic
There are no Superfund sites in Ihe watershed.
1 Superfund Sites
Landfills are not addressed in the study.
| Landfills
re Q
Q
re ^
9) cu
tt> 9-
O) tn
— .<*
£ $
0) 5
? &
u •—
'•5 2
500. This does n
J70-1980; Ihisral
>••' w*
Total resident population within the basin in 1 987 was €
fluctuations Population growth increased 1 2.5% from 1
continue.
CO
c
Small Area
Population/Household
Estimates and Proiectic
•t
CD
-------
^
o>
o>
6
(0
0)
O
o
LL
*g
i
1 1 1
^i ix
TABl
Information Summary fc
y.
2
«
z
5
a
C
LL
>
T
I
1 BASE MAPPING
'c
r>
4_*
S
E
ft
|| Geographic Man 35
to
c
_o
CO
E
|
C
W
03
L_
5
*g
c
o
cu
£
B
ra
>
-S
u
c
| Subwatershed bou
I! Major Hydrology
c
o
re
L_
•8
^
vi
1
Roads were not relevant for this TMD
l
CO
TJ
ra
o
CU
(0
(/>
II Political Boundarie
.52
(U
h-
co
0)
ra
TJ
c
i
.a
0)
£
jj
n
a>
c
:35
TJ
£
"U
§
.£
'c
E
8
O
_j
Q
O
^j
o
"O
fc
u
"3
O
o
£
'o
*=
3
5
O
U9
m
y
Basic understanding of the Geology \
also have information on the qeoloqv.
I! Bedrock Geology
^
0)
O
.*:
o
1 1
LL.
to
1
•D
C
w
^^
"S
Q
cu ^
"i §
ra ^
S
£
i_
Q)
«
0)
C.
.*-*
O
c
o
•5.
3
to
£
§
§
5
c:
c
ra
0)
'co
"Jo
U Fraction imperviou
I Meteorology
o
o
n
(N
0)
Q
n
>
9
5
1
10
?-
k_
^
ra
USGS. 1985. National Water Summ
I Precipitation
in
CD
-------
not needed for this TMDL study.
Information on this topic was
TJ
1 Evaporation rates
(temperature and >
«->
CO
UJ
a
s
5
Z
S
Z
L
>
tt
•p
I
C
1 Stream Environme
one active, one inactive;
"here are no other
(0
c 'E
E"~" fc
CD
d8
s is maintained by the Colorado WC
ompany) are covered by one NPDE
the immediate watershed.
Information on NPDES outfal
owned and run by the same c
industries or municipalities in
I! NPDES outfalls
it holder.
Q.
01
£
TJ
ro
I
TJ
C
m
Flow gauging information was
I Flow gauging
TJ*
eaches as cold water
higher quality fishery an
apply to this stream.
re TO
s of the affecte<
is classified as
ter quality enter
ermined the primary designated use
n. West Fork Clear Creek, however
ality Standards, a different set of wa
The Colorado WQCD has de
aquatic habitat, and recreatio
based on Colorado Water Qu
o
re
£
0)
10
3
CO
Q
O
was obtained from the Colorado WQ
Information on water intakes
co
8
s
o
0)
1 Water supply intak
rfl
Information on the dam
«_|
§
0)
1
73
0)
ods Creek forming reservoirs to coll
holder.
Two dams are present on We
was obtained from the permit
tO
U
ll Regulated flow stri
&
re
F
o
3GS topographi
used, but could be obtained from US
Gradient information was not
0)
1 Stream gradient, s
4=
43
to
Q
O
•8
•§
o
XI
TJ
•^
the qroundwater hydrology was proi
Observational information on
g
|Groundwaterhydr<
gJJ
y. However, information
documents that every st
sf , and Section 305B
are maintained by the
"5 D '3 J3
Creek TMDLsti
contained in tw
3D "Waterbody
these documen
t considered in the West Fork Clear
flow, and many other parameters is
the Clean Water Act the Section 30
^sources in the State." In Colorado,
Substrate was not specifically
stream bed substrate, stream
is required to maintain under
"Report of Health of Water Re
Colorado WQCD.
1
.83
Streambed substrs
T*
enderson mines monitor
eaches is also monitorec
I ,~
Ih the Urad and
ong the affectec
nduct monitoring on the creeks. Bo
le NPDES permits. Water quality al
orado DOW and DNR.
A number of organizations co
water quality as required by 11
by USFS, USGS, and the Co
8
05
Q.
2?
1 Stream water qua!
chemical
75
Q
(!)
£
TJ
TO
O
Q
0
re
were used: Colorado WQCD; Color
Three sources of information
(0
8
i
-------
4-1
r—
>
lea
TABLE
S
5
i
|
**
a
0
LL
z
a;
-r
LL
5
c
TJ
J
U
1
ro
TJ
c
ro
c"
tation for restoratio
0)
o>
1
o
1
"5
§
o .
ii
&*
The permit holder has conducted a lai
information on the local vegetation co
0)
2
o
I
TJ
O
I
(D
O>
$
cs as part of its re\
acteristi
^.
ro
Is
(0
o>
0
1
"ro
The permit holder has extensive infon
restoration program.
S
CO
£}
U
ro
ro
€
._
w
0
ra
<5
0
O
£
•o
c
re
1
D
o
TJ
CD
C
js
S3
o
lt>
c
formatio
c
a
55
£
^-«
ro
No endangered species were present
DOW.
CO
0)
§.
to
T>
2
1
ra
TJ
c
UJ
CA
TJ
CO
_J
£
;s
o
ro
c
ro
E
CD
E
1
V)
ro
£
tu
^
TJ
5
*
Q
h-
CO
£
5 »
(0 CD
|l
3|
II
w ro
2?
«D J5
-a£
_i O
g'S
t C
^ (A
Present land use was not considered
other Ihan the two mines. Most of the
0>
o>
W
Q_
to
ra V*
— CO
o c
Jr o
ro -4^
a, 1
f £
1~
||
CO S
U. £
co a,
!!
tU TJ
watersh
vatershe
JJ §>
£ .E a
|l|
No Superfund sites (SFS) are presenl
Cr. watershed. There is little human ;
maintained by the USEPA Regional o
CO
S
TJ
J
I
3
CO
TJ
0)
fi
-ffi
0)
£
•
'IS
O 4)
CJ t
Information on local population is not
tovwi of Empire. 8 miles away; there a
CO
c
o
"O .J1J
"§ 2
| Q_
0 T3
5 ™
IP
*«• as «
111
E o to
CO Q. UJ
-------
TJ
§
^<
5
fi
5
X
^i
LL
Z
g
c
£
a
0)
.E
a
»
S
1
m
•4-f
C
Si
D)
m
aphicMan
b)
o *;
C ? *^ "c
E (0 — ™
•j: ^ 8 ra
~ '<5 £ <*
'55 m "§ a
.O <* 7= o
i- £ .E TJ
o
pi
* S-o
.S 2 "E
T5 "o
•5
i
(U
*
<^
O
ra-
tn
" y.
V) a>
CD 5
E ^
~ S3
J ra
j>
**
W "2
0 §
•*>
"ro ^
1 -
ra S
li." —
o I
0) *=
£ >>
A GIS layer of lakes and other water bodies was obtained from
Other small water bodies (livestock ponds) were added manual
added at the wildlife biologists discretion.
u>
0)
TJ
O
J2
i
JD
TJ
SL
Q.
TO
E
(D
I
(0
<1)
£
0
^
ra
to"
^
Q.
CQ
L_
"o
•s.
^
>
0
£
>,
^Z
1
^
"c
d>
(U
Q.
a.
TJ
c
ra
(0
a.
ra
O
X
O)
£
*—
o
TJ
fl)
Informaton for subbasin boundaries was taken from the sixth fi<
using topographic maps and aerial photographs.
B
c.
•B
ra
%
£
00
-------
(ft
TABLE B-8 con t
fY
5
~
INFORMATION SUIV
>
O
O
UJ
u
4>
£ *"'
~O ~O O
e hard copy maps that were digit
eas within the watershed were foi
1:250,000. The information was
rt) m 0>
„, re ?
0} k_
X jt* At
USGS quadrangle maps were used to idenfify rock types. Thes
staff for the project The data was limited in resolution and seve
did not correspond to information in the USGS maps. The scale
limited in resolution.
-^
o>
o
Q
0)
0
O
1
CO
I This information was not needed for this analysis.
m
o>
to
H—
O
ID
0>
§5
§
'5
«5
a
E
[ This information was not needed for this analysis.
E
(5
^»
6
>
Q.
.i
c*
o
u
nj
£
o>
o
o
"to
s
JD
1
on a 20-year sliding average. Th
jate for their purposes.
u) cr
2M«
re
The State Climatologist at Oregon State University monthly ave
available as a GIS raster layer. The scale is very large but was
0
B
'a.
w
CL
No other climatology information was used.
V
fe
1 1
There are no industries or municipalities in the SiuslawNational
_2>
To
t=
HI
Q
D.
Z
<^
•s
ation was not collected for the an
E
£
c
I No flow gauging stations are in the watershed, and streamflowi
>
forest This permit system is sep
ing developed. Conditions for fisi
cted by USFS and other existing
tely 20% of the watershed, as onl
to <" 3 (0
jf- O TU3 C
-fe r* ^
* « 0 '5?
C .. tl O
The SiuslawNational Forest issues permits for stream use withi
the state permitting system on private land. A permits database
were determined using existng Level II stream habitat surveys <
information. The information was incomplete and covered appn
360 miles of streams have been surveyed.
o
"re
E
Q
"c
$
3
E
!
CO
re
ia
0)
JUT"*
i SiuslawNational Forest permit 1
en reported.
n %
*S
TJ >
Information on permitted outtakes in the watershed was obtaine
State of Oregon permit files; however, not all actual outtakes ha
10
|
nj
8
0)
-*
&
c
•£
Q.
,__
&
^
»
1
(formation on the location of old s
5.
— Q
V) E
All regulated flow structures have been removed from the strear
was obtained from interviews of area residents and from historic
<0
j^
^
o
1
re
3,
to
te
CD
C
C tfi
O ~i
ing the Montgomery and Buffingt
lanual (Washington DNR, 1993) i
f 2
= -!2
••£ !>s
The streams were classified by confinement and gradient dass
methodology described in the Washington Site Watershed Ana!
information from topographic quadrangle maps.
if
TR
c
0>
T3
re
ra
E
1
CO
in
93
a.
o
Tn
tiaracterized by steep dissected :
u
(0
(Q
«
Information on groundwater hydrology was not needed. The an
and groundwater is not a concern.
CO
o
•g
>*
^
S
E
§
o
§
« 8
1^°
1 USFS stream surveys, but the Ir
cific set of map points and canno
{ 20% of the watershed as only !•
r- ~n\
§ S"«
-o «" e
Some information on streambed substrates has been collected •
is anecdotal and not systematic. The information is not fixed to
mapped for GIS storage. The information only covered approxil
miles of stream have been surveyed.
"ra
w
_o
i
T3
E
n>
CO
en
-------
+j
o
u
°?
CD
ill
INFORMATION SUMMARY
>-
o:
0
O
at
5
O
m Ii
i formation |
£^
« 3
The analysis used data on a set of streams in the SiuslawNational Forest that were monitored for
temperature in the summer every year since 1 991-1 995. Temperature was recorded every half h<
on sfream water chemical characteristics has not been collected.
&
w
g-
^
3
m
Sfream w
o>
«J
H
3
K
8
'c
^c
|| Aquatic Bi
ID
•5
u=
"33
-5
A survey of the sfreams for mussels, snails, and other fauna recentiy began. Thus, information or
not available.
U)
^
3
5
f
-Si
MB
"35
_c
-K
£T
1
ct
.?
<5g
ID U
* C
^i
n a?
Some areas that would be suitable for fish nurseries have been identified from topographic maps
database. Suitable areas are unconfined areas with low gradient The information was incomplet
approximately 20% of the watershed, as only 74 of 360 miles of sfreams have been surveyed.
w
V
^
3
C
.C
10
iZ
absence [
ollected.
° »
Si
| No information on fish populations in the watershed was available. During sfream surveys, presei
1 of fish species was noted but not systematically collected. No information on other aquatic fauna
~a
u
"TO
0 <0
"5 .9?
1 Sfream bii
communiti
Program. J
8,
.-8
| Information was compiled from the Regional Forester's List USFWS, and the Oregon Natural Her
U)
o
o
23 m
1 Terrestrial
H Resource;
0)
£
«l=
0)
n
« ..-
Wetiands information was obtained from the National Wetiand Inventory. This information is avail
USFWS as an ARCINFO GIS layer. The information is good, but not available for all quadrangles
| Wetlands
u>
"I)
-C TJ
o> &>.
(E&S
• ° i
W 0 >
Information on riparian vegetation was digitized from aerial photographs for the watershed analysi
usefulness of the information was limited because free species could not be identified from the ph
This is important for evaluating presence of species that could confribute to recruitment of coarse
(important for fish habitat).
0
? 8
L— U
0=5
| Riparian c
| character!
§
JS
<0
Q>
S2
Information on vegetation coverage was also obtained from aerial photographs. Accuracy of the \
coverage GIS layer was checked by examining selected stands for size and species composition.
M
£
2
9
,>
o
u
^
| Vegetatiol
5§
u
in
3
0)
_a
•n
No specific information on storage of moisture in surface soils was available. The information cou
inputs from groundwater, and important in helping to moderate stream temperatures.
0)
ex
n
1
8
m
£=
IM.
3
1 Maximum
ra
a o
** o
Is
01 "S
flj ro
PI
Soil surveys for some counties were out of date. The USDA-NRCS surveys tend to be biased tov
land uses and did not contain detailed information on forest soils. The delineations of the survey '
large for the purposes of the watershed analysis.
•5
te
3
u
2
TO
€
'5
W
d
SS^
O) ft)
?!
0. O
0) (u
Information was compiled from Regional Forester's List, USFWS, and the Oregon Natural Heritag
Two bald eagle nest sites are located in the southern portion of the watershed, in proximity to Lak
UJ
-------
O
Ill
0-E ?
v_ (V O
u.
(0
2 ro
ra S
-3
USi
IS**
s«n
"^*"
jTO (D
ro ra
£ ^rc o>
Nas
•D jS S -u
I s'-d II
"S «
-------
c
'55
(0
m
v_
§
ir
S
U)
9 is
CD «_
" 1
to
.g
Informal
^
i
5
iC
5
a:
z
C
h-
1
J.
z
>
rV
[*
f
LL
U
[Base Mapping
•*-•
'c
13
^
re
I Geographic Man
U)
>> c
^ o
CL v
TO TO
O) E
L_ O
•D *:
£xT
"So
>. TO
— >,
CO o
oCi
£ TO
jy ^E
ra o
0) «-
& 0
Q 0)
T3 S
$ >
§ »
| E
if
quadrangle
USGS tope
ase.
topographic
, some of Ihe
e NWI Datab
SGS 1:24000 scale
formation, however,
so obtained from th
3 .£ TO
River basin
1
re
(U
CO
^^
ra
"O
II Watershed boun
o
Q
ra
(U
CO
re
T3
c
3
O
|Subwatershedb
I Major Hydrology
o
CO
»
9-
•5
S
|Map of stream rt
i
CO
li Water bodies
0)
JS
ro Q)
^1
o> •Q
C TO
£ o
"«E ^
!» 0*
S.S
TO "O
— '55
CO c
CD 8
(U T>
£ ro
•S -^
(0 "o
aj
k. d) A)
O Q, •»
5 -^"D
T3 ^""o
S §^
3 0) O
i 2 ^
8.^ S
Ell
quadrangle
tided highw
ne of these i
topographic
Four-lane dh
;. Again, son
SGS 1:24000 scale
stwork information.
avel of most sped e;
D c *=
•o
s
fX.
.&.
TO
(0
Q)
•^
| Political Boundai
I
C
8
-—
a
£
'5
re
^™
CO
CD
0)
£
.22
TO
Z
X
(7S
1
1
5
o
10
o
in
1
o
ata on predpitation
a sin.
o m
i Predpitation
h-
o>
U)
c.
o
E
E
co
T3
c
2
0}
i
*^
o
TJ
3
at
"ou
T1
3
^
01
*-
0> c
" TO
|S
£?
Sj
« s
-I o
l!
S "ro
5 E
11
13
O R)
*=§
vaporation rates (61
ir a small North Can
LLJ S
m
II Evaporation rate
CN
CM
m
-------
s
t
4-1
g
O
33
XI
I
5
z
5
at
z
2
JJ
J.
O
-
Q)
§
u.
LLJ
E
s
-to
CO
f-
2
0 c g
111
'6>
o>
o
LL
CO
E
2
^m
CO
0)
>•
Data on permitted surface water withdrawals and permitted wells was included in a GIS layer provided
South Carolina DOC. Scale: 1;100,000. The information was current and reliable.
co
§
•43
CO
8
s
,£
"5.
Q.
CO
$
5
>
There are no dams on the major river system; however most tributaries have damswith impoundments.
Information was taken from the NWI database. This information was available from SCDNR.
CO
o
o
t
.c
£
T3
3
o
2
o
en
CD ~
eg
tf 15
Information on streambed substrate was not needed because there is littie variation within the watershc
substrate all tends to be either sandy or silty, with little gravel or limestone (marl). Some general inform
available in the NWI database.
m
£
CO
£t
«
3
.Q
E
CO
-b
CO
| Monthly data from 11 monitoring stations In the basin covering the period 1975-1 991 was obtained frorr
| SCDHEC. More historical data from earlier time periods would have been useful.
^
1
O"
!
E
CO
t-i
CO
CO
0)
o
^
QL
8
'a
0
0
ffl
o
•fs
CO
CT
<
43
CO
Q
j Data on shellfish harvest permits, culture, and polluted waters designations was obtained from SCDNR
| was adequate.
CO
^
.c
en
"55
*
£*
E
•c
Q.
-------
TABLE B-9 cont
i
S
5
Z
\
•J
u.
Z
>.
1
i.
H*
1
I
£
s
5
0
o
in
15
°£
10
CD
1-
O EO
8 ."
n c. c
(U
^_
_ „,
II
'*""
s.
10
T3
(U
c
1
o
LU
to
8
z>
•o
nJ
_i
|0
£
O
ro
E
..fe
Forest survey data was also used for determining historical land uses. Census of Agriculture int
been collected every 5 years since 1 925 by the Census Bureau.
O
o
._
T.
a.
Q
o
-------
f
T3
O
2
9
TABLE B-10
Information Summary for La
1
s
5
a
z
Fj
5
0
LL
•z
rv
§
c
LL
u
O
H Base Mapping
'c
13
SJ
S Geographic Manage
*
0)
O
=
F
w
if
0)
0
c
fe
O
¥
Sn:
re >
c S
-C •^
"1
B g
o _
ll
«"S
*J CU
2 O
1 *
ll
II
L- TO
E TO
.1 «
in
(U
^*
IJMap of stream reach
Lake Mendota has a total area of 10,000 acres.
I Water bodies
ri
Roads were included as part of the baseline ma|
o
O
TJ
CD
c-
f>
:g
Tj
15
"0
0>
£
"g
"re
•o
TO
of
•—
2
o_
c
w
"o
S
Q.
c"
8
The study area includes most of the city of Ma*
several villages.
1 Municipal
| Analytical Data
TJ
0)
tc
.0
1
O)
0
8
V
m
u/
175
re
o
re
43
re
Q
TJ
O>
"S
jg
i
Q
^3
0)
^
Imperviousness was not a concern in the Lake IV
from USGS.
[Bedrock Geology
3
u
JS
tfi
1—
c
55
c
1 b
o
OQl
3? "o
0) w
0} >
£3;
El
5 oT
w c
'HI
Q J
TO £>
Data on atmospheric fallout were obtained from
not controllable and is not usually considered in
| Meteorology
Data were obtained from the state dimatologist
| Precipitation
-------
o
"7
CO
ID
%
INFORMATION SUMM
>
o:
o
CD
Hi
<
0
o
g
CO
1
>•
5
"o
m
i
Q)
i
a*~
(D
^
0)
E
^
USGS flow gauging data are available from the USGS. A two vc
measurement is published annually for Wisconsin.
1 stations
low gauging
u.
_co
~d)
3
CO
o>
£
O)
^
3
«=
V)
_re
(U
I
to
W
Uses of the streams include warm water fishery and recreation.
stream classification system.
i formation
0)
CO
CD
§
•f
_o
0>
1
•Q.
Q.
3
3
5
Information was obtained from Water Regulation and Zoning.
10
0)
iwstructur
egulated flc
o:
Information obtained from Water Regulation and Zoning.
iff
c
o
nel conditi
barriers
tream cham
Dstructions,
CO 0
0
T3
0)
10
3
CO
-S
0
LU
CO
D
Z Q
5 TO
4) r^
. to
0.1*
TO Z
Gradient is not a major concern in an area of relatively flat topogi
calculate water hydrology parameters using information from the
&
o
TK
I
i
0>
CO
CO
o
CO
CO
£
O
.fc
s"
o
Q.
•i
o
CO
£
o>
x>
re
A county by county description of groundwater hydrology is avail
or Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey.
•§
ft
f
round water
o
»
5)
Q
0
TQ
CO
o:
z
(0
(0
CO
u
•jj
0>
8-
1 nformation on the streambed substrate is collected on a project
during the planning phase of each Priority Watershed Project
»
S
J8
treambed si
to
TO TO -Q
•gog
^ ^- »f
_-
cn.co TO
S H °
to - . 10
Jj I
til
0 Q 2
« 0 $
S 8.S2
h 8 8
Monitoring stations have been in the Lake Mendota Watershed f
information is available in an older publication, "Surface Water R
72 volume series, one for each county of Wisconsin. The volumi
are not being updated systematically.
.£>
"TO
3-
(0
CO
to
"o
1
1
0
S
f>
CO
E
c
1
o
fi
The Surface Water Resources for Dane and Columbia counties |
size of lakes, and uses.
to
CU
p
L_
3
a:
8
o>
o
0
m
c
CO
g-
Z
(0
li:
£
$
£
"35
-s
>.
TO
'd
a.
e
c
'
ftt
-g
3
1
^
1
to
^rf
to
•g>
o
o
]Q
E
$
5
(U
£
Lake Mendota has one northern pike spawning area identified in
planning phase of the priority watershed program.
to
ish nurserie
Li.
TO
0)
•b
10
"o
a)
E
•§5
The Surface Water Resources for Dane and Columbia counties |
size of lakes and uses. Additional information available in the Ri
CO
"c
3
I
re
o
'5>
0
0
!o
I
c
p
TO
|
^
O
CO
3 "ra
0 *=
« c
5*
£ «=
® 0
*S
•^ 3
JO -°
? o
« §,
^> w
The Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program of the WDNR and the
The WDNR database is a computer database. The information i
(0
g>
n dan gered
LU
CO
8
D
o:
8
'O)
0
o
CO
n
U)
- ^
3 CU
§5
||
3 —
Z "D
-------
t
t
4-1
o
V
m
LU
t
SUMMARY
^
g
QL
o
z
5>-
Of.
CATEGO
•a
-^- c
0 T3
£ 2
ro 2
' ^
CO -^
w> "D
a. a>
k. p
3 ^
Q- a)
c: -Jg
O JO
1 CD
ID C.
c ' —
o
O CO
n
Q^ ^
E o
S? »
S CD
o ^
1 T>
5 ro
unties are responsible for maintaining
.D. thesis from University of Wisconsir
ipared a GIS layer for this.
o _c ju
O Q_ Q
1
"S
Cv
L.
CD
iparian corridor ch
CL
CD
re
-Q
45
ra
TJ
1
"5
C
8
ra
u
o
c
0)
egetation coverag
>
0)
0)
3
3
Q
(O
£
£
E
o
D)
(0
O
(0
£r
C
en
c
o
o
to
:CS Soil Survey for Dane and Columb
D:
z
oil characteristics
CO
o
CD
|
"o
0>
8
Q
OT
CD
£
0)
*
<;*
LL
CO
D
0)
£
TJ
ra
CK
|
£
H_
0
e Wisconsin Natural Heritage Prograrr
i-
cfl
ndangered specie
HI
13
TJ
co
_J
t Available at time of report
o
z
.0
if
CD
ra
-Q
J3
ra
TJ
._
f^
^
O
1
o
"c
0)
ra
s
Q
§
Drmation from county Land Conservati
tH
c
I
CL
cc
z
en
JB
^
s
ra
a
as
ra
T3
0)
c
armation on Suoerfund sites is maintai
"4=.
^
uperfund sites
CO
o:
z
>^
1
43
ra
^
10
ic
T3
-1
C
g
E*^
o
0
"E
to
0.
"co
o
'ra
CD
o:
c
o
O
a)
CO
Q
o
it
T3
0>
C
a
0
in
i
p
ra
^
0
T3 f?
^— u
n fit
mall Area
opulation/Househi
slinriates and P/oii
CO CL 111
CM
m
-------
I
t
-------
|