EPA903-R-97-013
CBP/TRS 171/97
April 1997
Chesapeake Bay
Regional Action Plans
Development Guidelines
APPENDICES
Baltimore Harbor
Anacostia River
Elizabeth River
Chesapeake Bay Program
Primed en recycled paper
-------
Chesapeake Bay
Regional Action Plan
Development Guidelines
APPENDICES
April 1997
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY REGIONAL ACTION PLAN
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
APPENDICES
Prepared under Contract 68-D3-0030
for
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
1-800-YOUR-BAY
http-//www.epa.gov/Chesapeake
-------
Regional Action Htm Guidance
LIST OF APPENDICES
r-
APPENDIX A - CHESAPEAKE BAY CHEMICAL CONTAMINANT GEOGRAPHICAL
TARGETING PROTOCOL
APPENDIX B - OVERVIEW OF KEY COMPONENTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN
A REGIONAL ACTION PLAN
APPENDIX C - OVERVIEW OF INFORMATION SOURCES
APPENDKD - OVERVIEW OF RANKING AND DECISION-MAKING
METHODOLOGIES
APPENDIX E - THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISPLAY MANAGER: A TOOL
FOR WATER QUALITY DATA INTEGRATION
APPENDIX F - CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN TOXICS OF CONCERN
WORKPLAN
APPENDKG - SUMMARY MATRIX OF IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
APPENDIX H - FINANCING ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
APPENDIX I - GEOGRAPHIC TOOLS FOR EVALUATING INFORMATION
111
-------
APPENDIX A
CHESAPEAKE BAY CHEMICAL CONTAMINANT
GEOGRAPHICAL TARGETING PROTOCOL
-------
Chesapeake Bay Chemical Contaminant
Geographical Targeting Protocol
Chesapeake Bay Basmwide Toxics
Reduction and Prevention Strategy
Commitment Report
Chesapeake Bay Program
i Printed on recycled paper
-------
Chesapeake Bay Chemical Contaminant
Geographical Targeting Protocol
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy
Commitment Report
Chesapeake Bay Program
Toxics Subcommittee
March 1995
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to present a geographical targeting approach for focusing
chemical contaminant remediation, reduction, prevention, protection, and assessment actions
within the Chesapeake Bay basin. Geographical targeting has been used successfully in both the
Great Lakes and Puget Sound to identify areas with chemical contaminant-related problems in
order to focus appropriate reduction and prevention efforts. Identifying areas within the tidal
Chesapeake Bay that have chemical contaminant-related problems will help managers and
scientists to focus limited financial resources on the appropriate assessment and management
actions.
A geographical targeting approach was introduced by the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Toxics Subcommittee in 1993 with the release of the issue paper Chesapeake Bay Regions of
Concern: A Geographical Targeting Approach to Toxics Prevention and Reduction [11]. The
paper discussed geographical targeting as a way to focus chemical contaminant reduction and
prevention actions by classifying specific regions based upon evaluation of evidence as to the
nature and extent of chemical contaminant-related adverse impacts or the potential for adverse
impacts. Based upon the resultant classifications, these regions would be the focus of multi-
agency cooperative efforts directed toward specific chemical contaminant remediation, reduction,
prevention, protection, and/or assessment actions.
Parallel with the release of the issue paper was the 1992-1993 reevaluation of the 1989
Chesapeake BayBasinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy, an effort undertaken to better understand
and document the nature, extent, and magnitude of chemical contamination and related effects
within the Chesapeake Bay. The resultant findings, described in the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide
Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report, revealed that the chemical contaminant-related
problems in the Bay varied according to geographical region [1]. The most severe chemical
contamination problems in the Chesapeake Bay were limited to those areas located near urban
centers close to the Bay. The reevaluation process also identified other widespread areas with
low levels of chemical contaminants below thresholds associated with adverse effects on the Bay's
living resources. These findings confirmed the need to include in the revised basinwide strategy a
geographical targeting approach for reducing and preventing chemical contamination in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries.
At its September 1993 meeting, the Chesapeake Executive Council directed the
Chesapeake Bay Program to "direct reduction and prevention actions toward regional areas with
known toxics problems as well as areas where significant potential exists for toxic impacts on
living resources and habitats" and to "establish a process for characterizing and designating areas
of the Bay as Regions of Concern" [5]. The Executive Council further directed that the existing
basinwide toxics strategy be revised to incorporate a regional focus within its commitments.
The Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy, signed by the
Executive Council in October 1994, commits the signatories to:
-------
"By July 1996, evaluate available data through the Regions of Concern
identification protocol, determine whether additional Regions of Concern should
be designated, and publish a revised characterization of Bay and tidal tributary
habitat status with regard to evidence for the presence of chemical contaminant-
related impacts. Every three years, this same evaluation of data will be conducted
using data collected since the previous evaluation" [4].
The Executive Council also designated three Regions of Concern where notable chemical
contaminant problems have been well documented by Bay scientists and managers: the Baltimore
Harbor, the Elizabeth River, and the Anacostia River [4]. Currently, the jurisdictions are working
to develop a Regional Action Plan for each area by the 1995 Executive Council meeting. These
Regional Action Plans are being developed following a consistent set of guidelines established by
the Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Subcommittee [2]. The individual plans will address the
chemical contaminant problems specific to the Region of Concern and will lay out a schedule of
remediation, reduction, prevention, and assessment actions to be undertaken to achieve the
basinwide strategy goal within the Region of Concern. Depending on the Region of Concern
itself, actions may range from a series of pollution prevention initiatives to remedial contaminated
sediment dredging to ambient toxicity assessments to evaluation of whether existing regulatory
measures are sufficient.
The Chesapeake Bay geographical targeting approach goes beyond areas with known
chemical contamination to identify areas where significant potential exists for chemical
contaminant-related impacts on living resources and their habitats. This approach will also
identify areas of the tidal Chesapeake Bay that do not show evidence of adverse impacts due to
chemical contamination and areas where data are lacking and additional study is required.
Other Geographical Targeting Programs
The Great Lakes Areas of Concern Program and the Puget Sound Urban Bay Action
Program have effectively established institutional structures for geographically targeting and
implementing chemical contaminant reduction and prevention actions. In the Great Lakes
Program, Remedial Action Plans are used to direct the restoration of beneficial uses of Great
Lakes waters through a multi-institutional, ecosystem approach [6,7]. In Puget Sound, Urban
Bay action teams identify pollutant sources and initiate regulatory responses for contaminated
urban embayments. Puget Sound decision makers have found that local involvement and multi-
agency participation is the most effective way to address the complex contamination problems
found in urban receiving waters [8].
Both programs have been effective in decreasing loadings of chemical contaminants and
remediating impacted areas by directing the resources and efforts of federal, state, and local
agencies, community action groups, industry, and private citizens towards addressing specific
chemical contaminant-related problems. The background work already done in these programs
and the experience gained through their implementation provided a firm basis for establishing a
geographical targeting component within the revised Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics
Reduction and Prevention Strategy.
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL TARGETING PROTOCOL
Through the geographical targeting protocol, all tidal areas of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries will be classified into one of four categories--/teg70w of Concern, Area of Emphasis,
Area -with Law Probability for Adverse Effects, and Area with Insufficient Data—according to the
severity of chemical contaminant-related problems. The classification will be based primarily on
available data which indicate the presence or absence ofstressors and effects. Stressors are
chemical contaminant concentrations in the water or sediments that exceed thresholds associated
with adverse effects on the Bay's living resources. Effects are any adverse impacts on the Bay's
living resources resulting from exposure to chemical contaminants. Though geographically
focused, the protocol defines a baywide approach for targeting chemical contaminant management
and assessment efforts. This approach allows Bay managers and scientists to determine which
areas require specific remediation, reduction, or prevention actions and which areas require
additional protection or assessment efforts based on the four categories defined below.
Region of Concern - For a region to be classified in this category, the available data must indicate
both adverse ambient effects and elevated concentrations of chemical contaminants above
thresholds associated with adverse effects. In this case, data reveal strong evidence for a causal
relationship between stressors and effects, where causes other than chemical contamination (i.e.,
low dissolved oxygen conditions and bacterial/viral disease) can be eliminated. Regions of
Concern will be formally designated by the Chesapeake Executive Council and targeted for
specific chemical contaminant remediation, reduction, and/or prevention actions through
jurisdictional development and implementation of Regional Action Plans.
Area of Emphasis - For a region to be classified in this category, the available data must indicate
that there is significant potential for a chemical contaminant-related problem, where causes other
than chemical contamination (i.e., low dissolved oxygen conditions and bacterial/viral disease) can
be eliminated. In this case, data reveal either elevated concentrations of chemical contaminants
above thresholds associated with adverse effects and/or chemical contaminant-related adverse
effects on living resources, but limited or no evidence for a relationship between the measured
stressors and observed effects. For these regions, the appropriate jurisdiction(s) will initiate
assessments necessary to document the presence of a cause and effect relationship between the
measured stressors and observed effects. Pollution prevention actions will be targeted towards
specific chemical contaminants and sources to eventually eliminate the potential for chemical
contaminated-related impacts.
Area -with Law Probability for Adverse Effects - In order for a region to be classified in this
category, the available data must indicate that it is unlikely that there is a chemical contaminant-
related problem in the region. In this case, data reveal measured chemical contaminant
concentrations below thresholds associated with adverse effects and no observed chemical
contaminant-related adverse effects on living resources. For these regions, the appropriate
jurisdiction(s) will "take actions necessary to ensure future protection" [4].
-------
Area with Insufficient Data - Regions classified in this category are those for which the available
data are of poor quality or are too limited to spatially characterize the region to support its
inclusion in any of the three previous categories. For these regions, the appropriate jurisdiction(s)
will "initiate necessary assessments ... to characterize habitat status" [4].
Chesapeake Bay Geographical Targeting Protocol Process: An Overview
By July 1996, all regions of the tidal Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries will be
classified into one of the four categories as committed to within the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide
Reduction and Prevention Strategy [4]. Figure 1 outlines the step-by-step process for
implementing the geographical targeting protocol. It is important to note that this protocol is
based on readily available data and not on further data collection, monitoring, and assessment.
This protocol is an iterative process where the classification for each region will be reevaluated
every three years using data collected since the previous evaluation as committed to within the
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy.
The first step in the geographical targeting protocol is to compile all evidence supporting
the presence or absence of a chemical contaminant-related problem in all tidal areas within the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Once all available evidence is compiled for a particular
region, chemical contaminant concentration data and effects data will be classified according to
the geographical targeting criteria. Next, the Toxics Subcommittee's Regional Focus Workgroup
will classify the region into one of the four geographic categories. This classification will be based
on the classified data, additional available information, and the combined professional judgement
of the workgroup members. Once a region is classified, the workgroup will document the
justification for the classification, including background information describing the region, a
definition of any chemical contaminant-related problem, and evidence used in making the
classification. This documentation will be initially reviewed by the Science and Technical
Advisory Committee and other technical experts outside of the Toxics Subcommittee, and then
presented by the Toxics Subcommittee to the Chesapeake Bay Program's Implementation
Committee and Principals' Staff Committee for approval. In June 1995, this geographical
targeting protocol will be tested with chemical contaminant data from the Anacostia River and a
region where chemical contaminant-related problems are not thought to be as severe (to be
determined). The results of this trial run will be presented to the Toxics Subcommittee for review
and the protocol will be revised as necessary. The following sections describe, in more detail, the
Chesapeake Bay geographical targeting protocol process.
Step I: Compile Evidence for the Presence/Absence of a Chemical Contaminant-Related
Problem
The first step in the geographical targeting protocol is to gather and compile all available
chemical contaminant-related data and information for all areas of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tidal tributaries. Examples of relevant information that may be considered as evidence for the
presence/absence of a chemical contaminant-related problem are listed in Table 1. This
i
-------
I. Compile All Evidence Supporting the
Presence/Absence of a Chemical
Contaminant-Related Problem
1
H. Classify Data Using the
Geographical Targeting Criteria
1
in. Classify Regions into One of the Four Categories:
Region of Concern
Area of Emphasis
Area -with Low Probability for Adverse Effects
Area with Insufficient Data
1
IV. Document Justification for the
Geographical Classifications
1
V. Review and Approve Proposed
Geographical Classifications
Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay geographical targeting protocol process
5
-------
Table 1. Examples of relevant chemical contaminant-related information to be evaluated
through the geographical targeting protocol
• Water column contaminant concentrations
• Sediment contaminant concentrations
• Water column toxicity
• Sediment toxicity
• Impaired benthic community structure
• Impaired fish community structure
• Impaired plankton community structure
• Impaired S AV community structure
• Finfish/shellfish abnormalities incidences
• Edible finfish/shellfish tissue contaminant
concentrations
• Whole finfish tissue contaminant
Concentrations
• Waterfowl/wading bird contaminant
concentrations
• Estuarine fish community indices
• Biomarkers
• Ecosystem effects (i.e., a change in prey
selection by predators)
• Fish consumption advisory
• Chemical contaminant loadings
• Sources of chemical contaminants
(known or potential)
• Historical problems (chemical contaminant
spills, Superfimd sites)
• Geohydrology
• Presence of facilities that may discharge
chemical contaminants into surface water
(i.e., Department of Defense installation)
• Changes in land use (past/present/future)
information includes chemical contaminant stressors and effects data as well as other relevant
information such as fish consumption advisories and land use changes. Data for each of the tidal
tributaries and portions of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay will be gathered and compiled in an
organized manner. Within each of the tidal tributaries and mainstem of the Bay, there may be
multiple areas with different geographical classifications due to spatial variability of the chemical
contaminant data. For example, in the Potomac River, one of its tributaries, such as the Anacostia
River, is designated as a Region of Concern, while another tributary, such as the Nanjemoy
Creek, may be classified as an Area with Law Probability for Adverse Effects, while a portion of
the lower mainstem Potomac River may be classified as an Area with Insufficient Data.
Examples of the types of information that will be acquired are technical reports detailing
chemical contaminant concentration, ambient toxicity, and effects data; electronic versions of
these data; narrative reports describing region-specific attributes; fish consumption advisory
reports; management/policy reports; and names of organizations and individuals actively involved
in the region. The technical reports detailing chemical contaminant concentration, ambient
toxicity, fish tissue contaminant concentrations, finfish/shellfish abnormalities, benthic community
structure data, and documentation on the presence offish consumption advisories will serve as the
primary data used in classifying the regions into one of the four categories. The Regional Focus
Workgroup will evaluate the quality of all technical data considering a number of factors such as
the age of the data, detection limits, number of replicates, analytical methods used in sample
analysis, use of clean or ultraclean techniques, Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures,
adequacy of reference sites, etc. Management/policy reports and information which provide
additional information about chemical cpntaminant stressors and effects in the region will be
helpful in documenting the justification for the proposed classification. Individuals, organizations
and agencies may be able to provide additional information about chemical contamination in the
area.
-------
This information will be tracked in a computerized information system at the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office. This system will serve to tabulate all information that exists at or has been
acquired by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office (i.e., on the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics
Data Base) and data/documents that still need to be obtained. The types of information that will
be included in the information tracking system are the citation of each report or data set, the
region the document/data set pertains to, whether or not the Chesapeake Bay Program Office has
obtained this document/data set, the types of information this document/data set contains, and a
log of contacts of individuals and organizations dealing with chemical contaminant issues in each
region.
It is critical that as many individuals as possible, with knowledge of a given region, be
contacted for information to feed into the geographical targeting protocol. The more
comprehensive the data, the more confident the Regional Focus Workgroup will be in that
region's classification. Some of these data will be readily available from the Chesapeake Bay
Program agencies and institutions that work in these regions. Other data and expertise may come
from researchers and managers outside the Chesapeake Bay Program. These people will be
contacted initially through a questionnaire developed and distributed by the Regional Focus
Workgroup. Additionally, regional-based meetings will be held focusing on the seven areas listed
in Table 2 during the calendar year 1995. These meetings will bring together regional and local
experts inside and outside of the Chesapeake Bay Program community to discuss chemical
contaminant-related problems in specific tidal tributaries and sections of the mainstem Bay. The
purpose of thesar meetings is to identify and acquire documents and data (both hardcopy and
electronic) needed in the classification process, identify chemical contaminant experts who would
like to be involved in the external review of the resultant classifications, and to make contacts for
involvement in the Regional Action Plan process if a region is designated as a Region of Concern.
Step II. Classify Data Using the Geographical Targeting Criteria
The next step in this process is to classify (using the geographical targeting criteria) and
present all of the available data in a format that can then be directly used in classifying all the tidal
areas into one of the four categories. The geographical targeting criteria are grouped into two
categories—stressors and effects (Table 3). The evaluation of data against these criteria assist in
the determination of whether there is evidence of a causal relationship between observed
concentrations of chemical contaminants and observed chemical contaminant-based adverse
effects in a given region. The stressors and effects in the geographical targeting classification
criteria matrix are defined below.
Water Column Contaminant Concentration - Observed ambient water column chemical
contaminant concentrations will be compared with relevant chemical contaminant concentrations
known to be protective of most aquatic organisms (i.e., EPA aquatic life criteria, respective state
water quality standards) or with relevant thresholds above which adverse effects to aquatic
organisms have been observed and documented (i.e., laboratory-based chemical specific toxicity
tests).
-------
Table 2. Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries segmentation for regional meetings
Bush, Gunpowder, Middle, Magothy, Severn, South, Rhode, and West rivers
Back and Patapsco rivers (includes Baltimore Harbor)
Patuxent River, northern mainstem Chesapeake Bay (Susquehanna Flats to Smith Point)
Potomac River (includes Anacostia River)
Rappahannock and York rivers, southern mainstem Chesapeake Bay (Smith Point to mouth
of the Bay), Virginia Eastern Shore
James River (includes Elizabeth River), Little Creek, Lynnhaven River
Maryland Eastern Shore rivers (Northeast to Pocomoke rivers), Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds
Bottom Sediment Contaminant Concentration - Observed ambient bottom sediment
chemical contaminant concentrations will be compared with chemical contaminant threshold
concentrations associated with adverse biological effects. From the available sediment quality
threshold values compiled from the peer-reviewed published literature and technical reports and
stored on the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Data Base, the most appropriate (i.e., higher level
of certainty and most applicable to the Bay region's estuarine organisms) threshold values below
which adverse effects are not anticipated will be selected for comparison with each measured
bottom sediment chemical contaminant concentration.
Water Column Toxicity - Observed ambient water column toxicity data will be evaluated
for statistically significant differences between the observed adverse effects (i.e., survival, growth,
reproduction) and reference area or control toxicity test results.
Bottom Sediment Toxicity - Observed ambient bottom sediment toxicity data will be
evaluated for statistically significant differences between the observed adverse effects (i.e.,
survival, growth, reproduction) and reference area or control toxicity test results.
Benthic Community Structure - Observed benthic community structure (i.e., species
number, species diversity, and biomass) will be compared with the Chesapeake Bay Benthic
Restoration Goals Index threshold values [9], This criterion only applies to regions of the Bay
and tidal tributaries where low dissolved oxygen conditions can be eliminated as the principal
cause of impact on the benthic community structure [10]. A restoration goal index of greater than
3 indicates the benthic community meets or exceeds the restoration goal (a benthic community
characteristic of a non-degraded bottom habitat in Chesapeake Bay); an index of 2 to 3 indicates
an impacted benthic community; and an index of less than 2 indicates a severely impacted benthic
community [9].
Finfish/Shellfish Abnormalities - Observed finfish/shellfish abnormality incidences will be
compared with appropriate reference areas. This criterion only applies to data for which disease
(i.e., bacterial and viral) can be eliminated as the principal cause of the observed abnormalities.
-------
TABLE 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY GEOGRAPHICAL TARGETING CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
CLASSIFICATION
CRITERIA
Water Column
Contaminant
Concentration
Bottom Sediment
Contaminant
Concentration
Water Column Toxicity
Bottom Sediment Toxicity
Benthic Community
Structure
Fmlish/Shellfish
Abnormalities
Finfish Tissue
Contamination9
Shellfish Tissue
Contamination
REGION OF
CONCERN1
Water column
concentrations exceed
current acute or chronic
EPA aquatic life criteria or
Bay states' water quality
standards for protection of
aquatic life or are above
laboratory concentrations
observed to cause acute or
chronic toxicity in aquatic
organisms.
ASD/OR
Sediment contaminant
concentrations are above
thresholds associated with
probable or potential
adverse effects.
* ^t»v
Art U
Percent of ambient acute
or chronic effects differ
significantly from
reference areas/controls.
AND/OR
Percent of ambient acute
or chronic effects differ
significantly from
reference areas/controls.
Chesapeake Bay benthic
restoration goal index of 3
or less, where dissolved
oxygen can be eliminated
as the principal cause of
impact on the benthic
community.
Resident finfish/shellfish
abnormality incidences
exceed those in
appropriate reference
areas, where causes other
than chemical
contamination can be
eliminated.
AffD/OR
Edible portion of finfish
tissue contaminant
concentrations in resident.
non-migratory species
exceed levels required for
protection of human health
or restrictions on
harvest'consumption are in
place.
AND/OR
Shellfish tissue
contaminant
concentrations exceed
levels required for
protection of human health
or restrictions on
harvest/consumption are in
place.
AREA OF
EMPHASIS'4
Water column
concentrations exceed
current acute or chronic
EPA aquatic life criteria or
Bay states' water quality
standards for protection of
aquatic life or are above
laboratory concentrations
observed to cause acute or
chronic toxicity in aquatic
organisms.
AND/OR
Sediment contaminant
concentrations are above
thresholds associated with
probable or potential
adverse effects.
4 ism M"VI>
AW LI/UK
Percent of ambient acute
or chronic effects differ
significantly from
reference anas/controls.
,,
AND/OR
Percent of ambient acute
or chronic effects differ
significantly from
reference areas/controls.
AND/OR
Chesapeake Bay benthic
restoration goal index of 3
or less, where dissolved
oxygen can be eliminated
as the principal cause of
impact on the benthic
community.
Resident finfish/shellfish
abnormality incidences
exceed those in
appropriate reference
areas, where causes other
than chemical
contamination can be
eliminated.
AREA WITH LOW
PROBABILITY FOR
ADVERSE EFFECTS'
Water column
concentrations do not
exceed current acute or
chronic EPA aquatic life
criteria or Bay states' water
quality- standards for
protection of aquatic life or
are not above laboratory
concentrations observed to
cause acute or chronic
toxicity in aquatic
organisms.
ASD/OR
Sediment contaminant
concentrations are below
thresholds associated with
probable or potential
adverse effects.
Percent of ambient acute
or chronic effects do not
diflcr significantly from
reference areas/controls.
AND/OR
Percent of ambient acute
or chronic effects do not
differ significantly from
reference areas/controls.
AND/OR
Chesapeake Bay benthic
restoration goal index of
greater than 3, or index
less than 3 where
dissolved oxygen is
identified as the principal •
cause of impact on the
benthic community.
Resident finfish/shellfish
abnormality incidences arc
below those in appropriate
reference areas, where
causes other than chemical
contamination can be
eliminated.
M a\fn^kf^n
AND/OR
Edible portion of finfish
tissue contaminant
concentrations in resident.
non-migratory species do
not exceed levels required
for protection of human
health and there are no
restrictions on
harvest/consumption in
place.
AND/OR
Shellfish tissue
contaminant
concentrations do not
exceed levels required for
protection of human
health; there are no
restrictions on harvest or
consumption.
AREA WITH
INSUFFICIENT DATA'
Either no water column
concentration data are
available or data are loo
limited to adequately
characterize the region.
•
Either no sediment
contaminant concentration
data are available or data
are too limited to
adequately characterize the
region.
- » ATTW/\D— .
AIN Ul\JK.=
Either no water column
toxicity data are available
or data are too limited to
adequately characterize the
region.
AND/OR
Either no sediment toxicity
data arc available or data
are too limited to
adequately characterize the
region.
AND/OR
Either no data are available
on benthic community
structure or the data are
too limited to characterize
the region.
Either no finfish/shellfish
abnormality data are
available or data are too
limited to characterize the
region.
AND/OR
Either no edible portion of
finfish tissue contaminant
data are available or data
are too limited to
characterize the region.
AND/OR
Either no shellfish tissue
contaminant data are
available or data are too
limited too characterize the
region.
-------
Finfish Tissue Contamination - Measurements of the edible portion of finfish tissue
contaminant concentrations in resident, non-migratory species will be compared with tissue
residue concentrations associated with protection of human health. From the available human
health consumption threshold values compiled from national and worldwide literature and
government documents and stored on the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Data Base, the most
appropriate value will be selected for comparison with each measured chemical contaminant
concentration.
Shellfish Tissue Contamination - Measurements of resident shellfish tissue contaminant
concentrations will be compared with tissue residue concentrations associated with protection of
human health. From the available human health consumption threshold values compiled from
national and worldwide literature and government documents and stored on the Chesapeake Bay
Program Toxics Data Base, the most appropriate value will be selected for comparison with each
measured chemical contaminant concentration.
For each region, all data that reveal either chemical contaminant stressors above
established thresholds or the presence of chemical contaminant-related adverse effects will be
recorded in the "Exceed Thresholds" column of the data compilation table (Table 4). Data in this
column will serve as evidence for classifying the region into either the Region of Concern or Area
of Emphasis category. As discussed previously, these two categories are distinguished by
whether or not there is evidence of a causal relationship between chemical contaminant stressors
and effects. These data will be further separated according to whether they provide evidence for
the region to be classified as a Region of Concern or an Area of Emphasis in the next step of the
process. All data that reveal chemical contaminant concentrations below established thresholds or
no measured chemical contaminant-related adverse effects will be recorded in the "Below
Thresholds" column of the data compilation table. Data in this column will serve as evidence for
classifying the region into the Area -with Low Probability for Adverse Effects category.
(Table 3 continued)
A Region of Concern must show evidence for a causal relationship between the observed chemical
contaminant stressors and effects. An Area of Emphasis may show evidence for the presence of both stressors
and effects, but no evident relationship between the two.
If a region has limited or no effects data, but shows evidence for stressors that exceed thresholds, it will be
classified as an Area of Emphasis. If a region has limited or no stressors data, but there are observations of
adverse effects, it will be classified as an Area of Emphasis.
For a region to be classified as an Area with Low Probability for Adverse Effects, both evidence for stressors
below thresholds and observations of no adverse effects must be documented.
If a region has limited or no effects data and shows evidence for stressors that are below thresholds, it will be
classified as an Area with Insufficient Data. If a region has limited or no stressors data and observations of no
adverse effects, it will be classified as an Area with Insufficient Data.
Whole finfish tissue contamination data, although not listed in this matrix, will be considered during the
classification process (see Table 1).
10
-------
Table 4. Example of data compilation table developed to organize stressors and effects data
to apply to the geographical targeting protocol.
COMPILATION OF DATA FOR CHOPTANK RIVER
WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATION
THRESHOLD VALUES
EXCEED THRESHOLDS
BELOW THRESHOLDS
METALS
Maryland Standards
Cd(ug/L):
Fwa = 3.9;Fwc= 1.1
EPA Aquatic Life Criteria
Cd.(ug/L):
Fwa = 3.0;Fwc= I.I
Reference 1 (1988)
Sampled 8/1987
Denton, Maryland
500m south of 404 by-pass
Latitude: 38°52'
Longitude: 75°50'
N =5
Cd = 3.1-26ug/l
Mean = 4.0 ug/1
Median = 4.2 ug/1
Detection Limit = 0.5 ug/1
Reference 1 (1991)
Sampled 8/1990
Denton, Maryland
500m south of 404 by-pass
Latitude: 38°52'
Longitude: 75*50'
N = 10
TrCd = <0.5-2ug/l
Mean = 0.85 ug/1
Median = l.Oug/I
Detection Limit = 0,5 ug/1
COMPILATION OF DATA FOR CHOPTANK RIVER
WATER COLUMN TOXICITY
CONTROL/REFERENCE
VALUE
EXCEED THRESHOLDS
BELOW THRESHOLDS
Reference 2:
Control Survival = >75%
Reference3:
Control Survival = 98%
Reference 2 (1990)
Sampled 8/1989
Cambridge, MD
50m east of Choptank River Bridge
Latitude: 38°33'
Longitude: 76°03'
96h in situ striped bass larvae
experiment
N=10 test chambers, 500 larvae ea.
Test Survival = 10%
Al = 480-4,100 ug/1
pH = 6.0-6.8
Hardness = 23-136 mg/1
Reference 3(1988)*'
Sampled 8/1987
Denton, Maryland
500m south of 404 by-pass
Latitude: 38°52'
Longitude: 75°50'
4d.exposure of silversides (Menidia
beryllina) to microlayer and bulk
water samples
N=30
Test Survival = 98%
Cd = <0.5-2ug/l
Detection Limit = 0.5 ug/1
* 1 This study is associated with
reference 1.
11
-------
The types of information that will be presented in the data compilation table are the
citation of the study, sample date and location, number of samples, chemical contaminant
stressors and effects data, detection limits, and relevant thresholds with which to compare data.
In the section of each table that lists chemical contaminant concentration data, a list of the
relevant water quality criteria and sediment quality thresholds will be provided so that data can be
compared directly with them. Stressors and effects data that are from the same study will be
flagged to indicate that they are associated. Individual data compilation tables will be established
for the major sections of the mainstem Chesapeake Bay and the major tidal tributaries and
embayments.
/ •
Step HI. Classify Regions into one of the Four Categories
All areas of the Bay and its tidal tributaries will be classified into one of the four
geographic categories based on the data compilation table, documentation of other pertinent
information compiled in the evidence gathering step, and the collective professional judgement of
the Regional Focus Workgroup.
For an area to be designated as a. Region of Concern, the following must be documented:
(1) Multiple measurements of one or more chemical contaminants in the water and/or bottom
sediments at concentrations exceeding the established water column or sediment
thresholds, respectively;
AND
(2) Multiple observations of one or more adverse effects on living resources exposed to the
waters and/or sediments of that area;
AND
(3) Strong evidence for a causal relationship between the measured water column and/or
sediment chemical contaminant concentrations and the observed chemical contaminant-
related adverse effects on the Bay's living resources, where causes other than chemical
contamination (i.e., low dissolved oxygen conditions and disease) can be eliminated.
i
An example of a causal relationship between stressors and effects data in a particular region is
observed concentrations of PAHs exceeding thresholds and a high incidence of tumors in bottom
fish associated with exposure to PAHs.
For an area to be designated as an Area of Emphasis, the following must be documented:
(1) Multiple measurements of chemical contaminants in the water column and/or in bottom
sediments at concentrations exceeding the established water column or sediment
thresholds, respectively;
12
-------
AND/OR
(2) Multiple observations of one or more adverse effects on living resources exposed to the
waters and/or sediments of that area;
AND
(3) Limited or no evidence for a relationship between the measured water column and/or
sediment chemical contaminant concentrations and the observed chemical contaminant-
related adverse effects on the Bay's living resources, where causes other than chemical
contamination (i.e., low dissolved oxygen conditions and disease) can be eliminated.
There are several cases where a region can be classified into this category. If a region has limited
or no effects data, but shows evidence for stressors that exceed thresholds, it will be classified as
an Area of Emphasis. If a region has limited or no stressors data, but there are observations, of
adverse effects, it will be classified as an Area of Emphasis. A region may also be classified into
this category when both effects data and stressors data exceeding thresholds are observed, but
there is no relationship between the two. An example of limited or no evidence for a relationship
between stressors and effects data would be the presence of metals and carcinogenic effects in
bottom fish related in laboratory studies to exposure to PAHs.
For an area to be designated as an Area with Low Probability for Adverse Effects, the
following must be documented:
(1) Multiple measurements of multiple chemical contaminants in the water column and/or
bottom.sediments at concentrations below the established water column or sediment
thresholds, respectively;
AND
(2) Multiple measurements of one or more chemical contaminant-related adverse effects on
living resources yield no evidence for adverse effects significantly different from controls
or reference areas.
For an area to be designated as an Area -with Insufficient Data, the following must be
documented:
(1) Either no available measurements of chemical contaminants in the water column or the
bottom sediments exist, or data are too limited spatially and/or temporally to adequately
characterize the region into one of the other three categories;
AND/OR
(2) Either no available measurements of one or more potential adverse effects on living
resources exist, or data are too limited spatially and/or temporally to adequately
characterize the region into one of the other three categories.
13
-------
There are three cases where a region would be classified into this category: (1) if there are no or
limited stressors and effects data, (2) if there are no or limited effects data and stressors data do
not exceed thresholds, or (3) if there are no or limited stressors data and effects data do not
exceed thresholds. In the case where there are no effects data (or stressors), but stressors (or
effects) data exceed thresholds, then this region would be classified as an Area of Emphasis.
Once the Regional Focus Workgroup completes its rigorous evaluation of the data using
the geographical targeting criteria, they will use any additional data such as those listed in Table 1
and their professional judgement to finalize their recommended classifications. It is important to
note that the geographical targeting protocol is not a rigid process. Classification will vary
according to the amount, quality, and spatial/temporal variability of the data. The workgroup's
collective professional judgement will be used to define whether there is a preponderance of
evidence that an area should be categorized as a Region of Concern, an Area of Emphasis, an
Area -with Law Probability for Adverse Effects, or an Area with Insufficient Data.
Step IV: Document Justification for Geographical Classification
Once a region is classified into one of the four categories, the Regional Focus Workgroup
will document their justification for classifying a given region into a particular category. The
documentation will include a description of the region, a definition of any chemical contaminant-
related problem, a tabulated form of all evidence used in the classification, and justification for the
classification.
Step V: Review and Approve Proposed Geographical Classification
The resultant document describing and justifying the proposed geographical classification
will be distributed to the Toxics Subcommittee, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee,
and technical experts outside the subcommittee for review and comment. Upon responding to
reviewer comments received, the Toxics Subcommittee will then present the recommended
classifications to the Chesapeake Bay Program's Implementation Committee and Principals' Staff
Committee for approval. Those regions to be classified as Regions of Concern must be formally
designated by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
Once the geographical classification of a region has been approved, the appropriate
jurisdictions will inform local groups and citizens within the region of the classification, why it has
been classified in a particular geographical category, and opportunities for participation in
planning management actions in the region.
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OF GEOGRAPHICAL CLASSIFICATION
As previously discussed, through the geographical targeting process, all tidal areas in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries will be classified into one of four categories based on the
severity of chemical contaminant-related problems and the resulting need for chemical
14
-------
contaminant remediation, reduction, prevention; protection, and/or assessment actions. The types
of management actions taken in each region will depend on which category the region has been
classified into.
If an area has been designated asaRegion ofConcernby the Chesapeake Executive
Council, the jurisdiction (s) where the Region of Concern is located will be responsible for
developing and implementing a Regional Action Plan. This plan will help focus multiagency
cooperative efforts toward planning and implementing the chemical contaminant remediation,
reduction, prevention, and/or assessment actions necessary to restore and protect the designated
Region of Concern. As directed by the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and
Prevention Strategy, Regional Action Plans will be developed, adopted, and implemented within
two years of designation [4]. These jurisdictional plans should contain a problem definition, goals
and objectives for the region, an overview of existing management programs, and an
implementation approach for achieving the goals of the Regional Action Plan as detailed in the
Chesapeake Bay Regional Action Plan Development Guidelines [2].
In regions that are classified as Areas of Emphasis, the appropriate jurisdiction(s) will
initiate assessments necessary to document the presence of a cause and effect relationship
between the measured stressors and observed effects. Pollution prevention actions will be
targeted towards specific chemical contaminants and sources to eventually eliminate the potential
for chemical contaminated-related impacts. In regions classified as Areas -with Low Probability
for Adverse Effect, the appropriate jurisdiction(s) wjll "take actions necessary to ensure future
protection" [4]. In regions classified as Areas -with Insufficient Data, the appropriate
jurisdictions) will "initiate necessary assessments... to characterize the habitat status through the
protocol" [4].
PROGRESS REVIEW OF GEOGRAPHICAL CLASSIFICATIONS
The Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy directs that
every three years, each region's classification be reevaluated using data collected since the
previous evaluation [4]. This reevaluation may result in a change in classification. For example,
an Area with Insufficient Data may be reclassified into an Area of Emphasis if new data show
sufficient evidence of the presence of chemical contaminant stressors and/or chemical
contaminant-related adverse effects. If management efforts are successful, it is possible for a
Region of Concern to be "de-listed" and reclassified as an Area with Low Probability for Adverse
Effects. A list of the regions to be reclassified must be first reviewed by the Toxics
Subcommittee, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, and by an external technical
review team, and then approved by the Chesapeake Bay Program's Implementation Committee
and Principals' Staff Committee. If any areas are to be reclassified to the Regions of Concern
category, they must be formally designated by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
15
-------
REFERENCES
1. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1994). Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy
Reevaluation Report. Report from the Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Subcommittee
to the Implementation Committee, Principals' Staff Committee, and Chesapeake Executive
Council. Annapolis, Maryland.
2. Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee. (1994). Chesapeake Bay Regional t
Action Plan Development Guidelines. Annapolis, Maryland.
3. Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee, Toxics of Concern Workgroup. (1994).
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern Workplan. Annapolis, Maryland.
4. Chesapeake Executive Council. (1994). Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and
Prevention Strategy. Annapolis, Maryland.
5. Chesapeake Executive Council. (1993). Directive No. 93-2 Toxics Reduction Strategy
Reevaluation. Annapolis, Maryland.
i
6. Great Lakes Water Quality Board Surveillance Workgroup. 1987. Guidance on
Characterization of Toxic Substances Problems in Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes
Basin. A Report from the Surveillance Workgroup based on the recommendations from
the monitoring in Areas of Concern workshop held at Canada Centre for Inland Waters,
October 3-4, 1985, Windsor, Ontario.
7. Hartig, J.H. and N.L. Law. 1993. Institutional Frameworks to Direct the Development
and Implementation of Remedial Action Plans. Based on a March 1993 roundtable
cosponsored by Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in
cooperation with Wayne State University.
8. PTI Environmental Services. 1990. The Urban Bay Action Program Approach: A
Focused Toxics Control Strategy. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Office of Puget Sound.
9. Ranasinghe, J.A., S.B. Weisberg, D.M. Dauer, L.C. Schaffher, R.J. Diaz, and J.B.
Frithsen. (1993). Chesapeake Bay Benthic Community Restoration Goals. Report
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, Maryland and The Governors Council on Chesapeake Bay Research Fund and
the Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Tidewater Administration, Annapolis, Maryland.
10. Ranasinghe, J.A., S.B. Weisberg, J. Gerritsen, and D.M. Dauer. (1993). Assessment of
Chesapeake Bay Benthic Macroinvertebrate Resource Condition in Relation to Water
16
-------
Quality and Watershed Stressors. Report prepared for The Governors Council on
Chesapeake Bay Research Fund and the Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring
Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration,
Annapolis, Maryland.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993). Chesapeake Bay Regions of Concern:
A Geographical Targeting Approach to Toxics Prevention and Reduction. Issue paper
presented to the Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Subcommittee. Annapolis,
Maryland.
17
-------
APPENDIX B
OVERVIEW OF KEY COMPONENTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN A
REGIONAL ACTION PLAN
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action Plan Checklist
APPENDIX B. OVERVIEW OF KEY COMPONENTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN A
REGIONAL ACTION PLAN
This Appendix is designed to provide readers with a quick summary of the components to be
addressed in a model Regional Action Plan. Whereas the companion guidance document, Chesapeake
Bay Regional Action Plan Development Guidelines, focuses on the process used to develop Regional
Action Plans, this Appendix focuses on preparing and presenting the final plan—by providing an ideal
Table of Contents, an overview of the purpose and goals of each chapter to be included in the final plan,
checklists of information to be considered for each chapter, and suggestions on how to present the
information. This outline is intended to serve as a "stand-alone" document for easy reference by the
Regional Action Team or any other person(s) involved hi the preparation of Regional Action Plans, or
it can be used in conjunction with the guidance document for those seeking a thorough understanding of
the regional action planning process.
The information contained in this Appendix is intended to provide suggestions to individuals
charged with preparing Regional Action Plans. None of the specific information is required for the final
Regional Action Plan. However, related planning efforts, such as the Great Lakes Remedial Action
Plans, were thoroughly assessed to develop this outline and associated guidance document, so the
suggestions presented herein reflect the evaluation of lessons learned from other areas and represent a
recommended approach for developing and presenting an effective Regional Action Plan that can be
readily implemented. Each jurisdiction responsible for developing a Regional Action Plan has its own
unique set of circumstances. Recommendations presented in this Appendix and companion guidance
document should, therefore, be modified to best suit local needs. In a similar fashion, it is not necessary
to address all of the information identified in this Appendix; only those issues of relevance to a particular
Region of Concern should be included.
The goal of any regional action planning effort is to acquire, synthesize, and analyze sufficient
information to develop a sound, defensible, and effective plan. It is not necessary to undertake an
exhaustive research effort for this planning process. Plans only need to address those issues of relevance
to the Region of Concern and should incorporate only the information needed to support the decision-
making process and recommendations presented hi the plan. Information appearing in the final Regional
Action Plan should be related to identified priority problems/unpaired uses, goals, and objectives, and/or
hi support of proposed solutions. Plans should be focused and easy to implement, not unwieldy,
descriptive documents. To use resources efficiently, existing information should be consulted (and
B-l
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action Plan Checklist
referenced) whenever possible to support plan development. Original data investigations/analyses should
be used to supplement existing information, when necessary, and should be targeted to answer specific
questions that are essential for the plan. It is important to utilize limited resources efficiently by
streamlining the planning process hi two main ways: (1) focusing on priority issues, and (2) only
conducting investigations needed for sound decision-making. For example, it is important to avoid overly
detailed characterizations of the environmental setting and related problems.
The recommended Table of Contents for a Regional Action Plan includes the following chapter
headings:
Recommended Table of Contents for Regional Action Plans
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. Overview of Regional Action Plan Development Process
3. Goals, Objectives, and Milestones for the Regional Action Plan
4. Definition of the Problem
5. Existing Management Programs
6. Implementation Actions
References Cited
Appendices
Maps and Overlays
The information contained hi this Appendix follows the recommended Table of Contents presented above.
Specifically, for each chapter recommended hi the Table of Contents, the Appendix will do the following,
where relevant:
• Provide an overview of the purpose and goals of the chapter hi the final Regional Action Plan.
Give helpful hints on completing the chapter, as well as any other information relevant to that
chapter.
• Present a checklist of information that should be considered for the chapter (but only included
as it is relevant).
• Give example (summary) formats for how information could be presented in the actual
Regional Action Plan.
B-2
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action Plan Checklist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary of a Regional Action Plan serves as a stand-alone summary about the
Region of Concern (e.g., geographic information, problems identified, historical uses of area) and the
Regional Action Plan (e.g., goals, summary of proposed actions). The Executive Summary should be
a self-contained document, prepared so that it can be distributed to a wider public audience. This
HrVMim«»nt chrnilH inr*1n<4a ftiA £-kllsui>:«».
document should include the following:
• Brief description of the Region of Concern
• Overview of the regional action planning process, including introductions of the members of
the Regional Action Team
• Definition of the major problems and sources that distinguish the Region of Concern
• Ranking of priority problems and sources for action
• Identification of goals, objectives, and milestones for addressing priority problems
• Strategy for achieving the goals of the Regional Action Plan.
B.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter Overview
The introductory chapter provides a general overview of the Region of Concern and Regional
Action Plan. Two important functions of this chapter are to:
• Present background information on why the area was selected as a Region of Concern
• Define the purpose and organization of the Regional Action Plan.
The introduction is also a good place to describe the geographic setting for the Region of Concern.
Frequently, some of the most available information sources for preparing Regional Action Plans are
documents and other materials describing the geographic or environmental setting. Past experience,
including the Great Lakes' Remedial Action Plans, indicates that planning documents are often
unnecessarily weighted toward lengthy and detailed descriptions of the geographic location and/or
environmental setting of the subject area. Often, by emphasizing background information, most of the
limited available resources are expended early in the planning process so that development of
implementation aspects of the plan are shortchanged. By placing the geographic/environmental setting
discussion in the introduction, its relative weight compared to the rest of the document is shown, and the
__ . —.
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
description should be appropriately limited. The introduction is meant to describe information in broad
terms; specific information is addressed in subsequent, theme-oriented chapters.
Checklist of Potential Information To Be Included in Chapter 1
Information Type
Included in Regional
Action Plan?
Yes | No
Overview Information
Background information on why the area was selected as a Region of Concern
Description of the purpose and organization of the Regional Action Plan
Geographic Setting , •'/•;.,
Location of the Region of Concern within the Chesapeake Bay Basin
Geographic extent of the Region of Concern (definition of boundaries)
General description of the environmental setting as it relates to issues that will
be addressed in the Regional Action Plan (e.g., living resources, critical
habitats, water uses)
\
B-4
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
B.2 OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Chapter Overview
Sustained stakeholder involvement, coupled with extensive opportunities for public participation,
is essential to the success of Regional Action Plans. This chapter should identify the process by which
stakeholders and the general public were involved in the regional action planning process. Specifically,
it should identify the process by which stakeholders were selected to be part of the Regional Action Team
(i.e., the team charged with developing the Regional Action Plan). The overall process, including
planned meetings, schedules, and deadlines, for developing a workable Regional Action Plan should also
be described hi this chapter.
Checklist of Potential Information To Be Included in Chapter 2
Information Type
Overview discussion and flow chart of regional action planning process (including
all steps, from selecting stakeholder groups to determining implementation actions).
Discussion/flow chart should include meeting schedules and product deadlines
Summary listing of Regional Action Team members, including affiliation, roles, and
responsibilities in the planning process
Overview of goals, objectives, and responsibilities of the Regional Action Team and
-any other important players, such as the lead agency, involved in the regional action
planning process
A list of participants, to include all players in the regional action planning process.
Again, it would be useful to include affiliation, roles, and responsibilities
Summary of public participation strategy, including planned activities and schedules
Included in Regional
Action Plan?
Yes
No
Recommended Formats for Summarizing Information in the Regional Action Plan
The most important aspect of this chapter is to identify the participants who developed the
Regional Action Plan and the process they used. The process, including scheduled meetings, report
deadlines, and review cycles, can easily be shown as a flowchart or timeline. More detailed information
about the process, including meeting highlights and key decision points, can also be summarized in
tabular format as demonstrated in Exhibit B-l. Exhibit B-l also provides a good template for identifying
time frames and activities hi the overall work plan for the planning process. A participant listing is also
crucial. It is important to identify not only the Regional Action Team members, but also all other key
players instrumental in developing the Regional Action Plan. Exhibit B-2 presents a table shell that can
be used to introduce key players and define their roles and responsibilities.
B-5
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
Exhibit B-l. Example Summary Table of Key Activities in the Regional Action Planning Process*
Activity
Invitations sent to
prospective Regional
Action Team members
Regional Action Team
kickoff meeting held
Draft summary of
problems (e.g.,
adverse ambient
effects) distributed to
Regional Action Team
i
Second Regional
Action Team meeting
held
Public hearing held
Date
11/1/94
12/1/94
1/1/95
1/15/95
1/20/95
Participants
Lead Agency,
existing stakeholder
group
Lead Agency,
existing stakeholder
group, Regional
Action Team -
members, invited
speakers
Technical workgroup,
Regional Action
Team
-
Lead Agency,
existing stakeholder
group, Regional
Action Team
members
Lead Agency,
Regional Action
Team leaders
Highlights
20 potential members were
identified from each of the
major stakeholder groups in
the Region of
Concern — environmental
organizations, citizens groups,
business and industry, etc.
• Introduction of Team
leaders, members, and
other participants.
• Presentation of background
information on the Region
of Concern.
• Report identified specific
problem areas throughout
the Region of Concern.
• Available data were
summarized to link
chemical contaminants and
their sources to problem
areas.
• Elevated copper
concentrations in the water
column is most prevalent
problem.
• Potential sources are
industrial dischargers and
shipyards.
• Feedback provided on
initial problem statement.
• Vision statement developed.
• Preliminary goals
identified.
• Public briefed on regional
action planning process.
• Public provides input,
including insights on
problems in the Region of
Concern.
Action Items
Selected a final list
of Team members,
including
alternates, by
11/20/94.
Technical
workgroup
selected from
Regional Action
Team.
Regional Action
Team members
asked to think
about a vision
statement and
preliminary goals.
Further
investigations on
selected problems
and evaluation of
existing
management
programs begun
by workgroup.
Public opinion
summarized for
input into Regional
Action Plan.
*Events summarized in this Exhibit are just a "snapshot" from the overall planning process. The information is
presented as one potential example of how to summarize major activities in the planning process.
B-6
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
Exhibit B-2. Example Table Format Introducing Key Players in the
Regional Action Planning Process*
Participant
Affiliation
Role
Specific
Responsibilities
Additional
Information
Regional Action Team Members
Joe Deer
State Department of
Natural Resources
To provide
technical assistance
hi plan
development.
Will take the lead
hi developing the
"Definition of the
Problem" chapter.
Other Stakeholders
Jane Doe
Farm Bureau
General assistance
hi Regional Action
Plan development,
especially hi terms
of representing
agricultural
interests.
Will provide
information on
innovative ways to
reduce pesticide
runoff.
Is an expert hi
industrial point
source discharges.
•"
Is an expert hi
integrated pest
management.
*Example is provided for illustrative purposes. Does not represent actual circumstances.
B-7
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action Plan Checklist
B.3 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MILESTONES
Chapter Overview
This chapter identifies the goals, objectives, and milestones specific to and appropriate for the
individual Region of Concern. It is presented as an early chapter in the overall Regional Action Plan,
because an understanding of the stakeholder's vision, goals, and objectives for the Region of Concern
is as an essential foundation for the remaining aspects of the Regional Action Plan. A knowledge of goals
and objectives focuses investigations into the definition of the problem (especially in terms of identifying
chemical contaminant types and sources) and provides the background necessary to develop effective
implementation actions. Although it is necessary to have a general understanding of the problems facing
the Region of Concern before a vision statement, goals, and objectives can be established, the problem
analyses do not need to be detailed at this stage. A general understanding of the problems, such as that
available from the written literature and/or stakeholder input, will suffice. Later, once goals are
developed, it will be necessary to define the problems further to develop the level of understanding
needed to determine effective implementation actions.
When developing goals and objectives, it is important to recognize that they may apply to the
entire Region of Concern, or to specific segments within a Region of Concern (depending on the
identified problems and stakeholder's interests). For example, one area may be plagued with
contaminated sediments that are contributing to a degraded fish population, including incidents of tumors,
while another area may be subject to sporadic, uncontrolled releases of chemical contaminants that
contribute to a host of acute problems, such as fish kills. Clearly, these problems are different and will
have unique goals, objectives, and solutions. To the extent possible, this chapter should, define goals and
objectives by geographic location.
Goals and objectives may also change over time as problems become better known and
understood. Therefore, this chapter should present a plan for reevaluating and/or revising/updating/
amending goals and objectives. The chapter should also identify tunes, including interim milestones, for
achieving specific goals and objectives. Since Regional Action Plans are intended to be active, useful
documents, timelines and interim milestones provide a good way to track plan implementation progress.
The goals chapter is directly related to the implementation chapter of the Regional Action Plan (Chapter
6): before implementation actions can be effectively selected, goals and objectives must be defined. The
intent of this chapter is to summarize identified goals and objectives, while the implementation chapter
(Chapter 6) defines them in much greater detail by presenting specific action items for each objective.
B-8
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
Checklist of Potential Information To Be Included in Chapter 3
Information Type
Overview of the procedure used to define the vision statement and associated
goals, objectives, and milestones
Definition of the overarching vision statement or image
Definition of the goal(s) for the Region of Concern
Definition of a specific objective(s) for each identified goal(s). Objectives should
be as specific and measurable as possible
Definition of milestones for each goal/objective
Plan for reevaluating and/or revising/updating/amending goals, objectives, and
milestones
Included in Regional
Action Flan?
Yes
No
Recommended Formats for Summarizing Information in the Regional Action Plan ,<
Although the specific implementation actions for achieving goals and objectives will be addressed
in Chapter 6, Implementation Actions, this chapter summarizes the vision developed by the stakeholders
for the Region of Concern, as well as the associated goals, objectives, and milestones. Depending on
what form the vision statement takes, it could be words (Exhibit B-3), pictures (Exhibit B-4), or both.
Sometimes a vision statement has multiple components, with goals and objectives developed for each
component. In this case, a summary table can be effective, as is shown in Exhibit B-5. Where possible,
the geographic location for each objective should be defined (e.g., whole Region of Concern or a specific
segment). Also, goals and objectives should be prioritized. Tables summarizing goals and objectives
should be arranged hi priority order (e.g., High, Medium, and Low). It is important to develop
objectives that are measurable. In Chapter 3 or in Chapter 6, each objective should be further defined
in terms of how progress can be tracked and measured. This information can also be incorporated into
the summary table as shown in Exhibit B-5.
B-9
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action Plan Checklist
Exhibit B-3. Example of a Vision Statement*
LOOK Our OVER the smooth blue reach of the Bay or the island-dotted rivers of the Delta, and what do
you see? A favorite view? A place to fish? A home for herons? A world-class harbor? A drinking water
source? A disposal site for waste-water?
The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is many things to many people, but imagine how much more it could
be.
Imagine plucking a raw oyster from the Bay shore for an appetizer without fear of food poisoning, or spying
the shy, brown endangered California clapper rail more than once in a lifetime. Imagine watching a flock
of two thousand migrating snow geese settle on a lush tule marsh created by filling an old dump with clean
mud dredged from a local harbor.
Imagine industry searching out and removing toxics from its production processes, fanners recycling scarce
freshwater, and engineers helping fingerling salmon cross giant river dams. Imagine developers restoring
city creeks so mat wildlife can migrate through urban zones between open spaces.
Imagine government officials, environmentalists, developers, community leaders, business people, politicians,
scientists, fanners and citizens like you writing a grand, ambitious plan to make these dreams come true.
Then join us in the leap from planning to action.
'Excerpted from die San Francisco Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, San Francisco Estuary
Project Management Committee (1993).
B-10
-------
Exhibit B-4. Example of an Illustrated Vision Statement*
•"Example from the Chesapeake Bay Program's Environmental Indicators Program is provided for illustrative purposes. '
-------
Exhibit B-5. Example of a Summary Table for Vision Statement, Goals, Objectives, and Milestones'
j?
Vision Statement
Goals
Objectives
Milestones
Comments
CO
p—»
to
I. Water quality that protects
human health and wildlife
from the effects of chemical
contaminants and meets water
quality standards that could
provide drinkable water after
standard treatment
I.A Achieve and maintain water
quality that protects the ecosystem
from the adverse effects of chemical
contaminants on shoreline and
aquatic vegetation, fish, aquatic life,
and wildlife utilizing the aquatic
resources and that protects human
health
I.A.1 Reduce chemical contaminants in the water
column to levels that meet the most stringent state
and/or federal fish consumption advisory levels and
protect human health, wildlife, and fish and aquatic
life, as well as their reproductive success1
Achieve by
the year 2000
I.A.2 Reduce chemical contaminants in fish tissue
to levels that protect the humans, birds, and animals
that consume them and that protect reproductive
Achieve by
the year 2000
success
I.A.3 Reduce chemical contaminants in wildlife
tissue to levels that protect human and wildlife
health and do not impair reproductive success (i.e.,
Food and Drug Administration Action Level of 2.0
X 103 /ig/kg)1
Achieve by
the year 2000
30-percent
reduction from
current levels
I.A.4 Reduce chemical contaminants in sediment or
the release from sediment to levels that are not
acutely or chronically toxic to fish and aquatic life
or humans and wildlife that consume them1
Achieve by
the year 2005
* Items are listed for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to be an exhaustive list. They are partly based on the Lower Green Bay Remedial Action Plan, 1993
Update (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Green Bay Remedial Action Plan Public Advisory Committee 1993).
Specific contaminants include polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin, DDT, ammonia, mercury, and lead.
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action Plan Checklist
B.4 DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
Chapter Overview
This section provides an overview of the problems caused by, or linked to, chemical contaminants
within the Region of Concern and summarizes the supporting evidence leading to problem identification.
Problems are defined in terms of ecological effects, beneficial use impairments, and/or elevated
concentrations of chemical contaminants hi the ambient environment. However, the Regional Action
Planning process cannot stop with naming the problem—it must go farther to develop approaches for
•s
solving the problem. In this context, the definition of the problem is expanded to include the
identification of chemical contaminants and contributing sources. Thus, this chapter not only names
problems, but summarizes the results of investigations to further understand the problems, especially the
underlying causes for them (e.g., chemical contaminants and sources).
•s.
Because much of the investigative work leading to problem identification is accomplished as part
of the Regions of Concern identification process and may already be summarized by the Toxics
Subcommittee (Regions of Concern Workgroup), it is important to initiate the problem identification
process by reviewing the materials assimilated by the Workgroup. Additional investigations may be
needed, however, to identify and set priorities for the range of chemical contaminants and sources that
are causing the problems. To the extent possible, segment specific differences within the Region of
Concern (e.g., different chemical contaminants may be problems in different segments and/or a problem
may be more pronounced hi some segments and nonexistent in others) should be identified. The
definition of the problem chapter should:
• Summarize the types of problems in the Region of Concern caused by chemical contaminants
• Identify the chemical contaminants that are causing the problems
• Identify the magnitude, geographic extent, and severity of the problems related to chemical
contaminants
• Identify the sources of the chemical contaminants
• Prioritize problems and sources for action.
With the exception of the problems summary (which may be developed from information already
analyzed by the Toxics Subcommittee's Regions of Concern Workgroup), the information presented hi
this chapter should be prepared from an evaluation of available information (including analyses of data
B-13
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
bases and published/unpublished reports) by the Regional Action Team. It is important that this team
have the diversity needed to thoroughly, accurately, and objectively analyze all relevant information. In
addition to addressing topics related to problem identification, the team should also evaluate issues of data
relevance and usefulness and ensure that enough information is assessed to enable credible conclusions.
The chapter should also provide an overview of all information used for its preparation. The
information/data presented in this chapter should be related to problems and/or goals and objectives and
should be sufficient to support the decision-making process for selecting implementation actions.
Extraneous information need not be presented.
Checklist of Potential Information to be Included in Chapter 4
The information items identified in the following checklist are comprehensive. It is not expected
that a Regional Action Plan should address each of these items. Only the information relevant to the
Regional Action Plan decision-making process should be covered. In addition, the types of analyses
presented should be related to and supportive of the goals and objectives, as well as implementation
actions, presented in the Regional Action Plan.
Information Type
c1.. _..._:_;.... .....i i>_?rv..:ii. .:.... Y>..r.tii.i...^rT.....<.:..n.i n^nc
atBnmanziiig aim rttorm^iug rTODlems/lnipairea uses
Summarize results of Regions of Concern Identification process, include in Regional
Action Plan as appropriate
Summarize results of stakeholder input regarding problems
Identify beneficial uses and use impairments
Identify other adverse ambient effects not covered by CWA beneficial use
designation
Describe basis for problem identification (e.g, what procedures were used?)
Provide an overview of information sources used to define problems
List problems in priority order
Included in Regional
Action Plan?
Yes
No
Problems to consider, as appropriate. Do not need to be addressed in the Regional Action Plan if they are
not 9 problem. Only need to state mat they are not a problem.
Status of habitat
Status of fishery (e.g., fish kills, fishing bans, fish consumption advisories,
presence of tumors or other deformities)
Status of bentbic community (e.g., diversify, abundance, health)
Status of wildlife (e.g., diversify, abundance, health)
*
••••••••^••MHIMMHMI
••••••^^^•^•I^MaM^
B-14
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
Information Type
Other indices of biological health (e.g., loss of submerged aquatic vegetation,
degradation of phytoplankton/zooplankton populations)
Status of recreational opportunities (e.g., visual amenities, access, beach closings,
recreational fishing and boating, adequacy for subsistence fishing)
Status as a drinking water source/other water use (e.g., restrictions)
Status of shipping and navigational dredging (e.g., restrictions)
Added costs to agricultural/industrial water use consumption
Summarizing and Prioritizing Chemical Contaminants and Sources
For each problem/impaired use, identify chemical contaminants of concern
For each problem/impaired use, identify potential sources of chemical contamination
Summary ranking of problem chemicals and sources for action
SranmariTe procedures used to identify rh«ntcal contaminants, Icfentify inform?" ti
consulted,. Define if momtoring data or modeled data were used
Water column concentrations ( modeled or monitored)
Water surface microlayer concentrations ( modeled or monitored)
Bottom sediment concentrations ( modeled or monitored)
Finfish tissue concentrations
Shellfish tissue concentrations
Wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, ducks) tissue concentrations
Included in Regional
Action Plan?
Yes
No
on sources/data types
Summarize procedures used to identify sources of chemical contaminants. Identify information sources/
: data types consulted Potential sources of chemicals to consider include:
Industrial dischargers
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm water discharges
Agricultural runoff
Other nonpoint sources (e.g., forestry, resource extraction)
Contaminated sediments
Hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities (active and inactive)
Federal facilities
Baas for Prioritizing Chemicals and Sources
Comparison of ambient chemical concentrations to recognized thresholds/reference
levels
Weight of evidence
Use of geographic information systems or other mapping devices
B-15
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
Information Type
Evaluation of loadings data (e.g., waste load allocations, calculation of TMDLs)
Other evaluation criteria (e.g., physical/chemical properties, cost); define criteria
used in the Regional Action Plan
Data Quality Considerations
Reliability of information source
Timeliness of data collection/analysis
Adequacy of sample frequency (e.g., enough samples taken to make a
determination?)
Extent of geographic scope representation
Use of accepted sampling and analysis procedures
Detection Emits provided and acceptable
Sampling locations adequately noted
Included in Regional
Action Han?
Yes
No
1
Recommended Formats for Summarizing Information in the Regional Action Plan
i
When identifying and summarizing the problems/impaired uses in the Region of Concern, a
combination of text and summary tables provides an excellent way of presenting the information. For
each problem, the text of the Regional Action Plan should present:
• Overview of the problem :
• Evidence supporting problem identification, including overview of information examined to
make the determination
• Assessment of the quality/sufficiency of information/data examined to make problem
determinations
• Location of the problem (Region of Concern as a whole, or only part)
• Overview and ranking of the chemical contaminants and their sources that are contributing to
the problem/use impairment, including overview of information examined to make the
determination
• Identification of data gaps and/or additional investigations that must be completed.
A summary table, presented in a format such as that used for Exhibit B-6, should list the
problems/impaired uses, chemicals of concern, sources of the chemicals, and references used to make
the determinations.
B-16
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
Exhibit B-6. Example Summary Table of Problems/Use Impairments in the Region of Concern*
Problem/
Impairment Type
Restrictions on fish
consumption
Restriction of dredging
activities
Bird and animal
deformities
Beach closings
Present?
Yes
Yes
Likely
No
Pollutants of
Concern
(Rank)
PCBs
Metals and
cyanide
PCBs
Known Sources
(Rank)
Bottom
sediments
Bottom
sediments
Bottom
sediments
Potential
Sources (Rank)
Inactive
hazardous waste
sites
Inactive
hazardous waste
sites;
CSOs;
industrial
discharger
Inactive
hazardous waste
sites
References**
EPA's fish
consumption .
database;
monitoring data
PCS data; COE
sediment
monitoring data
^Example is provided for illustrative purposes. Does not represent actual circumstances.
**List information sources or data used to make determination.
When evaluating information sources and raw data, some basic quality considerations should be
made. While it is not necessary to formally present the results of this evaluation in the Regional Action
Plan, the assessment may provide background evidence necessary to win support for a particular
implementation action. Exhibit B-7 provides an example of a review sheet that could be used to evaluate
and summarize data quality. These data review summary sheets are well suited for inclusion in the
Regional Action Plan as appendices, if desired. In addition, these summaries would expedite preparation
of a map or CIS.
B-17
-------
Exhibit B-7. Example Summary Checklist of Factors To Be Considered During Initial Data Reviews
Chemical
x,
Detected?
yes/no
No. of
Observations
e.g., 10
Concentration
(units)
mean
Media
water column,
sediment, air,
tissue
,
Location
lat/long or other
geographic
identifier
Collection
Date
m/d/yr
Detection
Limits
_ mg/1, ppb
Analytical
Method
e.g.,
Standard
Methods
Reference
e.g.,
Jane Doe
(1994)
oo
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Flan Checklist
B.5 EXISTING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Overview
This chapter of the Regional Action Plan identifies the full range of current regulatory and
nonregulatory programs used to address the priority problems in the Region of Concern. Because so
many regulatory and nonregulatory programs are available, it is important to limit the discussion to those
approaches that are relevant to issues and problems addressed in the Regional Action Plan. It is critical
to have a complete understanding of current management programs, including the institutional framework,
associated with issues and problems identified in the Regional Action Plan so that the plan can work in
conjunction with these efforts to develop effective implementation actions for the Region of Concern.
It is necessary to understand fully the ongoing efforts to address chemical contamination problems in the
Region of Concern so that the Regional Action Plan can work with these efforts and not inadvertently
duplicate or undermine them. The Regional Action Plan can serve as the glue that unifies existing efforts
so that they are more effective overall. The Regional Action Plan can also be the tool that identifies and
fills gaps in the existing management structure.
In addition to evaluating existing programs, it may also be useful hi mis chapter to examine the
record of past efforts to clean up sites or broader areas within the Region of Concern. An understanding
of the success or failure of past actions, and contributing reasons, will provide information useful in
designing effective new strategies.
/
Checklist of Potential Information To Be Included in Chapter 5
Information Type
Summary of existing management programs addressing problems/impaired uses
(alternatively, could arrange by goals and/or objectives).
Overview of procedures used to evaluate existing management programs.
Results of program evaluation, including a summary of program needs (e.g.,
identifying needed modifications/enhancements to existing programs and developing
new programs). Results should be categorized in terms of regulatory and
nonregulatory programs.
Included in Regional
Action Plan?
Yes
No
When developing the information to be included in this chapter, it is important to ask a number
of questions, including the following, throughout the program evaluation process:
B-19
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action flan Checklist
• Questions Related to Existing Programs
Were stakeholders consulted in preparing the preliminary list of programs?
Were all applicable Federal, State, and local programs addressed?
Are existing programs available that just need modification to address the problems
better? Can programs be better coordinated?
Were existing management efforts, such as the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee and the Elizabeth River Project, evaluated first to ensure that the Regional
Action Plan does not duplicate or undermine these efforts?
Was the implementation status of existing programs considered? (Have programs been
up and running for years so they are fully operational or are they new programs?)
Were gaps in the existing programs identified and summarized?
• Questions Related to Program Scope and Mission
What are the program's statutory goals and mandates, charter, or mission statement and
are they being achieved?
Are program goals consistent with or counter to the goals of the Regional Action Plan?
What is the net result?
Which sources, activities, or chemical constituents are covered and which are specifically
exempted?
What are the regulatory requirements and what is the rate of compliance and/or what are
the non-regulatory commitments and the rate of success?
What entity has the authority to alter the scope or mission of the program?
Can the scope or mandate be modified to better target the issues in the Region of
Concern?
• Questions Related to Program Tools
What tools are employed by the program?
Who or what activities do these tools target?
Are procedures for implementing tools efficient?
Do these tools effectively reach all members of the targeted community?
Is there a means to measure their effectiveness?
Could these tools be an effective mechanism for addressing problems in the Region of
Concern?
Could existing programs adopt new or modified tools to implement the Regional Action
Plan?
• Questions Related to Program Resources
Does the program have adequate resources to achieve the goals of the program (i.e., to
implement the program as it is designed)?
Does the program have resources to evaluate whether the program is achieving its goals?
How is the program funded?
What is the mix of skills and expertise of program staff?
Could the existing program be modified to better achieve the goals of the Regional
Action Plan within the existing resources or if new or modified funding mechanisms were
available?
Is the program willing to commit, in writing and action, to implementing the goals of the
Regional Action Plan?
__.'
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action Plan Checklist
Recommended Formats for Summarizing Information in the Regional Action Plan
The Regional Action Plan should document the process of identifying and evaluating existing
management programs. An effective evaluation of existing management programs should yield several
outcomes:
• An understanding of which programs apply to identified problems/impaired uses
• An understanding of the extent to which existing programs effectively address identified
problems/impaired uses
• A summary of gaps in the existing management approach
• A synthesis of ways that the existing management programs can be enhanced, modified,
and/or supplemented to achieve better the goals of the Regional Action Plan.
This information should be described in text and summary table format. If the full array of programs
identified for each problem is extensive, the results of the program identification/evaluation may be placed
in an appendix to the Regional Action Plan.
i
One of the first steps in this evaluation is to summarize the available programs for each identified
problem/unpaired use (alternatively, the summary could be arrayed by goal and/or objective). This
summary should be presented in the Regional Action Plan in a descriptive table such as that shown hi
Exhibit B-8. The results of the program effectiveness evaluation should also be presented. Since
potentially so many evaluation criteria (i.e., questions) are considered when evaluating program
effectiveness, it may be difficult to summarize the results in a concise fashion. It may be appropriate to
summarize the answers to the evaluation questions for each program in a table or text format.
Alternatively, the effectiveness evaluation results could be presented hi a summary matrix using
qualitative criteria (e.g, high, medium, low) and associated comments. In addition, a summary list of
needs (regulatory, nonregulatory, administrative, and research) could be prepared for each identified
problem/impaired use. This list of needs could also be arrayed by plan goal and/or objective.
Exhibit B-9 presents an example format for summarizing needs. This type of presentation would also
be suitable for display in Chapter 6, Implementation Actions, of the Regional Action Plan.
B-21
-------
Exhibit B-8. Example of Summary Format for Existing Programs that Address Problems Encountered in Regions of Concern1"
Problem
Direct discharge to water
body (point source)
^
.
Indirect discharge to
publicly owned treatment
works (POTW)
Federal Programs
Under the Clean Water Act, all point sources that discharge to U.S. waters
must be authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit (40 CFR Part 122) to discharge conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants. The permit includes the following controls:
• Technology-Based Controls— Include use of national effluent guidelines
limitations and standards for industrial dischargers. Guidelines for
conventional pollutants are based on the best conventional pollutant
technology; guidelines for toxic and nonconventional pollutants are based
on the best available pollutant technology economically achievable.
Controls for municipal dischargers are based on secondary treatment
standards for biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and pH
(40 CFR Part 133).
• Water Quality-Based Controls— Water quality-based effluent limits
required as necessary to protect water quality beyond technology-based
controls.
• Best Management Practices— Allowed in lieu of effluent limits to control
point source discharges to surface waters.
All point source stormwater discharges associated with designated industrial
activity and from large and medium separate storm sewers. Coverage
includes conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants.
Under the Clean Water Act, all indirect industrial discharges of conventional,
toxic, and nonconventional pollutants to POTWs are subject to the following
controls:
• Technology-Based Controls— In the form of national categorical
pretreatment standards for industrial indirect dischargers.
• Prohibited Discharges— General and specific prohibitions based on
General Pretreatment Regulation practices.
• Local Limits— Pollutant limits developed by POTWs to protect the
collection system, treatment works, worker health and safety, receiving
stream water quality, and sludge quality.
State Programs
Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania are authorized
to implement the NPDES
permit program, which
they do under state law.
These programs regulate
point source discharges,
including point source
stormwater discharges from
industrial, municipal, and
federal facilities.
Pollution prevention
assistance is provided
through public/private
partnerships.
•
Maryland and Virginia are
authorized to implement the
federal pretreatment
program. Their authorities
are outlined in state law.
Pennsylvania implements
the pretreatment program
jointly with EPA.
-
Local Programs
Medium and large
municipalities with
separate storm sewers
regulate point source
stormwater from
industrial facilities.
Some municipalities
provide local technical
assistance.
Emergency response
programs can affect point
source discharges.
Local governments
implement most
pretreatment programs.
Their authority is outlined
by local sewer use
ordinances, state law, and
NPDES discharge
permits.
Implementation
Mechanisms
General permits and/or
individual permits that
include:
• Discharge limits
--X
• Monitoring
requirements
• Reporting requirements
• Best management
practices
• Spill control and
response plans
• Pollution prevention
plans.
Sewer use ordinance.
Discharge permits.
Spill control and
response plans:
Pollution prevention
plans.
Local discharge limits.
Monitoring and
reporting.
Community outreach.
Technical assistance to
industry.
*A portion of an example summary table is shown for illustrative purposes only. It is not intended to be comprehensive.
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
Exhibit B-9. Example of Table Summarizing Regulatory Needs*
Action
Reduce contaminant concentrations to meet standards
and criteria.
/
Improve bottom sediment quality
Reduce erosion and runoff from construction sites
Preserve critical habitats essential for mitigating the
impacts of urban and industrial runoff.
Promote beneficial uses of dredged material to
restore and create wetlands.
Regulatory Needs
• Perform review of NPDES permits; revise
accordingly.
• Develop new permit limits for additional
parameters, if needed.
• Perform phased TMDL.
• Aggressively develop and enforce storm water
plans and pollution prevention plans required under
the NPDES Storm Water Program.
• Increase number of compliance inspections.
• Establish sediment quality criteria.
• Evaluate efficacy of existing regulations, including
compliance rates.
• Increase compliance inspections and enforcement
actions.
• Develop tree preservation and riparian buffer
standards.
• Review and change existing Federal, State, and
local regulations that discourage habitat creation
and restoration initiatives.
• Create local incentives (e.g., tax breaks) to
encourage property owners to preserve wetlands
and riparian areas.
• Subject dredging activities of the Corps to the
consistency review process.
•Example is provided for illustrative purposes. Does not represent actual circumstances.
B-23
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action Plan Checklist
B.6 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Overview
This section defines the overall approach for achieving the goals and objectives of the Regional
Action Plan, including the actions that will be taken to restore/remediate the Region of Concern and a
discrete list of activities to accomplish each action item. The activities should be defined in terms of
regulatory and nonregulatory approaches. In addition, this chapter addresses issues pertinent to
implementation, including schedules, funding sources, and responsible parties.
The Regional Action Plan should identify how the initial list of implementation actions was
prepared: Who was responsible? What materials were reviewed? What individuals/organizations were
contacted? What formal and informal peer review procedures were used? Did the review procedures
result in modifying the list and, if yes, how?
/ ;
Selected implementation actions should be summarized by goal and objective. As noted earlier,
it is likely that more than one objective will be associated with each goal. Similarly, there will likely be
multiple actions associated with each objective. This chapter should define which factors were used in
selecting the most appropriate actions. If factors were given different priorities, the Regional Action
Team needs to explain the rationale for weighting. If some factors were considered in evaluating one set
of options but not another, an explanation should be provided. The Team will also need to describe what
additional fact finding will be necessary as the Regional Action Plan process moves forward.
When developing the information to be included in this chapter, it is important to address several
questions, including the following:
Were regulatory and nonregulatory actions from all levels of government and other sources
(Federal, State, local) considered?
Were existing/ongoing projects considered, as well as new ones?
Were activities relevant to all stages of the implementation process (e.g., from conducting
further studies to evaluating the success of an action) considered?
B-24
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
Checklist of Potential Information To Be Included in Chapter 6:
Information Type
Overview of Regional Action Plan goals and objectives and the general approach for
achieving these goals and objectives.
Summary of specific implementation actions associated with identified problems/impaired
uses and/or goals and objectives. Summary should identify discrete activities for
accomplishing each action. (For example, an action item might be to "reduce cadmium
discharges by POTWs." A discrete activity for that action could be to "develop
pretreatment program to address all industrial users contributing cadmium to the POTW.")
Assignment of priorities to implementation actions. Discussion should include an
overview of how priorities were determined (e.g., summary of evaluation criteria,
identification of roles/responsibilities of parties involved in the prioritization, overview of
information consulted in the process, such as materials reviewed, individuals/
organizations contacted, summary of formal and informal review procedures).
Included in Regional
Action Plan?
Yes
No
Summary of the implementation approach, including the following topics for each implementation action:
Identification of specific parties responsible for implementation.
Schedule for action/activity completion, including interim milestones.
Summary of estimated cost and potential funding sources.
Identification of an approach for measuring progress toward achieving the defined goals
and objectives.
Identification of related action items and/or additional or existing mechanisms for
achieving the action item.
Assessment of potential barriers to implementation, including a strategy for overcoming
barriers.
Recommended Formats for Summarizing Information in the Regional Action Plan
There are many different ways to summarize the implementation approach. Exhibits B-10
through B-12 present several example formats. Examination of Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans (CCMPs) prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary
Program may offer further ideas for summarizing problems, goals, objective, and actions, including
providing ideas for potential actions. The key is to ensure that each summary approach contains the
following:
• Summary of the goal, objective, and specific activity/action item(s)
• A sense of the priority of the goal, objective, action item in terms of the overall Regional
Action Plan strategy (e.g., is it a high priority task that must begin immediately, or is it a
lower priority item that can wait before implementation?)
• Identification of the party/agency responsible for implementing the action item
• Aggressive, but realistic schedules for achieving the action, including interim milestones
• Identification of project costs and funding source.
B-25
-------
Exhibit B-10. Example Format for Summarizing Implementation Approaches
w
GOAL:
OBJECTIVE:
Recommended
Action
^^^^M«V^H^^^^^^^B^^H^^^__I
Implementing
Authorities
^•••••^••••••••^••••••••^••^^^^^^K
Estimated
Start/End Dates
^^^^W^H^^^^HHHVmilllHIIVHIVVBIIBIPAftlBBi^HB^^
Interim Milestones
^^^^^^^^^•^^•^w— — — «—— —•—
Estimated Cost
•Mllllll^— ^^«^^^^^W«M«llllimiMMM«
Funding Source
r
^^^^^^BM«IIIIIIMIMIIIIimmi^^^^^^^MII«MIHMI
Expected
Environmental
Results
^••^^H^^^^^MMIIIIIIMIIIMIIIIIIIIIII^^
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Plan Checklist
Exhibit B-ll. Summary of Implementation Actions Related to Plan Goals and Objectives
Goal
Goal I
Restore recreational fishery in the Attaboy
Creek.
Objective
Objective A
Reduce elevated concentrations of metals
and organics affecting shad health and
propagation.
Actions
Actions A.1-A.X
1. Conduct analyses to develop total
maximum daily load (TMDL) for
stream segment.
2. Conduct data collection effort to assess
current loading from point and
nonpoint sources (e.g., industrial and
municipal dischargers, agricultural
runoff, urban runoff, atmospheric
deposition, and sediment source
loading contributions).
3.
4.
Determine necessary reductions from
point and nonpoint sources to meet
TMDL.
Implement necessary reductions
through:
- Review National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits as they come up
for renewal
- Revise NPDES monitoring
requirements and limits, as
necessary
- Recalculate local limits for
pretreatment publicly owned
treatment works as necessary
- Conduct pollution prevention
outreach seminars
- Investigate opportunities for
integrated pest management with
agricultural extension agents
- Assess opportunities for household
hazardous waste programs.
* Items listed are for illustrative purposes only; the list is not intended to be comprehensive.
B-27
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regional Action Han Checklist
Exhibit B-12. Potential Implementation Actions for Improving Shad Fishery at Attaboy Creek:
Elevated Concentration of Lead in Fish Tissue*
Goal: Restore recreational fishery in the Attaboy Creek
Objective: Reduce elevated concentrations of lead so that the health and propagation of shad can be
restored
Contributing Sources
Publicly owned treatment works
(POTW)
\
Municipal solid waste disposal
operations
Recreational fishermen
Coal piles associated with power
generation
Urban/suburban runoff
Drinking water lead service lines
Potential Implementation Actions
Develop water quality-based
permit limits
Develop technically based local
limits for application to industrial
users
Calculate loading and associated
influent concentrations from
commercial and residential sources
Implement lead reduction program
across sewer users
Separate lead acid batteries by
source prior to disposal/
incineration
Establish outreach/replacement
program to reduce lead-based
fishing tackle
Cover coal piles, reduce runoff
potential
Improve best management
practices, including frequency of
street sweeping and maintenance
of catchment basins
Accelerate replacement of lead
service lines in older residential
neighborhoods, reducing
residential contributions to POTW;
coordinate with street repair
Responsible Parties
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
Authority (state/EPA)
POTW Pretreatment Program
POTW Pretreatment Program
POTW Pretreatment Program,
municipal public works, business
associations
Municipal solid waste authority,
commercial waste management,
industry associations
Park authority/public interest
groups, tackle stores
Utilities, industrial/commercial
sector, state/local water
management program
Municipal public works, state/local
planning and zoning authorities
Public utility/municipal public
works
'"Items listed are for illustrative purposes only; this list is not intended to be comprehensive.
B-28
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action Plan Checklist
REFERENCES CITED
All references used to develop the Regional Action Plan should be fully cited. Careful
documentation will add to the credibility of the plan and help convince affected parties of its merit. In
addition, the information given in the references can serve as the basis for justifying decisions made hi
the Regional Action Plan, particularly those concerning implementation actions.
APPENDICES
Tabular/graphical summaries of supporting data and other documentation too detailed to include
hi the main report should be given in the appendices.
MAPS AND OVERLAYS
Regional Action Plan decision-making and prioritization may be enhanced by using geographic
overlays to provide a graphical representation of the Region of Concern. Regional Action Teams may
want to develop large-scale maps of the Region of Concern, with the Region of Concern boundary, as
well as overlays of relevant information that supports the Regional Action Plan (e.g., land use
information, location of point sources, spatial extent of sediment contamination, pollutant source
information). These kinds of multiple data layer maps could range from simple, hand-drawn maps to
more complex graphics generated by a geographic information system (see Appendix I for more
information). Some of the specific types of information that may be useful to identify include:
• Location of NPDES facilities
• Location of 304(1) list facilities
• Location of contaminated sediments
• Hydrologic information (i.e., location of aquifers)
• Location of Superfund sites
• Location of landfills
• Location of RCRA facilities
• Agricultural information (i.e., types of crops planted)
• Pesticide use information (i.e., types and amounts applied per acre)
• Water supply information—location of reservoirs and aquifers
• Location of shipping facilities/marinas
• USGS gage information (flows, etc.)
• Population information
• Extent of fish consumption advisories or bans (if appropriate)
• Location of unique or protected areas
• Location of dams or other obstructions.
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Regional Action Plan Checklist
REFERENCES
Galveston Bay Conservation and Management Plan, 1994.
San Francisco Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. September 1993. Lo\ver Green Bay Remedial Action Plan,
1993 Update. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
B-30
-------
APPENDIX C
OVERVIEW OF INFORMATION SOURCES
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Information Sources
APPENDIX C. OVERVIEW OF INFORMATION SOURCES
The designation of an area as a Region of Concern, and the ensuing investigations necessary to
prepare a Regional Action Plan, often requires substantial information collection and analysis. In some
situations, much of the initial data collection and synthesis is completed hi the Regions of Concern
identification process by the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxic Subcommittee's Regions of Concern
Workgroup. This background work provides an excellent information base and starting point from which
to launch additional investigations as needed. The lead agency and/or Regional Action Team should
always first check the data collected as part of the Regions of Concern Identification Protocol when
beginning a Regional Action Plan.
The lead agency and/or Regional Action Team will likely seek additional information to fill data
gaps and/or further refine the Regional Action Team's understanding of problems by identifying the full
nature, extent, and source(s) of chemical contamination contributing to the problem so that effective
planning actions can be developed. Although it is important to avoid excessive data analysis (experience
has shown that over characterization in these early stages can exhaust precious resources) when preparing
a Regional Action Plan, an adequate information base must be developed from which well-conceived
decisions about implementation actions can be determined. Many different types of information (ranging
from chemical contaminants to ecological effects) should be consulted for the Regional Action Plan. In
addition, many different sources of information, ranging from federal to local levels, should be consulted
(see Exhibit C-l). Information may be obtained hi hard copy format as technical reports, journal articles,
or other written materials (published or unpublished); electronic format, including computer data bases;
or through oral communication with applicable parties. Stakeholder groups, if well-selected and
representative of the Region of Concern, can provide excellent information. Others (e.g., academicians),
perhaps outside of the Region of Concern, may also have information and should not be ignored in the
information collection phase of the regional action planning process.
Much of the information needed for the regional action planning process is available in electronic
format. This appendix presents an overview of some key sources of electronic data, focusing on the
Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Data Base and federal data bases.
C-l
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Information Sources
Exhibit C-l. Overview of Potential Information Sources
for Regional Action Planning
Potential Source
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
States
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Geological Survey
Universities, Non-Governmental Research Institutes
Non-Governmental Environmental and
Conservation Groups
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
State Water Resources Research Institutes
Type of Information Available
Physical .
Condition
X
/
«<
7 x
X
S
S
S
X
>
^
S
Wafer
Quality
S
S
X
X
X
/
/
/
X
X
/
Habitat
X
^
X
S
S
J
S
X
X
X
Aquatic
Species
X
S
X
y
/
X
X
/
X
X
Air
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Information Sources
The most relevant files in the Toxics Data Base for developing Regional Action Plans are
CHEMICAL, REFDOC, SPECIES, TOXICITY, LOCATION, and TOXVALUE. Exhibit C-2 provides
information on each of these files, as well as the associated fields.
Other Sources of Environmental Data
The federal government undertakes many data collection and analysis efforts. Generally, these
data bases and reports are available for use by contacting the appropriate agency. Many of the data
sources could prove invaluable hi Regional Action Plan preparation. Exhibit C-3 summarizes some of
the major data collection efforts and selected environmental statistics programs managed by federal
agencies that may be applicable to Regional Action Plans. These data bases will provide an excellent
starting point from which to begin data investigations related to the Regional Action Plan, The
information presented hi Exhibit C-3 was compiled from a variety of source documents, including Council
on Environmental Quality (1993) and EPA (1993). Although efforts were made to validate all
information, it was not possible to confirm each data base sponsor and current status of the data base.
The reference list provided at the end of this appendix identifies several additional compendiums that
summarize federal data collection efforts. Other valuable resources for locating data bases and other
information relevant to regional action planning are clearing houses and bulletin boards. Some examples
of clearing houses and bulletin boards that compile information and data that may be of use to the
Regional Action Plan are:
*-
• Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC).
• Clean-Up Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN).
• Enviro$ense (formerly Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse [PPIC]).
• Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Program.
• Mapping Earth Science Information Center.
• National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse (NATICH).
• National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS).
• National Water Information Clearinghouse.
• Nonpoint Source Information Exchange.
• Public Information Center.
• Small Business Ombudsman Clearinghouse.
Most of these clearinghouses and bulletin boards are maintained by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and described in Access EPA, a comprehensive directory of the Agency's information
__
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Information Sources
resources. Access EPA is available from the Government Printing Office (GPO Stock
Number: 055-000-00437-4), the National Technical Information Service (NTIS Number: PB93-170041)
or online through the EPA Online Library System (OLS). The references listed at the end of this chapter
also provide information on these clearinghouses and bulletin boards.
C-4
-------
Exhibit C-2. Contents of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Data Base
file Name
Description
Contents (fields)
CHEMICAL
Identifies chemical contaminants observed in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Includes CAS numbers, chemical names, various physical
properties, such as molecular weight, melting and boiling points,
and heat of vaporization, as well as biodegradation information.
Identifies priority pollutant chemicals.
REFDOC
Contains information extracted from reference documents
submitted with individual data submissions, literature searches, or
AQUIRE data base toxicity data references. The REFDOC table
is related to the TOXVALUE and TOXICITY tables. There are
more than 3,000 references, with 2SO references specific to the
Chesapeake Bay.
Includes document title and author(s) publication information, as
well as an AQUIRE data base document number.
SPECIES
Contains a list of species known to exist in the Chesapeake Bay.
The species table includes cross references to the many species
coding systems used by other researchers in the watershed, as well
as codes used by AQUJRE. The SPECIES table is related to the
TOXICITY and TOXVALUE tables.
2
Includes species codes used by the Bay Program and participants
(Old Dominion University, Virginia Institute for Marine Science,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Maryland Power Plant siting
program), as well as Latin and common names. The table also
contains codes used by the AQUIRE data base.
TOXICITY
Contains toxicity testing information and related data regarding the
effects of various chemical contaminants on Bay and non-Bay
species. All of the toxicity data are from the AQUIRE data base.
The TOXICITY table is related to CHEMICAL, SPECIES, and
REFDOC tables.
Includes toxicity testing information: chemical species and life
stage effects measured, exposure duration, test media, chemical
exposure type (lab or field), water chemistry information, and
bioconcentration factors. Information regarding the completeness
of the documentation is also provided.
LOCATION
Provides information on sampling locations either exactly
(coordinates) or generally (county or river basin), depending on the
source of the data. The LOCATION table is related to the
TOXVALUE table.
Includes latitudes and longitudes hi decimal degrees, the
Chesapeake Bay Program sample station name and location, major
river basin name, river or creek name, USGS hydrologic unit
codes, above or below fall line indication, and die Chesapeake Bay
Program watershed model segment name.
TOXVALUE
Contains concentration values for ambient measurements of
chemicals and actual or estimated release/loading/application values
for both point and nonpoint sources. Each value also has specific
measurement medium information (e.g., tissue, water column,
sediment). The TOXVALUE tabte is related to the CHEMICAL,
SPECIES, REFDOC and LOCATION tables.
Includes ambient concentration data, release/loading/application
data, detection limits used and instruments used for analysis. The
table also provides information on the sampling or loading medium
from which the data were obtained (e.g., tissue water, sediment).
-------
Exhibit C-3. Overview of Federal Data Bases Potentially Useful in Regional Action Plan Preparation
£
1
Data Base Name
Description/Relevant Data
Applicability to Regional
Action Plan
Sponsor
APD (Accumulation
Factor Data Base)
Contains data collected from scientific and gray
literature describing concentrations of organic
chemicals measured in sediments and organisms
exposed, calculated into accumulation factors. Data
base is searchable by organism or contaminants.
Identify potential chemical
contamination in the Region of
Concern.
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station
Agricultural Chemical
Usage Statistics
Contains estimated treatment acreage and application
quantity of fertilizer, nutrients, and pesticide
ingredients applied to field crops, vegetables, and
fruits; includes state estimates for states where the
commodities are predominantly produced.
Provide information to
determine areas of pesticide use
when runoff is a problem in
Region of Concern.
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National
Agricultural Statistics
Service and Economic
Research Service
AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval
System)
Is a national repository for airborne pollution
information hi (he U.S. Tracks emissions and
compliance data; used to prepare reports to
Congress. ^
Determine if atmospheric
deposition of contaminants is a
significant problem in the
Region of Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Radiation, Office
of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
AQUIRE (Aquatic
Toxicity Information
Retrieval)
Is an aquatic toxic effects data base that contains
115,000 test results for 5,000 chemicals and 2,500
freshwater and marine organisms. All entries were
subject to rigid quality assurance procedures.
Identify chemicals of concern;
supplemental information for
chemicals without water quality
standards.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Radiation Programs,
Environmental Research
Laboratory
BRS (Biennial
Reporting System)
Contains information about waste generation,
management and minimization for RCRA large-
quantity generators. Also contains information on
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities subject to
RCRA.
Determine if a hazardous waste
transfer/storage facility is a
potential source of contaminants
to the Region of Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response,
Office of Solid Waste
CBWQSD
(Chesapeake Bay
Water Quality
Standards Data Base)
Provides information on Chesapeake Bay State water
quality standards, EPA aquatic life criteria, and
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Requirements.
Assessment of die Region of
Concern. Helpful in identifying
and ranking problem areas.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.
-------
Exhibit C-3. Overview of Federal Data Bases Potentially Useful in Regional Action Plan Preparation (continued)
Data Base Name
Description/Relevant Data
Applicability to Regional
Action Hail ;
Sponsor
CERCLIS
(Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation, and
liability Information
System)
Contains information on all aspects of hazardous
waste sites identified under EPA's Superfund
Program; supports management of all Superfund
program phases. Contains an inventory of sites,
planned and actual site activities.
Determine if a Superfund site is
a potential source of
contaminants to the Region of
Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
CETTS (Complex
Effluent Toxicity
Information System)
Provides toxicity test and biomonitoring data.
Identify possible chemical
contamination in the Region of
Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Science and Technology.
Compendium of
Fish/Shellfish Tissue
Human Health •
Protection Values
Compiles U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
other available fish/shellfish action levels.
Provide a means to rank the
severity of chemical
contaminant-related problems.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.
Contaminants Data
Base
Provides scientific and gray literature data on
sediment and tissue residue levels of dioxins, furans,
PAHs, and PCBs. Data base searches can be
conducted by contaminant, waterway, county, and
organism name. References are provided.
Identify possible chemical
contaminants in Region of
Concern.
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station.
FINDS (Facility Index
System)
Contains information on facilities regulated/tracked
by EPA program, provides basic information about
each facility, and identifies the source of additional,
specific information.
Allows users to identify and
locate more specific information
about potential pollutant sources.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Information Resources
Management.
-------
Exhibit C-3. Overview of Federal Data Bases Potentially Useful in Regional Action Plan Preparation (continued)
Data Base Name
Description/Relevant Date
Applicability to Regional
Action Plan
Sponsor
Fisheries Statistics
Program .
National compilation, analysis, and dissemination of
biological, economic, and sociological statistics from
U.S. commercial (domestic and high seas) and
recreational fisheries. Mostly marine; historical time
series, some dating back to 1800s; some world
(FAO, EC) fishery data, foreign nation data on
fisheries in U.S. waters. Data types include
landings, prices, and fishing efforts; number of
vessels, gear, and fishermen; annual processed
products; trade in fisheries products; species
composition; length frequencies; per capita
consumption; and aquaculture.
Determine historic and current
commercial and recreational
fisheries in the Region of'
Concern; could use data to
establish benchmarks and
milestones for reestablishing the
fisheries.
U.S. Department of
Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
FRDS (Federal
Reporting Data
System)
Contains information about public water supplies
(PWSs) and their compliance with monitoring
requirements, maximum contaminant level (MCL)
regulations, and other requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Determine if drinking water
restrictions are an impaired
beneficial use in the Region of
Concern. ,
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Office of
Groundwater and Drinking
Water.
GRIDS (Geographic
Resources Information
Data System)
Provides access to commonly needed geographic
data products and information contained on EPA's
mainframe computer.
Source of digitized data for
mapping purposes. Tool to
access/integrate some EPA data.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Administration and
Resources Management,
Office of Information
Resources Management.
IFD (Industrial
Facilities Discharge)
Contains information about 120,000 NPDES
discharges, including locations, flows, and receiving
waters.
Identify problems and sources of
chemical contamination.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds.
-------
Exhibit C-3. Overview of Federal Data Bases Potentially Useful in Regional Action Flan Preparation (continued)
Data Base Name
Description/Relevant Data
Applicability to Regional
Action Plat* ,;<
Sponsor
IRIS (Integrated Risk
Information System)
Provides chemical health risk and regulatory
summaries on approximately 500 chemicals, as well
as summaries of risk management decisions related
to CWA, CAA, SDWA, FIFRA, TSCA, RCRA,
and CERCLA.
Identify and rank chemical
contaminant types and sources.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Research and
Development, National
Center of Environmental
Assessment.
ISI Data Base
(Information Systems
Inventory)
Contains information on more than 500 EPA
computer systems.
Identify and locate systems
containing more specific
information.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Administration and
Resources Management,
Office of Information
Resources Management,
Information Management
Division.
Month and State
Current Emissions
Trends
Emissions estimates for NOX, SO2, and VOCs by
month and state from 1975 to the present for 68
emission source groups.
Determine if NOX, SO2, and
VOCs are significant problems
in the Region of Concern.
Department of Energy,
Argonne National
Laboratory
LUDA (Land Use and
Data Analysis)
Provides data on land use types and locations for the
entire United States.
Identify land use practices
contributing to the state of the
Region of Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Information Resources
Management.
Needs Survey System
Inventory of existing or proposed publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) that need construction or
renovation to meet Clean Water Act requirements.
Assess ,the impacts of POTWs
on the Region of Concern and in
identifying problems/goals.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Water
I
National Air Pollution
Control Program
Collects and analyzes data on ambient air quality and
air pollution levels and compares them to National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Determine if atmospheric
deposition of contaminants is a
significant problem in the
Region of Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
-------
Exhibit C-3. Overview of Federal Data Bases Potentially Useful in Regional Action Plan Preparation (continued)
Data Base Name
. Description/Relevant Data
Applicability to Regional
Action Plan
Sponsor
National Coastal
Pollutant Discharge
Inventory Program
Compiles pollutant loading estimates for point,
nonpoint, and riverine sources in coastal counties or
the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. Such
sources discharge to the estuarine, coastal, and
oceanic waters of the contiguous United States,
excluding the Great Lakes.
Helpful to determine pollutant
loading and to identify goals for
point and nonpoint discharges.
U.S. Department of
Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Ocean
Resources Conservation
Assessment, Strategic
Environmental Assessment
Division.
National Contaminant
Biomonitoring
Program
Documents temporal and geographic trends in
concentrations of persistent environmental
contaminants that may threaten fish and wildlife;
covers major U.S. rivers and Great Lakes.
Identify persistent environmental
contaminants that threaten fish
and wildlife hi the Region of
Concern.
U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
National Estuarine
Inventory
Compiles, evaluates, and assesses information on
102 estuaries in the continental United States,
including data on salinity, bottom sediments,
freshwater inflow, pesticide use, land use,
distribution of estuarine fishes and invertebrates,
population, water quality, recreation uses, and
wetlands.
Source of information for
developing Regional Action Plan
and for determining site-specific
options.
U.S. Department of
Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Ocean
Resources Conservation
Assessment, Strategic
Environmental Assessment
Division.
National Fish Tissue
Data Repository
National guidance on collection and analysis of fish
tissue for development of fish consumption
advisories.
Evaluate the potential risks to
recreational and subsistence
anglers from consuming
chemical contaminants.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Science and Technology.
National Land Use and
Cover Program
Includes land use and land cover maps and digitized
data. Statistics by political units, hydrologic units,
and census county subdivisions are available.
Classes include urban land, agricultural land, range
land, forest land, water areas, wetland, barren land,
tundra, and perennial snow and ice. Maps are
available for most of the country at 1:250,000 scale.
Determine land use practices in
the Region of Concern.
United States Geological
Survey, Earth Science
Information Center
-------
Exhibit C-3. Overview of Federal Data Bases Potentially Useful in Regional Action Plan Preparation (continued)
Data Base Name
Description/Relevant Data
Applicability to Regional
Action
Sponsor
PCS (Permit
Compliance System)
Tracks permit compliance and enforcement status of
facilities covered by water pollution permits.
Identify potential compliance
problems hi Region of Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Water
NODC (National
Oceanographic Data
Center)
Collects, processes, archives, and disseminates
worldwide Oceanographic data including marine
biology, marine pollution, marine chemistry, wind
and waves, surface and subsurface currents, and
temperature.
Source of information on marine
pollution and general
Oceanographic data.
U.S. Department of
Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National
Oceanographic Data Center.
NRI (National
Resources Inventory)
Included data on soil, water, and related resources
for U.S. farms and non-Federal forests and grazing
lands. Data are collected every 5 years, starting in
1982, and are available on CD-ROM and 8 nun
tapes.
Determine landuse patterns and
trends, assist in developing
management options.
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation
Service, National
Cartography and GIS
Center.
National Sediment
Inventory
Assesses the nature, extent, causes, and sources of
sediment contamination in the United States.
Target sites requiring
management action, including
monitoring, pollution
prevention, source control, and
dredge material management.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Science and Technology.
-5*
NASQAN (National
Stream Quality
Accounting Network
and National
Hydrologic Benchmark
Network)
Provides a national, uniform basis for assessing
large-scale, long-term trends in physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of waters; monitors for
pH, alkalinity, sulfate, nitrate, phosphorus, calcium,
magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, suspended
sediment, fecal coliform bacteria, fecal streptococcal
bacteria, dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen deficit,
and trace elements; the Benchmark Network
monitors water quality in surface waters largely
unaffected by human activities.
Useful to determine nature of
tributaries entering the Region
of Concern.
U.S. Geological Survey,
Office of Water Data
Coordination.
National Water
Conditions Reporting
System
Collects and analyzes stream flow data, groundwater
levels, reservoir contents, and limited water-quality
data from eight sites on major rivers.
Characterize stream flow and
groundwater levels hi the
Region of Concern.
U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Division,
Water Information.
-------
Exhibit C-3. Overview of Federal Data Bases Potentially Useful in Regional Action Plan Preparation (continued)
!
Data Base Name
Description/Relevant Data
Applicability to Regional
Action Plan
Sponsor
National Water Use
Information Program
Determines purposes for U.S. fresh and saline
surface water, groundwater withdrawn, water
consumed during use, and water returned to source
after use.
Provide useful information on
how surface and groundwater
are used in the Region of
Concern.
U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Division,
Water Use Information
Office.
NWI (National
Wetlands Inventory)
Provides computerized mapping of wetlands in the
United States, showing locations of vegetative
community types.
Identify habitat goals for
Regional Action Plan; restore
beneficial use.'
U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
ODES (Ocean Data
Evaluation System)
Contains information and monitoring data for marine
and freshwater supplies, sewage discharge, NPDES,
ocean dumping, national estuary program 403(c)
industrial discharges, and National Coastal Waters
Programs.
Provide monitoring data useful
in defining problems, as well as
associated chemical
contaminants and sources.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Water.
ODD (Ocean Disposal
Data Base)
Contains data on sediments disposed of in oceans
from all COE permitted projects. Information
includes location of project, dredge spoils disposal
location, and summary chemical information. Data
are from 1976 to 1991.
Could be useful in
characterizing sediments of the
Region of Concern and for
evaluating options.
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station.
OLS (Online Library
System)
Contains bibliographic citations from EPA and other
Federal agency technical reports, conference
proceedings, indices, and journals; also provides
summaries of selected files; has regional titles.
Provides information sources
that may be helpful in preparing
Regional Action Plan.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Administration and
Resources Management,
Office of Information
Resources Management,
Information Management
Services Division,
Information Access Branch.
PESTIS (Pesticide
Information Service)
Provides information on a wide variety of pesticide-
related issues, including Integrated Pest Management
and pesticide use.
Identify potential pesticide
problems in Regional Action
Plan as well as possible
management options.
Pesticide Action Network,
North American Regional
Center
-------
Exhibit C-3. Overview of Federal Data Bases Potentially Useful in Regional Action Plan Preparation (continued)
Data Base Name
Description/Relevant Data
Applicability to Regional
Action Plait
Sponsor
PCS (Permit
Compliance System)
Contains information regarding NPDES facilities:
facility names, compliance schedule, limits,
violations, monitoring, enforcement, inspections,
pretreatment compliance inspection/audit, and
pretreatment performance summary.
Determine the amount of
pollutants present in a facility's
wastewater discharge within the
Region of Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Water.
O
fe
PIN (Pesticide
Information Network)
Contains current and historic pesticide information,
including pesticide monitoring inventory; pesticides
ground water database; ecological incident
information; environmental fate and ecological
effects data; regulatory information; information on
cancelled, suspended, or restricted use products;
pesticide chemical information (e.g., CAS numbers,
synonyms).
Helpful if agricultural runoff of
pesticides is found to be
contributing to the contamination
of the Region of Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances,
Office of Pesticide
Programs.
RCRIS (Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Information
System)
Tracks a variety of data related to hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities regulated
under RCRA: (e.g., handler identification, permit
application status, and compliance monitoring).
Determine if a hazardous waste
generator/storage/treatment
facility is a possible source of
contamination to the Region of
Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response,
Office of Solid Waste.
REACH
Contains hydrological, biological, and chemical data
on streams, lakes, reservoirs, and shorelines; linked
to STORET, GAGE, PCS, Fishkills, and IFD.
Helpful in assessing the Region
of Concern and in identifying
problems and goals.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds.
RODS (Record of
Decision System)
Developed to track Superfund site cleanups.
Contains information on site history, community
participation enforcement, site characteristics,
response actions, and remedies.
Source of information where a
Superfund site is near the
Region of Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency
Response.
Sediment Quality
Threshold
Compendium
Contains a comprehensive compilation of federal and
state sediment threshold values.
Evaluate the toxicity of
contaminated sediments within
the Region of Concern. Identify
and rank problems.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.
-------
Exhibit C-3. Overview of Federal Data Bases Potentially Useful in Regional Action Plan Preparation (continued)
Data Base Name
Description/Relevant Data
Applicability to Regional
Action Ban
Sponsor
STORET (Storage
Retrieval Data Base)
Contains files related to CWA, TSCA, RCRA,
ground water, drinking water, and solid waste.
Files include REACH, Industrial Facilities Discharge
(IFD), Drinking Water, Gage Data, Biological Data
System (BIOS), Daily Flow System, Water Quality
System, Parameter, City, County, and Fishkills.
Provides a wide variety of
information that could be used
in developing a Regional Action
Plan.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Water.
STORETS—BIOS
(Biological Data
System)
Contains information on the distribution, abundance,
and physical condition of aquatic organisms; contains
descriptions of habitats.
Source of information if
problems are fish and benthic
community degradation,
phytoplankton, community
degradation, and habitat loss
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Assessment and
Watershed Protection
Division.
STORET—DFS (Daily
O Flow System)
Contains information from USGS national network:
stream flow, miscellaneous water quality parameters.
Useful when water quality data
are limited—helps to
characterize/define the problem.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Assessment and
Watershed Protection
Division.
STORET—WQS
(Water Quality
System)
Contains information from monitoring sites:
location, physical and chemical data.
Useful when water quality data
are limited—helps to
characterize/define the problem.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Assessment and
Watershed Protection
Division.
Survey of Pollution
Abatement Costs and
Expenditures
Annual operating costs and capital expenditures for
pollution abatement activities in manufacturing
industries.
Assess whether industries in the
Region of Concern are
adequately funding pollution
prevention controls.
U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the
Census
TRI (Toxic Release
Inventory)
Contains information on chemical releases, offsite
waste transfers, and waste treatment and
minimization from facilities required to report under
Section 313 of the Community Right to Know Act
(EPCRA).
Determine types and amounts of
contaminants released to the
Region of Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances,
Office of Pollution,
Prevention and Toxics.
-------
Exhibit C-3. Overview of Federal Data Bases Potentially Useful in Regional Action Plan Preparation (continued)
Data Base Name
Description/Relevant Data
Applicability to Regional
Action Plan ;; -
Sponsor
WBS (Water Body
System)
Developed to organize and manage water body
specific assessments developed by States as part of
305(b) reporting.
Assess water column
contamination in the Region of
Concern.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds.
WATSTORE
Nearly 60,000 water data stations throughout the
Nation are used to obtain records on stream flow,
stage (height), reservoir and lake stage and storage,
groundwater levels, well and spring discharge, and
quality on surface water and groundwater.
Assess well and spring discharge
and the quality of surface and
groundwater hi the Region of
Concern.
U.S. Geological Survey,
National Water Data
Exchange Office.
p
H*
cn
Water Resources
Assessment Program
Summaries statistics on state and national water
resources for USGS biennial report, National Water
Summary; each report is oriented to water resource
theme, such as groundwater quality.
Helpful in assessing water
quality in the Region of
Concern.
U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Division.
Note: This table is not exhaustive. For instance, die U.S. Department of Agriculture also maintains mission-oriented statistics in such areas as
crops, snowpack, soil erosion, national forests management, and wildfires. The Department of Commerce Bureau of Census maintains social,
demographic, and economic statistics relevant to the environment. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration maintains statistics on
marine resources and coastal wetlands. The Bureau of Land Management maintains statistics for BLM lands, including condition, wildlife,
minerals, and use; and the National Parks Service collects comparable statistics on the status of national parks. The Bureau of Mines collects,
interprets, and publishes data on production, consumption, and trade of over 1,200 minerals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains data on
FWS lands and conducts surveys of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation every 5 years, with the most recent report in 1991. The
United States Geological Survey maps national land use and land cover, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducts regional and other
pollution surveys. The National Biological Service monitors public and private lands and maintains data on endangered species. The Department of
Transportation compiles highway and other transportation statistics, and the U.S. Coast Guard maintains data on marine pollution spills. State and
local government agencies and other organizations also maintain extensive amounts of information. As with any research effort, it is necessary to
identify specific research questions and pursue information from relevant organizations.
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Information Sources
REFERENCES
Balachandrau, S., ed. 1993 Encyclopedia of Environmental Information Source. Detroit: Gale
Research, Incorporated.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1993. Federal Interagency Initiatives to Coordinate Environmental
Data and Analysis. Environmental Quality. 23rd Annual Report. Draft
Council on Environmental Quality. 1993. Environmental Statistics Programs Managed by Agencies of
the U.S. Government. Environmental Quality. 23rd Annual Report. Draft
EPA. 1993. Access EPA. EPA 220-B-93-008.
EPA. 1990. Office of Water Environmental and Program Information Systems Compendium.
EPA 500/9-90-002.
EPA. 1992. A Guide To Selected National Environmental Statistics in the U.S. Government.
EPA 230-R-92-003.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1993. Manual of Federal Geographic Data Products. EPA
Contract No. 68-W90065.
Gale Research, Incorporated. 1994. Information.Industries'Directory, 12th Edition, Detroit: Gale
Research, Incorporated.
Hill, K. and Piccirelli, A., eds. Gale Environmental Sourcebook. Detroit: Gale Research, Incorporated.
Lesko, M. 1990. The Federal Data Base Finder: A Directory of Free and Fee-Based Data Bases and
Files Available From the Federal Government. Kensington, MD: Information USA.
Marcaccio, K.Y., ed. 1995. Gale Directory of Databases. Detroit: Gale Research, Incorporated.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994. Directory of U.S. Government Datafllesfor Mainframes and
Microcomputers. PB94-100013.
Final C-16 August IS, 1995
-------
APPENDIX D
OVERVIEW OF RANKING/DECISION-MAKING
METHODOLOGIES
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Ranking/Decision-Making
APPENDIX D. OVERVIEW OF RANKING/DECISION-MAKING METHODOLOGIES
Decision-making is an integral part of our lives. Whether we are conscious of it or not, we are
constantly evaluating our circumstances, weighing our options, and choosing a best course of action.
Ordinarily, we rely on our intuitive grasp of a situation and our sense of the "right thing to do" to reach
a conclusion. In complex situations hi which numerous parties are involved in selecting from many
options, a more formal, objective decision-making process becomes necessary to reach a consensus. To
this end, several different lands of decision-making methodologies have been developed.
Broadly stated, decision analysis, or decision-making, is a process to identify the best solution
to a problem. Problems that lend themselves to solution through decision analysis are ones hi which a
decision-maker confronts two or more alternative courses of action, each action having measurable
outcomes that are contingent on forces beyond the decision-maker's control. When the decision-maker
can assign probabilities (or weights) to the contingencies, decision analysis offers a framework for
selecting among the options (Collins and Devanna 1991; Chechile and Carlisle 1991). To select an
optimum solution, decision-makers must have a common understanding and commitment to then* project's
overall goals and objectives. If many parties are involved, reaching a consensus on goals and objectives
may be more complicated man it sounds. In the case of environmental remediation projects, for example,
policy makers must weigh the interests of industry, environmental groups, and the community at large.
The community's interests and priorities (e.g., protecting water supplies, protecting recreational value)
should be reflected hi the criteria used to evaluate project options. As such, an "objective"
decision-making methodology can be all the more important for selecting a rational course of action
through a process that the affected parties perceive as unbiased.
In the case of chemical contamination remediation/control hi aquatic environments, policy analysts
and scientists must allocate limited resources for addressing complex situations hi which the outcome may
be uncertain because of imperfect science and circumstances beyond control. The overriding goal of
remediation/control projects is to achieve the maximum improvement hi environmental quality with the
least expenditures of time, money, and labor. In the context of Regional Action Plans, a Regional Action
Team may use formal decision analysis techniques in many ways:
• To estimate the relative impact of the chemical contamination on the ecosystem as a whole
and on the surrounding community (e.g., loss of tourism), compared with other sites that also
require remediation
D-l
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance RanMng/Dedston-Making
• To quantify the sensitivity of the environment to impacts from chemical contaminants by
selecting and measuring appropriate parameters/indicators (e.g., loss of indicator species or
a specific habitat type)
• To determine which sites' remediation objectives are most likely to be met successfully for
the money spent
• To prioritize problems in terms of which should be addressed first based on factors including
risk to human health and the environment, potential for technology transfer, cost, and other
resource management considerations
• To identify and prioritize the causes underlying the problems to prevent problems from
worsening over tune
• To identify and prioritize prevention/remediation options for achieving site cleanup objectives.
Some of the issues that a Regional Action Team may have to resolve, including those outlined above, are
(
more amenable to quantitative decision analysis than others. Generally, issues that are difficult to assign
a numerical value to are not easily resolved through quantitative analysis. All decision-makers tend to
*
reduce issues to a common denominator, namely, dollars and cents, because cost is an important
consideration hi choosing between options. Assigning a dollar value to goals such as protecting individual
aquatic species or preserving a community's attachment to a local wetland is, however, almost impossible.
In these cases, a qualitative approach may be more suitable.
The remainder of this appendix discusses ways to select criteria for evaluating options and
provides a brief overview of several basic decision analysis techniques as they apply to the remediation/
control of chemical contaminants hi aquatic environments. This is an overview discussion only. It is
impossible to address all of the complex aspects of environmental decision-making hi the context of this
guidance document. The art and science of environmental decision-making is a growing academic
discipline. Many courses, textbooks, and journal articles address the issue. One very good overview
text book is entitled, Environmental Decision Making: A Multidisdplinary Perspective (Chechile and
Carlisle 1991).
D.I SELECTING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Selecting suitable evaluation criteria for choosing among options is as important as defining the
approach for analyzing a particular remediation problem. Criteria will differ depending upon the nature
of the problem being analyzed. In general, suitable criteria reflect project goals and the goals of the
affected community (if appropriate). Criteria should also be amenable to the land of decision analysis
D-2
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Ranking/Decision-Making
method that will be used. If the Regional Action Team plans to use a quantitative analysis method, it
should define the criteria accordingly. This section provides examples of typical criteria used in
evaluating options for remediation sites, including:
• Technical Considerations
Risk—Has the technology or approach being considered proven successful under similar
circumstances elsewhere? What are the chances that it will not provide the desired
results?
Performance—Is there a difference in the anticipated cleanup levels for each option? Is
there a difference in the kinds of contaminants that each technology can remove?
Site-Specific Factors—Do certain site-specific factors favor the selection of one particular
kind of technology or approach?
Time—Is there a difference hi the amount of tune required for each option hi terms of
equipment transportation, set-up, operation, maintenance, and final remediation?
Environmental Impact—Are secondary environmental impacts associated with the
remediation technologies or approaches being considered?
• Environmental Benefits
Immediate Risk—Does the option mitigate the release of chemical contaminants hi a
timely manner to minimize exposure to human health and the environment? Is a unique
natural resource at risk?
Cleanup Goals—Does the option satisfy the specific environmental remediation goals
(e.g., removing certain contaminants, reducing biological oxygen demand)? Does the
option confer any secondary environmental benefits?
Prevention Goals—Does the option prevent the problem from recurring hi the future?
• Public Health and Public Perception
Risk—Is the public deeply interested hi the site and the selection of remediation
technology?
Water Resources—Does the option remediate affected water supplies to acceptable levels
and restore recreational resources? If a water supply is threatened, what is the population
of the affected community?
Cost
Effectiveness—What is the relative environmental benefit gained for dollars spent (e.g.,
to what extent will a fishery be protected?)
D-3
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Ranking/Decision-Making
Up-Front Costs—What are the initial costs for each option? What are the long-term costs
(if any) for monitoring and evaluation?
• Implementation
Cost—Are secondary ("hidden") costs associated with implementing each option?
Other—Are there other factors that may affect implementation?
D.2 SELECTING A DECISION-ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
A number of different methods can be used to choose between decision-analysis techniques. In
general, the selection of options depends on factors such as:
• The amount of available data
• The nature of the problem being investigated
• Whether the criteria are amenable to quantitative evaluation
• How the information will be used (i.e., will it be presented in a public forum or only used
by the Regional Action Team).
In some cases, ranking projects may also involve using economic evaluation techniques, such as
cost-benefit analysis and forecasting, to assign a dollar value to each option. These considerations, as
well as a general overview and summary of major advantages and disadvantages, are discussed in the
remainder of this appendix for several key decision-analysis techniques:
• Numeric index
• Grand index
• Decision tree
• Data layering
• Goals achievement matrix
• Trade-off analysis.
The first four ranking methodologies enable a Regional Action Team to compare alternatives, assuming
that the alternatives will basically affect one group (although the interests of several parties could be used
to develop evaluation criteria). The last two ranking methodologies compare the costs and benefits of
each alternative for multiple affected groups (e.g., nearby residents, wildlife, aquatic community).
D-4
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance _ Ranking/Decision-Making
D.2.1 Numeric Index
The most common ranking technique applies a weighted numeric index to each option being
evaluated. For example, if the Regional Action Team is deciding which of several aquatic areas should
be remediated first, it could use a numeric index to help prioritize the areas on the basis of its criteria
/
for project success (EPA 1993). Such an index typically combines multiple factors for a waterbody's
importance and the severity of its water quality problems into one overall score. The index is applied
to all sites under consideration and used to assign a priority ranking. The priority rankings can then be
used to select and schedule remediation strategies.
A typical numeric index approach uses formulas such as:
Score = (?! x WO + (P2 x W^ + . . . (Pn x WJ [additive model]
Score = (Pi x W^ x (P2 x Wj) x . . . (Pn x WJ [multiplicative model]
where
P = values assigned to the waterbody based on the degree of beneficial use impairment
W = weights assigned to each P factor (e.g., to give more weight to impairments affecting
outstanding resource waters or public water supplies).
Additive models tend to equalize the influence of all factors; multiplicative models tend to emphasize the
differences among factors. As a result, an additive model tends to produce scores within a narrow range;
a corresponding multiplicative approach generates a much wider range of scores. An example of how
to apply numeric indices is provided in Environmental Decision Making: A Midtidisdplinry Perspective
(Chechile and Carlisle 1991). Exhibit D-l provides a simple example of how a numeric index can be
used to evaluate different pollution prevention opportunities (a similar approach could be used for
comparing implementation actions). In this example, the pollution prevention opportunity assessment
team (analogous to the Regional Action Team), hi conjunction with the facility being reviewed,
established four evaluation criteria (i.e., cost, safety, feasibility, environmental impact) against which
each pollution prevention opportunity would be assessed. All criteria were considered equally, and the
scores were added to provide an indication of the "favored" opportunity; in this case, Opportunity 3.
D-5
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Ranking/Decision-Making
Exhibit D-l. Example of a Simple "Additive" Numeric Index
Evaluation Criteria
Cost
Safety
Feasibility
Environmental impact
Total
Ranking for Each Option
Opportunity 1
8
6
4
2
20
Opportunity 2
6
3
4
2 '
15
Opportunity 3
3
8
5
5
21
Some of the important strengths and weaknesses of numeric indices are summarized below:
• Strengths
- A numeric index can be based on quantifiable criteria important to water quality.
- The index can be developed with input from different sources so that the information can
be tailored to serve a variety of purposes.
- The results are standardized and reproducible.
• Weaknesses
- The more complex the index, the more difficult it is to explain to the public.
- The index may mask the importance of a severe problem that may only appear in one
factor.
- Care must be taken hi constructing the index to ensure that the correct variables are
chosen; the wrong choice of variables may result in a poor index.
- The range of scores may be too small to allow for choosing between sites.
D.2.2 Grand Index
A grand index is a commonly used variation of a numeric index. A grand index is the sum of
several smaller matrices for project alternatives to ascertain net differences. This is usually done by
summing positive and negative cell contents and, sometimes, weighting cells, rows, or columns to achieve
a net result.
D-6
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Ranking/Dedsion-Making
For the results of a grand index to be meaningful, researchers must pay special attention to the
scale used for ranking the project alternatives. Basically, three general kinds of scales can be used:
• Nominal scales for qualitatively classifying objects (e.g., [1] hot, [2] hotter, [3] hottest).
• Ordinal scales to rank objects in order (e.g., [1] hottest, [2] next hottest, [3] next hottest).
Ordinal scales do not indicate how much hotter the second object is in relation to the first.
• Interval scales to rate the quantitative difference between objects.
Of the three scales, only the last, interval scales, can be mathematically manipulated (e.g., added,
subtracted, multiplied). To ensure the most accurate results, a Regional Action Team should try to select
criteria for the grand index that can be ranked using the same scale and yet still be meaningful.
Two examples of grand indexes for comparing remediation technologies follow. Exhibit D-2
illustrates one method of applying the grand index using an ordinal scale. Exhibit D-3 shows one method
of ranking criteria on the basis of then: relative criteria using an interval scale.
When exainining Exhibit D-2, the difficulties inherent in comparing Technologies A and B on
the basis of the qualitative results are evident. Qualitative terms, such as "medium" and "neutral," are
difficult to compare and do not provide a great enough range in value when totaling to easily distinguish
among options. It is very difficult to come up with a distinguishable ranking "score."
On the other hand, Exhibit D-3 demonstrates some difficulties mat could arise when using a
quantitative interval system. For example, the tendency for important factors (e.g., labor cost) to lose
their importance in the overall matrix is evident. Also, the range of totaled values between the ranked
projects tends to be narrow.
D.2.3 Decision Tree
In contrast to the numeric index or the grand index, the decision tree is primarily used as a
qualitative tool. A decision tree provides a clear overview of the ranking process. Decision-makers can
use the decision tree as a means of narrowing the number of options for further consideration using
specific evaluation criteria. For example, a Regional Action Team may use a decision analysis as a first
step hi assigning priorities to the causes of contamination hi a particular aquatic environment. The
Regional Action Team will primarily rely on their best professional judgment rather than quantitative data
D-7
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Ranking/Decision-Making
Exhibit D-2. Example of Using a Grand Index-Ordinal Scale for Comparing Two Technologies
1
Technology A*
Evaluation
Criteria
Public relations
Recreational
value
Wildlife impacts
Water supply
impact
Construction
High negative
Medium negative
High negative
Neutral
Operation
Low negative
Medium negative
Low negative
Low negative
Maintenance
Neutral
High negative
Medium negative
Low negative
Total
Ihigh
1 neutral
1 low
Ihigh
2 medium
Ihigh
1 medium
1 low
1 neutral
2 low
* A "low negative" indicates that the activity will have little impact on the criteria; a "high negative" indicates a serious
impact.
Technology B
Evaluation
Criteria
Public relations
Recreational
value
Wildlife impacts
Water supply
impact
Construction
Low negative
Neutral
•,
High negative
Low negative
Operation
Medium negative
Medium negative
High negative
Low negative
Maintenance
Neutral
Low negative
Medium negative
Low negative
/•'• .
Total
1 medium
1 neutral
1 low
1 medium
1 neutral
1 low
2 high
1 medium
Slow
D-8
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Ranking/Decision-Making
Exhibit D-3. Example of a Grand Index-Interval Scale for Comparing Two Technologies
,
]
Technology A*
Evaluation Weighting
Criteria Value
Labor cost 4
Materials and 3
supply costs
Transportation 2
costs
Waste disposal 1
costs
Construction Operation
4 2
1 3
2 1
4 2
Maintenance
3
3
2
2
Grand Total
Total
36
24
10
8
78
"This index assumes a scale of 1 to 5 with the higher values indicating relatively low cost, 3 being neutral, and any value
ower than 3 indicating high cost. The ranking scale reflects the relative importance of each factor to the total.
Technology B
Evaluation Weighting
Criteria Value
Labor cost 4
Materials and 3
supply costs
Transportation 2
costs
Waste disposal 1
costs
Construction Operation
1 2
2 4
3 3
4 3
Maintenance
1
4
2
4
Grand Total
Total
16
30
16
11
73
when completing the decision tree. The State of New Mexico uses a decision tree to determine whether
sufficient data are available for managing waters resources (see Exhibit D-4).
The following list defines selected strengths and weakness of the decision tree methodology:
• Strengths
- Easy to present to the public
D-9
-------
Exhibit D-4. Example of A Decision Tree
Problem
Indicated
Standards Violations
Use Impairment
Rapid Watershed
Development
No Recent Data
PRIORITY
FOR CONTROLS
Data adequate to —_
evaluate problem
Frequent
standards
violations
:. tools available
Higher value T~
water *— Mgt. tools unavailable
Infrequent
standards
violations
Lower value _ T~
water ^
Higher value
water
Lower value
water
it. tools available
Mgt. tools unavailable
Mgt. tools available
Mgt. tools unavailable
1
4
2
5
3
6
No ranking
Data Inadequate to
evaluate problem
Higher
value
water
Lower
value
water
Problems expected
to increase
Problems not expected
to Increase
Problems expected
to Increase
Problems not expected
to Increase
PRIORITY FOR DATA
COLLECTION
Source: EPA 1993
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Ranking/Dedsion-Making
- Visual tool for consensus building and facilitating discussions
- Appropriate if quantitative data are not available or when only a limited number of options
is being considered
• Weakness
- Less flexible than the numeric index.
D.2.4 Data Layering
The data-layering approach is used for evaluating many different kinds of geographically
distributed data. Each data layer is overlaid with other layers to help target areas of interest using
specified criteria. For example, a Regional Action Team could use data layering to prioritize cleanup
sites based on population density, land use, hydrography, rainfall, or other factors. Data layering, like
the decision tree, is particularly helpful because it provides a visual definition of the remediation site.
Data layering is frequently associated with the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Additional
information on mapping and Geographic Information Systems is provided in Appendix I. Data layering
(or GIS) can be used in the following ways:
• Pre-Processing Data—Analyzing and reducing large volumes of spatially distributed data
• Screening—Simulating cause and effect relationships and screening for water quality problems
hi the absence of extensive ambient data
• Visualization of Problems—Illustrating with maps and computer graphics the geographic
distribution of water quality problems, potential sources, monitoring locations, etc.
• Strategy Testing—Developing and testing management scenarios to predict the effects of
different controls.
The key strength and weakness of the data layering approach are defined below:
• Strength
- Enables analysts to consider spatially distributed data, which are difficult to evaluate
otherwise.
• Weakness
- State agencies may not have the data needed for developing the model of the area of
interest. A certain amount of research and development may be required, which could be
D-ll
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance __^__ RanMng/Dedsion-Making
costly. The technique may, nevertheless, be appropriate for analyzing local/small scale
issues, such as a particular remediation site.
D.2.5 Goals Achievement Matrix
The purpose of the goals achievement matrix is to illustrate how each party benefits or loses from
each impact. Impacts can be divided into groups as they contribute toward or detract from project goals,
such as clean water, or the need to minimize the risk of secondary environmental contamination from the
remediation technology (Westman 1985). Exhibit D-5 provides an example where a Regional Action
Team is prioritizing two remediation sites, Site #1 and Site #2. The ranking ranges from +5, which
indicates a very positive effect on the progress toward meeting the goal, to -5, meaning a negative effect
toward meeting the goal (zero indicates no effect). "Impacts" are defined in this exhibit as the short-term
impacts associated with project remediation work.
The strength and weaknesses of the goals achievement matrix are defined blow:
• Strength
- The goal achievment matrix enables the Regional Action Team to identify the relative
benefits and costs for the various parties in relation to project goals.
• Weaknesses
- The more complex the index, the more difficult it is to explain to the public.
- The index tends to dampen out a severe problem that may only appear in one factor.
- Care must be taken in constructing the index to ensure that the correct variables are
chosen; the wrong choice of variables may result in a poor index.
- The range of scores may be too small to allow for choosing between sites.
D.2.6 Trade-Off Matrix
A trade-off matrix may be useful for comparing alternatives when the impacts occur in
noncomparable units (e.g., dollars versus reduced levels of noise pollution). Using a trade-off matrix,
a Regional Action Team can compare the benefits and costs associated with project alternatives as they
affect different parties (Westman 1985). Exhibit D-6 presents an example of a trade-off analysis for
determining whether the remediation boundary should extend 10 miles away from the hot spot (Option 1)
or 1 mile away (Option 2).
D-12
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Ranking/Decision-Making
Exhibit D-5. Example of a Goals Achievement Matrix for Evaluating Two Sites*
Site #1
Affected
Groups
Nearby
residents
Wildlife
Aquatic
community
Plant
community
Weighted
totals
_ Impact: Restore Water Supply /Quality
Group
Weighting
Vatae
4
2
3
1
Benefits
+5
+4
+2
+4
+38
Costs
0
-1
-1
-2
-4
Impact: Minimize a High-Risk Threat
Group
Weighting
Value
4
2
3
1
Benefits
0
+3
+5
+4
25
Costs
0
0
0
0
Grand Index Total: 59
Site #2
>> . •* •
Affected
Groups
Nearby
residents
Wildlife
Aquatic
community
Plant
community
Weighted
totals
Impact; Restore Water Supply/Quality
Groap
Weighting
Value
1
2
4
3
Benefits
+5
+4
+5
+5
+48
Costs
0
-1
-1
-2
-12
Impact: Minimize a High-Risk Threat
Group
Weighting
Value
1
2
4
3
Benefits
+4
+3
+5
+4
+42
Costs
0
0
0
0
Grand Index Total: 78
*Remediation activity may have a negative short-term impact on the environment.
D-13
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Ranking/Decision-Making
Exhibit D-6. Trade-Off Analysis—Determining Remediation Boundaries
Affected
Groups/
Evaluation
Criteria
Impact on Future Water Quality
Benefits
Option 1
Benefits
Option 1
Costs
Option 1
Costs
Option 2
Impact oa Short-Term Level of Disturbance
BteneQis
Option 1
Benefits
Option 2
Costs
Option 1
Coste
Option 2 \
PubBc
Monetary
Physical
Qualitative
$4M
Reduced
number of
bottled
water
purchased:
high
Improved
public
confidence:
high
$2M
Reduced
number of
bottled
water
purchases:
low
Improved
public
confidence:
low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SIM
Inconveni-
ence of
construction
traffic
0
0
Aquatic community
Monetary
Physical
Qualitative
0
Estimates
additional
species will
be
protected
Overall
habitat
improve-
ment: high
WHdlife
Monetary
Physical
Qualitative
$500,000 in
estimated
trophy fees
Estimate
3,000
additional
individuals
will be
protected
Improved
chances of
maintaining
the herd
0
Estimate 1
species will
be
protected
Overall
habitat
improve-
ment:
medium
0
Estimate
additional
individual
win be
protected
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-$300,000
in lost
fisheries
catch
Short-term
construction
impact:
high
0
%
0
1
0
0
-$40,000 in
short-term
revenues
Estimate
short-term
impact will
lead to loss
of 150
individuals
Worse man
Option 2
-$125,000
Short-term
construc-
tion
impact:
low
0
0
0
0
D-14
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Ranking/Dedsion-Making
The following list highlights the strengths and weakness of the trade-off matrix:
• Strengths
- The trade-off analysis may be useful in situations where only a limited number of impacts
need to studied.
- The trade-off analysis visually depicts the choices involved and their relative impacts.
• Weakness
- If several different impacts must be considered, the trade-off analysis may become too
unwieldy.
D.3 REALITY CHECK
No matter which technique the Regional Action Team selects, it is important to evaluate the
results to determine whether they seem intuitively reasonable. A few general questions to ask are listed
below:
• Do the results reflect project priorities?
• • r •
t
• Are factors considered "high value" given the weight they deserve, or are they masked by
other factors of "lesser" importance? For example, all evaluation criteria will not always
apply to all options. It may be possible to have a situation where 10 criteria are used to
evaluate two options. In Option A, all 10 criteria apply, but niinimally affect the criteria, so
a low score of "1" is given for each criterion (total score is 10). In Option B, however, only
one evaluation criterion may apply, but it receives a high score of "eight" (total score is
eight). If evaluated solely on numbers, Option A, the higher score, would be selected.
Option B may be the most desirable approach overall, but its importance is masked by poorly
selected criteria that do not apply. It is important to select evaluation criteria wisely and to
evaluate considerations beyond those solely reflected in the numbers when assessing options.
• If projects are being ranked for implementation, does the resulting order make sense hi terms
of project logistics?
Depending on the answers to these questions, it may be necessary to re-examine the assumptions used
to construct the ranking model and make modifications. When trying to win approval and "buy hi" on
planning approaches, it is important to demonstrate action and success early hi the process. Some of
these "easy-to-achieve" approaches may not score high relative to other options but should be included
hi the plan as part of the effort to win stakeholder and public acceptance. Decision-making analysis has
been described as an "art and a science" (Chechile and Carlisle 1991); the science of ranking must be
balanced with the art of knowing how to produce a plan, with options, that can be will be implemented
and will be accepted by the public and affected stakeholders.
_
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Ranking/Decision-Making
Chechile, R.A. and Carlisle, S., eds. 1991. Environmental Decision Making: A Multidisciplinary
Perspective. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Collins, E.G.C. and Devanna, M.A. 1991. The Portable MBA. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water. 1993. Geographic Targeting: Selected
State Examples. EPA/841/B/93/001.
Westman, W.E. 1985. Ecology, Impact Assessment, and Environmental Planning. New York: John
Wiley.
D.16
-------
APPENDIX E
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISPLAY MANAGER:
A TOOL FOR WATER QUALITY DATA INTEGRATION
-------
VOL. 27, NO. 6
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
DECEMBER 1991
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISPLAY MANAGER: A TOOL
FOR WATER QUALITY DATA INTEGRATIONi
William B. Samuels, Phillip L. Taylor, Paul B. Evenhouse, Timothy R. Bondelid,
Paul C. Eggers, and Sue A. Hanson2
ABSTRACT: The Environmental Display Manager, EDM, is a
development system on an IBM 3090 mainframe at the U.S. EPA
National Computer Center in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. EDM provides mapping, display, analysis support, and
information management capabilities to workstations located
across the United States, and connected to EPA through federal,
state, academic, and private communications networks. Through
interactive software, EDM can quickly support analyses, create
maps and graphics, and generate reports that integrate millions of
pieces of environmental data. The concept of EDM is to provide
easy access to environmental information, to provide automated
environmental analyses and reports, and then to provide data,
graphics, images, text, and documents that can be used by numer-
ous output devices, software packages, and computers.
The mapping component works with an electronic version of the
54,000 7.5 minute quad sheets of the U.S. Geological Survey. The
software also works with a hydrographic data base of the surface
waters of the United States. With the maps, a user can look at the
rivers in any state, can zoom in on a small pond, and can overlay
and identify particular features such as industrial waste discharg-
ers and factories. The hydrography allows routing for modeling pro-
grams, identification of upstream and downstream components,
and linkage of environmental features associated with surface
waters. Alternatively; users can query data based on latitude/longi-
tude, city name, EPA permit number, state agency and station code,
river name or number, and river cataloging unit. The maps can be
overlaid with roads and environmental sites such as: municipal and
industrial dischargers, Superrand sites, public drinking water sup-
plies, water quality monitoring stations, stream gages, and city
locations. Retrievals from related systems can be performed for
selected sites creating graphics showing water quality trends, dis-
charge monitoring reports, and permit discharge limits.
(KEY TERMS: automated environmental analyses; maps; graphics;
data integration and management; water quality data.)
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Display Manager is a develop-
ment system on an IBM 3090 mainframe at the U.S.
EPA National Computer Center in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina (EPA, 1989a, 1989b, 1987a).
The concept of this system is to provide easy access to
environmental information, to provide automated
environmental analyses and reports, and to provide
data, graphics, images, text, and documents that can
be used by numerous output devices, software pack-
ages, and computers.
The EPA maintains a large volume of digital water
quality data on the mainframe. This information is
stored in relational, hierarchical, and custom
designed in-house databases, each having their own
access methods, graphical display capabilities, and
output reports. In the past, access to these databases
required users to know how to operate multiple data
retrieval and display systems, respond to complicated
prompts, and build and submit cumbersome com-
mand files for data retrieval. Extracting data was a
painful process. Furthermore, data visualization, in
the form of computer generated maps and graphics
usually involved executing batch jobs, submitting
background plot jobs, or capturing intermediate plot
files and redirecting them to graphics terminals.
Starting in 1982, a number of activities were initi-
ated by the EPA to simplify access to these databases.
In 1988, these efforts were combined in the Environ-
mental Display Manager project. The Environmental
Display Manager ties together national on-line
'Paper No. 91074 of the Water Resources Bulletin. Discussions are open until August 1,1992.
^Respectively, Senior Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation, 1710 Goodridge Dr., McLean, Virginia 22102; Tetra Tech,
Inc., 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340, Fairfax, Virginia 22030; Unisys Corporation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709; Research
lHangle Institute, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709; and (Eggers and Hanson) Horizon Systems Corporation,
423 Carlisle Dr., Herndon, Virginia 22070.
939
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
-------
Samuels, Taylor, Evenhouae, Bondelid, Eggers, and Hanson
databases which contain spatial and attribute infor-
mation on industrial and municipal dischargers,
drinking water supplies, stream flow, water quality
monitoring stations, discharge permit compliance
reports, and hydrologic maps. The display manager
provides mapping, automated integration, and geo-
graphic analyses using latitude/longitude coordinates.
Any database with latitude/longitude can be integrat-
ed with the display manager. The current system
components are listed in Figure 1 and include:
• STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) - the largest
single repository of water quality data in the country
containing millions of data points.
• River Reach File — a national network of rivers,
lakes, etc. The Reach File version 3 is currently under
development and, upon completion, will contain
3,000,000 hydrologic segments with 93,000,000 coor-
dinates.
• Several other national-level databases that con-
tain comprehensive information about industrial and
municipal dischargers, drinking water intakes,
fishkills, flow monitoring gages, and dams.
• Detailed map/display data including the USGS
Digital lane Graph databases, city/town files, water-
shed boundaries, and political boundaries.
This paper is organized into sections which discuss
the display manager's design and capabilities in the
following areas: interactive analyses, maps, and
graphics; access to a vast array of environmental
data; integration of dynamic databases; environmen-
tal data visualization; access to an electronic version
of the 54,000 7.5 minute basemaps of the USGS; and
using a national river network to examine environ-
mental problems. The summary and conclusion sec-
tions discuss EDM's ability to provide a single tool for
environmental management, and to bring about the
cooperative and collaborative use of environmental
data.
The Environmental Display Manager is designed to
meet the pressing need for federal and state environ-
mental agencies to be able to perform environmental
analyses at many levels of detail using many types of
data. These levels range from detailed site specific
requirements to performing broad based reporting at
state, regional, and national levels. An important con-
sideration in the design and implementation is that
the user requirements undergo continuous change so
that the software needs to be flexible and "open
ended" to allow the incorporation of additional analy-
ses, text, and data.
[ENVIRONMENTAL DISPLAY MANAGER SYSTEM COMPONENTS
IBM 3090 MAINFRAME
COLOR GRAPHICS
TERMINALS
LASER PRINTERS
PL/1 APPLICATION
SOFTWARE
GRAPHICAL DATA
DISPLAY MANAGER
ADVANCED FUNCTION
PRINTING
INTERACTIVE MAP
DEFINITION
DATA
NATIONAL LEVEL
WATER QUALITY
DATABASES
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM NETWORK
ARCHITECTURE
ELECTRONIC BASEMAPS
OF THE UNITED STATES
INTERACTIVE SYSTEM
PRODUCTIVITY FACILITY
Figure 1. Environmental Display Manager System Components.
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
940
-------
The Environmental Display Manager A Tool for Water Quality Data Integration
THE NEED FOR DATA INTEGRATION
EPA is a complex organization. While other govern-
ment agencies like the Defense Department have tra-
ditions that go back centuries, EPA's mission for
organized protection of the environment is only a few
decades old. While other agencies work with a single
problem (veterans, banks, securities), EPA works in
all environmental areas of life with problems of the
past, present, and future. While most agencies work
with a single clientele, EPA responds to all sectors of
America: industry, state and local governments, and
directly to the public.
The data of EPA is used for a variety of purposes
(EPA, 1989c). EPA uses data for environmental plan-
ning, to develop and promote environmental laws, for
environmental enforcement, for research, and for edu-
cation and public awareness. Many of these demands
for data work against each other; for example, the
need for privacy in legal matters works against open-
ness for public awareness.
The environment is the common thread for under-
standing the tasks delegated to EPA. The surface
water of the United States, lakes, rivers and estuar-
ies, is a natural network for organizing environmental
data. The changing elevation of water as it flows
across the country creates a three dimensional sur-
facej All environmental activities occur on, above, or
below this surface.
A NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA NETWORK
EDM provides mapping, display, analysis, and
information management capabilities to workstations
located across the United States, and connected to
EPA through federal, state, academic, and private
communications networks. The workstations connect
to an IBM 3090 computer which is the central com-
puter for EPA's national computer network (see
Figure 2). The computer is located at EPA's National
Computer Center in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, one of the largest, most modern, high-speed
computer centers in the United States. The center's
mission, to support EPA in the areas of scientific and
administrative applications, is met through a telecom-
munications network which allows the distribution of
computer services to remote locations (EPA, 1989b).
The locations include EPA regional offices and facili-
ties throughout the country, high speed access to nat-
ural resource offices in the 50 states, access for EPA's
contractors as needed, and access through public net-
works.
Through data screens and graphics, EDM provides
direct access to the databases of EPA, and other agen-
cies. The data is the complete, dynamic, and official
files of EPA. Not only is the data real and dynamic,
EDM itself is dynamic. EDM is positioned to take
advantage of the newest ideas in shared resources
and resource delivery. Currency stamps, time and
date, on information make it possible for EDM to
maintain and deliver accurate data, documents,
maps, and workstation software.
EDM connects a large variety of equipment across
EPA's extended networks. This is noteworthy, but not
the real challenge. The challenge is to have informa-
tion that is meaningful and accurate. EDM meets this
challenge by providing and maintaining easy access to
official EPA files.
INTERACTIVE ANALYSES, MAPS,
GRAPHICS, AND REPORTS
Through interactive software, EDM can quickly
create analyses, maps, graphics, and reports that
integrate millions of pieces of environmental data.
For example, a user can enter the name of a city (Bar
Harbor, Maine) on a screen (see Figure 3) and extract
a map of Mt. Desert Island where Bar Harbor is locat-
ed. Overlaid on the map are symbols which represent
environmental data such as industrial and municipal
dischargers, Superfund sites, cities, stream gages,
drinking water supplies, and water quality
monitoring stations. Monitoring stations are further
subdivided by type such as stream, lake, ocean, estu-
ary, pipe effluent and well (ground water). Data
retrieval options are controlled by a series of function
keys. This allows users to examine, for a specific site,
water quality parameter values, discharge permit
limits, and discharge monitoring reports. Through the
use of a pointing device, symbol picking is enabled
and latitude/longitude position is displayed.
EDM can access data for any geographic region in
the continental U.S. Figure 4 shows a data retrieval
made by selecting the name of a lake in Minnesota
(Lake Minnetonka). Local workstation control func-
tions allow the user to zoom in on any portion of the
lake and view the spatial distribution of
environmental sites in more detail (see Figure 4).
Accessing data for a specific industry located on the
Pacific coast can be accomplished by entering the EPA
discharge permit number issued to the industry.
In this example, CA0005134, the permit number for
an oil refinery in California, was entered and & map of
the San Pablo Bay coastal region, where the refinery
is located (just north of San Francisco), was generated
(see Figure 5). By pointing to an ocean water quality
941
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
-------
Samuels, Taylor, Evenhouse, Bondelid, Eggers, and Hanson
NATIONAL DATA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
• EKLWCOJONS
• STXTE CONNECTIONS
X CONTRACTOR LOCATIONS
SKA. BACKBONE NETWORK
X25 BACKBONE NETWORK
TYMNET NETWORK
Figure 2. EPA's National Computer Center Network.
monitoring station just offshore, a data summary for
that station is generated (see Figure 5). This summa-
ry consists of the parameter name and code number
(i.e., dissolved oxygen, code 300), sampling date
range, minimum and maximum values, and number
of observations. Selecting a parameter and a date
range triggers a time series plot of the data as either
a line graph, bar chart, or tower chart. Up to four
parameters can be examined simultaneously. Thus,
visualizing the relationship between water tempera-
ture and dissolved oxygen concentration in San Pablo
Bay between 1965 and 1969 is easily accomplished
with EDM (see Figure 6). Just as easy is to extract
and plot a tower chart showing minimum, average,
and maximum concentration of ammonia nitrogen in
the effluent from a steel plant in Indiana during 1981
(see Figure 6), or to simultaneously examine pipe
flow, ammonia nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total
residue for this same plant (see Figure 7).
During an EDM session, a data report is automati-
cally generated and can be output through specialized
software. This report, a portion of which is shown in
Figure 8, contains maps, text, and graphics describing
the environmental data associated with the selected
waterbody. In addition, data inventories for user
selected water quality stations and time series plots
for user selected parameters are included. The exam-
ple report shown in Figure 8 is for Fivemile Creek
located near Birmingham, Alabama.
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
942
-------
The Environmental Display Manager. A Tool for Water Quality Data Integration
US ENVIRONMENTS PROTECTION flCENCY
,. OFFICE OF WATER
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS BRANCH
WELCOME TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA DISPLAY MANAGER (EDOV)
ENTER A VALUE FDR ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
REACH NUMBER:! "'
I
CITY NAME: IBAR HARBOR
NPDES NUMBER:!
REACH NAME: I '
ANO STATE:
[AND STATE: C3
AGENCY:C
|STATION:(_
J
PF4 OR PF16 TO RESPECIFY INPUT VALUES
PF3 OR PF15 TO EXIT
ENTER TO CONTINUE
CITY LOCATION FOUND - ENTER TO CONTINUE
Entering a city name produces a map and data display
1050002109 MT DESERT I 71.7 MILES TYPE: I
BAR HARBOR WATER CO. EAGLE LAKE I 4800
UE0101346 MOUNT DESERT-NORTHEAST HBR STP SIC: 4952
EFUEEPA ME010J214
PF3-END
PF4-DMR
PF5-STORET
P.F6-APERTURE
PF7-LWTS
PF8-FLOW
BAR HARBOR-CROMWELL HARBOR R/L 0039.390 MUN/TREATD/
= INDUSTRY
S=STREAy P=PIPE L=LAKE
it HAfiBOt
0=OCEAN W=IELL E=ESTUARY
DOWNSTREAM UP LEFT:
LATITUDE: 44.4252 LONGITUDE: 68.3319
UPRIGHT:
REQUEST WAS MADE BY: CITY
ENTER APERTURE SIZE: 0.015
1
* = POTW
« - SUPERFUNO
• = CITY
x = WQ STATION
I = GAGE
& = WflTER SUPPLY
Figure 3. Accessing Data by City Name (Bar Harbor, Maine).
943
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
-------
Samuels, Taylor, Evenhouse, Bondelid, Eggers, and Hanson
Locations of Environmental Sites in Lake Minnetonka
7010206008 L MINNETONKA 46.3 MILES TYPE: L
MN0001627 RIO-JIO PRODUCTS CORP SIC: 3499
1IEPALES 276004 LAKE MINNETONKA 0014.130 AMBNT/LAKE
PF3-ENO
PF4-OMR
PF5-STORET
PF6-APERTURE
PF7-LIMITS
PF8-FLOW
S=STREAy P=PIPE L=LAKE
t t
MYZATA
J, kX|l
. Ur§^-;
-------
The Environmental Display Manager A Tool for Water Quality Data Integration
Map Display Based on Discharge Permit Number
18050002002 SAN PABLO BAY
30.4 MILES TYPE: C
CA0037974 W. CONTRA COSTA S.D.2377 GARDE SIC: 4952
USGS11181400 WILDCAT CREEK AT RIC
21CAL-1 EOB7S7722SB SAN PABLO BAY AT POINT SAN PAB 0021.710 AM8NT/OCEAN
PF3-END
PF4-OMR
PF5-STORET
PF6-APERTURE
PF7-LIUITS
PF8-FLOW
S=STREAM P=PIPE L=LAXE
/LEASANT HILL
0=OCEAN I=IELL E=STUARY
+ = INDUSTRY
I = POTW
t = SUPERFUNO
• = CITY
i - WQ STATION
I = GAGE
a = WflTER SUPPLY
DOWNSTREAM 18050004049 UP LEFT: 18050002004 UPRIGHT: 18050002003
LATITUDE: 37.9704 LONGITUDE: 122.4206
REQUEST WAS MADE BY: NPDES NUMBER
Data Inventory for a Selected Sampling She
OflTfl SUMMflRY flGENCY:
PARAMETER NUMBER: 11
PARAMETER
ALTITUDE FEE 42
CHLORIDE TOT 940
TIDE STAG 70211
WATER TEM 11
COLLECT AGEN 27
CNDUCTVY AT 2 95
TURB HLG 75
RESIDUE TOT N 530
DO 300
PH 400
RESIDUE OISS- 515
NH3+NH4-N TOT 610
N02-N DIS 613
N03-N DIS 618
TOT KJEL N 625
TOT ORG KJELD 629
PHOS-TOT 665
PHOS-DIS ORTH 671
ALORIN 39330 ^
GAMMABHCLINDA 39340
ODD WHL S 39360
DDT WHL S 39370
DIELORIN 39380
CNOUCTVYFIELD 94
21CHL-1
ENTER =
STflTION
LINE GRAPH
BEGIN YR: 65
DATE
10101
270102
270102
621130
621130
621130
641231
641231
650120
650120
650120
650120
650120
650120
650120
650120
650120
650120
650203
650203
650203
650203
650203
650729
RANGE
10101
860602
570830
850703
860602
860602
661117
690812
690812
690812
650120
690812
690812
690812
690812
690812
690812
690812 -
650203
690206
670621
660527
661214
860602
: E0B7577225fa
PF5 = BAR PF6
END YR: 69 PF3
VALUE
1.000
1140.000
40030.000
45.000
5050.000
4700.000
6.000
8.000
4.400
6.800
10100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.080
0.050
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.009
0.001
4738.000
NQ. GRRPHS:
= TOWER
- END PF4 - CONT
RANGE DBS
1.000
20000.000
51000.000
67.000
5050.000
46200.000
260.000
193.000
10.700
8.400
10100.000
1.400
0.090
1.400
3.900
2.700
0.490
0.190
0.004
0.027
0.005
0.015
0.003
44800.000
2
1
2464
2393
65
85
70
13
41
44
45
1
42
31
42
42
42
41
41
1
11
3
2
3
30
Figure 5. Map of San Pablo Bay (California) and Water Quality Data Summary.
945
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
-------
Samuels, Taylor, Evenhouse, Bondelid, Eggers, and Hanson
Examining the Relationship Between Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen
IICAL-I COI7S77IXII
SAN PAILO IAT AT POINT SAN PAILO
• 0'
v
^\/
• AT OCT UAH AUe JAN JUN MOV AP* SCP Tit JUL OEC
1tl9 - Ittl
OXTCEN. OISSOLV
2 11
SAN PAILO IAT AT I
V = T S.S'PASZS""
10-
MAT OCT MAR AUB JAN JUN NOV API SCP FCI
1*13 - 111!
DEC
Minimum, Average, and Maximum Concentration of Ammonia Nitrogen
NITROGEN. AyUONIA, TOTAL (UG/L AS N)
EFINEPA IN0000175
STEEL CORP / PIPE: 11
JAN
I I I I
MAR UAY JUL
I I I 1 I
SEP NOV JAN
I9B1
Figure 6. EDM Water Quality Line Graphs and Tower Charts Show Dissolved Oxygen and Water
Temperature Relationship in San Pablo Bay (left) and Ammonia Concentration
(maximum, average, minimum) in the Effluent from a Steel Plant (right).
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
946
-------
The Environmental Display Manager A Tbol for Water Quality Data Integration
an. ii CBUIII «i nil i iiuniir run—rer
EFIIEU IMIN1II
STEEl COW / PIPE: 1
IIUKti. iUHilt. IDIU IK/I ii I)
EFIIEPI iinnin
STEEL NIP /
ju rci ui API UT m ui AN SEP HI MI IEC tu
tut
PIPE: T
LSI
1.41
"I.II-
1.11
I.M-
JU FEI Ml- API (AT iU JDL UK SEP OH HOT DEC IU
till
IESIOUE. WU MIHITUIIE (K/t)
eriiEPi IUONUS
STEEl HP /
PIPE: 1
iciu (ie/L a pj
iinntn
tu nt ui API in in in ut SEP OCT HT IK
niz
fEI UI API UT 4U J«L UK SEP OCT MT DEC JW
Figure 7. Multiple Water Quality Graphs on a Single Screen Enable Users
to Visualize Relationships Between Parameters.
ACCESS TO A VAST ARRAY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Users can access data based on latitude/longitude,
city name, EPA discharge permit number, state agen-
cy and station code, hydrologic unit (drainage basin)
code, waterbody name, or reach (river segment) num-
ber. The data bases accessed by EDM are listed in
table 1. The reach number, an 11-digit numeric code,
links these data bases together so that queries such
as, "find all drinking water supplies on Mt. Desert
Island, Maine," can be made (see Figure 3). By having
access to EPA's STORET water quality file, a user can
point to a particular discharger and interactively
examine, for example, the relationship between water
temperature and dissolved oxygen levels for a particu-
lar place during a specified time interval (see Figure
6). Furthermore, accessing data in the Permits
Compliance System through function keys defined in
EDM can yield information on discharge permit limits
or discharge monitoring reports for any industrial
facility in the U.S. which has been issued an EPA per-
mit
All of the data bases listed in Table 1 are national
in scope and on-line at the National Computer Center.
The STORET water quality file (EPA, 1989d) contains
data for over 800,000 sampling sites and includes
200,000,000 measurements spanning 12,000 parame-
ters (i.e., dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, pH, etc.).
Coupled with this file is the STORET parameter file
which includes descriptive information on the param-
eter name, units of measure, sample media, etc. The
Permits Compliance System (EPA, I987b) and
Industrial Facilities Discharge File (Taylor et al,
1988) contain discharge limits, monitoring data, geo-
graphic coordinates, and descriptive information for
947
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
-------
Samuels, Taylor, Evenhouse, Bondelid, Eggere, and Hanson
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA DISPLAY MANAGER
KMSOATA ftmr
3160111008 FIVEMILE CR
33.1 iniu rm: S
l=UK
0=flCC»« I±«U E=EST0Air
»-cm Z*CMC
nunrauii nunuMt of urt: imcni
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SELECTED BY: NPDES NUMBER
FACILITIES ---——
NPDES NAME CITY SIC
TAMAIR cm 7SU
unaawii mi
aw
TAftANT CZTY S4CZ,
MIMIMGMII UU
TAOWfTCXTY JMI
ruuMrerrr mz
UU
AUMZT71 VULOUi IMT M M.T
ALMMM7 »> ••HM CBVUX-JI* HAltO
miHTAI CUM CMP •XmMMM
AIMMW7 Al IT not TAHMT
i co cuttiu STMINC
jcmvsoM COH« SMXIWICLB inr ««S2
Atm*n> jtmaai ca-m -«T «
u.»iun unut run imam-rrr »
NiacCL run unOM-nr M
UCML run *i*tm in n
HIOUI. run imom-nr »»
U.MIUH mcza run
MU* MTTIBi
Maca. run
U.MMTU man. run mnm-m m
mctu. run HmM-nT «•
FULKMHU
FKnwu
nuiomii i
mriMMH
FULTIMIU.I
Ull
uu
mi
uu
1211
uu
TUIUUIT env Mn
UU
uu
• CfRCS •
«U
tuz
urn
• wm wourr srinoa •
zunc M-ti
UUTCST UMItA
1UM* tXITTM
uw
zunc nc-u
rnc nu 01« mt» MU «.M «• n
ot AT MIV
x
-------
The Environmental Display Manager A Tbol for Water Quality Data Integration
TABLE 1. Databases Accessed by the Environmental Display Manager.
DATABASE
DESCRIPTION
STORET Water Quality File
(200,000,000 water sampling observations)
STORET Parameter File
(270,000 records)
Permits Compliance System
(> 5,000,000 records)
Reach Trace File
(100,000,000 records)
Reach Structure File
(4,650,000 records)
City Master File
(1,400,000 records)
Stream Gage File
(3,240,000 records)
Drinking Water Supply File
(540,000 records)
Industrial Facilities
(8,500,000 records)
STORET contains geographic and other descriptive data about the sites where water
quality data have been collected. Data related to the physical characteristics and chemical
constituents of the water, fish tissue, or sediment sampled is called parametric data.
This file contains a full description of the water quality parameters contained in STORET.
Included in this description are the units of measure, chemical abstract number, sample
media, etc.
The Permits Compliance System (PCS) data base is the national inventory for EPA permit
issuance and compliance/enforcement data. The data base consists of more than 5 million
data records on over 75,000 active water discharge permits.
The Reach Trace File contains the latitude and longitude coordinates of streams, lakes,
reservoirs, estuaries, and shorelines in the U.S.
This file provides the hydrologic connectivity for the individual reach traces so that
trajectory and navigation models can move up and downstream. Additional attribute
information such as stream name, type, etc., is also included.
This file contains geographic and demographic data on cities within the LLS. Some of the
items are: census population, latitude/longitude, stream reach cross references,
Congressional district, and SMSA code.
This file contains information on 36,000 stream gaging locations. Information includes:
location of gage, mean and low flow, and frequency of data collection.
This file contains data on surface water supplies including locations of utilities, intakes,
and sources; and hydrologic unit numbers and reach numbers of their receiving waters.
The file includes over 7,000 utilities.
This file includes general information about Discharge File permitted facilities including:
indirect dischargers to sewage treatment plants, standard industrial classification codes,
latitude/longitude, receiving stream, and categorization of industrial process.
River Reach File. The new version of this file is being
built from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Digital
lane Graph (DLG) hydrography layer.
Indexing of environmental sites to reach numbers
is the key to data integration. Each database listed in
Table 1 (except the STORET parameter file) has a
reach number as a data element. This number can be
used as a pointer to information in other databases.
For example, by entering a city name, EDM accesses
the City Master File to extract all the reach numbers
referenced to the city. Each of these numbers is
passed, in turn, to the other databases listed in
Table 1. The latitude and longitude coordinates of the
reach and all cross-referenced environmental sites are
extracted to produce a map. In addition to the coordi-
nates, each environmental site is tagged with specific
attributes so that detailed data retrievals can be
made. For example, a water quality monitoring sta-
tion contains the following attribute tags: environ-
mental agency and station code, site name, river mile
point, and type of sampling site. By pointing to a
monitoring station, the agency and station code are
passed to the STORET water quality file to produce a
summary of all the data that has been collected at
that site.
This data integration effort sets up different entry
points into the EPA files. It can allow a user (for
example) to find out about dissolved oxygen in a lake
by starting off with nothing more than the name of a
city near the lake.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA VISUALIZATION
Working with the EDM maps, users can look at the
rivers in any state, can zoom in on a small pond, and
can overlay and identify particular features such as
industrial dischargers and factories. The maps can be
overlaid with roads and environmental sites such as:
municipal and industrial facilities, Superfund sites,
public drinking water supplies, water quality moni-
toring stations, stream gages, and city locations. A
detailed example is shown in Figure 9 for a drainage
basin in Virginia. As illustrated in this example, the
system can be started by displaying a map of the U.S.
949
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
-------
Samuels, Taylor, Evenhouse, Bondelid, Eggen, and Hanson
Working with EDM maps
Figure 9. Working With EDM Maps to Visualize the Environmental Landscape.
The user then points to a state to list and display all
the drainage basins. Selection of a drainage basin
brings up a detailed display of the river network,
which can then be overlaid with the requested data.
The strength of the EDM map system is two-fold.
First, information is available for everywhere in the
continental U.S. Second, users have a bounty of maps
and boundaries to select from. They can choose from a
variety of map boundaries, ranging from the continen-
tal U.S. to a 1 mile by 1 mile square window. From
any map, users can "zoom in" on any point of interest.
Once the boundary has been selected, the hydrologic
characteristics of the area are displayed. Wide rivers
(with right and left banks), streams, lakes, reservoirs,
wetlands, islands, and shorelines are all displayed as
part of the hydrologic landscape. In addition to the
hydrography, users can select many more diverse
overlays as well as the colors, symbol types, and line
types for each overlay. DLG transportation data,
STORET water quality stations, county boundaries,
and city locations are only a few of the additional
databases readily available to users as overlays to
complete the picture of the environmental landscape
(see Figure 10). This figure shows an example of
water quality monitoring and industrial discharge
sites overlaid on hydrography and transportation
background for Midland, Michigan.
For those users unfamiliar with specific map
boundaries, selection tables are presented for cata-
loging units (drainage basins), 7.5 minute quadrangle
maps (1 inch = 1/2 mile), and user defined polygons.
Any one of the selections is available for creating the
map of choice. Similarly, users have control over dis-
play options, such as colors, line weight, and symbol
types. Presented with lists of water quality stations,
environmental sites, or DLG layers, users have the
ability to change colors, as well as exclude portions of
the data from the display.
Users can save any map at any time for printing
later on. Standard 8.5" x 11" sized maps are created
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
950
-------
The Environmental Display Manager A Tbol for Water Quality Data Integration
WASTE DISCHARGE
•AS"
RF3/OLG
itrtras
lokci
rxdi
mi let
iadeiti
WATER QUALIir
Figure 10. Water Quality and Industrial Sites Overlaid on Hydrography and Transportation for Midland, Michigan.
for the saved maps. Special maps can also be created
for pen plotters, as well as for importing into desktop
publishing systems on personal computer systems.
AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THE
54,000 USGS BASEMAPS
EDM works with an electronic, interactive version
of the 54,000 base maps created by the U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey. Better known as 7.5 minute quadrangle
maps (or quad maps), these maps have been convert-
ed into a digital form which are interactively avail-
able to all users. The hydrologic data has been
stripped off and put into a hydrologic database,
blown as the River Reach File, that has attributes as
well as graphical trace elements. All transportation
data, such as highways, railroads and trails, are
readily available for overlays onto the River Reach
File. An example of the River Reach File and DLG
overlay is presented in Figure 11. This example shows
the selection of a 7.5 minute quadrangle map in
Virginia (just west of Washington, B.C.). Successive
overlays include river reaches, city locations, and the
transportation network.
The digital form of these maps, as produced by the
USGS, is known as Digital Line Graph (DLG) data.
The term digital line graph is used by the USGS to
describe a digital map data set in vector format
(Allder and Elassal, 1984). The DLG map data is
structured topologically. This means that the spatial
relationships inherent in the map are maintained.
The topological structure partitions all map informa-
tion into three distinct elements: nodes, lines, and
areas. Nodes represent line endpoints, intersections,
or single point features. Lines are ordered sets of
points (which start and end at nodes) that describe
951
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
-------
Samuels, Taylor, Evenhouse, Bondelid, Eggers, and Hanson
7.5 minute quadrangle maps
jjtti
' MMIM
River Reach File and sampling sites
City locations
OLG transportation overlay
Figure 11. River Reach and DLG Transportation Overlay for a 7.5 Minute Quad Map in Virginia (just west of Washington, D.C.).
the position or shape of a linear map feature. Areas
are portions of the map bounded by lines. The topolo-
gy built into the map data includes node-to-line link-
ages and area-to-line linkages.
The structure described above preserves the spatial
relationships between map elements. These relation-
ships include such concepts as adjacency and connec-
tivity between features on a map. "A topologically
structured data file can support simple graphic appli-
cations, such as plotting streams and roads for
basemaps, as well as more advanced applications
such as computations involving areas and lines and
their spatial relationships" (Allder and Elassal, 1984).
In addition to the topology, DLG data elements con-
tain explicitly encoded attributes (Allder et al., 1984).
These codes identify the node, line, or area as a fea-
ture type. For example, the attribute for a line might
be a river segment and the attribute for an area
might be a wetland.
The importance of this quad map system is the fact
that all of the hydrographic information from the
entire 54,000 maps has been incorporated into a sin-
gle database. In theory, then, it would be possible to
establish a hydrologic and water quality modeling
analysis for the entire U.S., even though this scenario
is not a realistic approach to analyzing water quality
and quantity conditions. The real use of this single
hydrologic database results in the same effort
whether it is to set up an analysis for a small water-
shed (such as the drainage area for a single reser-
voir), or an entire river basin (such as the Ohio River
Basin).
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
952
-------
The Environmental Display Manager A Tool for Water Quality Data Integration
A NATIONAL RIVER NETWORK
EDM works with a hydrographic database of the
surface waters of the United States, called the River
Reach File. Based on the hydrographic layer of the
USGS 1:100,000 scale DLG data, the River Reach File
covers the entire continental U.S. A reach, physically
defined from one confluence to the next, is uniquely
identified with an 11-digit number and a trace ele-
ment. Each reach has been categorized into a surface
water type, such as lake, wetland, right bank of a
wide river, or stream, to name only a few. The River
Reach File carries intelligence with it to allow the
user to identify upstream, downstream, divergences
and complement reaches, route downstream or
upstream based upon stream mileage, or to calculate
mileage and acreages based upon selection of reaches
or waterbodies.
The construction of the River Reach File is based
on the work of Horn (1986). Maintaining the DLG ele-
ment attributes, each reach can depict a different
type of surface water: single line streams, the U.S.
continental coasts and the perimeters of lakes, reser-
voirs, wetlands, estuaries, wide rivers (right and left
banks), and islands. The reaches depict segments of
the hydraulic transport paths through streams and
inland open waters including lakes and estuaries.
Generally, the reaches extend from one stream junc-
tion to another. They are linked by the actual pat-
terns of the surface water drainage as described by
the DLG traces. In general, the drainage patterns
work progressively in a downstream direction. This
order also facilitates retrievals of surface water relat-
ed data throughout all hydraulic transport paths rep-
resented in the file in both the upstream and
downstream directions. Other surface water files may
be related to each other in hydrologic order by using
the River Reach File in conjunction with reach num-
bers contained in the on-line data files.
Within the River Reach File, no more than two
reaches may be connected to either end of a given
reach. As shown in Figure 12 these points of connec-
tion are either convergent, divergent, or simple.
Convergent junctions connect two streamflow input
reaches with one output reach, divergent junctions
connect one input reach with two output reaches, and
simple junctions connect one input reach with one
output reach. Convergent, divergent, and simple con-
nections are defined within each reach record using
reach numbers for upstream left and right, down-
stream, and complement reaches. Figure 12 (reach
number 05050008007, Kanawha River, West Virginia)
shows an example of a convergent reach.
Since every reach has a unique identifier, other
geographic features, such as discharge locations or
water intakes, can be associated with a surface water.
With the reach identified and in conjunction with the
routing capabilities, potential impacts can be as-
sessed, producing a highly significant management
tool. The formation of data required for modeling
TRANSPORT REACHES
CONVERGENT
DIVERGENT
SIMPLE
CONVERGENT REACH
^downstream (0505QOOB006)
r \ijllTRO
upstream right
(05050009001)
reach .-'
(05050008007)
upstream left--'*
(05050008008)
CHARLESTON
A
KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA
Figure 12. Transport Reaches Used for Hydrologic Connectivity and an Example
of a Convergent Reach (Kanawha River, West Virginia).
953
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
-------
Samuels, Taylor, Evenhouse, Bondelid, Eggers, and Hanson
programs is inherent in the backbone of the Reach
File: flows, water quality parameters, locations of sta-
tions and point source pollutants, and, finally, surface
water connections.
With the hydrologic linkages in place and the refer-
encing of environmental sites to reach numbers, the
system can be used for contingency planning related
to the trajectory of a chemical or other spill in a river.
An illustration of this is the systems' ability to find all
the drinking water intakes downstream from an
industrial discharger. In this example, EPA discharge
permit number NC0004961 (an electric generating
facility on the Catawba River in North Carolina) was
input to EDM. This triggered the extraction of the
reach number, river mile point of the facility, and
mean and low flow velocity of the reach (2.34 and 1.12
feet per second, respectively). At this point, drinking
water intakes downstream from the facility can be
located by either time or distance. Figure 13 shows all
the intakes found downstream from the discharger
within 24 hours travel time under mean flow condi-
tions as well as all the dischargers within 50 miles
downstream from the discharger.
The critical component to remember is that all of
this information is available for the entire continental
U.S. and can be accessed by entering a single lati-
tude/longitude coordinate. Entire cataloging units,
states, or river basins are available to the user.
Export programs provide a means to transfer the nec-
essary information to modeling programs or other
hardware platforms.
SUMMARY
EDM-A Single Tool for Environmental Data
Management
EDM is designed to satisfy the need for environ-
mental information, but simply providing accurate
information is not sufficient. EDM provides an infor-
mation process that is client-directed and user friend-
ly. There are three parts: a combination of software
packages working together simultaneously, a focus on
EPA's core environmental data, and time compression
through rapid response and product development.
A Combination of Software Capabilities. EDM
can be started within EPA's standard menus for
graphics and publishing. When this is done, all the
various software packages are pointed to the subject
at hand. For example, if the user creates maps and
documents in EDM, the graphics and documents can
be immediately viewed or edited in related windows
using standard commercially available software. The
effect is to provide a logical bookshelf where the user
can find specific subject materials, where the users
can organize private libraries, and which provide
structure for support and maintenance.
Focus on EPA's Data. The environmental commu-
nity has a bewildering array of information stored on
personal computers, minicomputers, and mainframes.
EDM with the related IBM software is designed to
use EPA's central computer as a knowledge ware-
house, and to manage and make information avail-
able to all EPA's various clients. There are three parts
to this integration: multiple entry and exit points,
conversion utilities, and common standards.
The resources used and created by EDM are orga-
nized in libraries that facilitate entry and exit. The
user can transfer in images, graphics, and text to add
to EDM*s output, or can transfer out the graphics and
text that are the building blocks of EDM's published
documents. The library is indexed to tie related
resources together. If a specific document is recalled
from archive, all the related images and graphics will
be restored.
Conversion utilities are available throughout the
process. Text, graphics, and images can be converted
for input. Document data streams can be converted to
or accepted from desk top publishing systems. Lastly,
the hardware dependent printer data streams can be
converted to or from Postscript for non-system print-
ing.
All the related software supports the color graphics
metafile (CGM) standard. This means that all the
graphics can be transferred, edited, and produced
across the related networks.
In the past, access to information was blocked by
incompatible computer systems. EDM increases
return from EPA's data and systems by improving the
distribution and logistics of providing information to
clients. The idea behind EDM is that information is
an asset only when properly available and used.
Rapid Response and Product Development.
EDM provides an infrastructure. First, it increases
the return from EPA's data and systems by taking
over the distribution and logistics of providing infor-
mation to clients. Second, it is a single design that
can support decentralized applications. It provides a
consistent architecture on the central platform while
providing broad support for common standards across
the networks. The result is fast, sometimes almost
instant product delivery.
The design is carried down to the data entry
screens of EDM. The screens are mapped definitions.
For example, when a specific screen is called, the
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
954
-------
JDSOtOlOU CAtAMA R 11.2 HUES TYPE: R
CHARLOIIE-VESI STA UOUHUIK ISLAND UKt I 110000
NCOOOmi OUKI POUR-RIVERBENt SIEAII SIC: 4111
21HC01WQ C3750QOO
Pn-CNO
PM-OMR
PrS-SIOREI
m-«PERTUREf
PfJ-LIUIIS
PfB-flO*
MM
UIH I5UHD LAKE «HC Hit It MR
inlokc
inlok
I—P'""1 MOUNTAIN ISUNO UKC
CA!»m RIVER
005.510 AIIBKt/LAKE
'» • INDUSTRY
I = POIf
I * SUPtRfUHO
i = CUT
I = WO STATION
I > CAGE
1 * WATER SUPPLY
DOWNSTREAM 0305010)011 UP LEFT:
LATITUDE: 35.3504 LONGITUDE: 10.97])
REQUESI IAS HADE BY: NPDES NUU8ER
ENTER APERTURE SIZE: 0.005 ) 4
UPRIGHT: OJOiOIOtOU
Downstream water supplies within 24 hours (mean flow conditions)
955 WATER RESOURCES BU
NPDES NUMBER: NC00041b1
FRC1LITY NRME: DUKE POWER -RIVERBEND STERM
RECEIVING STRERM: MT ISLAND LK
REACH NUMBER: 03050101012
TIME (HRS): 24
VELOCITY: M
DISTANCE
DOWN
. KERCH NO. STRERM UTILITY NflME
. 3050101012 R 5.1 CHARLOTTE -VEST STfl
! 3050101012 R 11.7 MT HOLLY
. 3050101012 R 11.7 MT HOLLY
3050(01012 R 11.7 CHARLOTTE-VEST STA
. 30S0101012 R 11.7 CHARLOTTE -HOSK INS
. 3050101012 R 11.7 CHARLOTTE -HOSK INS
'. 3050101001 R 22.1 BELMONT
. 3050101001 R 22.1 BELMONT
TYPE
1
P
1
S
1
S
P
1
NAME
MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
TREATMENT PLflNT
CflTflWBfl Rl
CATAWBA RIVER
MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
CflTAWBR RIVER
TRERTMENT PLflNT
CATAWBA RIVER
SERVED
POP.
330000
bOOO
bOOO
330000
330000
330000
15000
15000
Downstream water supplies within 5
NPDES NUMBER: NC00041b1
FACILITY NflME: DUKE POWER CO., RIVERBEND S.
REflCH NUMBER: 03050101012
0 mites of the dischai
E.
pger
FOR DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES DOWN STREAM FROM
THIS NPDES DISCHARGE, ENTER THE DOWN STREAM
DISTANCE CNOT TO EXCEED 75 MILES): 50
DISTANCE
DOWN
REflCH NO. STREAM UTILITY NAME TYPE
3050101012 R 5.1 CHARLOTTE -VEST STfl I
3050101912 R 11.7 MT HOLLY P
3050101012 R 11.7 MT HOLLY I
3050101012 R 11.7 CHARLOTTE-VEST STfl S
3050101012 R 11.7 CHARLOTTE -HOSK INS 1
3050101012 R 11.7 CHARLOTTE -HOSK INS S
3050101001 R 22.1 BELMDNT P
3050101001 R 22.1 BELMONT 1
3050103837 R 42.3 SPRINGS FT MILL 1
3050103037 R 42.4 CITY OF ROCK HILL 1
NAME
MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
TRERTMENT PLflNT
CRTRWBR Rl
CflTflWBfl RIVER
MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
CflTflWBA RIVER
TREATMENT PLflNT
CATAWBA RIVER
CATAWBA RIVER
CflTflWBfl RIVER
SERVED '.
POP.
330000 .
faOOO .
bOOO .
330000 .
330000 .
330000 ,
15000 .
15000 .
21bO .
45525 .
'
n A Tool for Water Qaality Data Integration
Figure 13. A Contingency Planning Example: Locating the Drinking Water Intakes Downstream from
an Industrial Discharger Based on Distance (right) and Time, 24 Hours-Mean Flow Conditions (left).
-------
Samuels, Taylor, Evenhouse, Bondelid, Eggers, and Hanson
software knows how to typeset and publish any infor-
mation retrieved. A variable entered on a screen is
immediately tagged. These tagged variables are then
available for indexing in the published documents,
and are available for use in electronic document
retrieval.
EDM provides immediate access to millions of
pieces of environmental data. It provides a library
structure for the various resources (text, graphics,
images, and documents). It has the ability to create
camera-ready text directly from the user session, and
can provide output distribution across EPA's network.
EDM accomplishes fast product delivery. It is building
on an electronic platform that can transform informa-
tion structure and support new approaches for envi-
ronmental management.
CONCLUSION
Cooperation and Collaboration for Environmental
Data
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank three individuals who made it possible to
build the Environmental Display Manager: Mr. Robert Horn, Mr.
Charles Conger, and Mr. Thomas McEwan. The display manager is
a showcase for the river indexing system, REACH File, designed by
Mr. Horn. Mr. Conger, chief of ADP operations at EPA's National
Computer Center, was the champion of this project from its begin-
ning in 1982. For Mr. McEwan, an IBM systems engineer assigned
to EPA, this project is years of one request for information and sup-
port followed by another.
The authors wish to acknowledge the important contributions of
key EPA personnel in the design and implementation of the water
quality data bases and software that underlie the display manager.
These individuals are: Robert Greenspun, Clarence Tutwiler,
Charlie Marks, Lee Manning, Joyce Boyd, Philip Lindenstruth,
Louie Hoelman, Tommy DeWald, Tom Pandolfi, and Dora Craig.
The authors thank the support teams at the EPA National
Computer Center, employees of EPA, UNISYS, and IBM, that made
these resources available and understandable. A special thanks to
Tom Lewis and Ron Picker for their help with the graphics and
publishing software.
The Environmental Display Manager is a joint effort on the part
of the Environmental Protection Agency, Science Applications
International Corporation, Horizon Systems Corporation, Tetra
Tech Corporation, Research Triangle Institute, and Unisys
Corporation. The authors thank these organizations for their sup-
port in this exciting project.
ED^Ts technical achievements are substantial. It
pulls together a vast array of information. It presents
information directly through maps, graphics, and doc-
uments. Using common standards, it distributes
information across otherwise incompatible systems. It
integrates with other software to create an agency
wide, integrated information system.
More important, EDM makes cross-organization
collaboration work. It handles the information so that
the environmental professional can focus on environ-
mental content rather than system technology. It
overlays a variety of environmental information, but
maintains the structure defined by environmental
law. It provides dynamic access to official data with
speed and facility that can support an ongoing flow of
information. Lastly, the use of common standards add
EPA's competence to that of its clients, sharing with
clients the expertise acquired in building EPA's inter-
nal software.
Individuals wishing to gain access to this system
should contact the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, 401
M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7046.
LITERATURE CITED
Allder, W. R. and A. A. Elassal, 1984. Digital Line Graphs from
1^4,000-Scale Maps. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 895-C, 77
PP-
Allder, W, R., A. J. Sziede, R. B. McEwan, and E. J. Beck, 1984.
Digital Line Graph Attribute Coding Standards. U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 895-G, 31 pp.
EPA, 1987a. NCC-IBM User's Guide. National Data Processing
Division, National Computer Center, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
EPA, 1987b. Municipal Facility/Waterbody Computerized
Information, An Introduction. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution Control, Washington, D.C.
EPA, 1989a. Environmental Protection Agency, Information
Technology Architecture. National Data Processing Division,
Architectural Management and Planning Branch, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 45 pp.
EPA, 1989b. Guide to NCC Services. Office of Administration and
Resources Management, National Data Processing Division,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA, 1989c. A Guide to the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 26 pp.
EPA, 1989d. STORET - The Water Quality Information System.
Office of Water and Office of Information Resources •
Management, Washington, D.C.
EPA, 1989e. Regional Forum on Water Information Handbook.
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
.Horn, C. R.. 1986. Reach File Manual. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 40 pp.
Taylor, P. L., P. Evenhouse, L. Hoelman, T. DeWald, W. B. Samuels,
and O. Hansen, 1988. STORET - Water Quality Analysis
System. State/EPA Data Management Conference, Raleigh,
North Carolina, June 28-30, 1988,21 pp.
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
956
-------
APPENDIX F
CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN TOXICS OF CONCERN WORKPLAN
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics of Concern Workplan
Background
The first Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern list was completed in 1990 as a result of a
commitment in the 1989 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Stmtegy [2,5]. The list was
developed to identify and provide concise documentation on those chemicals that are either
adversely impacting the Bay or have a reasonable potential to do so. This list has provided
Chesapeake Bay resource managers and regulators with a baywide consensus of priority chemicals
and the information necessary to target these chemicals for additional research, monitoring, and
assessment, or strengthened regulatory and prevention actions.
The 1989 basinwide strategy included a commitment to review and revise the Toxics of
Concern list every two years after the development of the initial list. The Toxics and Living
Resources Subcommittees' Criteria and Standards Workgroup reviewed the list within one year
(spring 1992) to institutionalize a more comprehensive Toxics of Concern ranking and selection
process. This effort did not proceed far as only limited data were available in the Chesapeake Bay
Program Toxics Data Base which was under development at the time.
The 1994 Chesapeake Bay Basinmde Toxics Reduction and Prevention Stmtegy committed
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories to:
"By March 1995, evaluate and revise as necessary the Chesapeake Bay Toxics of
Concern List and the Chesapeake Bay Chemicals of Potential Concern list through
a risk-based ranking system. Every three years, this same reevaluation and
revision process will be conducted. [6]"
This workplan outlines the sequential steps, summarized in Table 1, to be taken by the
Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Subcommittee to meet the commitment for evaluation and
revision of the Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern list and the Chesapeake Bay Chemicals of
Potential Concern list.
The ambient data used in the chemical ranking system were data sets collected for a wide
variety of purposes, from a range of studies focused on impacted areas to broad characterizations
to stratified random sampling design across the entire Bay. These studies were conducted by a
number of different agencies and institutions. All data of verifiable quality and in computerized
format available within the Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Data Base were used in the
chemical ranking system and the selection of candidate Toxics of Concern. Some of these data
do not represent baywide randomized sampling as they are specific to "problem areas" or river
systems. The Workgroup used intensive review of the data sets supporting each ranking and best
professional judgment to eliminate any bias caused by these data sets.
-------
Table 1. Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern Selection Process
• Ranking of comprehensive list of Chesapeake Bay basin chemical contaminants
• Selection of top ranked chemical contaminants
• Identification of candidate Toxics of Concern through more in depth analysis and
interpretation of data used in ranking these chemical contaminants as well as other
information
• Chesapeake Bay Program review and approval
Identification of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
1) IDENTIFICATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Over 1,000 chemicals have been detected in, released to, and/or applied to the water, soil,
sediment, tissue, or air within the Chesapeake Bay basin [3]. These chemicals have been placed
on the "Comprehensive List of Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxic Substances". This list merely
documents a measurement of that chemical in some environmental media, loading, or release at
some point in the past, and does not constitute evidence of potential or existing environmental
impact.
This comprehensive list contains the chemicals which will be ranked as part of the process
for making revisions to the Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern list. The comprehensive list and
supporting documentation are stored in the Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Data Base.
2) APPLICATION OF THE CHEMICAL RANKING SYSTEM
\
Chemical Ranking System
Building upon a wide variety of efforts to develop chemical ranking systems [13, 17, 19,
20], particularly the U.S. EPA Office of Water ranking system developed by Battelle [1], a
chemical ranking and selection system for revising the Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern list has
been developed (Table 2). The chemical ranking system incorporates sources, fate, exposure, and
effects of chemicals on Chesapeake Bay living resources and human health through consumption
of fish and shellfish. Possible human health exposure to toxic substances while swimming was
considered to be generally unimportant in evaluating human health risk. During swimming, the
potential for exposure to these substances through ingestion or dermal contact at concentrations
and frequencies sufficient to cause a problem is negligible, except under very rare circumstances.
Human exposure through surface water public drinking water supplies was considered adequately
addressed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Detailed descriptions of the individual ranking
criteria are provided in Appendix A. Descriptions of the data bases supporting the ranking system
are provided in Appendix B.
-------
Table 2. Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern Chemical Ranking System Criteria.
Source Exposure/Efforts
Loadings Water column
Sediment
Bate Fish tissue
Bioconcentration
Environmental persistence
Within the individual ranking criteria, the selection of values that went into calculation of
toxic units or fate were directed towards providing a conservative estimate of risk posed by the
individual chemicals to the Chesapeake Bay system. These conservative estimates will be
balanced with more intensive analysis of the data that went into the numerical ranking along with
consideration of other available data.
For purposes of this chemical ranking system, the following definitions apply. Source is
defined as estimate of the total amount of a chemical released from a source. Fate is defined as
deposition of a chemical in various media or locations as a result of transport, partitioning, uptake,
and degradation. Exposure is defined as the process by which an organism comes in contact with
a chemical. Effect is defined as a change in the state or dynamics of an organism or other
ecological system resulting from exposure to a chemical.
Scoring
For each ranking factor, scores of 1 through 5 will be assigned quintiles identified through
an analysis of the distribution of available data (Table 3). This approach will be taken to ensure
the resultant scores were spread across the full range of scores and not artificially placed into a
higher or lower category.
Quintile ranges for each criteria within the chemical ranking system will be determined as
follows:
(1) The value (loading, toxic unit, etc.) for a given chemical within one category will be
assigned based upon the methodologies outlined in Appendix A.
(2) A determination will be made on whether the chemical values for a category follow
a parametric distribution (normal, log normal, etc.). If a parametric distribution can be
identified, the percentiles will be estimated from the cumulative distribution function
[F(x)] for that distribution.
(3) If a parametric distribution cannot be identified, a cluster analysis on the data will be
performed (e.g. a determination of the "natural breaks" in the data).
-------
(4) If a cluster analysis is not appropriate for a given nonparametric data set, nonparametric
percentiles will be assigned based upon an equal number of observations in each category.
(5) Best professional judgement will be used to assign quintile ranges when there appears to
be a more logical breakout of values to those derived using steps 2-4.
Table 3. Ranking Criteria Quintile Selection Approaches
Ranking Criteria
Loadings
Bioconcentration
Environmental Persistence
Water Column
Sediment
Quintile Approach
Cluster analysis to determine "natural breaks" in the data.
Percentile estimated from the normal cumulative distribution
function.
Cluster analysis to determine "natural breaks" in the data.
Selected based on best professional judgement for ensuring a
equal spread of the data points across the five scores (see
Appendix A, page A-8 for specific details).
Nonparametric percentiles assigned based upon an equal
number of observations in each category.
AH chemicals on the comprehensive list will be ordered from highest to lowest numerical
ranking based on composite weighted scores. Weighting factors are applied to each category of
criteria to reflect the relative contribution a given category has towards providing evidence of
adversely impacting the Bay system or for which the reasonable potential to do so exists. Those
criteria which better reflect potential for adverse impacts receive greater relative weighting than
other criteria.
The scores from the water column and fish tissue ranking within the exposure/effects
category receive a 3x weighting. These scores provide the most direct evidence for chemical-
specific effects at ambient concentrations observed in Bay tidal habitats. The scores from the
sediment ranking within the exposure effects category receive a 2x weighting as this score
provides less direct evidence for possible chemical-specific effects at ambient concentrations
observed in Bay tidal habitats. The scores from the sources (loadings) and fate (potential for
bioconcentration, environmental persistence) categories receive a Ix weighting as these ranking
categories serve to indicate the potential for exposure, but do not provide a direct measure of
exposure.
-------
3) SELECTION OF TOP RANKED CHEMICALS
The top individually ranked chemicals will be identified for further evaluation based either
on a numerical cutoff (e.g., all chemicals with a score greater than 20) or a percentage cutoff
within the overall ranking system (e.g., the top 10 percent). This decision will be based on an
evaluation which takes advantage of a natural break in the overall pattern of rankings. This
revised ranking may result in chemicals currently listed as Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
receiving a lower ranking because information used in the 1996 effort was not available in the
1991 selection process.
4) IDENTIFICATION OF CANDIDATE TOXICS OF CONCERN AND CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
This earnest review by the Workgroup of the information supporting the ranking given to
each chemical will be comprised of two distinct efforts:
• Review of the information supporting the 1996 ranking of any chemical currently on the
Toxics of Concern List regardless of where the listed chemical appeared in the 1996
ranking; and
• Review of the information supporting the top ranked chemicals.
In both efforts, the information driving the ranking will be carefully reviewed and critiqued
to ensure that it is a valid representation of existing information and not an artifact of the ranking
system. This process will take several months of intense effort and will frequently require the
review of the quality assurance supporting the data, review of specific literature citations or data
sets, reevaluation of portions of the new ranking system, and use of best professional judgement.
In some cases, new information from the literature or studies currently in progress will be used
to supplement the ranking. To provide consistency in its decision making, the Workgroup will
use the guidelines established in Table 4.
5) CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM APPROVAL
The Toxics of Concern Workgroup (previously the Criteria and Standards Workgroup) will
produce a document listing the candidate Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and summarizing
the process followed to develop the candidate list. The document will also contain fact sheets for
each Toxic of Concern and will provide recommendations concerning possible activities for
preventing introduction of the Toxics of Concern into the Bay watershed and for the assessment,
management, or reduction of chemical discharges. These recommendations will be provided to
both the Toxics Subcommittee's Regulatory Program Implementation Workgroup and Pollution
Prevention Workgroup for incorporation into their strategies for addressing the control and
prevention of chemical loadings. The Workgroup will present the entire document to the Toxics
Subcommittee and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee for review. The Toxics
Subcommittee will men present the document and candidate list to the Implementation Committee
for final review, approval, and adoption.
-------
6) FUTURE Toxics OF CONCERN LIST REVISIONS AND UPDATES
The Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List will be reevaluated every three years through
this same process and revised, as necessary, as committed to in the 1994 Chesapeake Basinwide
Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy.
Chemicals will be added to or removed from the Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List
if additional information or data becomes available which significantly changes the quantitative
ranking or indicates the estimated risk to the Bay's living resources or human health (through
consumption of contaminated fish tissue) is lower than previously assessed. These chemicals will
then either be placed on the Chesapeake Bay Chemicals of Potential Concern list or removed
entirely.
-------
Table 4. Guidelines Followed in Analysis and Interpretation of Chemical Rankings for Selection of Candidate
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and Chemicals of Potential Concern
A chemical is selected for listing as a Chesapeake Toxics of Concern when the best professional judgement of
the Toxics of Concern Workgroup members indicates the available ambient data provide evidence for an existing
or reasonable potential for adverse impacts on Bay resources or human health through consumption of
finfish/shellfish tissue because:
The chemical ranks within top 55 chemicals (out a total of 1,069 chemicals ranked),
AND
A substantial number of exceedences of all three—water column toxicity, sediment quality and tissue
score-exposure/effects ranking factors' thresholds are observed in ambient concentration data,
OR
A substantial number of exceedences of the sediment quality threshold exists for chemicals that exhibit
strong hydrophobia properties (thus low water column concentrations highly likely), do not have
Oafish/shellfish tissue consumption thresholds, and received high scores for loading estimates.
A chemical is selected for listing as a Chesapeake Bay Chemical of Potential Concern when the best
professional judgement of the Toxics of Concern Workgroup members indicates that mere is uncertainty as to
whether the available ambient data provide evidence for an existing or reasonable potential for adverse impacts on
Bay resources or human health through consumption of finfish/shellfish tissue because:
The chemical ranks within top 55 chemicals,
AND
Substantial number of exceedences of any of the three exposure/effects ranking factor (water column
toxicity, sediment quality and tissue score) thresholds are observed in ambient concentration data with a
high degree of uncertainty regarding whether the remaining exposure/effects ranking factors provide
evidence for or against potential for adverse effects,
OR
A substantial number of exceedences of the sediment qualify threshold exists for chemicals that exhibit
strong hydrophobia properties (thus low water column concentrations highly likely), do not have
finfish/shellfish consumption thresholds, and receive medium to low scores for loading estimates.
A chemical is not selected for listing as either a Chesapeake Bay Toxic of Concern or Chemical of Potential
Chemical or delisted from these lists when the best professional judgement of the Toxics of Concern Workgroup
members indicates the available ambient data do not provide evidence for an existing or reasonable potential for
adverse impacts on Bay resources or hwtpa" health through consumption of finfish/shellfish tissue because:
The chemical ranks in the top 55 ranked chemicals but does not have a limited number of exceedences of
any of the three exposure/effects ranking factor (water column toxicity, sediment quality and tissue
scores) thresholds observed in ambient concentration data,
OR
The chemical ranks below the top 55 ranked chemicals.
-------
References
^
1. Battelle. (1989). Implementation of a Chemical Ranking System. Draft Report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Criteria and Standards Division. December
1989.
2. Beak Consultants Ltd. (1987). Development of Sediment Quality Objectives: Phase I -
Options. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Environment. Mississauga, Ontario.
3. Beak Consultants Ltd. (1988). Development of Sediment Quality Objectives: Phase II -
guidelines development. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Environment.
Mississauga, Ontario.
4. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (1995). Protocol for the Derivation
of Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic life. Report
CCME EPC-98E. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 38 pp.
5. Chapman, P.M. (1989). Current approaches to development sediment quality criteria.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 8:589-599.
6. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1991). Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List: Basinwide
Toxics Reduction Strategy Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics
Subcommittee and Living Resources Subcommittee Joint Criteria and Standards
Workgroup. Annapolis, Maryland.
7. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1992). Comprehensive List of Chesapeake Bay Species.
Annapolis, Maryland.
V,
8. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1994). Comprehensive List of Chesapeake Bay Basin
Chemical Contaminants. Annapolis, Maryland.
9. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1996a). Finfish/Shellfish Tissue Human Health Consumption
Thresholds Compendium. CBP/TRS 96/XX. Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, MD. XX pp.
10. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1996b). Sediment Quality Thresholds Compendium. CBP/TRS
96/XX. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD. XX pp.
11. Chesapeake Executive Council. (1994). Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and
Prevention Strategy. Annapolis, Maryland.
8
-------
12. Chesapeake Executive Council. (1989). Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction
> Strategy: an Agreement Commitment Report from the Chesapeake Executive
Council. Annapolis, Maryland.
13. CLOGP. (1987). Medchem Software Manual Release 3.52. CLOGP Version 3.53.
Medicinal Chemistry Project. Pomona College, Claremont, CA.
14. Funderburk, S.L., J.A. Mihursky, SJ. Jordan, and D. Riley (eds.). (1991). Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources - Second Edition. Living
Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Maryland.
15. Howard, P.H. (1989). Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic
Chemicals. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
16. Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F. D. Calder. (1994). Incidence of
adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and
estuarine sediments. Environmental Management (In Press).
17. MacDonald, D.D., S.L. Smith, M.P. Wong, and P. Mudrock. (1992). The development
of Canadian marine environmental quality guidelines. Report prepared for the
Interdepartmental Working Group on Marine Environmental Quality Guidelines
and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Environment Canada,
Ottawa, Ont. 50 pp. + app.
18. Niemi, G.J., G.D. Veith, R.R. Regal, and D.D. Vaishnav. (1987). Structure features
associated with degradable and persistent chemicals. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry- 6: 515-527.
19. Nikunen, E., R. Leinonen, and K. Arto. (1990). Environmental Properties of Chemicals.
Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection Department, Research Report
91/1990. ISSN 0784-8129, VAPK Publishing, Helsinki, Finland. 1084 pp.
20. Pait, A.S., A.E. De Souza, D.R.G. Farrow. (1992). Agricultural Pesticide Use in
Coastal Areas: A National Summary. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Rockville,
Maryland.
21. Pilli, A, B.R. Sheedy, and D. Grunwald. (1992). AQUIRE: Aquatic toxicity Information
Retrieval Database: A Technical Support Document. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, Duluth,
Minnesota.
. i.
22. Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. (1990). Provincial sediment quality
guidelines. Water Resources Branch. Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Toronto, Ontario. 21 pp.
-------
23. Russom, C.L. (1992). ASTER: Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Bisk. Version 1.0,
A User's Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory-Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota.
24. Russom, C.L., E.B. Anderson, B.E. Greenwood, and A. Piffi. (1991). ASTER: an
integration of the AQUIRE database and the QSAR system for use in ecological
risk assessments. The Science of the Total Environment. 109/110:667-670.
25. SAIC (Scientific Applications International Corporation). 1991. Draft compilation of
sediment quality guidelines for EPA Region V inventory of contaminated sediment
sites. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chicago,
Illinois. 48 pp.
26. Sediment Criteria Subcommittee. (1989). Review of the apparent effects threshold
approach to setting sediment criteria. Report to the Science Advisory Board. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of the Administrator, Washington, D.C.
27. Sediment Criteria Subcommittee. (1990). Review of the sediment classification methods
compendium. Report to the Science Advisory Board. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of the Administrator, Washington, D.C.
i
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993). Focus Chemicals for the Clean Air Act
Amendments Great Waters Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994a). Office of Pesticide Programs electronic
pesticides toxicity database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Ecological Effect
Branch, Washington, D.C.
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994b). Pilot Inventory of Sediment
Contaminant Sources: Methods and Point Source Analysis. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994c). Proceedings of the National Sediment
Inventory Workshop, Apr^l 26-27,1994, Washington, D.C.. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). Sediment classification methods
compendium. EPA 823-R-006. Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection
10
-------
Agency, Sediment Oversight Technical Committee. Office of Water, Washington,
D.C.
(
33. Veith, G.D. and P. Kosian. (1983). Estimating bioconcentration potential from
octanol/water partition coefficients. In: Mackay, D. et al., (Eds.) Physical Behavior of
PCBs in the Great Lakes. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan, p. 269-
282.
11
-------
Appendix A. Detailed Descriptions of Chemical Ranking System Criteria
SOURCE
LOADINGS
Objective
Evaluate the potential for new inputs to the Chesapeake Bay system by ranking chemical loadings
to below fall line surface waters.
Data Bases
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Data Base: Source of the comprehensive list of Chesapeake Bay basin
chemicals and the basinwide toxics loading and release inventory data sets.
Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Monitoring Program 1992 Interim Report: Source of the Potomac
River chemicals fall line loadings.
Approach
1. For all chemical listed on the Chesapeake Bay Basin Comprehensive List of Chemical
Contaminants (Chesapeake Bay Program 1994), sum the total loadings to below fall line
surface waters from urban stormwater, point sources, atmospheric deposition, and shipping
with fall line loadings.
2. Determine the score by comparing the total loading value with the chemical class-specific
ranges provided below.
Scoring
Quintile Approach: Cluster analysis to determine the "natural breaks" in the data.
SCOJE Trace Mfttak (lbs/yr) Other Tnr>rganir,t (lbs/yr) PAHs/PPRs (lbs/yr)
5 > 100,000,000 > 700,000 > 10,000
4 20,000,000 < 100,000,000 100,000 < 700,000 2,500 < 10,000
3 15,000,000 < 20,000,000 4,000 < 100,000 1,500 < 2,500
2 5,000,000 < 15,000,000 1,000 < 4,000 400 < 1,500
1 < 5,000,000 < 1,000 <400
0 No data available. No data available. No data available.
A-l
-------
SCQEB Other Organics Pesticides
5 > 400,000 > 500,000
4 100,000 < 400,000 250,000 < 500,000
3 20,000 < 100,000 160,000 < 250,000
2 10,000 < 20,000 100,000 < 160,000
1 < 10,000 < 100,000
0 No data available. No data available.
A-2
-------
FATE
BIOCONCENTRATION
Objective
i
Evaluate the potential for accumulation-related effects by ranking the appropriate bioconcentration
factors.
Data Bases
AQUIRE: Source of empirical-based bioconcentration factors and quantitative structure activity
relationship (QSAR) predicted bioconcentration factors.
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Data Base: Source of comprehensive list of Chesapeake Bay basin
chemicals and secondary source of procured AQUIRE and QSAR data.
Approach
1. Assemble available bioconcentration factors (BCF) for the chemicals listed on the
Chesapeake Bay Basin Comprehensive List of Chemical Contaminants (Chesapeake Bay
Program 1994).
2. Select the most appropriate empirical-based BCF value using the following hierarchy:
(a) Select BCF data only for animal species with AQUIRE review code 1. Select the
highest BCF value based on measured concentrations. If there is more than one BCF value
for a single species, give priority to 28-day, flow-through data. If this type of data is not
available, use BCF data associated with other types of tests. In the absence of a precise
number, BCF values preceded by a greater than (>) or less than (<) symbol will be used.
If there is more than one BCF value for given species and test type, use the geometric
mean.
(b) If no BCF values based on measured concentration are available, select the highest
BCF value based on non-measured (nominal) concentrations. If there is more than one
BCF value for a single species, give priority to 28-day, flow-through data. If tins type of
data is not available, use BCF data associated with other types of tests. In the absence of
a precise number, BCF values preceded by a greater than (>) or less than (<) symbol
will be used. If there is more than one BCF value for a given species and test type, use
the geometric mean.
A-3
-------
3. If no measured or non-measured concentration-based BCF data are available, determine
the SMILES string for the chemical and get a predicted BCF value from the QSAR data
base.1
4. Determine the score by using the range provided below. Indicate the source of the final
score (e.g., empirical value or QSAR prediction).
Scoring
Quintile Approach: Percentile estimated from the normal cumulative distribution function.
Scnm Criterion Range2
5 > 20,000
4 10,000 < 20,000
3 387 < 10,000
2 0 < 387
1 N/A
0 No data available.
1 The predicted BCF value is derived using a structure activity relationship model
which uses the n-octanol/water partition coefficient to estimate bioconcentration (Veith and
Kosian 1983). CLOGP (CLOGP 1987) is used to estimate the n-octanol/water partition
coefficient. ('
2 The quintile approach was selected based on an examination of the top 300 chemicals.
Examination of the full range of data beyond the top 300 chemical yielded a non-normal
distribution due to an elevated number of zeros resulting in no "1" scores assigned to 5th
(lowest) quintile..
A-4
-------
FATE
ENVIRONMENTAL PERSISTENCE
Objective
Evaluate the potential for environmental persistence by ranking biodegradation half-lives.
Data Bases
Literature: Howard 1989; Nikunen et al. 1990.
ASTER: Source of predicted biodegradation half-life values.
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Data Base: Source of comprehensive list of Chesapeake Bay basin
chemicals; secondary source of acquired ASTER data and computerized biodegradation half-life
literature values.
Approach
1. Since metals persist indefinitely in the environment, assign any metal an automatic score
of5.
2. Assemble available biodegradation half-life data from ASTER and major literature
references of chemical properties (e.g., Howard 1989; Nikunen et al. 1990) for the
chemicals listed on the Chesapeake Bay Basin Comprehensive List of Chemical
Contaminants (Chesapeake Bay Program 1994). If more than one biodegradation half-life
period is reported, use the geometric mean and flag these values.
3. If no biodegradation half-life data are available from laboratory or field tests, use the
chemical's predicted biodegradation half-life from the ASTER data base.3
4. Determine the score by using the range provided below. Indicate the source of the final
score (measured or ASTER predicted value). Assign all metals a score of 5.
Scoring
Quintile Approach: Cluster analysis to determine "natural breaks" in the data.
Scone Criterion Range (days)
5 > 100
4 50<100
3 25< 50
2 15< 25
1 < 15
0 No data available.
3 The biodegradation half-life is estimated using the biodegradation half-life model of
ASTER (Niemi et al. 1987).
A-5
-------
EXPOSURE/EFFECTS
WATER COLUMN
Objective
Evaluate the potential adverse effects due to water column exposure by ranking ambient water
column concentrations based on comparison with the appropriate effect threshold values.4
Data Bases
Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Standards Data Base: Source of EPA acute and chronic
freshwater and marine aquatic life criteria.
AQUIRE: Source of measured Chesapeake Bay and other aquatic species' EC50, LC50, LOEL, and
NOEL values.
EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Pesticides Toxmty Database: Source of pesticide acute toxicity
data not stored within AQUIRE.
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Data Base: Source of comprehensive list of Chesapeake Bay basin
chemicals, comprehensive list of Chesapeake Bay species, and Chesapeake Bay and tidal
tributaries water column chemical concentration data; secondary source of acquired AQUIRE data
flagged as Chesapeake Bay or non-Chesapeake Bay aquatic species, and the Chesapeake Bay
Water Quality Standards Data Base data.
Approach
1. Determine the geometric mean concentration for all tidal water concentrations data for the
chemicals listed on the Chesapeake Bay Basin Comprehensive List of Chemical
Contaminants (Chesapeake Bay Program 1994). Set all values given as below detection
limit to half the detection limit.
2. Calculate the chemical-specific water column toxic unit by dividing the geometric mean
concentration from step 1 by the chemical-specific toxicity value selected for use through
the process described below in steps 2a-2c.
(a) Assemble available EPA chronic freshwater and marine aquatic life criteria, and lowest
observed effect level values and no observed effect level values for Chesapeake Bay and
other aquatic species for all chemicals listed on the Chesapeake Bay Basin Comprehensive
List of Chemical Contaminants (Chesapeake Bay Program 1994).
(b) Select the most appropriate esraarine/marine chronic aquatic toxicity value using the
4 While dissolved metals concentrations would be the preferable fraction to compare
with EPA aquatic life criteria, total recoverable concentrations are used because of the
very limited data for dissolved metals.
A-6
-------
following hierarchy:
(i) Select the EPA recommended chronic marine aquatic life criteria if available.
(ii) If no values are available from (i), select the lowest value using only chronic
toxicity data for estuarine and marine species in the following approach. Select
toxiciry data with AQUIRE codes 1 or 2. In the absence of a precise number from
traditional chronic endpoints such as the No Observed Effect Concentration
(NOEC), the Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC), the true chronic
value (the geometric mean of the LOEC and the NOEC), or the inhibition
concentration (LC^), use values preceded by the symbol greater than (>) or less
than (<). For single celled organisms, use a > = 5-day EC50 (reproduction or
growth effects), or LC50 value. If more than one data point is available for a
species, select the values based on measured exposure concentrations over values
based on unmeasured (nominal) exposure concentrations. Choose the lowest value
of acceptable quality, using the geometric mean value if there is more than one
chronic value for a single combination of species-effect duration method.
(iii) If no values are available from (ii), for single-celled organisms and all plant
species use any other > 4-day endpoint; for all other species, consider any ^ 5-day
EC50 (behavioral, biochemical, or physiological effect) endpoint. If more than one
data point is available for a species, select the values based on measured exposure
concentrations over values based on unmeasured (nominal) exposure
concentrations. Choose the lowest value, using the geometric mean value if there
is more than one chronic value for a single combination of species-effect-duration-
niethod.
(iv) If no values are available from (iii), use any additional data at any _^5-day
endpoint. If more than one data point is available for a species, select the values
based on measured exposure concentrations over values based on unmeasured
(nominal) exposure concentrations. Choose the lowest value, using the geometric
mean value if there is more than one chronic value for a single combination of
species-effect-duration-method.
(v) If no EC50 or LQ0 values are available from (ii) through (iv), divide the
available acute (<5 day) EC50 or LC50 values by a factor of 10 to approximate a
chronic toxicity value. Choose the lowest value, using the geometric mean value
if there is more than one chronic value for a single combination of species-effect-
duration method.
(c) If no estuarine/marine chronic aquatic life criterion or laboratory-based toxicity values
are available, select the most appropriate freshwater chronic toxicity value using steps
(b)(i) through (b)(v) using freshwater aquatic life criteria/freshwater toxicity data.
3. Calculate the chemical-specific water column toxic unit by dividing the mean concentration
from step 1 by the chemical-specific aquatic toxicity value from step 2.
A-7
-------
4. Determine the score by using the range provided below.
Scoring
Quintile Approach: Selected on the basis of best professional judgement for ensuring an equal
spread of the data points across the five scores.
ScOTfi Criterion Range (Toxic Units)
5 £ 1
4 0.7< 1
3 0.5 < 0.7
2 0.2 < 0.5
1 <0.2
0 No data available
A-8
-------
EXPOSURE/EFFECTS
SEDIMENT
Objective
Evaluate the potential adverse effects due to exposure to in-place bottom sediments by ranking
ambient sediment contaminant concentrations based on comparison with appropriate effects
threshold values.
Data Bases
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Data Base: Source of the comprehensive list of Chesapeake Bay basin
chemicals, sediment quality threshold values, and Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries sediment
chemical concentration data.
Background
Eight major approaches to the formulation of sediment quality guidelines have been
extensively reviewed and summarized over the past decade (Beak Consultants 1987, 1988;
Chapman 1989; EPA 1992; MacDonald et al 1992; Persaud et al 1989; Sediment Quality
Subcommittee 1989, 1990). These approaches are the sediment background approach, spiked
sediment bioassay approach, equilibrium partitioning approach, tissue residue approach, screening
level concentration approach, sediment quality triad approach, apparent effects threshold
approach, and weight of evidence approach (MacDonald 1994).
U.S. EPA Region 5 had a contractor develop a draft compilation of sediment quality
guidelines for the regional office's use in assessing a Region 5 inventory of sites with
contaminated sediments (SAIC 1991). The guideline values included within the Region 5
compilation were values cited in the peer reviewed and grey literature and were derived using one
of the eight derivation approaches cited above. Emphasis was placed on compiling guidelines
developed for specific application to the Great Lakes. This draft compilation of sediment quality
guideline values (SAIC 1991) formed the basis for the expanded compendium of sediment quality
thresholds described here (Chesapeake Bay Program 1996b).
Extensive searches of the available literature and consultation with experts from across the
country familiar with sediment quality guidelines development yielded information on 2,155
distinct sets of sediment quality values for 187 chemicals. All available values were incorporated
into the compendium if they were derived following one of the eight derivation approaches listed
above, documentation about the derivation process was available, and a source reference and
contact person could be documented.
A-9
-------
Approach
The most appropriate threshold values selected from the compendium for use in the
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern chemical ranking system were selected following an approach
which gives preference to biological effect-based values. The threshold value selection approach,
described below, was recommended by MacDonald et al. 1992 (modified from Beak Consultants
1988) and adopted for use by Canada (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 1995).
The following decision rules were applied to a chemical by chemical summary5 of the thresholds
for selection of the most appropriate threshold value. The objective was to select the most
appropriate thresholds and at the same time compile as extensive a set of chemical specific
thresholds as possible. An organic carbon value of 2 percent, used where required for calculating
a sediment quality threshold, was selected based on a review of available sediment organic carbon
data from Chesapeake Bay.
1. Determine the geometric mean concentration for all Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries
sediment concentration data for the chemicals listed on the Chesapeake Bay Basin
Comprehensive List of Chemical Contaminants (Chesapeake Bay Program 1994). Set all
values given as below detection limit to hah0 the detection limit.
2. Calculate the chemical-specific bottom sediment toxic unit by dividing the geometric mean
concentration from step 1 by the chemical-specific sediment quality threshold value
selected for use through the process described in steps 2a-2d. If several sets of threshold
values were available from the same reference using the same derivation approach, the
lowest threshold value applicable to estuarine and marine habitats was selected versus the
threshold value(s) derived for application to freshwater systems even in cases where the
freshwater threshold value(s) were lower than the estuarine and marine threshold value.
(a) The lowest of the sediment quality thresholds was selected from those threshold values
which reflect concentrations below which adverse effects are not anticipated and were
originally derived by application of the weight of evidence approach to a national data base
of sediment contaminant concentration data with matched effect data from estuarine and
coastal systems- Environment Canada (1994), TEL; MacDonald (1993), NOEL; NOAA
(1990) ERL; and NOAA (1995), ERL.6
5 Chemicals with unique CAS numbers were grouped together for selection of a single
threshold value regardless of the presence of different common chemical names e.g.,
tetrachloromethane vs. carbon tetrachloride which both have the same CAS number
(000056235).
6 The New York State (1993) threshold values for LEL and SEL were not used in the
selection of the thresholds as they were selected from previously published values-NOAA
1990 and Ontario (1993)~already contained within the compendium of threshold values.
A-10
-------
(b) If no thresholds are available from step 2(a), select the lowest of the sediment quality
thresholds from those threshold values which reflect concentrations above which adverse
effects are anticipated and were originally derived by application of the weight of evidence
approach to a national data base of sediment chemical concentration data with matched
effect data from estuarine and coastal systems—Environment Canada (1994), PEL;
MacDonald (1993), PEL; NOAA (1990) ERM; and NOAA (1995), ERM.
When threshold values were available for both the NOAA (1990) and NOAA
(1995) references, the NOAA (1995) reference threshold value was selected even
if the threshold value was higher because the NOAA (1995) threshold values were
derived from an expanded, enhanced version of the original data base used to
derive the NOAA (1990) threshold values.
• When threshold values were available for both the Environment Canada (1994) and
MacDonald (1993) references, the Environment Canada (1994) reference threshold
value was selected even if the threshold value was higher because the Environment
Canada (1994) threshold values were derived from an expanded, enhanced version
of the original data base used to derive the MacDonald (1993) threshold values.
• If several sets of threshold values were available from the same reference using the
same derivation approach, the lowest threshold value applicable to estuarine and
marine habitats was selected versus the threshold value(s) derived for application
to freshwater systems even in cases where the freshwater threshold value(s) were
lower than the estuarine and marine threshold value.
(c) If no value was available from step 2(b), the lowest of the sediment quality thresholds
was selected from those threshold values derived using one of the other effects based
approaches applied to a national or regional data base from estuarine and coastal systems-
the apparent effects threshold approach: PS Estuary (1988), AET, Amphipod; PS Estuary
(1988), AET, Benthic; PS Estuary (1988), AET, Oyster; PSDDA (1986), AET,
Amphipod; PSDDA (1986), AET, Benthic; PSDDA (1986), AET, Oyster; PSDDA
(1988), ML; Washington State (1991), CSL & MCL; Washington State (1991), Chemical
Criteria; and Washington State (1991) Impact Zone; or the screening level concentration
approach-Ontario (1993) LEL; Ontario (1993) NEL; Ontario (1993), SEL; PSDDA
(1988), SL; Quebec (1992), MET; Quebec (1992), TET; San Francisco (1990), AET,
Amphipod; and San Francisco (1990), AET, Bivalve.7'8
7 Threshold values for the Puget Sound Apparent Effects Thresholds derived using
Microtox® data (PS Estuary (1988)) were not selected due to questions concerning how
applicable this endpoint is to protection of benthic associated communities.
8 The actual methodologies used to derive the thresholds referenced as Washington
State (1991), Chemical Criteria and Washington State (1991), Impact Zone were not well
documented within the sediment quality thresholds compendium. These thresholds were not
A-ll
-------
(d) If no value was available from step 2(c), the lowest of the sediment quality thresholds
was selected from those threshold values derived using one of the other effects based
approaches applied to a national or regional data base.
• If several sets of threshold values were available from the same reference using the
same derivation approach, the lowest threshold value applicable to estuarine and
marine habitats was selected. Threshold value(s) derived for application to
freshwater systems, even in cases where the freshwater threshold value(s) were
lower than the estuarine and marine threshold value, were not selected if a marine
or estuarine threshold was available.
(e) If no values were available from step 2(d) for organic chemicals, the lower threshold
value obtained using the equilibrium partitioning approach for which a suitable EPA
aquatic life chronic criterion or chronic toxicity value was available was selected-EPA
(1993) EqP Acenaphthene; EPA (1993) EqP Dieldrin; EPA (1993) EqP Endrin; EPA
(1993) EqP Fluoranthene; EPA (1993) EqP Phenanthrene; EPA (1994) EqP Aquatic Life;
EPA (1988) EqP; Battelle (1984) EqP; NY State (1993) EqP Benthic-Acute; NY State
(1993) EqP Benthic-Chronic; and PSSDA (1986) EqP.
(f) If no values were available for organic contaminants from step 2(e), the lower threshold
value obtained using the equilibrium partitioning approach for which a suitable state
aquatic life chronic criterion was available when no EPA criterion was available (i.e.,
some of the NY State (1993) EqP values) was selected.
(g) If no values are available for organic chemicals from step 2(f), the threshold value
obtained using die equilibrium partitioning approach for which a wildlife based criterion
was available was selected-NY State (1993) EqP Wildlife.
(h) If no values are available for organic chemicals from step 2(g), the threshold value
obtained using the equilibrium partitioning approach for which a human health criterion
was available was selected--EPA (1994) EqP Human Health and NY State (1993) EqP
Human Health.
(i) If no values are available from steps 2(a) through (h), the most appropriate value was
selected from the available sediment background approach derived values based on
evaluation of national databases-Greenspun & Taylor (1979) 15th Percentile; Greenspun
& Taylor (1979) 50th Percentile; Greenspun & Taylor (1979) 85th Percentile; NOAA
(1991), Grain Adjusted; NOAA 5X High; NOAA High; Quebec (1992), NET; Staples et
al. (1985); and USGS (1990), Alert Levels.
(j) If no values were available from step 2(i), the most appropriate sediment background
used unless they were the only threshold values available (e.g., benzofluoranthenes, total)
within step 2(b).
A-12
-------
approach derived value was selected based on evaluation of regional databases—EPA
Region 5 (1977), Heavily Polluted; EPA Region 5 (1977), Nonpolluted; EPA Region 6
(1983), Background; NERBC, High Levels; NERBC, Low Levels; Quebec (1992), NET.
(k) If no values were available from step 2(j), the most appropriate sediment background
approach derived value was selected based on evaluation of individual state-wide
databases-Illinois Lakes, Elevated; Illinois Streams, Background; Illinois Streams, Non-
Elevated; Indiana, Background; Ontario (1993), Background; Ontario (1993), Open
Water; Texas (1994), 85th Percentiles; Virginia (1990) 85th Percentiles; and Wisconsin
(1991), Beach Nourishment.
3. Determine the score by using the appropriate range provided below.
Scoring
Quintile Approach: nonparametric percentiles assigned based upon an equal number of
observations in each category.
Score f!riterinn Ratiga (Tnxic Units)
5 > 0.85
4 0.43 < 0.85
3 0.186 < 0.43
2 0.033 < 0.186
1 < 0.033
0 No data available
A-13
-------
EXPOSURE/EFFECTS
HUMAN HEALTH TISSUE EXPOSURE EFFECTS FROM FINFISH/SHELLFISH
Objective
Evaluate the potential for human health effects due to consumption of finfish and shellfish by
ranking tissue chemical concentrations based on comparison with appropriate human health effects
threshold values.
Data Bases
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Data Base: Source of the comprehensive list of Chesapeake Bay basin
chemicals, consumption-based human health consumption effects values, and Chesapeake Bay and
tidal tributaries finfish and shellfish tissue chemical concentration data.
Background
Searches of the key literature citations and consultation with experts from across the
country familiar with fish and shellfish tissue consumption thresholds for protection of human
health yielded three distinct sets of values. The three sets of values entered into the compendium
were: U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) action levels, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) screening values, and FDA's levels of concern values for selected metals
(Chesapeake Bay Program 1996b). All threshold values were based on a 6.5 grams/day
consumption rate with the EPA screening values based on a 10*6 risk level.
EPA's screening values exist for both carcinogens and non-carcinogens, while FDA's
Levels of Concern are available only for five non-carcinogens. Both EPA's screening values and
FDA's Levels of Concern for non-carcinogens use the EPA RfD as a measure of the chemical
exposure which is not associated with harmful effects. Consequently, EPA's screening values and
FDA's levels of concern indicated tissue concentrations which are not expected to be associated
with harmful effects. Furthermore, the estimate of variability around the RfD is up to an order
of magnitude. Thus, it follows that small exceedences of these threshold values (e.g., tissue
scores of 1-2) should receive low, non-zero numerical ranking scores.
In the case of carcinogens, the EPA screening values are based upon EPA cancer potency
factors and an increased cancer risk of 10*. EPA cancer potency factors are derived using the no-
threshold linear multistage model which estimates the 95 percent confidence interval of the
lifetime cancer risk. This is the most conservative method currently used. EPA's incremental
cancer risk factor is the upper bound estimate of increased cancer risk (i.e., upper 95 percent
confidence limit). The lower bound estimate is zero. The true increment of risk lies between the
projected upper and lower bound estimates, which may vary by several orders of magnitudes.
Furthermore, the increased cancer risk used by the Maryland Department of the Environment in
their Air and Water Toxics Regulations is 10~5, and the increased cancer risk deemed acceptable
A-14
-------
in EPA's Superfund Program is 10"4. Therefore, the simple exceedence of a screening value
should not result in the assignment of the highest possible numerical ranking score.
Approach
1. Determine the geometric mean concentrations for all Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries
finfish fillet tissue concentration data and all shellfish tissue concentration data for the
chemicals listed on the Chesapeake. Bay Basin Comprehensive List of Chemical
Contaminants (Chesapeake Bay Program 1994). Set all values given as below detection
limit to zero. Multiply each geometric mean of finfish/shellfish, mollusk, and crab tissue
concentrations for a particular chemical by the number of observations for finfish/shellfish,
mollusk, and crab data, respectively. Determine the final weighted mean by taking the
average of the sum of these weighted means.9
2. Calculate the chemical specific tissue score by dividing the final weighted mean value
calculated in step 1 by the chemical specific human health consumption effects value
calculated using die human health consumption threshold value selected for use through
the process described in steps 2a-2b.
(a)From the values contained within the compendium, the lowest threshold values
providing protection against adverse effects to human health for the entire population or
sensitive subsets of the population (2-5 year olds) through consumption of finfish,
molluscan shellfish and crustacean shellfish were selected.
(b) In cases where separate values were published for consumption of finfish, molluscan
shellfish, and/or crustacean shellfish, the lowest threshold values for each type of tissue
for direct comparison to ambient samples of those same types of tissues were selected.
3. Determine the numerical ranking score by using the appropriate range provided below.
Scoring
In all cases, the FDA's action levels are higher than the other two consumption threshold
values. Exceedence of an FDA action level is treated very seriously by all public health agencies.
Chemicals with a tissue concentration exceeding the FDA action level should receive the highest
score of 5. This approach allows for the identification of substances which are truly problematic
in terms of human consumption of contaminated tissue, by assigning those substances which
substantially exceed the thresholds high score. It does not assign a high score to a substance
simply because its tissue score, which may represent little or no danger to human health, is found
in the high end of the data distribution.
9 This approach is taken with the finfish/shellfish tissue data as it was found that a
chemical's numerical score could be skewed towards the high side based upon concentrations
in a single data set for one type of tissue (e.g., Baltimore Harbor Blue Crab Tissue Survey
data set).
A-15
-------
Ranking Score
5
4
3
2
1
0
Tissue Concentration
>50 x threshold or greater
than the FDA action level
10 > 50 x threshold
5 > 10 x threshold
2> 5 x threshold
l>2x threshold
Less than threshold (or no
data available)
Tissue Score
> 50 or greater than FDA
action level
10>50
5>10
2>5
1>2
<1
A-16
-------
Appendix B. Descriptions of the Databases Supporting the Chemical Ranking System
ASTRR- Assessment Tnnls for the Igvalnatinn
ASTER was developed by the U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth to
assist regulators in performing ecological risk assessments (Russom et al., 1991; Russom, 1992).
ASTER is an integration of the AQUERE toxic effects database and QSAR, a structure activity
based expert system. ASTER is designed to provide high quality data for discrete chemicals,
when available in the associated databases, and QSAR-based estimates when data are lacking.
AQUIRE, described below, contains acute, chronic, and bioconcentration effects data for
aquatic species. The QSAR system includes a database of measured physicochemical properties
such as melting point, boiling point, vapor pressure, and water solubility as well as more than
56,000 molecular structures stores as SMILES strings for specific mechanistically-based predictive
models are used to estimate ecotoxicology endpoints, chemical properties, biodegradation, and
environmental partitioning. ASTER outputs are structured in Hazard Identification, Ecological
Exposure Assessment, and Risk Characterization sections.
ASTER is a VAX-based system located at U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory -
Duluth and the U.S. EPA National Computer Center. The system can be accessed by any
governmental agency (international, federal, state, or local) through the EPA network via the
VAX system or through a modem and personal computer.
AQTTTRF- AQTTarir. toxicily Tnfnrmatinn
The AQUIRE database was established in 1981 by the U.S. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory - Duluth (Pilli et al. , 1992). The purpose of AQUIRE is to provide quick access to
a comprehensive, systematic, computerized compilation of aquatic toxic effects data.
Scientific papers published both nationally and internationally on the toxic effects of
chemicals to aquatic organisms and plants are collected and reviewed for AQUIRE. Independently
compiled laboratory data files that include AQUIRE parameters and meet the quality assurance
criteria are also included. Toxicity test results and related testing information for any individual
chemical from laboratory and field aquatic toxicity tests are extracted and added to AQUIRE.
Acute, sublethal and bioconcentration effects are recorded for freshwater and marine organisms.
AQUIRE consists of over 102,000 individual test results on computer file. These tests
contain information for 5,200 chemicals and 2,400 organisms, extracted from over 6,000
publications. Aquatic toxicity literature is acquired and reviewed on a continuing basis. The
majority of test data included in AQUIRE is from 1972 to present. All AQUIRE data entries have
been subjected to established quality assurance procedures (Russom and Pilli, 1984).
The AQUIRE review code indicates the type and completeness of methods documentation
accompanying the data. Review code assignments range from detailed documentation to summary
format (review codes 1-4) and an independently compiled data file (review code 5).
B-l
-------
Review Code = 1: Thorough methods and results documentation.
Review Code = 2: Documentation is generally satisfactory; but one or more of the pieces of
information are missing from either the methods or results section such as control information,
or chemical concentrations are unmeasured.
Review Code = 3: Insufficient methods and results documentation.
Review Code = 4: Indicates data are available only in a limited format, such a conference
proceeding abstracts or the English abstracts for untranslated foreign papers.
Review Code = 5: This file contains U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth
data for laboratory-based acute toxicity of organic chemicals, using a single test species (juvenile
fathead minnows). The information was transferred via the computer files and was not subjected
to the standard AQUIRE procedures. All test results, including data not available on-line, are
available in five volumes tided: Acute Toxicities of Organic Chemicals to Fathead Minnows
(Pimephales promelas), (Center for Lake Superior Environmental Studies; University of
Wisconsin-Superior; 1984, 1986, 1988, and 1990).
AQUIRE is a VAX-based system located at U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
- Duluth and U.S. EPA National Computer Center. The database can be accessed by any
governmental agency (international, federal, state or local) through the EPA network via the VAX
system or through a modem and personal computer.
Chesapeake Bay Program Tnvins Database
The Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Data currently resides on a DEC Alpha computer
at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office in Annapolis, Maryland as a collection of SAS data sets.
The data base is in the process of being transferred into an Oracle-based data base. These data
sets consist of water quality, sediment, fish tissue, and lexicological data collected from or
pertinent to the Chesapeake Bay basin. Water quality, sediment, and fish tissue data originate
from Federal and State monitoring programs or funded research. The data base currently contains
a total of 134,000 individual monitoring results from more than 1,500 monitoring locations.
These results comprise over 1,000 chemicals which have been monitored in the Chesapeake Bay
microlayer, water column, sediment, or in fish tissue or as loadings/releases from point and
nonpoint sources. Toxicological data originate from studies compiled in several different data
bases including AQUIRE, U.S. EPA's Pesticide Toxicity Data Base, and the Chesapeake Bay
Program's Habitat Requirements report. The data base currently contains approximately 50,000
distinct lexicological results compiled from 3,000 studies.
US F.P A Offira nf Pesticide. Programs Pesticides Tnxicity Database
The pesticides toxicity database was developed by the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP) for use by the Chesapeake Bay Program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1994a). This database includes acute and chronic toxic effects information on active ingredients
B-2
-------
for currently registered pesticides. The database contains pesticide registration data for aquatic
species found in AQUIRE, but the toxicity data may not be in the peer-reviewed literature and,
therefore, not in the AQUIRE database. In addition, the OPP database includes toxicity data for
avian species. The data has been reviewed by the staff in the OPP's Environmental Fate and
Effects Division, but has not gone through thorough quality assurance procedures, and is,
therefore, not currently available in AQUIRE.
L:\TOCWKGP\TOCLIST\WORKPLAN\95WKPLAN.TXT, Revised July 25, 1996
B-3
-------
APPENDIX G
SUMMARY MATRIX OF IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Implementation Actions
APPENDIX G. SUMMARY MATRIX OF IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
This appendix serves as a quick reference to common actions or measures that may be appropriate
for addressing problems in the Region of Concern. Exhibits G-l through G-6 present the selected actions
and highlight authorities, programs, and organizations that might contribute to their implementation at
the Federal, State, and local levels. The implementation actions are organized according to the following
six potential sources of contaminants:
• Industrial discharges (Exhibit G-l)
• Storm water and urban nonpoint runoff (Exhibit G-2)
• Agricultural runoff (Exhibit G-3)
• Municipal sewage treatment plant discharges (Exhibit G-4)
• Air toxics deposition (Exhibit G-5)
• Contaminated sediment (Exhibit G-6).
In addition, each exhibit provides a list of references for additional information on each measure. Most
of these references, as well as other relevant materials, can be obtained through the following sources:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Resource Information Center
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7786
• National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4807
• Environmental Resource Information Center (ERIC)
1200 Chambers Road, Room 310
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 292-6717
• National Small Flows Clearinghouse
West Virginia University
PO Box 6064
Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
(800) 624-8301.
G-l
-------
Industrial
Discharge
Conduct monitoring and prepare associated TMDLs
as a precondition of developing toxic limits.
Impose whole effluent toxicity (WET) NPDES
monitoring conditions for discharges. As results
dictate, require toxicity reduction evaluation.
Impose special conditions in NPDES permit
encompassing upstream/downstream monitoring
(biological, water column, sediment) for suspected
toxicity problems.
Develop pollutant and/or WET NPDES permit limits.
Assess need for increased use of spill containment
procedures at industrial/commercial facilities. Rank
facilities and require spill containment/prevention/
response plans.
Consider use of pollution prevention requirements as
part of enforcement actions.
Expand the definition of local regulated community
to control a broader range of "industrial activity,"
including automotive repair facilities, industrial
laundries, dry cleaners, photoprocessors, water
conditioning facilities, and medical facilities
(offices, laboratories, clinics).
Increase attention on O&M through inspections.
Advise industry of need to maintain pollution control
and prevention equipment.
Develop fee structures that would provide industrial
and commercial facilities with an incentive to reduce
toxic discharges.
/tj
///}
/ffi*
•
*
•
*
*
*
s
Management Program/Authorities
Federal | State | Local
*
.
*
*
*
-
*
*
•
*
'
•
•
*
*
1
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
V
'!?>
»
//,
A?
•
•
1
„
/
/I
%
•
"
*
*
*
i
/4
*
4
•& /
,*A
74
%
•
/
f/i
1
•
"
r/
V
/ References
1
2,3
4
2,3
5
6,7
6,8,9
10,11,12
-
1
a
j
1'
Exhibit G-l. Example Industrial Discharge Implementation Actions
-------
Management Program/Authorities
Industrial
Discharge
(continued)
RoferencBS
Provide outreach on pollution prevention techniques
to industrial, commercial, and residential users.
Provide pollution prevention workshops in
conjunction with trade/professional associations for
commercial facilities (e.g., auto repair facilities, dry
cleaners) contributing significant toxic loads.
6,7
Consider "green awards" for facilities reducing flows/
concentrations of toxics.
Assist in technology transfer opportunity
identification and dissemination to industrial and
commercial community.
6,7,8,9
Assess need for BMP plans at industrial/commercial
facilities. Require industries to implement where
appropriate.
6,7,8,9,13
Evaluate success of current toxic organic management
plan (required for electroplaters, metal finishers,
electric/electronic component industry) and consider
expanding to other industries.
14
Exhibit G-i. Example Industrial Discharge Implementation Actions
774B.V3-3-8/2/95
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Implementation Actions
REFERENCE LIST FOR EXHIBIT G-l
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The
TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-001.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control. EPA 505/2-90-001.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-based
Permitting for Toxic Pottutants. EPA 440/4-87-005.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Training Manualfor NPDES Permit Writers. EPA
833-B-93-003.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Hazardous Materials Spills and Responses for
Municipalities. EPA 600/2-80-108.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guides to Pollution Prevention:
Metal Casting and Heat Treating Industry. EPA/625/R-92/009.
Paint Manufacturing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/005.
The Pesticide Formulating Industry. EPA/625/7-90/004.
The Commercial Printing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/008.
The Fabricated Metal Industry. EPA/625/7-90/006.
For Selected Hospital Waste Streams. EPA/625/7-90/009.
Research and Educational Institutions. EPA/625/7-90/010.
The Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/007.
The Pharmaceutical Industry. EPA/625/7-91/017.
The Photoprocessing Industry. EPA/625/7-91/012.
The Fiberglass Reinforced and Composite Plastic Industry. EPA/625/7-91/104.
The Automotive Repair Industry. EPA/625/7-91/016.
The Automotive Refinishing Industry. EPA/625/7-91/016.
The Marine Maintenance and Repair Industry. EPA/625/7-91/015.
Mechanical Equipment Repair Shops, (under development)
The Metal Finishing Industry, (under development)
Non-Agricultural Pesticide Use. (under development)
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Pollution Prevention Information Clearing House
(PPIC). Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES)—User Guide, Version LI. EPA/600/9-
89/086.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Facility Pollution Prevention Guide. EPA/600/R-
92/0088.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment
Manual. EPA/625/7-88/003.
G-4
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Implementation Actions
10. Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel. 1995. Financing Alternatives for Maryland's Tributary Strategies.
Office of the Governor, Maryland.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Alternative Financing Mechanisms for
Environmental Programs.
12. VU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Financing Models for Environmental
Protection—Helping Communities Meet their Goals. 202-B-92-006
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management
Practices (BMP)
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Guidance Manual for Implementing Total Toxic
Organics (TTO) Pretreatment Standards.
G-5
-------
Storm Water/Urban
Nonpoint Runoff
Management Program/Authorities
Local
References
SO
I
a
is
REGULATION AND/OR POLICY
Implement NPDES Storm Water Program requiring
\) medium and large municipalities to develop and
implement a storm water management program and
2) most industrial facilities (e.g., manufacturing, and
recycling facilities, sewage treatment plants, landfills,
steam electric power generating facilities, hazardous
waste facilities) to develop and implement storm water
pollution prevention plans. Toxics may be targeted
based on data received as part of the industrial group
application process; data collected as part of the
NPDES monitoring requirements; pretreatment,
routine fire, or storm water inspections; sediment
tracing investigations; and citizen reports/complaints.
9,11
Require use of structural practices (e.g., infiltration,
filtration, and detention mechanisms) to reduce annual
average total suspended solid loadings by 80 percent
after construction and site stabilization.
2,3,4
Ensure that all urban runoff facilities are operated and
maintained properly.
3,4
Develop ordinances or regulations requiring NPS
pollution controls for new development and
redevelopment.
Use infrastructure planning to guide development
patterns away from areas sensitive to pollutant
I
I
a
Finance storm water utility using act valorem taxes,
development fees, etc.
7,8
Exhibit G-2. Example Storm Water/Urban Nonpoint Runoff Control Implementation Actions
77-1B.V3 - 8 - a/2/BS
-------
Management Program/Authorities
Storm Water/Urban
Nonpoint Runoff
(continued)
References
I
X
I
REGULATION AND/OR POLICY (CONTINUED)
Dispose of accumulated sediment collected from
urban runoff management and pollution control
facilities and any wastes generated during
maintenance operations in accordance with
appropriate Federal, State, and local regulations.
Coordinate inspections of industrial and commercial
facilities between environmental and fire departments
to detect and correct potential problems regarding
accidental and intentional release of toxics.
Revise zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations
to limit impervious surfaces, encourage conservation
of open space, promote cluster development, establish
setback requirements, and slope restrictions, require
site plan review and approval, and limit disturbances
of natural drainage features and vegetation.
Preserve natural drainage areas and natural
depressional storage areas to infiltrate and attenuate
flows and filter pollutants.
3,4
ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC MEASURES
Require construction sites to implement measures to
properly store, handle, apply, and dispose of
chemicals used onsite (e.g., pesticides, petroleum
products, paints, solvents, asphalt products) and to
train workers on spill response procedures.
f
I
Construct or modify storm water pollutant removal
facilities (e.g., infiltration basins and trenches, grass
swoles, porous and concrete grid pavement, wet or dry
ponds, constructed wetland, fringe march creation).
3,4
Exhibit G-2. Example Storm Water/Urban Nonpoint Runoff Control Implementation Actions
774B.V3-7-8/285
-------
Management Program/Authorities
Storm Water/Urban
Nonpoint Runoff
(continued)
References
a
ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC MEASURES (CONTINUED)
Encourage alternative design and maintenance
strategies for parking lots.
3,4
Establish fuel and vehicle maintenance staging areas
away from drainage courses and design these areas
to control runoff.
Plan, site, and develop new roads and highways to
minimize impacts from contaminated runoff. Avoid
sensitive ecosystems when siting roadways and, in
particular, bridges.
Direct pollutant loadings away from bridge decks by
diverting runoff to waters for land treatment.
Restrict use of scupper drains, which discharge
directly to surface water.
Use techniques such as suspended tarps, vacuums, or
booms to reduce the delivery to surface waters of
pollutants used or generated during bridge
maintenance.
Ensure proper selection, storage, and application of
de-icing materials.
3,5
Prevent dumping of accumulated snow in surface
waters.
Work with local airports to reduce runoff of de-icing
3,5
sediment.
Exhibit G-2. Example Storm Water/Urban Nonpoint Runoff Control Implementation Actions
774B.V3-8-8/2/85
-------
Management Program/Authorities
Storm Water/Urban
Nonpoint Runoff
(continued)
References
1
X
a
I
i
EDUCATION
Develop training and education programs on the
design, installation, operation, inspection, and
maintenance of urban runoff facilities.
Conduct public education activities, including public
meetings, brochures, fact sheets, bus placards, and
stenciling on proper pesticide/herbicide application,
IPM, proper disposal of household hazardous waste
and used oil, reuse/recycling alternatives, local flora/
fauna lectures, landscaping with native species, etc.
3,6
Promote volunteer citizen monitoring and reporting
of illegal dumping.
Present green awards to local businesses (e.g., golf
courses and nurseries) that incorporate sound
management techniques.
Develop or expand used oil, used antifreeze, and
hazardous chemical collection and recycling
programs and site collection centers in convenient
locations.
3,6
Promote pollution prevention assessments and
development of NFS pollution reduction strategies
at commercial facilities through guidance, training,
and/or technical assistance.
Exhibit G-2. Example Storm Water/Urban Nonpoint Runoff Control Implementation Actions
774B.V3-9-8/2/95
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Implementation Actions
REFERENCE LIST FOR EXHIBIT G-2
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities:
Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832-R-92-006.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Storm Water Management for Construction
Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832-R-92-
005.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measure for
Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002.
4. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical
Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Manual for Deicing Chemicals: Storing and
Handling. EPA 670/2-74-033 and PB-236152.
6. Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee. 1992. Local Solutions A Local
Government Guide to Managing Household Hazardous Waste in the Chesapeake Bay Region.
1. Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel. 1995. Financing Alternative for Maryland's Tributary Strategies.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Alternatives Financing Mechanisms for Environmental
Programs.
G-10
-------
Management Program/Authorities
Agriculture
References
Promote erosion and sediment control management
practices to reduce transport of agricultural chemicals.
of facility wastewater and storm water.
Inventory current and historical pest problems, cropping
patterns, and pesticide use for each field.
for leaching and/or runoff of pesticides.
Provide guidance, training, and technical assistance to pro-
amount of pesticides applied. When pesticide applications
are necessary and a choice of material exists, consider the
persistence, toxicity, and runoff and leaching potential of
products along with current label requirements in making
a selection.
Require maintenance of records on application and
storage of pesticides.
Encourage use of lower pesticide application rates.
Require seasonal recalibration of spray equipment and use
of anti-backflow devices on hoses used for filling tank
mixtures.
Provide outreach to promote organic farming techniques
and/or integrated crop management systems to eliminate
or reduce, respectively, pesticide use.
If chemigation is used, require backflow preventers for
wells, minimize the harmful amounts of chemigated
waters that discharge from the edge of the field, and
control deep percolation. If chemigation is performed
with furrow irrigation systems, require tailwater
management system.
Exhibit G-3. Example Agricultural Implementation Actions
774B.V3-11-8/2/95
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Implementation Actions
REFERENCE LIST FOR EXHIBIT G-3
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measure for
Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002.
G-12
-------
Management Program/Authorities
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plant
Discharge
References
Conduct monitoring and prepare associated TMDLs
as a precondition of developing toxic limits.
Impose WET NPDES monitoring conditions for
municipal discharges. As results dictate, require
toxicity reduction evaluation.
2,3
Impose special conditions in NPDES permit
encompassing upstream/downstream monitoring
(biological, water column, sediment) for suspected
toxicity problems.
Develop pollutant and/or WET NPDES permit limits.
2,3
Investigate extent of infiltration/inflow and
relationship to influent concentrations of toxics.
INDUSTRIAL USER
Evaluate the success of existing pretreatment
programs and determine the need to reduce influent
concentrations further by targeting industrial,
commercial, and residential sources. Revise local
limits as necessary. (See Exhibit F-lfor more control
measures addressing industrial discharges to sewer
systems.)
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Develop a public education program detailing
recycle/reuse, water conservation practices, and ways
to reduce the disposal of toxic contaminants from
•household sources.
Encourage the community to discourage the sale/
purchase of certain products.
r
Exhibit G-4. Example Implementation Actions for Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Discharge Control
774B.V3-13-8/Z/95
-------
Management Program/Aulhorllles
Local
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plant
Discharge
(continued)
References
X
I
MEASURE SPECIFIC TO COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
Evaluate relationship between chlorination and
toxicity of effluents. Assess alternative disinfection
techniques and/or improve chlorination controls.
Conduct proper O&M programs for the combined sewei
system and combined sewer overflow points.
8,9
Inspect combined sewer overflow points regularly.
8,9
Maximize the use of the collection system for storage.
8,9
Review and modify pretreatment programs to ensure
that CSO impacts are minimized:
• Identify and evaluate industrial discharges to the
combined sewer system.
• Review combined sewer overflow data to identify
and control the industrial pollutants discharged in
combined sewer overflows.
• Enact local sewer use ordinances or revise
individual control mechanisms to control industrial
discharges during wet weather conditions.
Maximize flow to the treatment plant for treatment:
• Review treatment plant design criteria and
operating data to establish the maximum daily and
monthly flow rates that can be treated without
exceeding NPDES permit limits.
• Evaluate possible modifications to the treatment
plant to increase treatment capacity during wet
weather.
Prohibit overflows during dry weather conditions.
Identify dry weather overflow locations and
determine the cause. Tfcke immediate corrective
action to eliminate overflows through maintenance
and repair if possible.
Exhibit G-4. Example Implementation Actions for Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Discharge Control
774B.V3 - 14 - 8/2/95
-------
Management Program/Authorities
'
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plant
Discharge
(continued)
References
X
a
MEASURE SPECIFIC TO COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(CONTINUED)
Control solid and floatable materials in combined
sewer overflows.
8,9
Monitor to effectively characterize CSO impacts and
the efficacy of CSO controls:
• Monitor to characterize the toxic pollutants found
in combined sewer overflows.
• Monitor and report water quality impacts from
combined sewer overflows.
8,10
Exhibit G-4. Example Implementation Actions for Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Discharge Control
774B.V3-15-8/2/95
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Implementation Actions
REFERENCE LIST FOR EXHIBIT G-4
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The
TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-001.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control. EPA 505/2-90-001.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-based
Permitting for Toxic Pollutants. EPA 440/4-87-005.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Training Manual for NPDES Permit Writers. EPA
833-B-93-003.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Guidance Manual on the Development and
Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Excerpts from Control of Infiltration and Inflow
into Sewer Systems and Prevention of Corrective of Excessive Infiltration and Inflow into Sewer
Systems: A Manual of Practice. EPA-670/9-74-004 and PB-273440/8.
7. Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee. 1992. Local Solutions: A Local
Government Guide to Managing Household Hazardous Waste in the Chesapeake Bay Program.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Combined Sewer Overflows—Guidance for Nine
Minimum Control Measures.
9. Water Pollution Control Federation. 1989. Combined Sewer Overflow—Pollution Abatement
Manual of Practice.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Combined Sewer Overflows—Guidance for
Monitoring and Modeling.
G-16
-------
Management Program/Authorities
Air Toxics
Deposition
References
Implement hazardous air pollutant emission limits
(known as maximum achievable control technology)
standards, which are effective starting in 1995.
Synthetic organic compound manufacturing industries
are the first industrial category affected.
1,2
Continue efforts to attain National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone to reduce
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Many VOCs targeted will be toxic compounds.
Conduct source identification and modeling efforts to
evaluate post-NA AQs, post-maximum achievable
control technology air deposition source loads.
2,3
Promote pollution prevention opportunities, including
substitution of cleaning solvents at dry cleaners with
low volatility and/or non-toxic cleaning agents;
segregation of materials at battery breaking and lead
smelting operations to minimize lead emissions and
promote plastics recycling; and substitution of paints,
inks, and thinners at surface coating and printing
operations with water-based or low-solvent content
applications.
4,5,6,7
Work with agricultural extension agents to reduce
pesticide spraying by farmers, nurseries, and other
commercial users. Provide outreach, through garden
clubs, lawn care services, etc., to reduce residential
use of pesticides.
Exhibit G-5. Air Toxics Implementation Actions
774B.V3- 17-8/2/95
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Implementation Actions
REFERENCE LIST FOR EXHIBIT G-5
1. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 - Public Law 101-549, Nov. 15. 1990 S.1630.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards. Technology
Transfer Network Computer Bulletin Board Service. Accessible via modem at 919-541-1447,
information on all aspects of air quality planning, modeling, & regulation.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised), Appendix W
of 40 CFR Part 51, EPA 450/2-78-027R.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guides to Pollution Prevention:
Metal Casting and Heat Treating Industry. EPA/625/R-92/009.
Paint Manufacturing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/005.
The Pesticide Formulating Industry. EPA/625/7-90/004.
The Commercial Printing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/008.
The Fabricated Metal Industry. EPA/625/7-90/006.
For Selected Hospital Waste Streams. EPA/625/7-90/009.
Research and Educational Institutions. EPA/625/7-90/010.
The Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/007.
The Pharmaceutical Industry. EPA/625/7-91/017.
The Photoprocessing Industry. EPA/625/7-91/012.
The Fiberglass Reinforced and Composite Plastic Industry. EPA/625/7-91/104.
The Automotive Repair Industry. EPA/625/7-91/016.
The Automotive Refinishing Industry. EPA/625/7-91/016.
The Marine Maintenance and Repair Industry. EPA/625/7-91/015.
Mechanical Equipment Repair Shops. EPA/625/R-92/008.
The Metal Finishing Industry. EPA/625/R-92/011.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Facility Pollution Prevention Guide. EPA/600/R-
92/0088.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment
Manual. EPA/625/7-88/003.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Pollution Prevention Information Clearing House
(PPIC). Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES)—User Guide, Version LI. EPA/600/9-
89/086.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measure for
Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002.
G-18
-------
Management Program/Authorities
Contaminated
Sediment
References
Investigate whether "re-scoring" Hazardous Ranking
System (HRS) evaluations, based on revised MRS
scoring, will result in adding Chesapeake Bay site(s)
to the National Priorities List.
Investigate whether HRS scoring has been conducted
at sites where contamination probably exists and
determine whether scoring can proceed.
Evaluate whether RCRA corrective actions can be
used to remediate sediments contaminated by
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
Evaluate whether more stringent controls can be
adopted for treating discharges from confined
disposal facilities (CDFs).
Assess opportunities for contaminated sediment
removal/remediation as part of enforcement
settlements (CWA, RCRA).
Establish sediment monitoring requirements for
discharges that the State believes may be contributing
to sediment contamination.
2,6
Modify, as sediment quality criteria becomes
available, NPDES permit limits to account for
sediment contamination potential.
2,6
Work with Army Corps of Engineers (COB) to assess
opportunities for contaminated dredged soil removal
as part of maintenance dredging projects.
Work with ongoing program to determine nature and
extent of sediment contamination.
Develop plans for reducing sources and
preventing further contamination.
Exhibit G-6. Example Contaminated Sediment Implementation Actions
774B.V3-19-8/2/95
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Implementation Actions
REFERENCE LIST FOR EXHIBIT G-6
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Selecting Remediation Techniques for Contaminated
Sediment. EPA 823-B93-001.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium.
EPA 823-R-92-006.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993, Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments (ARCS) Program Risk Assessment and Modeling Overview Document. EPA 905-R93-'
007.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments (ARCS) Program Assessment Guidance Document. EPA 905-R94-002.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments (ARCS) Program Remediation Guidance Document. EPA 905-R94-003.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-91-001.
7- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second
Edition. EPA 823-B-94-005a.
G-20
-------
APPENDKH
FINANCING ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
financing Programs
APPENDIX H. FINANCING ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
This appendix reviews some financing techniques, both traditional and innovative, that
stakeholders in the regional action planning process could consider in funding control and remediation
efforts. The techniques include bonds, state-revolving loan funds, permit fees, public-private
partnerships, utilities, and deposit-refund systems.
Financing techniques are used to generate:
Capital Investments—Funding of environmental infrastructure, such as wastewater treatment
plants and sewage lines
Operation and Maintenance—Funding of day-to-day operations for environmental programs
or capital investments
Behavior Changes—Shifting funding from the individuals who reap disproportionate benefits,
or impose disproportionate costs on society at large, toward the community at large.
Exhibit H-l identifies various financial techniques and their primary uses. Different approaches
have been tried for a variety of environmental programs in a wide range of local environments. The
current trend hi environmental finance is toward user-based financing, which involves shifting the
Exhibit H-l. Financing Techniques and Common Uses of Funds
financing Approaches
General Tax Revenues
Long- and Short-Term Bonds
State Revolving Loan Funds
Public-Private Partnerships
Credit Enhancements
Impact Fees (Development Fees)
Dedicated Tax Revenues
Permit Fees
User Fees
Utilities
Deposit Refund Systems
Penalties and Fines
Capital
Investment
/
y
/
^
^
/
1
Operation and
Maintenance
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Behavior
Modification
/
/
/
/
/
H-l
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Financing Programs
financial burden from the taxpayer toward the individuals and firms who use the service. It would be
inappropriate, however, to omit traditional funding sources from a Regional Action Plan because large
capital investments may be required. Traditional sources are one of the most easily accessible sources
for emergency purposes.
The remainder of mis appendix introduces various financing techniques and provides a list of
uses, benefits, and problems for each one.
H.1 GENERAL TAX REVENUES
Governments levy taxes to raise capital for capital investments and operation and maintenance
expenses for areas including environmental protection, health and welfare, and interest payments. When
tax revenues from different sources are combined into a general fund or a single bank account, the funds
are then called general revenues. Money in the general fund can be used for any purpose.
There are two methods of taxation: fixed rates and ad valorem rates. Income taxes and sales
taxes are fixed rate taxes expressed as a percentage (e.g., a gasoline tax of 14 cents per gallon sold). Ad
valorem taxes are expressed as a percent of the value of the tax base (e.g., property taxes of $1.20 for
each $100 of assessed property value).
General tax revenues have traditionally been used to fund governmental programs. However, the
number of governmental programs requiring funding has increased, and tax revenues have not kept pace.
The result has been a number of unfunded mandates that require resourceful funding techniques. In
addition, funding from tax revenues is subject to politics during the budget process at all levels of
\
government.
Benefits Problems
Capital investments • Large pool of ^resources • Competing needs
Operation and • Emergency funds quickly available * Additional pio^ant requirements
maintenance * Collection mechanism already in place * Budgets may fee political
and currently used <
H.2 BONDS
Bonds are typically used to finance capital investments. Two types of bonds are commonly used:
general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are backed by the full faith,
credit, and taxing power of the government issuing the bond. Guarantee for repayment of the bonds is
H-2
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Financing Programs
provided by the entire stream of tax revenues paid to the local government. General obligation bonds
are considered to have stronger repayment guarantee than revenue bonds.
Revenue bonds are backed by revenue from a dedicated source as a rate revenue. Because
revenue bonds have far fewer statutory constraints, they have replaced general obligation bonds as the
primary form of municipal financing. In theory, because this form of debt has its own guarantee (the
project revenues, if any), it should not affect a locality's credit rating. In practice, however, revenue debt
represents an indirect obligation of the issuing government. Because the lender has only the project
revenues to depend on for repayment, interest rates are generally higher for revenue bonds than for the
general obligation bonds.
General obligation and revenue bonds are sold as taxable and tax-exempt. The purchaser of
taxable bonds must declare their interest income to the federal government for taxation purposes.
Purchasers of tax-exempt bonds are not required to declare interest income on their income taxes.
Therefore, tax-exempt bonds are more attractive to the individual purchaser. However, the tax-exempt
status must approved by the federal government and clearly identified in the bond issuance.
Small communities are often precluded from entering the national bond market because of poor
credit ratings, little financial expertise, and relatively small capital needs. When access to the national
bond market is available, small communities customarily pay very high interest rates. Some states have
created bond banks mat enable small communities to pool their resources and issue bonds through the
bank. This gives small communities access to the municipal bond market at lower interest rates and with
lower issuance costs. In addition, state governments sometimes back small communities to receive low
interest loans. The state government guarantees the loan, not the small community. If the small
community cannot repay the loan, therefore, the state government is responsible for repayment. A report
entitled Financing Alternatives for Maryland's Tributary Strategies provides several examples of the use
of bonds to fund environmental improvements (Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel 1995).
Use Benefits Problems
Capital investments * Can be tax-exempt to purchasers • Deficit-financing requiring secured
» .Financially Baefcedty #to revenue or revsosfe sources
general revenues * Difficult for small entities to issue
Higt interest sates
H-3
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance ^ Financing Programs
H.3 REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS
Revolving loan programs, which are common in the United States, are intended to create a
perpetual source of low cost financing. Initially, a large influx of money is needed to capitalize a
program. The funds are typically invested by the state government in the stock and bond market (i.e.,
capitalization of the fund). A revolving loan program assists all communities in meeting their capital
needs by providing one-time loans. Below market interest rates are the single most important advantage
of revolving loan programs. This reduced capital cost reduces the amount required to repay the project
debt. The State Revolving Fund (SRF) is a typical U.S. revolving loan program that helps finance the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Recipients of SRF assistance are required to provide a
*
dedicated source of revenue, such as user fees, to cover loan payments.
Every state has revolving loan funds. Each state has the authority to decide how the existing
funds will be used. Historically, state environmental officials and legislators have allocated SRF money
to municipal wastewater treatment plants. They do have the authority, however, to use the funds for
nonpoint source pollution and estuarine programs. Four states—Washington, Montana, California, and
Wyoming—have used SRF loans to fund a variety of nonpoint source projects. Three
states—Washington, Delaware, and South Dakota—have extended SRF assistance to the private sector.
For additional information see State and Sub-State Revolving Funds in State and Local Funding of
Nonpoint Source Control Programs (EPA 1992) and Financing Alternatives for Maryland's Tributary
Strategies (Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel 1995).
Benefits Problems
* Capital investments « Market rate or below market: rate • Many stale funds not fally capitalized
• Operation and * Ability for small governments to * limited availability, not available for all
maintenance access funds environmental programs
• Longer payback periods than with • Many small communities default
commercial loans • Increased administrative costs
» Lessapfront capital than mth • Generally sot available to private sector
commercial loans
H.4 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Local government partnerships with private firms is not new in United States. Public-private
partnerships have financed solid waste disposal and mass transit for numerous years. Private participants
have recently helped finance wastewater treatment facilities, road construction, jails, and public schools.
Private operation of public facilities is growing for three reasons. First, some private operators can
deliver quality service at less cost than their public counterparts. Second, private operators can often
H-4
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance financing Programs
supply well-trained personnel, who would otherwise be unaffordable for small, local governments. Third,
private operators contribute capital and shift the burden away from the users already in the system. As
a result, private operators are frequently hired to solve persistent problems, such as poor water quality.
In such an arrangement, the public partner finances and builds the wastewater treatment facility, and the
private partner operates and maintains the facility for a fee. Additional examples of public/private
partnerships are describe in Financing Alternatives for Maryland's Tributary Strategies (Governor's Blue
Ribbon Panel 1995).
Benefits Problems
* Capital investment * Local government receives * limited participation by public officials
* Operation and additional financial resources • Local government still contributes capital
/maintenance from private investors funds
* Private investors administer * All or a portion, of tjbe revenues may go
public project to private investors
H.5 IMPACT WEES (DEVELOPMENT FEES)
Impact fees may be generally defined as money, land, or construction services and materials
provided to a public jurisdiction by a developer. A developer may offer these contributions voluntarily
to expedite project approval or completion. They may be required by the local jurisdiction as a
prerequisite for building, however. In this case, the charges can be negotiated individually or assessed
on a systematic basis according to an established formula legislated by state or local authorities. In the
latter case, developers are required to pay impact fees, to compensate the local community for the
provision of offsite services and infrastructure hi addition to any onsite infrastructure required by local
building codes.
Traditional impact fees include land dedications for such purposes as right of ways and parks,
as well as cash payments in lieu of land. The definition of impact fees has been broadened in recent
years to include donations of specified facilities; the construction of offsite infrastructure, such as the
expansion of wastewater treatment facilities, as well as sewer and water line expansions; unproved
intersections and roads; and the addition of low- or moderate-income housing units to the development
project.
Developer financing through zoning requirements or impact fees is intended to recover the cost
of services from individuals or groups responsible for generating the costs. Typically, impact fees
transfer the cost of infrastructure services required by private development directly to developers who,
in turn, redistribute some of these costs through home sales or commercial leases. Impact fees are
_ -
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Financing Programs
typically collected in one lump sum at the beginning of the project. These fees are attractive to local
governments because they relieve up-front financing pressures on local budgets.
Uses Benefits Bttblems
• Capital investments
• Operation and
maintenance
Capital investments paid by developer » Outcome is uncertain
May expedite project development « Not all impact fees are
Developer passes costs to consumers standardized
Does not require prior approval of landowners
Shifts financial burden to those creating the
bottleneck
Administrative ease
H.6 UnLITIES
Utilities are a type of independent, special assessment district created to oversee all aspects of a
public works system, including financing, construction, operation and maintenance, administration, and
personnel. These decisions are not delegated to another governmental department. Utilities are
autonomous public corporations answerable to local governments.
Utilities are not created for a limited duration but are assigned perpetual responsibility to operate
and maintain the particular public works facility. In addition, utilities are not established for selected
neighborhood components of a public works system but are created to manage and operate the entire
system.
Most public utilities charge one-tune connection fees for capital costs, plus regular monthly or
annual fees for operations and maintenance. Some utilities also assess periodic capital fees along with
user fees. The base unit used to calculate each fee depends primarily on the particular public works
involved. For example, stormwater utilities have been created by local governments to manage and
finance solutions to water quality problems caused by stormwater runoff. Commonly used methods to
calculate rates include a fee based on impervious land areas, or a flat rate. There are currently more than
100 stormwater utilities in the country, and the number is growing. They serve communities ranging in
size from 4,300 to 840,000 people and are usually managed by local public works departments. Monthly
charges per household are generally quite moderate (less than $4.00), but they result in a stable and
reliable revenue stream without requiring state or federal subsidies.
The process for starting and operating a stormwater utility requires an understanding of technical
issues (e.g., legal authorities, financial matters, including how to establish the rate structure, and
H-6
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Financing Programs
institutional arrangements, such as an administrative structure for the utility). For jurisdictions
considering the development of a stormwater utility, it may be helpful to consult other local governments
that have already solved these problems. For additional information, see the section on Stormwater and
On-Site Utilities in State and Local Funding ofNonpoint Source Control Programs (EPA 1992).
• Capital investment
« Operation and
maintenance
Benefits . Problems
Functions in both high- and low-growth areas • Fee straetate may not be
Costs allocated on the basts of use sufficient for capital
Not dependent on tax revenues investments
Insulated from local politics » £?ees and rates not market-
May modify behavior based
H.7 DEDICATED REVENUES
j
Dedicated revenues are differentiated from general revenues because the funds collected are kept
in a separate account, or trust fund separate from the general fund, and can only be used for a single or
dedicated purpose. For instance, funds collected from the federal gasoline tax can only be used for
building and maintaining federal highways. Typically, dedicated revenue sources have a specific purpose
designated before the tax is instituted. The methods used to obtain dedicated revenues comprise fixed
taxes or ad valorem taxes and are left to the discretion of the government. Taxes frequently used as
dedicated revenue sources include hotel occupancy taxes, foodfish and shellfish taxes, marine fuels taxes,
toilet paper taxes, pesticide and fertilizer taxes, and plumbing fixture taxes. Another example of
dedicated revenues is the specialized automobile license plates, such as those used in Maryland and
Virginia, which acknowledge a particular natural resource.
Uses Benefits Problems
Capital investment * Dedicated and known resource * Single-purpose runding
Operation and. base » Revenues susceptible to market downturns
maintenance • User-based taxation • Supplemental fends from general fund
seeded periodically
H.8 PERMIT FEES
Permit fees for public services are intended to establish direct links between the demand for
services and the cost to provide them. Permit fees are also used to help finance pollution control
activities by charging polluters the cost their activities impose upon society. Well-structured fees are the
most equitable means of (1) matching program costs and program beneficiaries and/or (2) assessing the
permit fees based on the volume and toxicity of the flow. When properly calculated and assessed, fees
H-7
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Financing Programs
encourage efficient public investment decisions by identifying the local share of project costs to
beneficiaries before they decide to invest. Faced with the prospect of fees, users (or beneficiaries) will
demand only those projects they judge to be worth the investment. Commonly used fees include NPDES
permit fees, POTW user fees, and boat pump-out fees.
Use
* Operation and
maintenance
* Capital investment
• Matches program costs to program
beneficiaries .
* Assesses cleanup costs to responsible
parties
* May modify behavior if fee structure
ed to volume
Problems .
• Increased administrative costs
* May eifccaarage illegal dumping or
releases
H.9 DEPOSIT-REFUND SYSTEMS
Deposit-refund systems differ from pollution fees because part or all of the fee is refunded if the
person paying the fee takes certain actions, such as returning a product for recycling. Deposit systems
are mandatory in 10 states for soft drink and beer containers and lead batteries. In addition, some states
are beginning to institute deposit systems on pesticide containers. To be most effective, the funds not
reimbursed should be forwarded to the government and used for environmental programs.
* Operation and
maintenance
• Capital investment
Benefits
* Modifies behavior
'» Reduces waste generation and increases
recycling or proper disposal
Problems
• Non-reimbursed deposits not
always forwarded to government
• Not: a dependable revenue source
• Increased handling costs for retailer
* Increased administration
H.10 PENALTIES AND FINES
Penalties and fines are an important part of effective enforcement programs. These revenue
sources are better suited to modify behavior than to raise revenue. As enforcement improves and the
number of violations decreases, revenue from fines and penalties will decline. This scenario is a
reflection of an effective program. In some cases, especially in the early years of a program, the revenue
from fines and penalties is sizable and may help finance enforcement and related efforts.
Use
* Operation .and maintenance
« Capital investment
Benefits
* Modifies behavior
* Effective enforcement tool
Problems
Revenues decrease as violations
decrease
H-8
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Financing Programs
H.11 TRADEABLE PERMITS
The trading of pollutants is one of several market-based approaches to environmental protection
long advocated by economists, who argue that this approach will decrease the costs of pollution abatement
compared to traditional command-and-control regulatory strategies. Advocates believe that trading will
facilitate more rapid improvement of environmental quality because it provides financial incentives for
achieving related goals. It both reduces the cost of compliance for the regulated community and provides
monetary compensation for those who act to further reduce pollutant loadings!
Under trading, a market is established for buying and selling allowances to discharge pollutants,
and the economic incentives provided by the market presumably allocate the greatest control requirements
to the dischargers with the lowest control costs. The total amount of discharge allowances and the rules
t
for trading can be established to ensure that the outcomes of the trades meet prescribed environmental
goals (e.g., that the total quantities of pollutants discharged are no greater, or even less, than the
quantities allowed under other regulatory approaches).
Three studies assessing the applicability and practicability of a market-based trading system have
been completed for reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. The Benefits and Feasibility of Effluent
Trading Between Point Sources: An Analysis in Support of the Clean Water Act Reauthorization (EPA
1992) explores trading between point sources. Incentive Analysis for Clean Water Reauthorization: Point
Source/Nonpoint Source Trading for Nutrient Discharge Reductions (EPA 1992) examines trading between
point and nonpoint sources. Use of Market-Based Allocations To Meet Local Limits for Pretreatment:
An Analysis in Support of dean Water Act Reauthorization (EPA 1994) focuses on the use of market-
based allocations by publicly owned treatment works to establish local limits for indirect industrial
dischargers. Each study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and reviews the
potential benefits of the systems analyzed and includes case studies of successful trading programs.
Use, K
* Operation and '
maintenance
* Capital investment
Benefits
* Modifies behavior
« Reduces pollutant releases
• Wcafcs to achieve desired goals
Problems
• High administrative £osts
* Need to establish baseline conditions and
rules before beginning,trades
• Enforcement necessary to be effective
H-9
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Financing Programs
REFERENCES
Report from the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel. 1995. Financing Alternatives for Maryland's Tributary
Strategies: Innovative Financing Ideas for Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. State and Local Funding ofNonpoint Source Control
Programs. EPA 841-R-92-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. 1994. Use of
Market-Based Allocations To Meet Local Limits for Pretreatment: An Analysis in Support of
Clean Water Act Reauthorization. Draft Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. 1992. Incentive
Analysis for Clean Water Reauthorization: Point Source/Nonpoint Source Trading for Nutrient
Discharge Reductions. Draft Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
1992. The Benefits and Feasibility of Effluent Trading Between Point Sources: An Analysis in
Support of the Clean Water Act Reauthorization. Draft Report.
H-10
-------
APPENDIX I
GEOGRAPHIC TOOLS FOR EVALUATING INFORMATION
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
APPENDIX I. GEOGRAPHIC TOOLS FOR EVALUATING INFORMATION
Solving environmental problems has become more complex with consideration of cross-media
pollutant transport and watershed-based decision-making. Applying mapping techniques to environmental
problem solving greatly increases the ease at which relational and spatial data can be manipulated and
analyzed, providing environmental decision-makers with a powerful tool for examining multimedia
environmental data over different sized areas (e.g., watershed, regions, states).
Decision-making and problem prioritization hi the regional action planning context can be
enhanced by the geographic evaluation of information on chemical contaminants. Once the Regional
Action Team identifies problems, chemical contaminants, and sources, geographic analysis can be useful
in discovering new relationships among these data. Maps of contaminant sources and monitoring location
concentrations, combined with other data, such as demographics, land use, and physical or environmental
features, can be very helpful hi determining the environmental impacts of these pollutants. Mapping
applications can be used hi water quality management hi numerous ways, including the following:
• Maps of chemical contaminants/impacts can provide visual answers to queries about
Region of Concerns—For example, if chemical contaminants exceeding a threshold are
mapped, the results can depict geographic subregions where the chemical contaminant
problem is different.
• Mapping systems can facilitate prioritization of problems within subregions of the
Region of Concerns—Watersheds can be ranked hi terms of the potential for nonpoint source
pollution by mapping the factors contributing to nonpoint source pollution. For example, the
potential for pesticide runoff would be higher hi agricultural lands than hi woodlands. By
mapping the land use characteristics, the potential for problems can be displayed and
quantified.
• Mapped data can be used to evaluate problem chemical contaminants with respect to
designated uses and/or impaired designated uses—By plotting concentrations of chemical
contaminants suspected of causing impacts over the designated uses, the most critical areas
can be identified. For example, if the high concentrations of polyaromatic hydrocarbons hi
the water column are detected in a drinking water supply, this can be isolated geographically
as a more significant problem, versus high concentrations of polyaromatic hydrocarbons hi
a transportation waterway.
• Mapping of data enables creation of quantifiable indicators—If water quality problems
are plotted geographically, the river miles over which given conditions exist can be
computed. This also serves as an index by which to measure future improvements.
1-1
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
Various mapping techniques can be used to evaluate pollutant data. The ultimate goal of
geographic analysis is to combine attribute data (i.e., information about a geographical object or area)
with locational data (i.e., information related to a known coordinate system) and to display the results
visually. This process can be accomplished using many techniques, ranging from hand-drawn maps to
the use of sophisticated geographic information systems (GIS). Future data uses, budgets, and tune
constraints, will determine which technique to use.
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF BASIC MAPPING TOOLS
Maps of affected areas can be created using a variety of tools, ranging from relatively simple
techniques to more sophisticated electronically-based systems. Hand-drawn maps or mylar overlays are
relatively easy to make (although frequently time consuming to produce, depending on the level of
accuracy required) and can transfer a large amount of information to a required audience. In most cases,
these maps are based on U.S. Geological Survey maps or maps produced by state environmental or
transportation departments. The base maps can be purchased quite reasonably from a number of sources,
including the U.S. Geological Survey. To incorporate the multiple data layers necessary for Regional
Action Plans, tracing paper or pieces of mylar can be used to overlay the base map so that desired
features can be hand drawn. Tracings and/or mylar overlays are easy and cheap to produce, but are
difficult to reproduce, change, or update, and may be inaccurate. This type of mapping is not
recommended if one of the long-term goals of the Regional Action Plan is to include the maps in future
documents. However, if the main purpose of the maps is for a single meeting presentation, they may
be the most cost-effective means of creating visual displays of relevant geographic information to be used
in the decision-making process.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF GIS TOOLS
A GIS can be considered a collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and the
associated personnel organized to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display all
forms of geographically referenced information. GIS uses geographic data to describe objects from the
real world (e.g., industrial facilities) in terms of their position with respect to a known geographic
coordinate system and links these objects with any number of potential attributes (e.g., pollutant type and
concentration, topography, demographic statistics). GIS represents a spatial model of the real world.
Because GIS can incorporate and relate many different types of information, it is a powerful
communications tool.
1-2
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
Geographic information systems have been described in two ways: (1) through formal definitions
and (2) through its ability to carry out spatial operations, linking data sets using location as the common
key. A GIS can also be distinguished by listing the types of questions it can (or should be able to)
answer. For any application, a GIS can address five generic questions:
• Location (What is at...?)—The first question seeks to find out what exists at a particular
location using, for example, a place name, a post or zip code, or a geographic reference,
such as latitude and longitude.
• Condition (Where is it?)—The second question is the converse of the first and requires
spatial analysis to answer. Instead of identifying what exists at a given location, it identifies
a location where certain conditions (e.g., an unforested section of land at least 2,000 square
meters in size, within 100 meters of a road, and with soils suitable for supporting buildings)
.are satisfied.
• Trends (What has changed since...?)—The third question might involve both of the first
two and attempts to determine the differences within an area over time.
• Patterns (What spatial patterns exist?)—This question is more sophisticated. You might
want to know how many anomalies there are that do not fit the pattern and where they are
located.
• Modeling (What if...?)—"What if..." questions are posed to determine what happens, for
example, if a chemical contaminant leaches into the local groundwater supply. Answering
1 this type of question requires geographic, as well as other, information.
A GIS typically has two basic components: computer hardware and applications software.
General hardware components include a central processing unit or computer, a data storage device, a
visual display device (preferably color), a digitizer, and a plotter. The computer is linked to a data
storage unit (e.g., disk drive, hard disk, tape, or other device), which provides storage space for the data
and software. GIS are available for virtually all computer platforms currently used (e.g., PC, Macintosh,
VAX, IBM, and mainframe). Some are available for multiple platforms and networks as well. The
visual display device enables the user to view and manipulate the data (using the software interface) to
produce the desired product. A digitizer or scanner is used to convert data from maps into digital form
for use by the computer software. If the data are already produced hi digital format, as in the case of
model outputs, the digitizing step is not needed. A plotter or printer is used to produce hard copy output
for use in documents or other forms of communication.
To effectively use GIS, its implementation must be placed in the appropriate organizational
context. The implementation process consists of five phases—planning, requirements analysis, system
_ .
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
design, system development, and installation and application. As always, when dealing with complex
products, GIS tools can only be effective when properly integrated into the project or task. The
successful application of GIS technology requires users to carefully consider and plan for their needs
before embarking on system acquisition, application, and data base development. Typically, when added
to a project as an afterthought, the product is less valuable. To integrate GIS properly requires not only
investment in the proper hardware and software for a particular application, but also an investment hi
training and retraining personnel and managers to use the technology in the proper context. The choice
of the appropriate system for a required task and the training of system users is particularly important
to the end result.
/
GIS spatial data are stored hi either vector or raster format. Vector format stores data in x, y
coordinating, while raster format stores data as an array of grid cells. The two formats serve different
purposes because their design features communicate different elements of GIS analysis. Vector-based
systems are better for displaying two-dimensional data sets, such as roads maps, pollutant concentration
grids, and contour maps. Raster-based systems are better at visualizing three-dimensional data, such as
satellite imagery, microscale gas releases over mapped terrain, and digital elevation models. Currently,
many GISs are capable of using both vector and raster data but not integrating between data types. The
Arc/Info GRID module, however, can integrate both data types, as well as perform some basic image
processing.
Two of the most prevalent vector-based GISs used today are Maplnfo, a desktop mapping system
that runs across PC and Unix microstations, and Arc/Mb, a complex mapping system developed for Unix
microstations but available in PC versions. Both systems are used for mapping two-dimensional data sets,
however, Arc/Info is a much more detailed system that can accurately map and manipulate large data sets.
Maplnfo is a very capable program for the PC environment and gives much of the power of a
microstation-based system without the cost. Both systems enable the user to enter spatial data, as well
as attribute data. The decision to use either Maplnfo or Arc/Info is generally based on the size and
complexity of the data set. Maplnfo, and other similar PC systems, are particularly well suited to
displaying smaller, less complex data sets (e.g., those used in screening models or site locations).
Arc/Mb and other larger microstation systems are well suited to larger, more complex data analysis^ such
as extremely large data sets that require large amounts of data manipulation between layers. Both of
these systems will allow a raster image to be used as a base map upon which the vector layers can be
overlaid. Only Arc/Info will allow manipulation of the raster image.
1-4
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
Another GIS that works with Arc/Mo is ArcView. ArcView GIS software is a complete system
for accessing, displaying, querying, analyzing, and publishing data. ArcView links traditional data
analysis tools, such as spreadsheets and graphics with maps, for a completely integrated analysis system.
Because of its capability to work with Arc/Mb GIS software, ArcView provides an open-ended parn to
high-end GIS analysis.
Raster-based systems are well suited for mapping three-dimensional data sets, such as microscale
pollutant emissions (e.g., emergency response pollutant clouds) and satellite imagery. In addition, raster-
based systems support the conversion of vector-based maps to raster images that can be overlaid on raster
imagery. Both ERDAS and GRASS, two such systems, are usually run on Unix workstations because
of the large data sets generally used. ERDAS, however, has a raster-based system available for the PC
environment. As PCs acquire larger and larger data storage and manipulation capacities, more raster-
based GISs will be transported to the PC environment.
1.3 DATA ACQUISITION
Digital geographic data tend to be imprecise, highly variable, and/or of uncertain quality.
Combining data of varying scales can also be problematic. Data considered accurate at one scale may
be extremely imprecise at another. Thus, the final output must be considered when starting any GIS
project. It is important to conform to basic standards for scale to ensure the uniformity of the data and
to provide the ability to compare the analysis output with pre-existing information. Adhering to standard
naming conventions (e.g., River Reach Numbers, Hydrologic Unit codes, latitude and longitude
coordinates, Universal Transmercador (UTM) coordinates, etc.) will provide the basis for comparison
to other systems and leave open the possibility of applying this system to other problems.
Spatial data for GIS systems are available in digital form from a number of government agencies
and private vendors. A good reference guide for Federal geographic data is the Manual of Federal
Geographic Data Products, published by the Federal Geographic Data Committee under EPA Contract
No. 68-W90065. The U.S. Geological Survey is, by far, the largest producer of map data for the United
States. Currently, the U.S. Geological Survey is in the process of converting all 7.5 x 7.5 quad maps
into digital (vector) format. Many of the smaller scale maps are already available from the U.S.
Geological Survey. Most maps are available on tape from the U.S. Geological Survey directly and on
disks (PC format) from private vendors. Private vendors, such as GOT and Maplnfo, can also provide
very accurate updated digital (vector) maps of any location in the United States and many locations
throughout the world.
--
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
The U.S. Census Bureau is another source of demographic and mapping data for the United
States. With the 1990 census, the Census Bureau initiated a new method of digital data production called
Tiger (i.e., Tiger: The Coast-to-Coast Digital Map Database). These data are presented in vector format
and available on CD-ROM disks. Using Tiger files, census information can be geolocated and viewed
using GIS software. The Tiger system includes the mapping data required to properly locate the related
entity information. Tiger files have been notorious for having large errors in the spatial data files;
however, new releases of the data have included corrections. Private vendors, such as GDT and
Maplnfo, have also enhanced the original Tiger data files to produce the most accurate spatial data bases
available in the United States. Currently, most sections of the 1990 census of population and housing
are available in digital format from either the Census Bureau or private vendors.
Satellite imagery of the United States and the world is available from a number of governmental
and private sources. The U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Interior Earth Information
Center are large vendors of satellite data, as well as digital elevation model (DEM) data. All of these
data are available on tape from the U.S. Geological Survey and some are available on CD-ROM. Other
government departments and agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Space Agency, the Soil Conservation Service,
the U.S. Forest Service, and me U.S. Department of Transportation, have various satellite (vector- and
raster-based) data bases available. Private vendors, including SPOT and EOSAT, also have many satellite
image products available.
1.4 COMPARISON OF MAPPING TECHNIQUES
Any type of mapping system, from basic mapping (e.g., hand-drawn maps and map overlays) to
sophisticated GIS has pros and cons that must be considered when making a decision regarding which
approach to take. Exhibit 1-1 provides a summary of these pros and cons.
When attempting to decide which method of geographical analysis the Regional Action Team
should use, several questions must be considered, including:
• Is a geographical analysis necessary to develop the Regional Action Plan?
If the Regional Action Team has a clear understanding of the contaminants causing problems
within the Region of Concern and has a clear understanding of the link between the
contaminants and their sources, further mapping analysis may not provide much new
information. However, if the Regional Action Team is unclear on either of these issues, the
geographic analysis should help to explain and clarify what is happening within the Region
of Concern.
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Geographic Tools
Exhibit 1-1. Pros and Cons of Different Mapping Systems
Method
Pros
Cons
Basic Mapping Techniques
Can be easily and quickly
produced.
Can convert a large amount of
information to an audience.
May lack precision and contain
inaccuracies.
Is not easily modified, updated,
or reproduced.
May not provide as detailed an
analysis as that desired or needed
Provides a static presentation;
cannot be queried for varying
requests.
GIS
Provides higher level of accuracy.
System can be queried:
What is at...?
Where is ...?
What has changed since ...?
What spatial patterns exist?
What is ...?
Can accept electronic data from
other sources.
Produces electronic output that
can be easily changed or
transferred to other systems.
Can perform analyses quickly,
once system has been set up.
Can require significant dedication
of hardware, software, training,
and time.
May provide excessive
information for the problem at
hand.
• Why do we need a geographical analysis?
It is important that the Regional Action Team have a clear understanding of what questions
they expect to have answered by the geographic analysis, as well as the level of detail that
they expect to receive. This is important in determining what form of analysis they will
perform. If a one tune representation of the pollutant sources and a pollutant mapping of a
small number of pollutants is all that is desired, it may be most efficient to chose to create
mylar overlays, whereas if a detailed analysis of many pollutant sources and loads and how
these sources and loads have changed historically is required, a GIS system may be the best
choice.
• What resources are the Regional Action Team prepared to commit to this effort?
If the budget and work force for the Regional Action Team are strained and will be unable
to devote the resources necessary for building a GIS system, it would be more realistic to use
basic mapping techniques to complete the analysis.
1-7
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
• What procedure will the Regional Action Team use to perform the analysis?
Which technique—basic mapping or building a GIS system—is the most effective and efficient
means of performing the analysis?
• What tools will be necessary to perform the geographical analysis?
If basis mapping procedures are chosen as the type of analysis to be performed, what base
maps are most appropriate and which personnel will be assigned the mapping tasks?
If a GIS system is chosen, is a vector- or raster-based system more appropriate tool for the
analysis? What hardware and software packages will be used? Which personnel will be
assigned the mapping tasks?
• Are the tools and data necessary for performing the analysis already in existence and are
they available for use by the Regional Action Team?
Significant amounts of time and resources could be saved by adapting existing tools and data
to suit the needs of the Regional Action Team, without having to start from the beginning.
Each of the preceding questions must be carefully considered before the Regional Action Team
begins detailed geographic analyses. It is important to carefully plan any geographic analyses, upfront,
so that resources will be used efficiently and effectively. Additional sources of information that may help
the decision-making process and assist in planning, and designing a geographic analysis include some of
the following:
• Aronoff, S. 1991. Geographic Information Systems: A Management Perspective. WDL
Publishers.
• Foody, G. and P. Curran, Eds. 1994. Environmental Remote Sensing from Regional to
Global Scales. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
• Korte, G. 1993. The GIS Book, Third Edition. Bel Air, MD: One World Press.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Regional Forum on Water Information
Handbook. Assessment and Watershed Protection Divisions Office of Water, Washington,
D.C.
• United States Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center (1-800-USA-MAPS).
These references are a minute sampling of the vast array of information sources that exist for
mapping and GIS. A catalogue of additional publications may be obtained from the GIS World Bookshelf
located at 155 E. Boardwalk Drive, Suite 250, Fort Collins, CO 80525.
1-8
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Geographic Tools
This appendix reviews some financing techniques, both traditional and innovative, that
stakeholders in the regional action planning process could consider in funding control and remediation
efforts. The techniques include bonds, state-revolving loan funds, permit fees, public-private
partnerships, utilities, and deposit-refund systems.
Financing techniques are used to generate:
Capital Investments—Funding of environmental infrastructure, such as wastewater treatment
plants and sewage lines
Operation and Maintenance—Funding of day-to-day operations for environmental programs
or capital investments
Behavior Changes—Shifting funding from the individuals who reap disproportionate benefits,
or impose disproportionate costs on society at large, toward the community at large.
Exhibit H-l identifies various financial techniques and their primary uses. Different approaches
have been tried for a variety of environmental programs in a wide range of local environments. The
current trend in environmental finance is toward user-based financing, which involves shifting the
financial burden from the taxpayer toward the individuals and firms who use the service. It would be
inappropriate, however, to omit traditional funding sources from a Regional Action Plan because large
Exhibit H-l. Financing Techniques and Common Uses of Funds
Fhtanclns Approaches
General Tax Revenues
Long- and Short-Term Bonds
State Revolving Loan Funds
Public-Private Partnerships
Credit Enhancements
Impact Fees (Development Fees)
Dedicated Tax Revenues
Permit Fees
User Fees
Utilities
Deposit Refund Systems
Penalties and Fines
Capital
Investment
/•
/
/
y
/
/
Operation and :
Maintenance ..
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Behavior
, Modification
/
/
S
S
/
1-9
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
capital investments may be required. Traditional sources are one of the most easily accessible sources
for emergency purposes.
The remainder of this appendix introduces various financing techniques and provides a list of
uses, benefits, and problems for each one.
H.1 GENERAL TAX REVENUES
Governments levy taxes to raise capital for capital investments and operation and maintenance
expenses for areas including environmental protection, health and welfare, and interest payments. When
tax revenues from different sources are combined into a general fund or a single bank account, the funds
are then called general revenues. Money in the general fund can be used for any purpose.
There are two methods of taxation: fixed rates and ad valorem rates. Income taxes and sales
taxes are fixed rate taxes expressed as a percentage (e.g., a gasoline tax of 14 cents per gallon sold). Ad
valorem taxes are expressed as a percent of the value of the tax base (e.g., property taxes of $1.20 for
each $100 of assessed property value).
General tax revenues have traditionally been used to fund governmental programs. However, the
number of governmental programs requiring funding has increased, and tax revenues have not kept pace.
The result has been a number of unfunded mandates that require resourceful funding techniques. In
addition, funding from tax revenues is subject to politics during the budget process at all levels of
government.
Uses .•- Benefits Problems
* Capital investments • Large pool of resources * Competing needs
* Operation and ' • Emergency jfirads quickly available • Additional program requirements
maintenance • Collection mechanism already in place • Budgets may be political
and currently used • Taxpayer dissatisfaction
H.2 BONDS
Bonds are typically used to finance capital investments. Two types of bonds are coitimonly used:
general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are backed by the full faith,
credit, and taxing power of the government issuing the bond. Guarantee for repayment of the bonds is
provided by the entire stream of tax revenues paid to the local government. General obligation bonds
are considered to have stronger repayment guarantee than revenue bonds.
1-10
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
Revenue bonds are backed by revenue from a dedicated source as a rate revenue. Because
revenue bonds have far fewer statutory constraints, they have replaced general obligation bonds as the
primary form of municipal financing. In theory, because this form of debt has its own guarantee (the
project revenues, if any), it should not affect a locality's credit rating. In practice, however, revenue debt
represents an indirect obligation of the issuing government. Because the lender has only the project
revenues to depend on for repayment, interest rates are generally higher for revenue bonds than for the
general obligation bonds.
General obligation and revenue bonds are sold as taxable and tax-exempt. The purchaser of
taxable bonds must declare their interest income to the federal government for taxation purposes.
Purchasers of tax-exempt bonds are not required to declare interest income on their income taxes.
Therefore, tax-exempt bonds are more attractive to the individual purchaser. However, the tax-exempt
status must approved by the federal government and clearly identified hi the bond issuance.
Small communities are often precluded from entering the national bond market because of poor
credit ratings, little financial expertise, and relatively small capital needs. When access to the national
bond market is available, small communities customarily pay very high interest rates. Some states have
created bond banks that enable small communities to pool their resources and issue bonds through the
bank. This gives small communities access to the municipal bond market at lower interest rates and with
lower issuance costs. In addition, state governments sometimes back small communities to receive low
interest loans. The state government guarantees the loan, not the small community. If the small
community cannot repay the loan, therefore, the state government is responsible for repayment. A report
entitled Financing Alternatives for Maryland's Tributary Strategies provides several examples of the use
of bonds to fund environmental improvements (Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel 1995).
Benefits Problems
Capital Investments • Can be tax-exempt to purchasers * Deceit-financing requiring secured
,,, * Fittaacaally-badfeeid'by jate revenue or revenue sowrces
;;,/:;, ^ general revenues - - • Difficult for small entities to issue
^ 1-', , - ' ' ' , boads , s" _/ ' - ,v -
,,-'," - , " * Ht^iiatetesttates
1-11
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
H.3 REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS
Revolving loan programs, which are common in the United States, are intended to create a
perpetual source of low cost financing. Initially, a large influx of money is needed to capitalize a
program, The funds are typically invested by the state government in the stock and bond market (i.e.,
capitalization of the fund). A revolving loan program assists all communities hi meeting their capital
needs by providing one-time loans. Below market interest rates are the single most important advantage
of revolving loan programs. This reduced capital cost reduces the amount required to repay the project
debt. The State Revolving Fund (SRF) is a typical U.S. revolving loan program that helps finance the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Recipients of SRF assistance are required to provide a
dedicated source of revenue, such as user fees, to cover loan payments.
Every state has revolving loan funds. Each state has the authority to decide how the existing
funds will be used. Historically, state environmental officials and legislators have allocated SRF money
to municipal wastewater treatment plants. They do have the authority, however, to use the funds for
nonpoint source pollution and estuarine programs. Four states—Washington, Montana, California, and
Wyoming—have used SRF loans to fund a variety of nonpoint source projects. Three
states—Washington, Delaware, and South Dakota—have extended SRF assistance to the private sector.
For additional information see State and Sub-State Revolving Funds in State and Local Funding of
Nonpoint Source Control Programs (EPA 1992) and Financing Alternatives for Maryland's Tributary
Strategies (Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel 1995).
Benefits Problems
Capital investments * Market tate or below market rate » Matty state funds not fully capitalized
Operation and * Ability for small governments to * limited availability, not available for all
maintenance access funds environmental programs
« Longer payback periods than with » Many small communities default
commercial loan? , • Increased administrative costs
*' Less npfroat capital than mtk * Generally not available to private sector
commercial loans
H.4 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Local government partnerships with private firms is not new in United States. Public-private
partnerships have financed solid waste disposal and mass transit for numerous years. Private participants
have recently helped finance wastewater treatment facilities, road construction, jails, and public schools.
Private operation of public facilities is growing for three reasons. First, some private operators can
deliver quality service at less cost than their public counterparts. Second, private operators can often
1-12
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
supply well-trained personnel, who would otherwise be unaffordable for small, local governments. Third,
private operators contribute capital and shift the burden away from rne users already in the system. As
a result, private operators are frequently hired to solve persistent problems, such as poor water quality.
In such an arrangement, the public partner finances and builds the wastewater treatment facility, and the
private partner operates and maintains the facility for a fee. Additional examples of public/private
partnerships are describe in Financing Alternatives for Maryland's Tributary Strategies (Governor's Blue
Ribbon Panel 1995).
Uses Benefits Problems
investment -« Local government receives * limited partidpaiion % public officials
additional financial resources • Local government still «s>nteibwtes capital
\ {^maintenance from private investors funds
, „ H* Private investors administer » All or aj^rfio
--- * public project to private investors
H.5 IMPACT FEES (DEVELOPMENT FEES)
Impact fees may be generally defined as money, land, or construction services and materials
provided to a public jurisdiction by a developer. A developer may offer these contributions voluntarily
to expedite project approval or completion. They may be required by the local jurisdiction as a
prerequisite for building, however. In this case, the charges can be negotiated individually or assessed
on a systematic basis according to an established formula legislated by state or local authorities. In the
latter case, developers are-required to pay impact fees to compensate the local community for the
provision of offsite services and infrastructure in addition to any onsite infrastructure required by local
building codes.
Traditional impact fees include land dedications for such purposes as right of ways and parks,
as well as cash payments hi lieu of land. The definition of impact fees has been broadened in recent
years to include donations of specified facilities; the construction of offsite infrastructure, such as the
expansion of wastewater treatment facilities, as well as sewer and water line expansions; unproved
intersections and roads; and the addition of low- or moderate-income housing units to the development
project.
Developer financing through zoning requirements or impact fees is. intended to recover the cost
of services from, individuals or groups responsible for generating the costs. Typically, impact fees
transfer the cost of infrastructure services required by private development directly to developers who,
in turn, redistribute some of these costs through home sales or commercial leases. Impact fees are
_--_
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
typically collected in one lump sum at the beginning of the project. These fees are attractive to local
governments because they relieve up-front financing pressures on local budgets.
Uses Benefits Problems
*
Capital investments
Operation and
maintenance
Capital investments paid by developer • Outcome is uncertain
May expedite prpjeel development * Not all Impact fees are
Developer passes costs to consumers standardized
Does not require prior approval of landowners
Shifts financial burden to those creating the
bottleneck
Administrative easa
H.6 UTILITIES
Utilities are a type of independent, special assessment district created to oversee all aspects of a
public works system, including financing, construction, operation and maintenance, administration, and
personnel. These decisions are not delegated to another governmental department. Utilities are
autonomous public corporations answerable to local governments.
Utilities are not created for a limited duration but are assigned perpetual responsibility to operate
and maintain the particular public works facility. In addition, utilities are not established for selected
neighborhood components of a public works system but are created to manage and operate tie entire
system.
Most public utilities charge one-time connection fees for capital costs, plus regular monthly or
annual fees for operations and maintenance. Some utilities also assess periodic capital fees along with
user fees. The base unit used to calculate each fee depends primarily on the particular public works
involved. For example, stormwater utilities have been created by local governments to manage and
finance solutions to water quality problems caused by stormwater runoff. Commonly used methods to
calculate rates include a fee based on impervious land areas, or a flat rate. There are currently more than
100 stormwater utilities hi the country, and the number is growing. They serve communities ranging in
size from 4,300 to 840,000 people and are usually managed by local public works departments. Monthly
charges per household are generally quite moderate (less than $4.00), but they result in a stable and
reliable revenue stream without requiring state or federal subsidies.
The process for starting and operating a stormwater utility requires an understanding of technical
issues (e.g., legal authorities, financial matters, including how to establish the rate structure, and
1-14
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
institutional arrangements, such as an administrative structure for the utility). For jurisdictions
considering the development of a stormwater utility, it may be helpful to consult other local governments
that have already solved these problems. For additional information, see the section on Stormwater and
On-Site Utilities in State and Local Funding ofNonpoint Source Control Programs (EPA 1992).
Uses , Benefits Problems
•*<• Capital investment'
5 Operation and
maintenance
Functions in. both high- and low-growth areas * Fee structure may not be
Costs allocated on the basis; <*f use SttfgqienJ: for (Japital
Not dependent on tax revenues .. investments
Insulated ftojn local pofilfcs ^ * Fees aad rates not market-
May modify behavior '" ->",.> - based
H.7 DEDICATED REVENUES
Dedicated revenues are differentiated from general revenues because the funds collected are kept
in a separate account, or trust fund separate from the general fund, and can only be used for a single or
dedicated purpose. For instance, funds collected from the federal gasoline tax can only be used for
building and maintaining federal highways. Typically, dedicated revenue sources have a specific purpose
designated before the tax is instituted. The methods used to obtain dedicated revenues comprise fixed
taxes or ad valorem taxes and are left to the discretion of the government. Taxes frequently used as
dedicated revenue sources include hotel occupancy taxes, foodfish and shellfish taxes, marine fuels taxes,
toilet paper taxes, pesticide and fertilizer taxes, and plumbing fixture taxes. Another example of
dedicated revenues is the specialized automobile license plates, such as those used in Maryland and
Virginia, which acknowledge a particular natural resource.
; ' Ifees
• Capital investment
^Operation and
.< maintenance
Benefits
* Dedicated and known resource
base .,
.» User-based taxation
Problems
* Single-purpose fimding
* .Revenues susceptible to market downturns
• Supplemental funds from general fund '
needed periodically
H.8 PERMIT FEES
Permit fees for public services are intended to establish direct links between the demand for
services and the cost to provide them. Permit fees are also used to help finance pollution control
activities by charging polluters the cost then- activities impose upon society. Well-structured fees are the
most equitable means of (1) matching program costs and program beneficiaries and/or (2) assessing the
permit fees based on the volume and toxicity of the flow. When properly calculated and assessed, fees
1-15
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
encourage efficient public investment decisions by identifying the local share of project costs to
beneficiaries before they decide to invest. Faced with the prospect of fees, users (or beneficiaries) will
demand only those projects they judge to be worth the investment. Commonly used fees include NPDES
permit fees, POTW user fees, and boat pump-out fees.
Benefits Problems
• Matches program costs to program • Increased administrative costs
Capital investment * Assesses cleanup costs to responsible releases
parties
« May' modify behavior if fee structare
linked to volume
H.9 DEPOSIT-REFUND SYSTEMS
Deposit-refund systems differ from pollution fees because part or all of the fee is refunded if the
person paying the fee takes certain actions, such as returning a product for recycling. Deposit systems
are mandatory hi 10 states for soft drink and beer containers and lead batteries. In addition, some states
are beginning to institute deposit systems on pesticide containers. To be most effective, the funds not
reimbursed should be forwarded to the government and used for environmental programs.
Use Benefits - - Problems
* Operation and " • Modifies behavior * Non-reimbursed deposits aot
maintenance * Reduces waste generation and increases always forwarded to government
* Capital investment recycling or proper disposal * Not a dependable revenue source
• Increased handling costs for retailer
* Increased administration
H.10 PENALTIES AND FINES
Penalties and fines are an important part of effective enforcement programs. These revenue
sources are better suited to modify behavior than to raise revenue. As enforcement improves and the
number of violations decreases, revenue from fines and penalties will decline. This scenario is a
reflection of an effective program. In some cases, especially hi the early years of a program, the revenue
from fines and penalties is sizable and may help finance enforcement and related efforts.
Benefits Problems
Operation and maintenance -» Modifies behavior * Revenaes decrease as violations
Capital fflvesfeKsit » Effective enforeemeat tool decrease
1-16
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance
Geographic Tools
H.11 TRADEABLE PERMITS
The trading of pollutants is one of several market-based approaches to environmental protection
long advocated by economists, who argue that this approach will decrease the costs of pollution abatement
compared to traditional command-and-control regulatory strategies. Advocates believe that trading will
facilitate more rapid improvement of environmental quality because it provides financial incentives for
achieving related goals. It both reduces the cost of compliance for the regulated community and provides
monetary compensation for those who act to further reduce pollutant loadings.
Under trading, a market is established for buying and selling allowances to discharge pollutants,
and the economic incentives provided by the market presumably allocate the greatest control requirements
to the dischargers with the lowest control costs. The total amount of discharge allowances and the rules
for trading can be established to ensure that the outcomes of the trades meet prescribed environmental
goals (e.g., that the total quantities of pollutants discharged are no greater, or even less, than the
quantities allowed under other regulatory approaches).
Three studies assessing the applicability and practicability of a market-based trading system have
been completed for reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. The Benefits and Feasibility of Effluent
Trading Between Point Sources: An Analysis in Support of the dean Water Act Reauthorization (EPA
1992) explores trading between point sources. Incentive Analysis far Clean Water Reauthorization: Point
Source/Nonpoint Source Trading for Nutrient Discharge Reductions (EPA 1992) examines trading between
point and nonpoint sources. Use of Market-Based Allocations To Meet Local Limits for Pretreatment:
An Analysis in Support of Clean Water Act Reauthorization (EPA 1994) focuses on the use of market-
based allocations by publicly owned treatment works to establish local limits for indirect industrial
dischargers. Each study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and reviews the
potential benefits of the systems analyzed and includes case studies of successful trading programs.
Use ,
Operation and
maintenance
Capital investment
Benefits
* Modifies behavior
« Reduces pollutant releases
• Works to achieve desired goals
Problems
. administrative costs
* Meed, to Bstablisfa baseline conditions and
- niies before beginning trades
to be effective
1-17
-------
Regional Action Plan Guidance Geographic Tools
REFERENCES
Report from the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel. 1995. Financing Alternatives for Maryland's Tributary
Strategies: Innovative Financing Ideas for Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. State and Local Funding ofNonpoint Source Control
Programs. EPA 841-R-92-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. 1994. Use of
Market-Based Allocations To Meet Local Limits for Pretreatment: An Analysis in Support of
Clean Water Act Reauthorization. Draft Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. 1992. Incentive
Analysis for Clean Water Reauthorization: Point Source/Nonpoint Source Trading for Nutrient
Discharge Reductions. Draft Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
1992. The Benefits and Feasibility of Effluent Trading Between Point Sources: An Analysis in
Support of the Clean Water Act Reauthorization. Draft Report.
1-18
------- |