TARGETING REGIONAL PRIORITY PLACES
ECOSYSTEM TARGETING:
CRITERIA, METHODS, AND DATA SOURCES
Prepared for the
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
December 1998
Prepared by
ICF Incorporated
Fairfax, VA 22031
-------
This draft report was prepared under U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0012
by ICF Incorporated for Laura Gabanski of the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems
and Communities.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Approach .' 2
1.3 Organization of This Report 2
1.4 Reference 3
2.0 BACKGROUND 5
2.1 Overview of Ecosystem Targeting 5
2.2 Relationship to CBEP 6
2.3 References 7
3.0 EPA REGIONAL APPROACHES TO ECOSYSTEM TARGETING .... 9
3.1 Region 1 9
3.2 Region 2 15
3.3 Region 3 • 16
3.4 Region 4 23
3.5 Region 5 29
3.6 Region 6 34
3.7 Region 7 39
3.8 Region 8 44
3.9 Region 9 47
3.10 Region 10 V 50
4.0 SUMMARY OF APPROACHES TO ECOSYSTEM
TARGETING 55
4.1 Goals 56
4.2 Participants 56
4.3 Criteria for Identifying High-Priority Ecosystems 59
4.4 Data for EcosystemTargeting 61
4.5 Methods for Ecosystem Targeting 61
4.6 Conclusions 70
4.7 Reference 71
-------
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
E-1
E-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
ACRONYMS
LIST OF CONTACTS
MATERIALS SUPPLIED BY THE REGIONS
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
DATA SOURCES FOR GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
INDICATORS OF TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
Data Sources
Contacts
APPENDIX F
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4-1. Highlights of Regional Initiatives Related to
Ecosystem Targeting 57
TABLE 4-2. Examples of Criteria for Ecosystem-targeting
from the EPA Regions 60
V
TABLE 4-3. Examples of Data Types and Sources Related
to Valued Ecosystem Entities 62
TABLE 4-4. Examples of Data Types and Sources Related
to Potential Ecosystem Stressors : 63
TABLE 4-5. Examples of Data Types and Sources Related
to Ecosystem Condition 64
in
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Since EPA's inception in 1970, the media-by-media programmatic
approach taken in response to U.S. environmental legislation has achieved
significant results. However, there remain environmental problems that cannot
be effectively solved only through traditional, compartmentalized, command-and-
control approaches, for example, non-point source pollution, decline of
biodiversity, and urban sprawl. Recognizing the need for more holistic and
integrated approaches to improving environmental quality, in the 1990s EPA
instituted a more place-based approach to environmental protection. These
methods encourage geographic targeting of locations in need of protection or
environmental improvements to reduce human health risks in an equitable way
(environmental justice) and to protect and improve ecosystems and the services
they provide. This report focuses on one component of EPA's geographic
targeting for strategic planning, that is Regional "ecosystem targeting."
1,1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of existing and
developing approaches to identifying terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (on a
Regional scale) that have high-priority for protection and restoration. This report
focuses on approaches in use or under development in the ten EPA Regions.
including State-level approaches developed in partnership with EPA. It also
identifies a few selected approaches under development by other entities.
The Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities (OSEC)
sponsored development of this report to assist the EPA Regions in sharing
information on methods and data sources that can be used now or are being
developed for future use in ecosystem targeting. OSEC hopes that these
methods and data sources can be used to help target areas for potential
Community-based Environmental Protection (CBEP) projects (as described in
Section 2.2) as well as to assist targeting areas for other purposes (e.g., for
assessing cumulative impacts, making permit decisions, etc.). This goal is
reflected in EPA's Strategic Plan, which calls for EPA to make better use of
scientific information related to human health and environmental risks in setting
Agency priorities and allocating resources (U.S. EPA 1997). OSEC hopes that
the EPA Regions will find this report helpful as a starting point for a dialogue
among the Regions, EPA Headquarters (HQ), States, and other entities on the
potential utility of different approaches to ecosystem targeting. This paper also
served as background information for the EPA Ecosystem Targeting Workshop
sponsored by OSEC to be held on July 28-30,1998, at the National Exposure
Research Laboratory in Las Vegas (NERL-LV) (U.S. EPA 1998).
-------
1.2 APPROACH
This report represents an update to the efforts of OSEC in 1997 to
characterize the practices in the ten EPA Regions on targeting both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems for protection or restoration work on a Region-wide basis:
This report is based on interviews with EPA staff at Headquarters and in the ten
Regions conducted to identify new developments and to request copies of new
documentation of methods and data sources. This report is an integration of
information obtained through the telephone interviews and the written
information provided by those contacted. See Appendix B for a list of individuals
who provided information for this report.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
The remainder of this report is organized in five sections. Section 2.0
provides a general overview of ecosystem targeting to provide a framework for
the discussions that follow. Section 2.0 also describes the CBEP approach and
the relationship of ecosystem targeting to CBEP. Section 3 briefly characterizes
how each of the ten EPA Regions target ecosystems in their Region in general
and for CBEP in particular. Section 3 is organized by Region to allow easy
identification of ecosystem targeting activities by Region. Section 4 summarizes
the findings of this report according to four issues, comparing and contrasting the
Regional approaches for each issue. Section 4.1 highlights the types of goals
established by the Regions that guided or will guide development of specific
ecosystem targeting efforts. Section 4.2 summarizes nature and extent of
participation of EPA staff and groups outside EPA in different steps of the
ecosystem-targeting process. Criteria used or considered by the Regions for
identifying high-priority ecosystems are discussed in Section 4.3. Section 4.4
highlights several examples of data types and data sources that the Regions
have used or are considering. Section 4.5 provides an overview of the different
methods (some of which might be considered tools) that the examples of
Regional ecosystem targeting in Section 3 illustrated. Section 4 concludes with
a brief summary of the current status of each Region in developing goals,
criteria, methods, and data, and in completing some or all of the steps in the
process of identifying priority ecosystems for EPA involvement.
An acronym list for this entire report and its appendices is included in
Appendix A, and the persons interviewed to develop this report are listed in
Appendix B. Most of the Regions provided written materials that explain key
aspects of their approaches in some detail. Some of these materials are
provided in Appendix C to support the more brief descriptions provided in
Section 3. Appendix D includes a table of data sources for geographic targeting
that EPA's Office of Water compiled in 1993, while Appendix E includes draft
-------
tables compiled by EPA OSEC in February 1998 describing data sources for
potential indicators of terrestrial ecosystem health. Appendix F includes
supplemental information on some national-level initiatives related to ecosystem
targeting that have influenced approaches taken in the Regions.
1.4 REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 1997. EPA Strategic Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Washington, DC. EPA/190/R-97/002.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Ecosystem Targeting Wrokshop, July 29-30, 1998, U.S. EPA
National Research Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, Summary Report. Prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems
and Communities, Washington, DC. Prepared by ICF Incorporated, Fairfax, VA.
December.
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND
Section 2.1 provides an overview of approaches to ecosystem targeting to
establish a framework for describing this type of targeting. Section 2.2 describes
the relationship of ecosystem targeting to CBEP. Section 2.3 lists the sources of
information used in developing Section 2.
2.1 OVERVEW OF ECOSYSTEM TARGETING
Ecosystem targeting generally involves identifying high priority terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems for protection and restoration. While there are a variety
of approaches, including social, political,, economic, and scientific, through which
ecosystem targeting might be accomplished, OSEC is encouraging the Regional
Offices to include scientific and objective methods in their ecosystem-targeting
process. This should assist the Regional Offices in prioritizing those areas
where actions are most needed to protect or restore ecosystems. In that
context, ecosystem targeting can be viewed as a geographically-referenced
ecological risk assessment process. We therefore use EPA's (1998b)
Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment as our way of organizing aspects of
the discussion in this report.
Identifying high-priority (or critical, or significant, etc.) terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems can be made more objective and consistent if criteria by
which to judge what is considered a high-priority ecosystem are identified. The
criteria would refer to attributes of the ecosystem considered most important to
protect. Targeting ecosystems in an objective and consistent way is facilitated
by using geographically-referenced environmental data relevant to those criteria
and methods by which to evaluate those environmental data to set priorities.
When the criteria include the concept of risk to the ecosystems, the relevant
environmental data would include information on attributes of the ecosystems
and the nature of the threats, or potential stressors, for the ecosystems. The
methods used to analyze the data will determine the nature of the risk
characterization that is possible.
Criteria. The criteria for targeting high-priority ecosystems can be
thought of as assessment endpoints (see U.S. EPA, 1998b). These criteria can
depend on attributes of the ecosystem only, or a combination of attributes of the
ecosystem and judgments about, or analyses of, threats to the ecosystem.
Attributes of the ecosystem can be related to ecosystem sustainability at local,
Regional, or larger scales; to ecosystem services; to human valuation of an
ecosystem; to current condition of the ecosystem relative to its potential; and to
other concepts. Judgments about threats or risks to an ecosystem could involve
-------
consideration of ecosystem stressors, the probability of exposure to those
stressors, and the susceptibility of the ecosystem to those stressors. Proximity
of an ecosystem to a stressor is one attribute that influences the probability of
exposure. Many examples of targeting ecosystems described in Section 3 are
based on proximity analyses.
Data. The geographically-referenced data on attributes of the
ecosystems themselves could come from a variety of sources. What types of
data are most appropriate is likely to depend on the criteria discussed above and
on the scale of the targeting exercise. For purposes of this report, we focus on
Regional-scale targeting. The accuracy of the geographic referencing needed
will depend on the ultimate uses of the targeting. Similar considerations apply to
geographically-referenced data on the stressors. Another important
consideration is data availability, as discussed in Section 3.
Methods. The most appropriate methods used to evaluate the data will
depend on the nature of the criteria, the data that can be used, and the ultimate
users of the targeting information.
2.2 RELATIONSHIP TO CBEP
Community-based
Environmental Protection (CBEP)
is an Agency-wide approach '
designed to integrate EPA's
media-specific programs. CBEP is
aimed at protecting ecological
integrity and human health while
promoting economic sustainability.
The CBEP approach assesses
and manages the quality of air,
water, land, and living resources in
a place as a whole. It is designed
to better reflect Regional and local
conditions and to help EPA work
more effectively with its many partners to achieve environmental results (U.S.
EPA 1997). The CBEP approach developed from an Agency-wide plan for
ecosystem protection, called the "Edgewater Consensus", which was developed
in March, 1994 as a vision for a "place-driven" approach to ecosystem protection
(U.S. EPA 1994).
Healthy and well functioning ecosystems
are vital to the protection of our nation's
biodiversity, to the achievement of quality of
life objectives, and to the support of
economies and communities. The
ecosystem approach recognizes the
interrelationship between healthy
ecosystems and sustainable economies. It
is a common sense way for federal
agencies to carry out their mandates with
greater efficiency and effectiveness... -
White House Interagency Ecosystem
Management Task Force, December 1995
6
-------
Part of the CBEP approach
and planning process
necessitates that EPA Regions
develop priorities for (a)
geographic areas in which they
will work, and (b) projects within
those areas. Deputy
Administrator Hansen (November
22,1996 memorandum; U.S.
EPA 1996) and the draft CBEP
Framework (U.S. EPA 1998a) call
for the Regions to develop a
defensible basis for identifying
high priority geographic areas in
which they will work. Hansen
listed five criteria to use in
developing priorities for
geographic areas in which EPA
will work: (1) resources of
national significance (e.g., the
Great Lakes, the Northwest
Forests); (2) areas with
transboundary concerns (e.g., the
Great Lakes); (3) environmental
justice considerations; (4) areas
with exceptional risk to human
health; and (5) important ecosystems at risk of loss or degradation (e.g.,
wetlands in the Great Plains supporting migratory bird populations) (U.S. EPA
1996). The draft Framework for CBEP lists possible criteria for selecting places
for EPA's direct involvement (see box above). Thus, ecosystem targeting, as
defined and described above, should be one of the inputs to identifying
geographic areas in which to consider CBEP projects.
The remainder of this report focuses on ecosystem targeting at an EPA
Regional scale both to assist in identifying areas for CBEP projects and for any
other purpose for wftch an EPA Region might use ecosystem targeting.
2.3 REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 1994. Toward a Place-driven Approach: The Edgewater Consensus
on an EPA Strategy for Ecosystem Protection - March 15,1994, Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ecosystem Protection Workgroup (Office of
Possible Criteria for Selecting Places
for EPA's Direct Involvement
' in CBEP Projects
Assessing the Need for EPA's Role
- Resources of national significance
- Requires multi-media effort
- Transboundary concerns
- Community needs currently unfulfilled
Determining Ecological/Human Health Risk
- Ecosystems a particular risk
or of particular importance
- Exceptional risk to human health
- Disproportional impact on minorities or
low income groups
Judging the Likelihood of Success
- Community capacity and readiness
- Availability of Agency resources
Places must meet at least one criterion from
each category to warrant EPA's direct
involvement.
Source: U.S. EPA1998a
-------
Administration and Resources Management, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Office of Water), Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1996. Memorandum on "Community-Based Environmental
Protection (CBEP): Measuring Progress and Setting Priorities." From Deputy
Administrator Fred Hansen to Assistant Administrators, General Counsel,
Regional Administrators, and Associate Administrators. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. November 22, 1996.
U.S. EPA. 1997. People, Places, and Partnerships: A Progress Report on
Community-Based Environmental Protection. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of The Administrator. EPA/1 OO/R-97/003. July.
U.S. EPA. 1998a. EPA's Framework for Community-Based Environmental
Protection. Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities. Washington, DC. April.
U.S. EPA. 1998b. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment, Final. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
EPA/630/R-95/002F. April.
8
-------
3.0 EPA REGIONAL APPROACHES
TO ECOSYSTEM TARGETING
This section describes the approaches (i.e., participants, criteria, data, and
methods) currently used by the EPA Regions to target high-priority ecosystems. This
section also briefly describes ongoing efforts to improve those approaches or to
develop new approaches. This section is organized by Region. For each Region, we
describe one or more ecosystem targeting approaches depending on the Region. For a
major ecosystem targeting effort, we describe the goals of the effort, criteria for
prioritizing ecosystems (i.e., assessment endpoints), participants in the process, the
types and sources of data used, methods of analysis, results to date, and the strengths
and potential weaknesses of the approach if it has already been used in the Region.
An important consideration when reviewing these brief summaries is that each
Region has different needs, constraints, and history of the development of its programs.
Some were using geographic targeting to help prioritize their activities before EPA
Headquarters formally articulated that approach or initiated specific place-based
initiatives (e.g., the Regional Geographic Initiatives or RGI); others were not. Some
Regions focused on ecosystem targeting as part of their geographic targeting, and
some had long histories of experience with ecosystem-based environmental protection
(e.g., the Chesapeake Bay Program in Region 3). The relationship of the EPA
Regional offices to the states in a Region also has differed historically, as have
traditions of working with local stakeholders and partners. The following subsections
provide information for the ten EPA Regions.
3.1 REGION 1
Region 1's ecosystem targeting on a regional scale consists of its Resource
Protection Project (RPP), the purpose of which is to identify and protect New England's
most important natural resources. The project recognizes the critical relationship
between ecosystem and human health, and focuses on protecting healthy resources
rather than restoring impaired ones.
Region 1 works on a state-by-state basis, with the states taking the lead in the
process. Many stakeholders and the public participate, as described in the subsections
below. The process involves an intensive process of mapping resources using
Geographic Information Systems (GIS), prioritizing areas using risk information, and
implementing protection efforts. From 1993 to 1996, the RPPs were funded with Clean
Water Act (CWA) 104(b) dollars. In 1996, the project received funding from EPA
Headquarters Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI).
9
-------
In New Hampshire (NH), Rhode Island (Rl), and Connecticut (CN), the process
has been completed and priority areas identified with the overall process evolving from
state to state. Each of those states has published a report describing their process and
results. Projects are underway in Vermont (VT), Maine (ME), and Massachusetts (MA).
The following pages describe the approaches taken in the three states that have
completed their projects to date. See also Appendix C-1 for additional information on
these three projects.
3.1.1 New Hampshire
Participants in the New Hampshire (NH) process included 25 individuals from a
variety of organizations, including EPA Region 1, New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC), and a NH workgroup comprised of
representatives from a wide variety of statewide resource agencies, organizations, and
groups (e.g., Audubon; NH Departments of Agriculture, Fish and Game, and
Transportation; University of NH; US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); US Forest
Service (USFS).
Criteria for selecting high-priority natural resource areas were arranged as
primary and secondary criteria:
Primary criteria:
• Co-occurring Resources - An area has a variety of high-value natural resources.
• Scarcity of Resources - An area contains a resource that is very rare in the state.
• Resource of State Significance - An area has the best example of a particular
resource in the state.
Secondary criteria:
• Probability of Success - Protection and management measures are easily
attainable in the area.
Proximity of Resources to Threats - (a) An area's natural resources are not in
imminent danger and therefore only need protection, not restoration, (b) An
area's natural resources are threatened, and there is a need for immediate
protective measures to minimize those risks.
The report revealed that additional considerations actually were applied. The
workgroup considered the wildlife habitat and water supply maps (see Data below) to
be the most important because those two maps depict features considered critical to
both ecological and human health concerns. Large areas with multiple resources
dominated in the results.
Data on valued resources and stressors were summarized in six statewide maps
to assist in the targeting decisions. The maps are described below in a way that
10
-------
separates receptors from stressors and ecosystem concerns from human health and
welfare concerns:
Ecological resources of high habitat value (one map):
• Natural Heritage Inventory priority sites;
• peregrine falcon and osprey-nesting sites;
• bald eagle wintering areas;
• most productive heron nesting sites;
• old growth forest;
unfragmented natural lands;
• national natural landmarks;
• "high value" freshwater wetlands; value dependent on size, surface water
connection, surrounding habitat type, and proximity to protected
land as determined by LANDSAT imagery;
• trout spawning reefs;
• salt marshes, soft-shelled clam beds, oyster beds, eelgrass beds;
• undeveloped lakes, undeveloped river banks;
• major lakes;
• areas of concentrated habitat resources.
Human welfare resources:
• drinking water supplies (one map);
• forestry (one map) (some information would be relevant to wildlife habitat);
• agriculture (one map);
• recreation (one map).
Stressors (both on one map):
• pollution threats (e.g., RCRA, Superfund, NPDES, and landfill sites);
• population density.
These data were obtained from a variety of sources, including the Complex
Systems Research Center at the University of NH, LANDSAT Thematic Mapper data,
census data, unpublished documentation from the Audubon Society of NH, and
personal communication with experts from various state agencies and the University of
NH. A summary of the data sources is provided in the project report (see Section
3.1.4).
Methods. The approach consisted of several steps, the first of which was
developing a workgroup comprised of interested parties (see Participants above). The
second step was developing the GIS data layers for the data sets described above.
GIS was used to portray all of the maps, specifically showing the spatial relationship
between natural resources and threats to those resources and other currently protected
areas.
11
-------
Results. Using this approach, the state identified 6 high-priority areas: (1) the
seacoast; (2) Great Bay; (3) the mid-Connecticut River Valley; (4) Ossippee Lake; (5)
Lake Umbagog; and (6) Connecticut Lakes Region.
Strengths. The highly participatory process, with stakeholders and experts from
many state and federal agencies and non-profit organizations, was the greatest
strength of the approach. That approach helped to foster a feeling of ownership and
involvement by all of the entities represented and formed a basis for strengthening
partnerships among those groups.
Limitations. Completion of the project in a reasonable amount of time and
money (1.5 years for about $100,000) required that the Workgroup rely only on
available information. There were too few data for some parts of the state or for several
characteristics of the resources or stresses that the Workgroup thought should be
considered, and those data needs were not fulfilled. Another possible disadvantage is
that the second phase of this process, implementing protection efforts in the high-
priority areas, is up to the good will of the participants.
3.1.2 Rhode Island
Rhode Island followed a similar process, with approximately 40 different
participants, including many offices of the Rl Department of Environmental
Management (DEM), several other state agencies, the University of Rl, EPA Region 1,
USFWS, National Park Service (NPS), and local/non-profit/private agencies.
There were four criteria used to identify Resource Protection Areas (RPAs): (1)
resources that co-occur; (2) scarcity of resource; (3) resources of state significance;
and (4) proximity of resource to threats.
Data on valued resources and stressors were summarized in seven statewide
maps, and were similar to the types developed in NH. Thorough documentation of the
data sources included in each map is provided in the oversized, full color The Rhode
Island Resource Protection Project Report, July 1997. (The first page of that document
is provided in Appendix C-1.) A world-wide web site (http://www.edc.uri.edu/ripp),
maintained by the University of Rl, provides computer access to the project's maps,
data, results, and workgroup members.- Rl ranked wetlands, as did NH, but based on
data from aerial photography.
GIS analysis was the method used to portray and analyze the maps. Algorithms
were added to the GIS system to identify unfragmented natural lands; large and
complex freshwater wetlands; and undeveloped riverbanks, lake shorelines, and
12
-------
coastlines. GIS was used to identify areas with co-occurring resources using four
square kilometer boxes (pixels).
The result of this effort was the identification of nine Rhode Island RPAs: (1)
Block Island; (2) Eastern Blackstone; (3) Eastern Sakonnet; (4) Hunt/Potowomut; (5)
Moosup River/Western Blackstone; (6) Narragansett Bay; (7) South Coastal Ponds; (8)
Western Pawtuxet; and (9) Wood/Pawcatuck.
Given the similarity of the approach to the NH approach, the same strengths
and limitations would apply. With more participants, the Rl analysis required two
years; however, the cost was approximately the same.
3.1.3 Connecticut
Connecticut (CN) modified the participatory process somewhat. The 75
participants from 20 federal, state, municipal, and private organizations, were
organized into six resource-specific workgroups: (1) habitat resources; (2) public water
supply resources; (3) agricultural resources; (4) forestry resources; (5) recreational
resources; and (6) threats to resources.
There were five criteria used to identify RPAs: (1) resources that co-occur; (2)
scarcity of resource; (3) resources of state significance; (4) proximity of resource to
threats; and (5) probability of successfully protecting resource.
Data on valued resources and stressors were summarized in six statewide
maps and were similar to the types produced in NH and Rl. Each map was
independently developed by the workgroup dedicated to that resource. Thorough
documentation of the data sources included in each map is provided in the project
report published .by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Natural
Resources Center (CDEP NRC) in 1997: The Connecticut Resource Protection Project
Phase 1 Report, October 1995 - January 1997. This data source information is
included in Appendix C-1 of this report.
Development of the habitat resources map started with data existing in the
CDEP NRC GIS, and the workgroup added additional data layers. Detailed
documentation for all data are presented in Appendix B of the CDEP NRC report
identified above. Wetlands were not ranked as for NH and Rl, but only wetlands that
were 50 or more contiguous acres (as derived from digital soils data) were mapped. To
define "unfragmented natural lands," 1:24,000 scale U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS)
digital road data (with power lines) was used to define contiguous parcels of land
containing more than 50 acres. The final "Habitat Focus Areas" included three types of
resources:
13
-------
• trap rock ridges;
• coastal areas of Long Island Sound with high concentrations of breeding birds,
rare plant species, tidal wetlands, and marine fisheries resources; and
• watersheds with high percentages of endangered species, significant natural
communities, wildlife areas, and unfragmented natural lands.
The GIS-system was the method used to portray and analyze the set of six
maps together. A special Focus Area Workgroup, consisting of a member from each of
the resource-specific workgroups, and including managers, planners, and scientists
with statewide resource knowledge, was assembled to evaluate the GIS analysis.
Information from the GIS on where the different focus areas co-occurred was almost
sufficient for the Focus Area Workgroup to select focus areas. However, keeping in
mind the other four selection criteria, the Focus Area Workgroup added a few more
areas and removed one urban area from the final list of focus areas. The boundaries of
the focus areas are not explicit, with the intent that they can be modified to conform to
different resource protection applications, for example, using watershed, municipal, or
special interest boundaries.
The results were used to identify nine RPAs for the state: (1) Northwest Corner;
(2) Connecticut River Valley; (3) Farmington River Area; (4) Fishers Island Sound (in
Long Island Sound); (5) West Rock Ridge Area; (6) Saugatuck River Area (7)
Pauchaug River Area; (8) Eastern and Western Long Island Sound; and (9) the
Natchuag River Area.
Given the similarity of the approach to the NH and Rl approaches, the same
strengths and .weaknesses would apply. However, dividing the 75 participants into 6
focus area workgroups helped make the project easier to manage, and the maps were
developed more quickly for each resource area than for NH and Rl.
3.1.4 Sources
Contacts
Rosemary Monahan, EPA-New England, U.S. EPA Region 1
Deb Harstedt, EPA-New England, U.S. EPA Region 1
References
CT DEP Natural Resources Center. 1997. The Connecticut Resource
Protection Project: Phase 1 Report, October 1995 - January 1997. The
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Natural Resources Center
(Richard Hyde - Director, CT DEP Natural Resources Center; Jonathan Scull -
Manager, CT DEP Geographic Information System). Prepared by Laurie
Giannotti.
14
-------
U.S. EPA Region 1, NEIWPCC, and Rhode Island DEM. 1997. The Rhode
Island Resource Protection Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, Boston, MA (R. Monahan, J. Sulak, T. Garrigan); New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, Wilmington, MA (J. Zimmerman);
and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. April 199.7.
U.S. EPA Region 1, NEIWPCC, and ROW Sciences Inc. 1995. The New
Hampshire Resource Protection Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, Boston, MA (Rosemary Monahan); New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission, Wilmington, MA (Joel Zimmerman, Katherine
Metzger Ueland); ROW Sciences, Inc. (Ailing Hsu).
3.2 REGION 2
Region 2 has not yet developed an ecosystem targeting process or approach at
the Regional level. It is at the stage of gathering information on how ecosystems and
CBEP projects are targeted in other Regions and determining what other approaches
and types of information might be useful in such efforts. For CBEP, however, once a
project is proposed, the Region's Multimedia Workgroup uses several considerations in
recommending how EPA should participate in the project and which EPA staff should
be involved (see companion EPA OSEC 1998 report on Targeting Regional Priority
Places).
New York State (NY), however, is conducting one of the few aquatic GAP
analyses in the United States, which might serve as a model for other states in the
Region to follow. This analysis could provide valuable information for aquatic
ecosystem targeting in the Region. The NY aquatic GAP analysis effort started in mid
1995 with a pilot study in the Allegheny River basin.
3.2.1 New York State GAP Analysis
The purpose of the NY State GAP analysis is to predict species biodiversity in
the streams of NY on the basis of stream characteristics, and then to see which areas
with potentially high biodiversity currently are unprotected.
Participants in the NY aquatic gap analysis include the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, the US Geological Survey, and
Cornell University.
The method uses a standardized stream-reach accounting framework, with the
physicochemical attributes of a stream being used to classify it into one of 18 habitat
types to predict fish species assemblages and one of 8 habitat types to predict
invertebrate species assemblages. Additional tasks underway are linking land
15
-------
processes to aquatic habitats, and enhancing the basic system with GIS layers on lentic
habitats and management status.
The data used to predict biodiversity are physicochemical attributes of the
streams: stream size, physical process integrity, water quality, gradient, and riparian
forest cover. Other data used in the analysis are the relationship of stream
physicochemical attributes to fish and invertebrate species assemblages based on data
from those streams on which biological surveys have been conducted. Extensive
biological survey data have been incorporated into the GIS analysis to conduct an
independent test of the species and assemblage predictions.
3.2.2 Sources
Contact
Rabi Kieber, CBEP Coordinator, EPA Region 2
References
U.S. Geological Survey, New York Department of Environmental Conservation,
and Cornell University. 1998. Aquatic GAP in New York State.
http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/hydro2/aquagap.htm.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Targeting Regional Priority Places: Community-Based
Environmental Protection - Identifying and Selecting Priority Places and
Projects. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, Washington, DC. Prepared by ICF
Incorporated, Fairfax, VA. December.
3.3 REGION 3
The Region 3 Strategic Plan contains criteria to select places for direct EPA
involvement. There are two tiers of criteria. Tier 1 is an initial screening at the
ecosystem level, and looks for areas with unique or high-value natural resources as
well as the other Hansen criteria (see Section 2.2). Tier 2 incorporates information from
the environmental indicators and other inputs.
As part of the environmental indicators effort two or three years ago, Region 3
conducted Region-wide assessments of terrestrial and aquatic natural resources.
Several GIS layers were developed. Data have been collected on streams impacted
from acid mine drainage. A benthic index for priority streams is being developed and
high priority wetlands are being identified. Also, data are being collected from the
Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) Regional Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (R-EMAP) and from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics
(MRLC) consortium, which started in Region 3.
16
-------
Region 3's most significant effort related to ecosystem targeting is its Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MAIA), which should be completed by the year 2001. This
project began in 1993, when the Office of Ecological Assessment and Management
presented to the Region's Senior Staff descriptions of the state of the environment in
the Region using indicators of ecosystem condition. Since then, the annual briefings on
the state of the environment have been used in strategic planning for the Region.
MAIA is being developed in a series of assessments targeting terrestrial,
estuarine, fresh water, and forested ecosystems. The first of those assessments to be
completed was the Mid-Atlantic Assessment (MAA) landscape ecology assessment
(see Section 3.3.1 below). The remaining four assessments in progress cover
estuaries, surface waters, forests, and agro-ecosystems. Five years of monitoring data
on surface waters will be integrated into the surface water assessment report this year.
The four years of monitoring data for the estuaries and five years of monitoring data for
forests should be completed soon after. When completed, MAIA will include four levels
of assessment:
(1) A definition of the condition of the major ecosystem types or resource groups
(e.g., estuarine, forest) in the Region, using biological data to the extent
possible.
(2) Still within the context of a single ecosystem type, an analysis of what inferences
can be drawn from the assessment with respect to landscape characteristics that
are associated with impaired biological communities.
(3) The relationship of land-based information to landscape-level indicators.
(4) An integration of the separate ecosystem type assessments to develop a picture
of the landscape as a whole.
Because only the MAA has been published to date, however, it is described in some
detail below.
3.3.1 Mid-Atlantic Region Landscape Atlas
Region 3 has published its MAA (1997) An Ecological Assessment of the United
States Mid-Atlantic Region - A Landscape Atlas. More than 2,000 watersheds in the
lower 48 states were ranked based on seven indicators derived from maps of land use
and land cover using primarily satellite data. In the Atlas, there is a more detailed
analysis using 33 indicators of 125 watersheds in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Three key purposes of the Mid-Atlantic Assessment are:
17
-------
• to evaluate the relative ecological conditions of the 125 watersheds within the
Region;
• .to provide the public, local and state governments, environmental managers,
organizations, and educational institutions a broader view of their environment;
and
• to make it possible to integrate landscape ecology principles into decision
making.
Monitoring data are being collected and analyzed to assess the accuracy of the
interpretations of the satellite data and to develop indicators for aquatic ecosystems.
The Mid Atlantic Assessment (MAA) is described below. The MAA data will be used by
ORD, Region 3, and other federal agencies to conduct the Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA), basically a comparative regional ecological risk assessment, by
the year 2001.
Participants in the process of developing the MAA included EPA Region 3, the
EPA ORD (NERL-LV), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). EPA ORD began to develop
basic assessment concepts that were incorporated into the final process and product in
part in response to the EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) emphasis
on indicators of environmental quality in the early 1990's. Monitoring and data
collection efforts involve EPA Region 3, the states (roughly the states bounded by and
including Pennsylvania (PA),.West Virginia (WV), Maryland (MD), and Virginia (VA)),
USFS, USFWS, state universities, and others.
Criteria for identifying high-priority ecosystems are not yet developed; the MAA
provides a characterization of ecosystem condition that could be used in an ecosystem
targeting effort and is used in strategic planning.
Data types. In MAA, there are 9 landscape indicators at a national-level and the
33 mid-Atlantic indicators at the regional level, listed below.
National-level Landscape Indicators:
• U-lndex - % of watershed area with anthropogenic cover;
• Agricultural Index - % of watershed area with agriculture;
• Natural Cover Type Diversity - number of natural land cover types per unit area;
• Forest Cover - % of watershed area in forest;
• Forest Connectivity - size of the largest forest patch as % of the watershed area;
• Forest Connectivity - index of continuity of forested areas;
• Riparian Habitat Impact - % of total stream length with forests;
• Riparian Habitat Impact - % of total stream length with anthropogenic cover; and
• Potential Stream Impact - number of roads crossing streams per unit stream
length.
18
-------
Mid-Atlantic-level Landscape Indicators:
• People in Landscapes (7 indicators):
population density;
population change;
human use index (U-lndex);
road density;
atmospheric deposition - nitrate;
atmospheric deposition - sulfate; and
atmospheric deposition - ozone.
• Water (8 indicators):
woody vegetation (forests) along streams;
agriculture along streams;
roads adjacent to streams;
impoundments per unit stream length;
agriculture on steep (>3%) slopes;
potential nitrogen loadings to streams (model-based);
potential phosphorus loadings to streams (model-based); and
potential soil loss > one ton/acre-year (model-based).
• Forest habitats (10 indicators):
% forest cover;
forest fragmentation;
suitable forest edge habitat (7 ha scale);
suitable forest edge habitat (65 ha scale);
suitable forest edge habitat (600 ha scale);
suitable interior forest habitat (7 ha scale);
suitable interior forest habitat (65 ha scale);
suitable interior forest habitat (600 ha scale);
presence of all three interior forest habitat scales; and
departure of the largest forest patch size from the maximum
possible for a given amount of forested area.
Landscape change (from 1975 to 1990, 7 indicators):
Normal Distribution Vegetation Index (NDVI, "greenness") loss;
NDVI gain;
total NDVI change;
NDVI loss on first-order stream support areas (expected:observed);
NDVI gain on first-order stream support areas (expectedobserved);
19
-------
total NDVI change on first-order stream support areas
(expected:observed); and
NDVI loss on slopes > 3%.
These indicators are basically of three types: (1) the spatial composition and pattern of
a landscape attribute is based on a single data layer (e.g., % forests, U-index); (2) the
spatial overlap of landscape attributes is based on two or more data layers (e.g., crops
on steep slopes, woody vegetation along streams);'and (3) a model is used to estimate
the indicator from one or more data layers (e.g., soil erosion potential, interior forest
habitat suitability).
Data sources for the assessment depended on the scale of the analysis and on
data availability.
Data Sources for National Landscape Indicators:
• Land Cover - AVHRR 1-km resolution coverage;
• Roads - USGS Digital Line Graph coverage;
• Streams - USGS Digital Line Graph coverage;
Elevation - USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM), coverage 1:2,000,000; and
Watershed Boundaries - USGS 8 digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC).
Data Sources for Mid-Atlantic Landscape Indicators:
• Land Cover - 30 m resolution from MRLC Consortium;
• Landsat-MSS - 60 m resolution from North American Landscape
Characterization;
• Elevation - 90 m resolution from USGS Digital Elevation Models;
Roads - USGS Digital Line Graph maps (1980);
Streams - EPA River Reach File 3 (RF3); USGS Digital Line Graph maps (1973)
Soil - USDA STATSGO;
• Population - US Census Bureau;
• Air Pollution - Pennsylvania State University and EPA, e.g., wet deposition and
ambient ozone; and
Watershed Boundaries - USGS Hydrologic Unit Code Boundaries
(HUC250; 1:250,000 scale).
Methods and results. For each of the indicators, the 125 HUCs were ranked
based on the numerical values for the indicator. The HUCs were then divided into five
quintiles that were color coded for purposes of mapping. Using colors ranging from red
to green, the locations of HUCs representing relatively "less desirable" and "more
desirable" conditions, respectively, are readily identified on the map. Finally, a
statistical cluster analysis was conducted on the data values for nine of the indicators
that were not strongly correlated with each other for the 125 HUCs, and a final overall
ranking of each HUC into one of 7 categories was determined based on the 7 clusters
20
-------
resulting from the analysis. Narrative explanations of the meaning of each of the
categories was provided.
Strengths. The MAA Atlas provides complete quantitative data on a series of
landscape attributes covering the entire region assessed. This "big picture" information
will be available to the public and could be used for many purposes, including priority
setting, land management planning, targeting watersheds for specific actions, and so
on. CBEP could use the Atlas to help determine the appropriate scales to resolve
certain issues (e.g., water quality).
The effort provided a substantial quantity and quality of information within a
reasonable time frame and level of effort. Once MRLC data were available for the
Region and a pilot study had been conducted on the Chesapeake Bay area in 1996,
the MAA Atlas only took two more years to complete.
Another strength is that the published Atlas is only a portion of the larger mid-
Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA), which is comprised of numerous related efforts.
The aquatic data collection effort for MAIA, which started four years ago, should be
completed in the next year. Data on the actual conditions of the forests has taken
approximately five years to collect. Region 3 estimates that an assessment similar to
that published for the mid-Atlantic region could be completed in two to three years for
between $350,000 and $400,000 in each of the other EPA Regions.
Many partnerships were built to develop the data sets and, in particular, the
ground-based sampling and monitoring data on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems for
the MAA Atlas and for MAIA. The USFS and USFWS collected data using a format
agreed to by EPA and those agencies. The USGS provided its 15-year data set on
nitrates and pesticides in surface and ground waters. The EPA ORD Laboratories also
are contributing: the Corvallis Laboratory is assessing streams, the Narraganset and
Gulf Breeze Laboratories are assessing estuaries. Data collection by states and
universities (e.g., assessments of benthic communities in streams and fish surveys)
also is being incorporated, and possibilities of linking monitoring information on other
groups of animals to landscape attributes are under investigation.
The assessment will be available to test hypotheses concerning the relationship
between landscape-level indicators and actual condition of ecosystems, both terrestrial
and aquatic, and actual impacts to those ecosystems. A study at PA State University is
linking bird species composition to land cover information, including changes in land
cover over time.
Limitations. The scale of the assessment is too coarse to be helpful to
communities in identifying and prioritizing areas or projects within a HUC (i.e., fine
21
-------
scale). It was designed to help the Region set regional priorities and to serve as a
baseline for evaluating changes in the environment over time.
3.3.2 Related Efforts
Region 3 is continuing to expand its GIS capabilities to allow it to "paint a
regionally consistent picture" of environmental status, trends, and locations of valuable
ecosystems. Data layers used to develop indicators for the Index of Watershed
Indicators (IWI) are being incorporated into its GIS, and Region 3 is working with ORD
to improve the information base for many of those indicators. The Region also is trying
to integrate those data layers with data from the Air Program and with conventional
information that is less consistent across the states (e.g., State 305(b) reports and the
STORE! database for aquatic indicators).
In response to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) initiative,
Region 3 is using an indicator-based approach to drive its strategic planing. The
indicators are based on the Pressure-State-Response (P-S-R) model. The Region is
trying to develop some State variables for ecosystems that can identify where impacts
can occur or are occurring and the magnitude of those impacts. The Region hopes to
use the P-S-R model to investigate the projected outcomes of different scenarios of
future pressure variables (e.g., population growth) or options for managing some of the
pressure variables (e.g., road development).
3.3.3 Sources
Contacts
Tom DeMoss, Director of Ecological Assessments, Office of the Director of
Environmental Services, US EPA Region 3
Susan McDowell, CBEP Coordinator, Office of Ecological Assessment and
Management, US EPA Region 3
Sumner Crosby, Environmental Scientist, Office of Ecological Assessment and
Management, US EPA Region 3
References
O'Neill, R.V., Hunsaker, C.T., Jones, B.K., et al. 1997. Monitoring
environmental quality at the landscape scale: using landscape indicators to
assess biotic diversity, watershed integrity, and landscape stability. BioScience
47: 513-519.
22
-------
Jones, B., Walker, J., Riitters, K.H., et al. 1996. Indicators of landscape
integrity. In: J. Walker and D.J. Reuter (eds.), Indicators of Catchment Health: A
Technical Perspective. Melbourne, CSIRO.
U.S. EPA. 1997. An Ecological Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic
Region: A Landscape Atlas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-97/130. November.
3.4 REGION 4
The Planning and Analysis Branch of Region 4 is charged with developing
strategies for identifying geographic areas of potential concern with respect to a wide
• variety of environmental issues. The strategies have been used in the Region's leading
activities: budget initiatives (e.g., identifying locations for the Office of Policy's Changing
Places Initiative (CPI)); climate change (e.g., locating new areas for tree planting
outside the TVA area); Center for Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS) (e.g.
getting information about environmental concerns out to local citizens); comparative risk
assessme'nts (e.g., relative to prioritization efforts); and efficient deployment of
inspectors to areas with similar industries. The approach also could be used to identify
areas for CBEP potential projects.
There have been some focused efforts in the Region to target "high-priority"
ecosystems or ecosystems "of concern". One example was presented by Neil Burns at
the Denver CBEP Workshop sponsored by OSEC in the summer of 1997 (Section
3.4.1). Another example is The Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA), focusing on
that area within Region 4 (and some of Region 3). The SAA was published in five
volumes, and is described in Section 3.4.2. A relatively new effort by the TVA is
underway to use satellite and other geo-referenced data on a regional scale to predict
patterns of biodiversity across the Region (Section 3.4.3). Region 4 efforts to improve
its GIS capabilities and accessibility are described in Section 3.4.4. Region 4's Strategy
for the Environment is described in Section 3.4.5. The sources of information used to
develop these descriptions are provided in Section 3.4.6.
3.4.1 CBEP Workshop Example
This analysis was conducted by staff of the Region's Planning and Analysis
Branch in response to a charge from the Regional Administrator (RA) to locate natural
areas that fulfilled the following criteria:
• are of significant regional or national importance,
• are not (yet) significantly impacted by human activities, and
• might be threatened by environmental problems.
23
-------
The Branch identified high productivity as one indicator of the Regional significance of
an ecosystem.
. Data on valued resources came from a variety of sources. First, because
coastal estuaries are the most productive ecosystems in North America, the Branch
used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) locations of
Estuarine Drainage Areas to identify a list of 35 potential estuarine areas of concern in
the Region that ranged in size from 120 to 9500 square miles. To that list were added
the Okefoenokee and Lower Suwanee River National Wildlife Refuges and the Oceola
National Forest. The Branch also noted that the Natural Heritage Trusts wanted to
provide habitat corridors between patches of habitat suitable for black bears in the
federally managed lands.
Data on stressors included two types: (1) actual stressors or sources of
stressors, and (2) information on the drivers behind those stressors. Stressors included
proposed mining operations, pesticide applications, nitrogen and phosphorous
additions from fertilizer and livestock manure, soil erosion, and Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) facilities. Drivers behind those stressors included population density and changes
in population density from 1980-1990.
The method of analysis was a proximity assessment, using GIS to evaluate the
co-occurrence of resources and stressors. The results identified five counties with
notable population increases from 1980 to 1990, ranging from 58 to 125 percent
increase. The average population density in the Suwanee River Basin was found to be
26 people per square mile, while the average population density in Florida is about 200
people per square mile. On average, there was only one Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
facility.for every two counties in the Basin. In Florida, however, there was an average
of 10 TRI facilities per county. These results could be used by enforcement staff to
identify areas where all facilities must be in compliance and by project managers
reviewing Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) developed under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to identify existing stressors in each area.
The use of simple screening criteria to identify a list of geographic areas that
would satisfy the Regional Administrator's (RA's) request and the use of existing GIS
capabilities and data layers in the Region meant-that the RA's request could be
addressed quickly and at low cost.
3.4.2 The Southern Appalachian Assessment
The purpose of the Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA) was to provide
information on environmental conditions and ecosystems to those involved in making
land-management decisions in the Region. Hopefully, the information will be used to
support decision making to ensure a sustainable balance among biological diversity,
24
-------
economic uses, and cultural values in that area. There was no specific statutory
requirement for the assessment, but the National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plans authorized under the 1976 National Forest Management Act had
been in place for a decade and are subject to revision. The SAA provides a coherent
set of data across the Region with which to revise those Plans.
The assessment was published in five volumes, the Summary Report and four
Technical Reports: Atmospheric, Social/Cultural/Economic, Terrestrial, and Aquatic.
The Aquatic and Terrestrial Technical Reports are described in Appendix C-4.
Participants. The assessment was accomplished through the cooperation of
many federal and state natural resource agencies; including the EPA, USFS, USGS,
NPS, USFWS, Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration, US
Department of Interior (DOI) National Biological Service (NBS), US Army Corps of
Engineers, Appalachian Regional Commission, TVA, DOE's ORNL, and state
departments of natural resources (DNRs). In addition, the assessment was guided by
concerns of land managers, policy makers, and questions gleaned from a series of
town hall meetings where the public could voice their questions and suggestions.
Criteria for identifying high-priority ecosystems or ecosystems of concern were
not articulated per se; the assessment was more of a status and trends analysis to
assist in future land-management decision-making. However, from the resources and
stressors mapped, it was clear that the following resources and conditions were
considered important in the aquatic and terrestrial assessments: rare community types,
federally listed threatened and endangered species, other species with viability
concerns, and major game species.
Methods. GIS was used to produce individual maps that summarized
quantitative information on each resource and stressor. Parameter values were divided
into quintiles, much as for the Mid-Atlantic Assessment, and when possible, histograms
of how various parameters have changed over time were developed. The resource
maps and stressor maps can be reviewed individually. GIS was used to analyze the
proximity and co-occurrence of some of the valued resources and stressors. However,
a multivariate analysis of the data layers combined, similar to the Mid-Atlantic
Assessment, was not conducted, and the various data layers were not developed to
use landscape indicators as was done in Region 3. Instead, narrative evaluations of
the status and trends of valued resources and the effects of the different stressor types
were developed by the appropriate specialists, and a list-of "integrated findings" were
provided on the themes identified as of concern to the public and land-use decision
makers. Additional details on the themes evaluated are provided in Appendix C-4.
25
-------
3.4.3 TV A Targeting Biodiversity
Using funds from EPA OSEC at Headquarters, Region 4 contracted with the TVA
. to map indicators of biodiversity in the Region. The TVA is trying to map areas with the
potential for high biodiversity using a method that does not include information on
species ranges the way GAP analysis does (see Appendix F). TVA uses remote
sensing to identify land cover, digital elevation, and four other data layers (listed below),
each on three spatial scales (small, medium, and large), to correspond to different sizes
of animals and their home range sizes. TVA is trying to use only those data that will be
available on a regional scale from the MRLC initiative. The four data layers are (1)
degree of forest fragmentation, (2) forest edge redistribution, (3) changes in water
quality and flow, and (4) increased proximity to human activity.
The first two data layers can be considered landscape indicators (O'Neill et al.
1997). The assumption for the first data layer is that higher biodiversity is associated
with lower forest fragmentation. That correlation has been repeatedly demonstrated for
neotropical songbirds in North American forests and other groups of species (U.S. EPA
1992). Forest loss and fragmentation results in smaller patches of "undisturbed" or
interior forest and also increasingly isolates the forest "islands." Locally rare species
are more vulnerable to local extinctions, and so species disappear from habitat
patches. This is particularly noticeable with birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.
There are several assumptions associated with the second data layer. Forest
edges tend to have distinct species assemblages. However, the higher the ratio of the
length of forest edge around a patch of forest habitat to the total area of the forest in
that patch (e.g., the more elongate and narrow the shape of a patch), the lower the
amount of "interior" habitat that is available for species requiring forest interior. Many
forest interior species are subject to substantial predation by forest edge species if they
are within a few hundred meters of the forest edge.
TVA is waiting to for the MRLC data to be completed for the Region. However,
MRLC data are already available for Florida, and the TVA is conducting a pilot study in
that State. Florida already had a program called Closing the Gaps in the Florida
Wildlife Conservation System in place, which has identified and mapped areas in need
of protection through acquisition. The TVA will compare its results with the extensive
information already available for Florida ecosystems to "ground truth" its assumptions
and approach.
A fact sheet describing this project is provided in Appendix C-4.
26
-------
3.4.4 Geographic Information Systems
The Region 4 Administrator is a strong supporter of using GIS to assist in
strategic planning. The Region has a strong commitment to developing a GIS that can
provide relevant data layers for targeting areas of high human health risk,
environmental justice (EJ) concerns, and priority ecosystems. The Region envisions a
wide variety of uses by all of the Region's Divisions and Programs. There are
numerous recent EPA initiatives that need this type of capability, including the RGI, EJ,
CBEP. There are several GIS issues, however, that the Region is trying to resolve to
improve its GIS capabilities.
One issue is that data availability has largely driven what data layers are
included in the GIS up to now. It would be preferable to develop a conceptual model of
values in need of protection in the Region, then determine what types of data would be
good indicators for those values, and finally try to obtain those data. Surrogate
measures can be used if their limitations are properly acknowledged.
Region 4 is working with the University of Florida at Gainesville to develop
criteria indicative of valuable habitats and ecosystems (e.g., unfragmented forest,
habitat corridors between habitat patches). The criteria are needed to help define what
GIS data layers are most relevant and where future data collection efforts should be
focused. The Region is interested in landscape indicators in particular. Relevant
efforts include those of EPA ORD (NERL-LV), in conjunction with the TVA, to identify
landscape indicators for prioritizing catchment assessments and monitoring efforts
(Jones et al. 1996). Those efforts identified a minimum set of four key landscape
indicators for that purpose: bare soil, exotic weeds, tree cover, and depth to watertable.
To develop new data in GIS format that are likely to be relevant to ecosystem
values, Region 4 is supporting GAP analyses in the state of Georgia. The Region also
is funding Georgia's efforts to digitize that information and to map privately owned and
other conservation areas. The Region also is supporting the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources (SC DNR) Water Division with their efforts to digitize
the hydrology of the state at a 1:24,000 scale for the entire Savannah River Basin.
Some staff in the Region think that a national database with species' habitat
requirements, elevation requirements and current and historical ranges would be
helpful; however, the Region is not in a position to start such a database, even at a
Regional level.
Another issue in using GIS to target ecosystems concerns scale. Some
ecosystems and habitat types are important on a national scale, while others are more
important on Regional, state, and local scales. Another scale issue is related to data
availability. Sometimes, the only data that are available in a consistent format and level
of detail across the Region are data from national databases, which do not provide
27
-------
sufficient resolution to be useful at the Regional or state levels. A system that included
a hierarchy of scales and a hierarchy of criteria for targeting ecosystems would be
us.eful.
The Savannah River Geographic Priority Area is an example of the problem of
scale. There are 90 action items identified for the area, and the type of projects and
scale of projects change depending on what problem is being considered. Also, the
types of stressors present along the river change as one moves from its headwaters
downstream.
One other issue is how to interpret some of the data layers that are available at
the Regional scale. For example, what are the implications of several TRI sites or
Superfund sites being in one area, and what additional information would be needed to
determine those implications?
3.4.5 Strategy for the Environment
Region 4 has also drafted a "Strategy for the Environment" describing a process
by which the Region can identify and address ecological issues or problems as part of
the Region's Integrated Planning System (U.S. EPA Region 4). The Strategy includes
communication with the states and other stakeholders in the Region to receive their
input on ecological and other environmental issues and priorities. The Region then
would consider that information when developing and implementing its Strategic Plan.
The identified issues would be compared with the Agency's National Strategic Goals
and Objectives and the Government Performance Review Act (GPRA) and refined
accordingly. A dedicated group of staff would organize, aggregate, and analyze data
useful for setting strategic directions, selecting Regional priorities, and tracking
environmental results. GIS analysis would be used to help evaluate the temporal and
spatial relationships between valued resources and stresses. These analyses should
reveal areas within the Region which contain unique ecological resources, are
undergoing environmental degradation, or fail to meet compliance requirements. The
results also should reveal on-going trends in the status of natural resources and
pollutants that might require attention. Those data might be presented and summarized
in an Ecological Assessment Atlas. From such an Atlas, Regional planners should be
able to better visualize and prioritize actions to ensure the protection and restoration of
the environment as a whole. The information also will serve as input for quarterly
GPRA reporting and the State of the Region Report (U.S. EPA Region 4,1998).
3.4.6 Sources
Contacts
Cory Berish, Branch Chief, Policy, Planning and Evaluation, EPA Region 4
28
-------
Neil Burns, Planning and Analysis Branch, EPA Region 4
Tom Baugh, Office of Research and Development Regional Scientist,
EPA Region 4
References
Burns, N. 1997. Using GIS technology for environmental targeting. In: Western
CBEP Workshop, Denver, DRAFT July 22-24, 1997. Targeting Priority
Ecosystems: Approaches and Issues. July 24,10:45-12:00 pm.
O'Neill, R.V., Hunsaker, C.T., Jones, K.B., et al. 1994. Monitoring Environ-
mental Quality at the Landscape Scale: Using landscape indicators to assess
biotic diversity, watershed integrity, and landscape stability. BioScience 47(8):
513-519.
Jones, B., Walker, J., Riitters, K.H., etal. 1996. Chapter 12: Indicators of
landscape integrity. In: J. Walker and D.J. Reuter (eds.) Indicators of Catchment
Health: A Technical Perspective. CSIRO, Melbourne.
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996. The
Southern Appalachian Assessment, Terrestrial Technical Report. R8-TP 26, US
Department of Agriculture, July.
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996. The
Southern Appalachian Assessment, Aquatic Technical Report. R8-TP 26, US
Department of Agriculture, July.
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996. The
Southern Appalachian Assessment, Summary. R8-TP 26, US Department of
Agriculture, July.
U.S. EPA Region 4. 1998. DRAFT Strategy for the Environment. August 4.
^
U.S. EPA. 1992. Biological Populations as Indicators of Environmental Change.
Volume 1. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Washington, DC. EPA/230/R-91/-011. December.
3.5 REGION 5
Region 5 has years of experience building partnerships to solve environmental
problems through its involvement with the Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO). In the early 1990's, the Region identified four major metropolitan areas for
more concentrated assessment and a multi-media program approach. In 1995, the
29
-------
Region reorganized and created Regional teams to address 10 priority places for
RGI/CBEP projects. In 1997, the Region formed a Critical Ecosystems Team to identify
ecosystems in need of restoration or protection Region-wide and to provide information
on ecosystems to its Program Offices. The Team was tasked with working with all
relevant parties in creating an ecosystem strategy for Region 5.
The following subsections provide an overview of GLNPO with which EPA
Region 5 is a partner on many initiatives (Section 3.5.1), Principal Place Selection
(PPS) conducted to target RGI funds and CBEP projects (Section 3.5.2), the activities
of the Critical Ecosystems Team (Section 3.5.3), and data and methods that would be
helpful in the review of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) pursuant to the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) (Section 3.5.4). Information sources for
this description of Region 5 activities are listed in Section 3.5.5.
3.5.1 The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
GLNPO, which is a national program office located in Region 5, has over 20
years of experience in building strong relationships and partnerships across the states.
Partners include the State Departments of Natural Resources (DNRs), Departments of
Environmental Quality (DEQs), and Fisheries Departments; Tribes; the Lake Michigan
Federation; and various nonprofit organizations (e.g., Audubon). GLNPO and the
Region 5 Water Division closely coordinate and fund the three major Lake teams
(Michigan, Superior, and Erie) in developing and implementing the Lakewide Area
Management Plans (LAMP) as required by the Area of Concern process of the
International Joint Committee. The USFWS, the USFS, and other federal agencies are
involved, and EPA acts as a clearing house for information across the agencies. There
are staff from the US Geologic Survey and the Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and the USFWS that actually sit in EPA offices
in the Region.
3.5.2 Region 5 Principal Place Selection for the RGI and CBEP
Region 5 began a Principal Place Selection (PPS) initiative in the early 1990's for
the RGI initiative, expanding it to encompass CBEP in 1995. The PPS has four goals in
mind: (1) that criteria for identifying principal places for RGI and CBEP are transparent,
(2) that the Region can provide a rationale for the selection of each place, (3) that the
selection is based on reproducible data, and (4) that the selection is based on actual
environmental conditions. In 1997, the Office for Strategic Environmental Analysis
(OSEA) led the development of selection criteria based on population, industry, and
impact indicators. This material was presented to the Senior Leadership Team (SLT)
in June, 1997, and OSEA now is charged with updating its PPS. This will be done
when the Critical Ecosystem Team has reported its preliminary results and the unified
state watershed assessments are finished under the Clean Water Action Plan.
30
-------
3.5.3 Critical Ecosystem Preservation
The purpose of the Critical Ecosystems Team is to work with partners to protect,
enhance, and restore those critical ecosystems considered to be of most value.
Goals. Region 5 recognizes ecosystem degradation/loss as one of the most
critical environmental risk problems in the United States and globally. The specific
goals of the Critical Ecosystems Project are twofold:
(1) Protect ecosystems possessing ecological integrity, biodiversity, or rare
ecological occurrences from adverse impacts of human activity.
(2) Restore to their full potential the physical, biological, and chemical processes
and ecological structure and function of degraded ecosystems that are of
potential ecological significance.
Participants. Members of the Critical Ecosystems Team include representatives
from each of the Region 5 divisions and programs. The Team receives input on criteria,
data sources, and GIS mapping from all the Region 5 divisions and programs via their
representatives on the Team.
Criteria. The Team defines an ecologically significant ecosystem as an area
that sustains a healthy, functioning diversity of indigenous species and communities.
Such an ecosystem possesses a dynamic equilibrium with stable populations and with
appropriate vegetative cover; genetic, species, and community diversity; hydrology; and
physical and chemical processes. The Team defines critical ecosystems as those
areas needing protection or restoration to prevent loss of critical habitat, populations, or
biodiversity. The Team is working on identifying additional attributes of a "critical"
ecosystem that can be used objectively to identify and prioritize such areas in the
Region. Team members are considering both functional and structural attributes of
ecosystems from a scientific viewpoint. They then will evaluate whether those
attributes can be measured or have already been measured. The Team will consider
the criteria described by the states and other Midwest organizations involved in
ecosystem work (see Methods below).
Methods. The approach that will be employed will include the use of GIS and
appropriate data layers to target ecosystems. The Critical Ecosystem Team has asked
the state Natural Heritage programs, the state departments of natural resources (DNRs)
and departments of environmental quality (DEQs) to identify and provide a list of
ecosystems of concern in the state. The Team also solicited input from over 50
Midwest organizations involved in ecosystem work. The organizations were asked to
identify areas they considered critical and to describe the criteria, methods, and data by
which they identified those areas.
31
-------
By the winter of 1998, the Region expects to have a map of the locations in
which EPA, the states, and other groups are working on ecosystem protection or
restoration. That map will be developed at an appropriate scale to make resource
decisions. Another activity to be completed by the Team in FY '98 is to develop the
criteria by which critical ecosystems in Region 5 and in the Great Lakes Basin will be
defined and ranked. Using those criteria, the Team will decide on which issues and in
which places the Region should expend its efforts. A key consideration will be how
any ecosystem work can enhance the base program work and provide a model for
Regional ecosystem protection efforts. The Team also plans to identify environmental
indicators to measure environmental changes as EPA conducts its work.
The plan for FY '99 is to coalesce the Region's policy on ecosystem protection
and to develop a strategic plan for implementation. The Region currently devotes three
FTEs to Critical Ecosystem Protection. Once the Critical Ecosystems Team has
identified the priority ecosystems in the Region, it then will consider which stressors are
important and if an index of fragility or vulnerability (i.e., in which specific locations could
the stressor do the most harm) can be developed.
Data. Based on the responses of the EPA program representatives, the states,
and Midwest organizations, the Team will compile a preliminary list of areas that appear
to be most critical and will share the list with all interested parties. The Team also will
use the GLNPO's map of biodiversity investment areas as defined at the State of the
Lake Ecosystem Conference. The plan for FY '98 and beyond is to develop a GIS map
with relevant data layers based on available information for the Region and to develop
a conceptual framework for ecosystem targeting in the Region.
Strengths. Region 5 is trying to develop an approach that helps it to identify
opportunities to include ecosystem-level considerations in the work being done. The
Critical Ecosystem Team is building partnerships and trying to identify who is
conducting, what types of efforts and projects where. The Critical Ecosystem Team also
is investigating what opportunities are available to EPA Region 5, and how and why the
Region should get involved. Communication among partners is an important emphasis
of the Team. The criteria, data, and methods developed by the Team also should help
Regional EPA program staff understand ecological risks and values of specific
locations. Those factors can be important in EPA's base program activities, such as
reviewing facility permits or prioritizing place-based activities.
Limitations: One limitation of this process for developing an approach to
ecosystem targeting is that it will take some time to complete. The Region believes that
the added effort in identifying partners, understanding their programs and needs, and
determining EPA's role, however, will very be valuable in the long run.
32
-------
3.5.4 Ecological Assessments under NEPA
Another activity in Region 5 that can benefit from information on ecosystem
vulnerability and existing stresses on those ecosystems is its review of EISs developed
pursuant to NEPA. The Region is pursuing several approaches to better assess the
impact of transportation projects on surrounding areas. One approach under
consideration is a proximity analysis, based on GIS overlays of maps depicting
ecologically valuable and vulnerable areas (e.g., parks, forests, sites protected by The
Nature Conservancy, sites deemed important by Audubon) with maps of potential
stressors (e.g., from ESTAT). Another approach might be identifying and mapping
clusters of EIS projects to visualize and understand ecosystem-scale stresses related to
federal agency activities. Developing a GIS map layer depicting introduced (exotic)
species is also under consideration.
Another key consideration under NEPA is the potential for cumulative impacts.
Information on changes in land use over time is helpful in evaluating projects that alter
wildlife habitat. Region 5 funded the EROS Data Center and will obtain data from
Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery to assist in evaluating changes in land use.
One possible method of assessing trends in land use over time is comparing current
TM data with the Multispectral Scanner System (MSS) of the 1970s and 1980s. An
option that would provide a more consistent comparison, however, would be comparing
the MSS triplicates that are stored in EROS for 1970,1980, and 1990. The tradeoff is
that the MSS imagery is of lower resolution than the TM satellite imagery.
Information on threatened and endangered species from the state Natural
Heritage programs would be extremely useful in the NEPA context and in the other
Regional ecosystem initiatives described in the other subsections of Section 3.5.
Region 5 has provided grants to its states to put that information in a GIS format;
however, the data are not available to any EPA Region at this time because of
concerns that sensitive information would have to be released under the Freedom of
Information Act once it is in EPA's databases. EPA HQ is working on an agreement
with the Association for Biodiversity Information (ABI) to make those data available in
some form to the EPA Regions nationwide.
3.5.5 Sources
Contacts
John Perrecone, Critical Ecosystems Team Leader, RTM, Office of Strategic
Environmental Analysis (OSEA), US EPA Region 5
John Schneider, Environmental Scientist, OSEA, US EPA Region 5
Mary White, Ecologist, OSEA, US EPA Region 5
33
-------
Linda Hoist, Science Group Manager from, OSEA, US EPA Region 5
References
John Perrecone (Region 5 Critical Ecosystems Team Manager). 1997. FY '98
Regional Action Plan of the Critical Ecosystems Team to forward the Regional
Goal of Protecting and Restoring Critical Ecosystems.
Agenda for Ecosystem Protection in Region 5: An Open Discussion. March 6,
1998, 9:00 am to 11:00 am, in the Lake Superior Room.
3.6 REGION 6
In the 1980's, Region 6 used the comparative risk assessment (CRA) paradigm
as a way of identifying and prioritizing environmental problems in the Region. In 1990,
the Region published a three-volume report on-its Comparative Risk Project, which
followed the CRA paradigm as established in EPA's 1987 Unfinished Business report.
Both human health risks and ecological risks were evaluated; ecological risks were
evaluated on an ecoregion level.
Recently, Region 6 has developed a Cumulative Risk Index Analysis (CRIA) to
assist in evaluating the risk of cumulative impacts from various proposed projects
pursuant to NEPA. A pilot test of this approach has been conducted for swine
concentrated animal feeding operations in the Region. The approach will be applied
soon to Federal Facilities, and then to evaluating cumulative risks associated with cattle
grazing ranges and feed lots.
Region 6 also has recently completed a source water vulnerability assessment
for the five-state area comprising Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas. There is not a concerted geographically-based ecosystem targeting effort
ongoing in the Region that is used as input to the CBEP project-selection process.
In the following subsections, we describe the four projects: ecosystem
comparative risk assessment (Section 3.6.1), CRIA (Section 3.6.2), the Source Water
Vulnerability Assessment (Section 3.6.3), and GIS for aquatic ecosystems (Section
3.6.4). A brief summary of the Region's ecosystem targeting activities is provided in
Section 3.6.5, and sources of information on which this section is based are provided in
. Section 3.6.6.
3.6.1 Comparative Risk Assessment
Participants. Region 6 assembled a workgroup of 15 EPA Regional staff to
conduct a comparative ecological risk assessment for 22 environmental problem areas
34
-------
that had been identified by EPA Headquarters and the Regional Comparative Risk
Project directors. Problem areas included industrial point discharge to surface waters,
non-point source discharges, Superfund sites, pesticide application, and other
categories.
Criteria. The workgroup assumed a risk exists when stressors impair ecological
functions. Functions evaluated included production of aquatic organisms, production of
terrestrial organisms, soil production and maintenance, filtering and detoxifying of
pollutants, and photosynthesis, among others. Risk ranking depending on scoring each
problem area according to area of impact, degree of impact, and degree of vulnerability
(by ecoregion - as defined by Omernick 1987). Degree of vulnerability was estimated
from existing data on endangered species, soil erosion rates, primary productivity, and
stream density, and assimilative capacity.
Methods. The workgroup organized and reviewed the data on each of the
problem areas. Ecological risk was evaluated for each problem area for each of the
Omernick ecoregions and ecological functions considered using a matrix format. The
workgroup developed a mathematical model by which to assign scores and then
numerically ranked the relative risks among problem areas and ecoregions. Ecological
threat was expressed as a mathematical function of the area of impact relative to the
total area of the ecoregion, degree of impact, and vulnerability of the ecoregion,
resulting in ecological risk index values ranging from 0.01 to 81.9.
Data. Data on the problem areas were formally requested from the appropriate
program offices. Response time was one to several months. Information from each
program varied considerably, but included area measurements, area estimates, number
of facility estimates, estimated zones of impact, and information on program-specific
ranking systems.
Results. The risk index values were categorized into four groups. The highest
risk problem areas included physical degradation of terrestrial ecosystems, application
of pesticides, and physical degradation of water and wetlands. Then second highest
risk category included non-point source discharges and hazardous and toxic air
pollutants. Several problem areas were included in the third risk category, including
ozone and carbon monoxide, publicly owned treatment works (POTW) discharges to
surface waters, and RCRA and CERCLA hazardous waste sites. Problem areas in the
lowest (fourth) risk category included particulate matter and airborne lead. The
problems causing the greatest ecological risk (aside from global warming) appeared to
result from both agriculture and silviculture.
»
Strengths and limitations. Although the comparative risk project was
conducted to help EPA set Regional priorities for action, the priorities were on a
problem area, not geographic area, basis. The smallest unit of analysis was an
35
-------
ecoregion, and the data were not used to identify geographic areas with multiple or
multi-media stressors or particularly valuable ecosystems. Thus, the 1990 exercise is
of limited utility for geographic targeting, but it lead directly to CRIA, which is described
in the next subsection.
3.6.2 Cumulative Risk Index Analysis
Region 6 Office of Planning and Coordination's first application of CRIA has
been to swine concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), however additional
applications are underway (e.g., Federal Facilities).
Goals. The purpose of CRIA is to assist EPA Regional staff in evaluating the
potential for cumulative impacts of proposed activities subject to NEPA.
Participants. EPA staff conduct the assessment using their Regional GIS
system and using site-specific information provided by the applicant for a permit for a
new site.
Criteria. The two fundamental criteria to alert EPA Regional staff that there is a
risk of cumulative impacts are estimates of ecosystem (and human health and welfare)
vulnerability and impacts. Degree of vulnerability is a function of several parameters
related to ecosystem vulnerability (e.g., rainfall, distance to surface water, wildlife
habitats), to human proximity (e.g., population from census data), to environmental
justice (e.g., economic, minority status), and to current status of the resource (e.g.,
STORET data on water quality), among other things. Degree of impact is a function of
the individual impact criteria specific to a category of activity under evaluation (e.g.,
swine feeding) and of local conditions surrounding the facility under consideration.
Impact criteria associated with a specific site or facility within the agricultural industry
include parameters describing the animal feed source waste management practices,
presence of endangered or threatened species, and other factors.
Data. The unit of analysis for this pilot project is the HUC, which is created by
merging watershed area data with state stream segment information. Higher digit
HUCs represent finer scales than lower digit HUCs; each higher digit HUC is embedded
within a lower digit HUC. Therefore, any scale can.be used. The CAFO pilot in
Oklahoma uses 11-digit HUCs for some criteria; other criteria (and in fact other states)
may use a different level HUC.
The data layers for CRIA are in GIS format. The Water Quality Protection
Division (WQPD) Customer Support Branch (CSB) in the Region has developed and is
continuing to add information to GIS for aquatic ecosystems that could be used for
ecosystem targeting. The states have provided some of the information for the GIS
36
-------
data layers. Other key data sources have been the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
NRCS and EPA national databases.
Appendix C-6 provides a detailed description of the data used for the swine
feeding application of CRIA.
Methods. Cumulative risks are identified by evaluating three sets of information:
(1) areas of regulated concentrated animal feeding operations; (2) environmental
vulnerabilities; and (3) known impacts from such projects in each watershed subunit.
Each proposed or existing facility is assigned a score of 1 to 5 for each of the variables
in the second and third evaluation categories listed above, or 0 to 4 for the first
category. A mathematical algorithm is used to combine values for the variables. The
calculations also involve summing the areas for known projects and determining what
percent of a HUC is affected. Scores are developed separately for each of the three
evaluation categories listed above.
Results. The resulting degree of vulnerability and degree of impact scores can
be used by the applicant to compare alternative locations for proposed new swine
feeding operations under NEPA. EPA also uses the high scores for individual
parameters as red flags to communicate with a new applicant the impacts to be
mitigated, and the specific issues to be resolved .
In the future, Region 6 might use the information produced by the CRIA in
conjunction with the NEPA environmental assessment or impact statement to decline
permits to new facilities in specific watershed subunits. It is also possible for a
requestor to provide location information for a facility of concern to Region 6 and to
receive an evaluation of the ecological vulnerability of the location.
3.6.3* Source Water Vulnerability Assessment
The Source Water Protection Branch of Region 6 developed a method to assess
the vulnerability of the Region's source waters to contamination. Using the 8-digit HUC,
400 watersheds were identified within the five states in Region 6. An overlay and index
method was used as the tool to screen for the most vulnerable watersheds.
The data was used in a GIS format. Data sources for natural watershed
characteristics included databases that indicate the presence of rivers, aquifers, and
shallow water; that classify areas by geology, soil permeability, soil slope; and that
document run-off. Databases on man-made stressors included land use/land cover;
Superfund sites (CERCLIS); RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facilities
(RCRIS); Toxic Release Inventories (TRI); oil and gas wells; and roads, railroads, and
pipelines. Databases containing public water system maximum contaminant level
(MCL) violations and ambient water quality MCL exceedances were also used.
37
-------
The GIS was used to overlay those data on a watershed scale and to calculate a
relative vulnerability rating in each of the 400 watersheds. The source water
vulnerability ratings can be used to help set priorities for watershed protection and other
activities related to protecting surface- and ground-water sources supplying public water
supplies. Appendix C-6 provides some additional information on this project.
3.6.4 Aquatic Ecosystem GIS
The aquatic ecosystem GIS is the responsibility of Region 6's Water Quality
Protection Division. Some of the data layers currently in that system include soil
characteristics, watershed .delineations, stream locations, rainfall, and other
environmental information. Data layers are being developed from information supplied
by the Natural Heritage Programs for some of the states in the Region and from MRLC
land cover data. There also are GIS data layers related to human populations and to
cartographic features (e.g., roads, streams, pipelines, airports, boundaries) from the
data in TIGER. Data sources on stressors include EPA national databases, the
Region-specific data such as manure produced per county, and other data layers.
Other data have yet to be incorporated. Data from the EPA River Reach files
(national-scale) will be added once that national database is completed and distributed,
and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps will be added after they have been
digitized. The Index of Watershed Integrity (IWI) database set includes some valuable
information in individual data layers that might be incorporated; however, the IWI index
values themselves do not have a consistent meaning across the Region, because
some information is missing for some states.
3.6.5 Summary
Region 6 has not yet developed an approach for geographic targeting of priority
ecosystems to assist in the selection of CBEP projects or to assist in the development
of other "place-based" initiatives or ecosystem protection activities. The GIS system
under development in the Water Office will no doubt be very useful in,this context for
aquatic ecosystems. However, development of such a system would be enhanced if
criteria by which ecosystems are valued in the Region and an assessment methodology
were developed.
Region 6 has extensive experience with comparative risk ranking, and is
applying the numerical ranking algorithms originally developed in that context to a
geographically based approach called CRIA (Cumulative Risk Impact Analysis). To
date, CRIA has been applied to one stressor, swine concentrated animal feeding
operations, but its application to additional stressors (Federal Facilities, Children's
Health Initiative, etc.) are underway or under consideration.. CRIA is likely to be useful
to many of the Region 6 programs, and it might be possible to use some of the
38
-------
information in the CIS data layers and some of the definitions of ecosystem vulnerability
to assist targeting ecosystems for CBEP projects.
3.6.6 Sources
Contacts
Tom Nelson, leader of Region 6's Data Support Team in the Water Quality
Protection Division (WQPD), Customer Support Branch (CSB)
Sharon Osowski, Ecological Risk Analyst, EPA Region 6 Compliance Assurance
and Enforcement Division (CAED), Office of Planning and Coordination (OPC)
Mike Bechdol, EPA Region 6, Source Water Protection Branch, Region 6
References
Bechdol, M., Noell, A., and Allen, E. 1998. A Source Water Vulnerability
Assessment for the Five-State Area Comprising Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
6, Source Water Protection Branch, Dallas, TX.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers. 77(1): 118-125.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of
Environmental Problems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Region 6 Comparative Risk Project. Appendix A: Ecological
Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning and Analysis,
Region 6, Dallas, TX. November.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Cumulative Risk Index Analysis (CRIA) (Swine Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations): Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX. Version 6.0. January 24. Unpublished.
3.7 REGION 7
3.7.1 Region-wide Assessments
• Region 7 is in the process of changing the way it targets resources. In the past,
the Region primarily responded to statutory requirements and public demand (Risk
Assessment / Prioritization . May 19, Team 1997. Region 7's Community Based
39
-------
Environmental Protection, Report to the Steering Committee), but is now developing a
prioritization scheme in order to pro-actively identify geographic areas and issues of
environmental concern. The prioritization effort was originated to assist with CBEP
project identification and selection; however, it became evident to the Region's Senior
Staff that the results were potentially applicable to a wider set of initiatives. Therefore,
a Strategic Environmental Assessment Team (SEAT) was formed to develop a priority-
place scheme for CBEP projects and for other Regional programmatic uses as well.
The SEAT will use relevant data sets (many have been collected and processed over
the past four years) to produce environmental assessments on multiple spatial and
temporal scales. Initially, data collection efforts focused on acquiring watershed data at
the regional level. Future efforts will need to focus on obtaining large-scale terrestrial
and air data sets so that the state of the environment in Region 7 can be assessed
holistically.
Participants. The SEAT is composed of both a core group and an advisory
group that represent major Regional programs. The core group will undertake the
actual work of the assessment and technology development, while the advisory group
will provide program input to the process. The role of the advisory group is very
important to provide a cross-media perspective during the development of the
assessment questions and to ensure that the program managers are kept informed of
the direction being taken by the Team (Strategic Environmental Assessment Team.
Draft April 28,1998. Framework Document).
Goals. The general goal of the SEAT is to use biological, geophysical,
sociological, and economic data to identify places in Region 7 where the environment is
stressed or threatened.
Criteria for targeting ecosystems currently are being developed for Region 7.
Data. Region 7 established a history of supporting regional environmental work
in 1993, when they became a partner in the Great Plains Partnership (GPP). The GPP
is governed by a council of executives, elected officials, and citizens representing a
broad diversity of agencies and interests. The GPP Executive Council is served by a
Council Work Group made up of senior managers and representatives of Council
members' organizations. Region 7 funded The Nature Conservancy's (TNC), Status of
Biodiversity: In the Great.Plains report (April 24 1997). The database that was
compiled to produce that report, which includes rare species and communities of
ecological importance, will be used in the Region's strategic environmental assessment.
Also in 1993, the Region compiled information on federally and state-listed
threatened and endangered plant and animal species that are dependent on water
40
-------
resources. For this, the Region used the state Natural Heritage program's and other
state agency data (e.g., state conservation departments).
Collecting new data on a region-wide basis is time-consuming and costly, which
is why the Region intends (1) to use existing information to the fullest extent possible;
(2) to continue to partner with groups like GPP and Missouri's Resource and
Assessment Partnership (MoRAP) (MoRAP is a consortium including 14 governmental
and non-profit organizations engaged in collaborative efforts to assemble
comprehensive data sets for the state of Missouri); and (3) to work with the Region's
four state counterparts to learn from their experiences in combining data for
prioritization purposes (e.g. the Kansas Action Targeting System (KATS), which was
developed by the Kansas Department of Environmental Health to provide information
for watershed assessments). SEAT is continuing to identify existing relevant data for
use in GIS analyses and analytical or simulation-based modeling tools for the Region.
A key database, describing the condition of resources in the Region, is the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) National
Resources Inventory (NRI) database, which describes the condition of resources in the
region. The NRI database includes information on approximately 75 variables (e.g.,
percent agriculture, percent wetland, amount of prime farmland present, soil and water
conservation practices, pesticide use, erosion). The data were collected using a
probabilistic systematic sampling design so that the statistical reliability for each of the
variables is known (i.e., confidence intervals may be constructed around the estimates).
Other examples of resource data intended for use in the assessment are (1) the
R-EMAP (Regional EMAP) data for Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska (the three of four
states that participated in the effort); (2) Region 7's vegetation alliance data (EPA
Region 7 provided funding to enable its four states to collaborate in producing a
consistent USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD) GAP analysis vegetation
alliance map); (3) the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); and (4) the EPA River Reach
file.
Information on ecosystem stressors is available from EPA's national databases
such as the TRI system, CERCLIS, and RCRIS. Census data also have been
compiled. Stressor data will include information that has already been provided for use
in a GIS to the Risk Assessment / Prioritization Team by the Air, RCRA, and Toxics
Division; the Water Resources, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division; and the Superfund
Division in Region 7 (see Tables in Appendix C-7).
Three issues of concern regarding these data include (1) inconsistencies
between states (e.g., as in the state 305(b) reports on the status of their aquatic
ecosystems); (2) data quality; and (3) data gaps in the form of incomplete regional
coverage (e.g. R-EMAP, MoRAP, GPP, and NWI). Region 7 is most interested in data
41
-------
sets for which statistical confidence limits can be estimated and for which quality checks
have been incorporated into the database as it was developed.
Methods. The Region intends to use consistent and accurate data in a series of
GIS-based applications in combination with other tools for geographic prioritization
analyses. The key to environmental assessments in the Region is determining the
reliability of available information and integrating the information in meaningful ways.
Region 7 is also interested in evaluating other Region's "large scale" assessment efforts
in setting priorities. The focus is on large-scale assessments that will complete the
picture, revealing "illuminating patterns " that are not often discerned at the smaller
scales where EPA has traditionally focused its efforts. Descriptions of several of the
prioritization tools under evaluation or currently in use in the Region are listed in Table 4
of Appendix C-7.
Strengths and limitations. Region 7 is still in the process of developing a
comprehensive ecosystem-targeting approach that includes regionally consistent
information on ecosystem condition and stressors in a GIS format and that uses defined
criteria and methods for geographic-area prioritization. Thus, it is premature to identify
potential strengths and weaknesses of that approach or of the Region's GIS
capabilities. In the interim, participation in the GPP, MoRAP, and funding regional
projects that use a collaborative process will be an efficient way of targeting the.
Region's resources for ecosystem protection and restoration.
3.7.2 The Missouri Aquatic GAP Analysis
At the state level, Missouri is developing one of the few aquatic GAP analysis
programs in the United States (see also New York State in Region 2). The goal of the
aquatic GAP analysis is to describe the distribution of important biological resources in
the landscape and to determine if there are gaps in knowledge and protection. Another
desired outcome of the project, which started in 1996, is to assist in developing
standards for a national aquatic GAP analysis. The State intends to estimate the cost
of producing state-wide data layers for other states. Currently there are ten data layers
included in the Missouri aquatic GAP analysis:
• Land cover: urban, open water, forest, grassland, cropland.
• Land stewardship/ownership.
• Land management codes.
• Completion of EPA-River Reach File version 3 (RF3). This is a standard
resource for depicting rivers and streams in GIS systems. They will begin
"populating" the river reaches with the existing species collection data.
42
-------
• Digital National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps. Currently, digital NWI maps
covering 60% of Missouri have been completed. Once done, the State will link
the riverine classes found in the NWI maps with the River Reach data layer.
Aquatic biota distributions. Species collection records will be linked to the RF3,
reach by reach. Taxonomic priorities are fish, naiads, crayfish, other benthic
invertebrates, amphibians, aquatic vascular plants, aquatic mammals, and
waterfowl/wading birds.
• Predicted aquatic biota distributions based on aquatic biota models.
• Water-management information reflecting activities within the State, including
soil and water conservation district plans, and state and municipal plans.
• Water quality data.
• Watershed boundaries.
3.7.3 Sources
Contacts
Maria Downing, EPA Region 7, Risk Assessment / Prioritization Team Leader
Walt Foster, EPA Region 7, SEAT Leader
Brenda Groskinsky, EPA Region 7, Great Plains Technical Committee Co-chair
Lyle Cowles, EPA Region 7, R-EMAP
Scott Sowa, Aquatic Gap, MoRAP (see Appendix C-7)
References
Strategic Environmental Assessment Team. Draft April 28, 1998. Framework
Document
Two pages provided by Maria Downing for the July, 1997, Denver Workshop,
describing the results of the Great Plains Partnership (GPP), a precursory CBEP
effort.
Risk Assessment / Prioritization Team. May 19, 1997. Region 7's Community
Based Environmental Protection, Report to the Steering Committee
The Nature Conservancy's Great Plains Program (GPP). April 24 1997. The
Status of Biodiveristy in the Great Plains: Great Plains Landscapes of Biological
Significance. Internet.
Missouri Aquatic Gap Analysis Program - See Appendix C-7.
43
-------
3.8 REGION 8
Region 8 has several efforts underway to develop its capabilities to target
ecosystems of concern in the Region and to provide the analysis tools and databases
needed for such capabilities. These efforts include environmental issue identification
for CBEP projects, GIS capabilities for assessing environmental status and trends in the
Region, and the Ecosystems Protection Program (EPP) for the RGI.
The Region developed an outline for CBEP project-prioritization in 1996, and is
working with the Western Center for Environmental Decision-making to develop it
further. Currently, the Western Center is developing a process for environmental issue
identification. The initial focus is on CBEP, but a more generalized process for
identifying ecosystems that need restoration or protection will be addressed later. In
the interim; identifying priority environmental issues has been the task of the EPA
members of a Prioritization Workgroup.
Region 8 has developed an Ecosystems Protection Initiative to help target RGI
funds based on priority ecosystem issues as well as based on human health issues.
The initiative evolved from the merger of two different Regional initiatives: The Rocky
Mountains Headwater Mining Waste Initiative, which originated from the Water Quality
Branch of Region 8's earlier organization, and the Federal Sector Pollution Prevention
Initiative, which originated in the'former Policy and Management Branch. The goals of
the Ecosystem Protection Initiative are similar to those of the previous initiatives, but
additional goals related to implementing community-based and federal partnerships to
accomplish the environmental goals have been added.
Region 8 also is developing its GIS capabilities to provide relevant information on
several scales for use by different Program Offices in the Region, for use by CBEP, and
eventually for use by other local and state government entities in the Region. Some of
the GIS data layers are from national databases, but others were developed as the
Region worked on its State of the Environment (SOE) report, which- identified the major
environmental issues of concern in the Region and uses a state-pressure-response
model (see Appendix C-8). The Region's GIS data layers include core data sets that
provide context for any type of analysis and additional data layers for environmental
indicators. r
Participants in the process depend on the activity. Stakeholders identified for
Region 8's Ecosystems Protection Initiative include federal, state, and local
governmental organizations (e.g., state resource conservation and development offices,
state divisions of minerals and geology, state fish and wildlife services, Mini-Sose
Intertribal Water Rights Coalition, Town of Jamestown), local community organizations
(e.g., urban resource partnerships, Chase Lake Foundation, Friends of Bluff Lake),
44
-------
NGOs (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, several universities), and private business (e.g.,
Coors Brewing Co.). The Region's GIS capabilities are being developed by EPA staff in
Region 8's OIRM. The members of the Ecosystems Protection Prioritization Workgroup
included EPA staff from all of Region 8's program offices. New data layers for the
Region's GIS are being developed in partnership with the states and other federal
agencies.
Goals. A primary goal of these various efforts is to pro-actively evaluate
ecosystem impact trends from geographic information that can be used to focus efforts
on areas of ecosystem scale. The State of the Environment report is used for Regional
strategic planning and as an information and targeting tool by the various EPA program
offices in the Region.
Criteria. Although the process and criteria for identifying priority ecosystems are
still under development by the Western Center, a preliminary draft of Region 8's
Community-Based Environmental Protection Project Prioritization Framework (see
References below) indicates two general criteria in the form of questions:
• Does an ecosystem have a high weighted score for amenities?
• Are the amenities being highly stressed?
The meaning of "amenities" is described below under Data. There are additional
criteria related to the probability of success and other relevant CBEP-project attributes
(e.g., multimedia, community interest).
Data. In its draft Framework for CBEP project selection, Region 8 has divided its
geographic areas according to resource (habitat) categories: deserts and plateaus
(e.g., western interior), mountains (e.g., alpine, sub-alpine/Engleman Spruce,
Ponderosa Pine/grasslands, intermontane parks, and riparian valleys), prairies and
plains (e.g., riparian areas, sustainable agricultural lands, prairie wetland), and urban
environments (e.g., drinking water supplies, floodplain functions, and sensitive
environments). Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species are
considered in all resource categories.
The values of the resources which are identified as amenities are ecosystem-
specific. Ecosystem-related amenities include the following characteristics related to
both ecosystem and human welfare: pollution mitigation, flood attenuation, geological
significance, surface water, areas with high numbers of endemic species, large pristine
tracts, views/vistas, clean air, parks/reserves/recreational areas, wetlands and riparian
areas, areas for migratory birds, and commodity production.
45
-------
The stressors considered also depend on the ecosystem type, and include
surface water degradation and loss, floodplain overdevelopment, air quality
degradation, nonnative vegetation, loss of wetlands and riparian areas, habitat
fragmentation, grazing impacts, mining, acid rain, erosion, paving over, logging,
residential development, heavy recreation, transportation corridors, agricultural runoff,
pesticide runoff, and hydrologic modification.
Data sources include or will include the GIS core data sets (e.g., political
boundaries, locations of protected areas, surface waters), EPA's Ecological Sensitivity
Targeting and Assessment Tool (ESTAT), state Natural Heritage program data, the
national-scale IWI, Landview III satellite imagery data (to track land cover changes over
time), RCRIS and CERLIS information on point sources of pollution, air quality
indicators (monitoring data on the six criteria air pollutants) and state 305(b) reports on
the condition of surface waters (percent of waters supporting various categories of
aquatic life). See also the description of the Southern Appalachian Assessment
(Appendix C-7) for types and sources of data that ultimately will also be included in
Region 8's GIS capabilities. A key issue in the development of some indicators for
which data are collected by the states or more local entities (e.g., from state 305(b)
reports) is comparability across the Region.
Methods. The draft Framework for CBEP project prioritization specifies the
following method of evaluating the information described above. The Region is divided
into Geographic Areas corresponding to ecosystem type (e.g., alpine). For each
geographic area, the environmental amenities specific to that area are scored as
present or absent and assigned a relative weighting factor. Additional CBEP criteria
(e.g., community involvement) are considered also. Until the framework is finalized,
however, Region 8 is focusing on priority places identified by the Prioritization
Workgroup.
Results. Region 8's Prioritization Workgroup has identified several geographic
areas and themes that are of high priority in the Region. These include areas of rapid
growth (e.g., the South Platte Basin, Jordan River Basin, Lake Powell, Summit County),
the Northern Great Plains (including the Red River/Devil's Lake area and the Missouri
River), and areas with heavy resource extraction (e.g., oil, gas, and hard rock mining).
Region 8 has a long history of environmental problems associated with water quantity
and quality. Hydrogeographic modifications in the Region have affected water supply
to the Region's two major population centers, and Region 8's water quality has been
impacted.
Strengths and limitations. Region 8 is still in the process of developing a
comprehensive ecosystem-targeting approach. This approach will include both
regionally consistent information on ecosystem condition and stressors in a GIS format
46'
-------
as well as defined criteria and methods for geographic area prioritization. In addition,
the Region is now developing more data layers for its GIS system that will be useful as
indicators of actual ecosystem condition. Thus, it is premature to identify potential
strengths and weaknesses of that approach or the Region's GIS capabilities. In the
interim, use of professional judgment from the spectrum of program offices in the
Region has been an efficient way of identifying the most obvious areas of concern in
the Region.
Contacts
Karl Hermann, GIS Coordinator, Technical Management Service - Data,
EPA Region 8
Stacey Eriksen, CBEP Coordinator. EPA Region 8
References
EPA Prioritization Workgroup. 1996. EPA Region 8: Community Based
Environmental Protection Project Prioritization Framework. 3/21/96 DRAFT
Straw Proposal.
"Region 8 FY 1998 Action Plan for Multimedia Programs". Memorandum from
Jack McGraw, Acting Regional Administrator, to Mary Louise Uhlig, Acting
Associate Administrator, Region 8, dated August 4,1997.
3.9 REGION 9
Region 9, which encompasses the States of Alaska, Hawaii, California, Arizona,
and Nevada, includes a very wide diversity of ecosystem types: tundra, tropical forests,
coral reefs, mountains, arid lands, coastlines, estuaries, and many others. Parts of the
Region are under intense human development pressures (e.g., Southern California).
Most of the states in Region 9 have already developed their own methods, data sets,
and partnerships for targeting ecosystems. As a result, Region 9 has focused on
creating partnerships with and providing assistance to the states, land-owning
agencies, and various other groups.to address ecosystem concerns. The Region has
not developed its own comprehensive Region-wide ecosystem-targeting approach.
r
Goals. At the most basic level, the Region's goals related to ecosystem
protection are to identify the best opportunities to provide added value to ecosystem
protection and restoration projects that are identified or developed by the states and
other stakeholders. Stated simply, the Region does not want to miss any opportunity to
help preserve and protect ecosystems.
Participants. As indicated above, Region 9 looks for opportunities to participate
in appropriate partnerships with states, stakeholder groups, and consortiums. For
47
-------
example, Region 9 has provided grants to The Nature Conservancy and the California
State Coastal Conservancy to enhance their efforts to protect important ecosystems.
As another example, along with seven other federal agencies and five Californinia State
agencies, EPA Region 9 is a member of the Interagency Vernal Pool Policy Committee.
The Committee is implementing a framework for protection of California's vernal pool
ecosystems and their specialized flora and fauna. EPA Region 9 also supports several
ecosystem-conservation activities of the California Association of Resource
Conservation Districts, the Trust for Public Land, and the American Farmland Trust.
(See Appendix C-9.) Once the states have submitted their Clean Water Action Plans to
the USDA and EPA, as requested by a directive from the Vice President in October of
1997, EPA Region 9 will discuss with the states how it might best assist them.
Criteria. Region 9 has not developed specific criteria by which to target
ecosystems for EPA attention; however, some criteria are implicit in the Region's
selection of opportunities. In particular, Region 9 has found that it is far more cost-
effective to protect ecosystems that are pristine or relatively undisturbed and in good
condition than to try to restore ecosystems after they have been degraded or lost.
Data. To date, much of the Region's efforts related to ecosystem protection
have been conducted for aquatic environments. The Region is now turning to a more
holistic watershed approach to protecting aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
For aquatic ecosystems, Region 9's Water Office has found that major threats
have been obvious for some time to the Office, states, and other stakeholders in the
Region. In some cases, the Water Office has established monitoring and assessment
activities to provide the data needed to identify and locate water quality problems and
impairments in benthic aquatic communities. For example, there are several sources of
chemical pollution along the coast of southern California (i.e., south of Point
Conception), including four major point source dischargers. To evaluate the potential
for cumulative impacts, the Monitoring and Assessment Division of the Water Office
established stations along the coast which have been used to monitor contaminant •
levels in water, sediments, and some fish tissues, and to monitor benthic community
structure.
To evaluate the terrestrial components of watersheds, the Region plans to use
GIS analysis and a variety of data types. This activity is supported by the Region's GIS
Center. The Center is a service-oriented group which assists regional staff with
projects that use GIS. The GIS Center continually obtains and develops data from and
with its counterparts in other federal and state agencies. Region 9's current Region-
wide GIS data layers include important ecological entities (e.g., endangered species,
wetlands, River Reach 3 information)', stressors (e.g., Superfund sites), important
resources (e.g., minerals), land uses and developments, and land cover or habitat
types (see Appendix C-9). The 1992 TIGER Line File coverage for Region 9 includes
48
-------
roads, railroads, pipelines, open spaces, fences, topographic features, and other
information important to evaluating habitat fragmentation and connectivity (see
Appendix C-9). Region 9 also has obtained the USGS GIRAS land use/land cover
Classification Level II data at the 1:250,000 scale (see Appendix C-9). GIRAS data
were compiled from the late 1970s to the early 1980s. The Level II data are subsets of
nine Level I data: (1) urban or built-up land, (2) agricultural land, (3) rangeland, (4)
forested land, (5) surface waters, (6) wetlands, (7) barren lands, (8) tundra, and (9)
perennial snow.
Methods and results. With its southern California coastal monitoring and
assessment program, the Water Office was able to conclude that the largest offshore
point-source dischargers (e.g., ocean sewage outfalls) were not causing demonstrable
water or sediment quality impairment offshore. In fact, the benthic response index
provided evidence of benthic community quality improvement over the past several
decades in that environment. The monitoring also revealed that a variety of point and
nonpoint sources of pollution are adversely affecting nearshore benthic communities.
This has led the Office to begin developing a more holistic watershed approach to
identifying the sources of the observed coastal aquatic community impairments.
The Water Office is consulting with the EPA ORD Las Vegas Laboratory on ways
to use GIS-based analyses to identify landscape characteristics that might be causing
the coastal impairments. The Office intends to develop a model that can use the GIS
data layers to predict contaminant loadings to the nearshore environment. If a planned
field-verification study in one area reveals that the model has reasonable predictive
power, the Office intends to use the model to predict loadings in other areas and to
identify those watershed characteristics that might be responsible for high loadings. In
turn, that information would be used to evaluate options for changing management
practices that influence the loadings.
Strengths. The approach of identifying opportunities to collaborate with other
agencies and stakeholders on aquatic ecosystem protection activities is a cost-effective
method of using limited resources in ways they might contribute the most value. Use of
a monitoring and assessment programs provides real-time data that can be used to
identify ecosystem impairments in areas where they were not expected, allowing the
Region to search for potential causes. The monitoring program also provides the
assessment tool needed to evaluate the effectiveness of any efforts taken to reduce
stress and improve ecosystem condition. The holistic watershed approach will provide
information on sources of chemical and nonchemical stresses on the aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems.
Limitations. Region 9 has not yet established a means of communicating
ecosystem targeting and protection abilities or needs among its various program
49
-------
offices. The aquatic ecosystem targeting and protection efforts have been more
reactive than proactive, and have not played a role in strategic planning for the Region.
Sources
Carmen Maso, GIS Analyst, PMD/IRM - GIS Center, EPA Region 9
Janet Hashimoto, Office of Water, Assessment and Monitoring Division,
Region 9
3.10 REGION 10
Region 10 uses their Geographic Characterization Tool (GCT) to prioritize areas
for major investment in CBEP and RGI (Section 3.10.1). The tool was completed in the
Fall of 1995, and continues to be used today. The Region is developing some
refinements of that tool, in a prototype methodology called Comparative Geographical
Risk Assessment (CGRA). Both the GCT and and the CGRA under development are
described below (Section 3.10.2).
3.10.1 Geographic Characterization Tool
The GCT includes human and ecological risk assessments and comparative risk
ranking. For ecosystems, the ecological risk ranking criteria include stressors and
sources of those stressors; nature and type of effect; natural recovery; ecologically
valuable resources (e.g., unique and rare organisms, populations, communities, or
ecosystems); ecosystem patterns (e.g., continuity/degree of fragmentation, corridors,
patchiness, and porosity); and resources of concern (e.g., public water supply; fish and
wildlife species; designated recreational sites; threatened or endangered species;
designated natural protected area; rare ecosystem types, refugia or intact habitat; and
areas critical to the life history stage(s) of individual organisms, i.e., nodes). Region 10
is considering refinements to this tool, and those ideas are presented in some detail
below.
3.10.2 Comparative Geographical Risk Assessment
Region 10 currently is developing CGRA basically as a refinement of the GCT.
CGRA would use GIS layers and other information to determine ecological resources at
risk, including severely degraded areas.
Goals. The Region's goals are (1) to identify ecological threats before adverse
effects occur and (2) to protect those resources that are at greatest risk. The Region
hopes that CGRA could serve as a tool that would allow managers to compare
geographical areas of different sizes in Region 10 with respect to stresses, actual
exposures, actual and potential effects, ecological "values," uncertainty in the data
50
-------
used, and data gaps. The GIS data layers would allow comparison of the overlap of
stressors and receptors and would include a data layer related to "ecological value"
(e.g., "quality" of habitat and presence of "valued" species). Thus, the tool could be
used for RGI efforts, multi-media inspection targeting, indicators development, pollution
prevention, ambient monitoring, watershed analysis, sector analysis, and CBEP priority
area selection.
Participants. EPA Region 10 staff in the Office of Environmental Assessment
(OEA) include the Risk Evaluation Unit, the Data Team, and Senior Policy Advisor.
Criteria. Region 10 is still developing criteria by which it might value
ecosystems. Environment Canada has stated that valued ecosystem components and
attributes should be the basis for scoring and ranking risks. The Western Center for
Environmental Decision-Making has suggested that "ecological integrity" is an
appropriate value to protect. The Center maintains that ecological integrity can be
assessed by evaluating structural and functional characteristics of ecological systems.
Those characteristics would include sufficient genetic variation in populations to
respond to environmental fluctuations, redundancy of species functions in guilds,
sufficient scale and complexity to provide resiliency, adequate storage capacity of
nutrients at the landscape level, and sufficient biogeochemical processes for energy
flow and nutrient cycling. Maintaining biodiversity is another goal of the Region, and
ecosystem characteristics of concern include disturbance regimes, habitat
heterogeneity, and opportunities for recolonization. The Region is considering using
two tiers of screening criteria. The first screen is based on the following questions
developed by Environment Canada:
• Is ecosystem integrity likely to be impaired such that there is a loss of: adequate
habitat, biodiversity and abundance, robust food web, and normally functioning
ecological processes?
• Are environmental media or biota likely to become pathways of exposure to
illness, injury, or disease? (primarily a human welfare concern)
• Is the stock of renewable resources and assets likely to be permanently or
seriously reduced or adversely affected?
The second screen assesses the significance of the answer to each question in the first
screen by criteria such as:
• the magnitude of effect,
• extent of effect, and
• direction and magnitude of trends in effects.
Data. As the Region works on refining its approach based on the results of the
pilot study, it is shifting from evaluating only available data to identifying which data
51
-------
would best meet its goals. The GIS data layers are organized according to the risk
assessment paradigm (e.g., sources/stressors, receptors, and effects). An initial effort
related to ecological risk was begun in May 1996 using available GIS information. The
Region 10 GIS Data Library of approximately 50 sets of data included information on
political (e.g., state outlines), physical (e.g., hydrologic units), programmatic (e.g.,
Superfund sites), environmental (e.g., stream flow), and human population (e.g., 1990
demographic) data sets. Receptor-related data included salmon and steelhead stock
status, wetlands, vegetation, and priority species. Data expressing effects were rare;
the best example is the list of stream segments not meeting beneficial uses under
section 305(b) of the CWA. The Region used some simplifying assumptions to handle
the limitations of many of the data sets.
The Region anticipates adding data layers related to drivers (e.g., population
growth, and economic expansion). It might follow Idaho's example of combining four
indices of socioeconomic indicators into an overall index of vulnerability for nearby GAP
areas (i.e., unprotected areas of high biodiversity). The Region also would like to
develop data layers related to habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, near coastal zone
eutrophication, and introduction of exotic species.
Region 10 is developing a process for selecting data sets, including the use of
set general categories tied to specific concepts of interest and ensuring that a data set
meets a list of selection criteria before it is adopted.
Methods. The Region is still evaluating different approaches, but GIS tools will
be involved. The Region has considered using Omernik's ecoregions or subdivisions of
those ecoregions (e.g., components of interest such as wetlands, uplands, riparian
zones, and montane zones) for the assessment unit. The Region also has considered
Environment Canada's approach to using sustainability as the overarching goal and the
ecosystem as the basic unit of consideration.
Region 10 intends to incorporate expert judgment in an open, transparent, and
well documented process. Expert judgment might be needed when evaluating trends
and trying to determine when "change agents" become "harbingers of risk." The
Region's general approach to developing methods and obtaining data is as follows:
• Make scoring ecological and human health risks compatible.
• Evaluate uncertainty (data layers evaluated for quality, continuity of coverage,
and uncertainty with respect to the ranking process).
• Meet internally with regional experts who can provide best professional
estimates of existing information, and hold a workshop with external experts to fill
out maps of high ranking ecological (and human health) information based on
their best professional judgment.
• Estimate what can be used in the prototype given available time and resources.
52
-------
Strengths and limitations. It is too soon to assess the strengths and limitations
of any proposed refinements of Region 10's GCT or CGRA.
3.10.3 Sources
Contacts
Bruce Duncan, Senior Ecologist, Risk Evaluation Unit, EPA Region 10 Office
of Environmental Assessment
Richard Parkin, Unit Manager, Geographic Implementation Unit, EPA
Region 10 Office of Ecosystems and Communities
References
U.S. EPA Region 10. 1996. Comparative Risk Ranking. April 23 draft.
U.S. EPA Region 10. 1997. Comparative Geographical Risk Assessment in
EPA Region 10: Development of a Prototype and Methodology. May 27,1997
DRAFT (forwarded by Bruce Duncan)
U.S. EPA Region 10. Community-Based Environmental Protection. Appendix B:
The Geographic Characterization Tool.
53
-------
54
-------
4.0 SUMMARY OF APPROACHES
TO ECOSYSTEM TARGETING
Over the past decade, numerous approaches to targeting ecosystems for priority
consideration have been developed, both within and outside EPA, and many others are
currently under development. Section 3 reviewed approaches used or being
considered in each of the ten EPA Regions. Additional approaches that have been or
are being developed by EPA ORD Laboratories, offices within EPA Headquarters, and
other agencies are not reviewed in this report. However, those are being reviewed in
other projects, and some were presented at the July 1998 Workshop on Ecosystem
Targeting in Las Vegas.
Because the EPA Regions function somewhat independently and include
different types of ecosystems with varying concerns, no two EPA Regions are at the
same point in developing ecosystem targeting approaches. For example, Regions with
coastal ecosystems, high-diversity forested areas, or severe environmental problems
generally started considering the process of ecosystem targeting earlier than other
Regions. In addition, some Regions are developing comprehensive targeting
approaches suitable to a variety of customers, whereas in other Regions, some EPA
programs are developing independent approaches. Among the EPA Regions and
programs, there are subtle to substantial differences in how the ecosystem targeting
process is viewed. The purpose of this Section is to describe the range of approaches
that have been pursued in the ten EPA Regions to date.
This report has attempted to describe the process of ecosystem targeting using a
consistent framework which divided the process into goals, participants, criteria, data,
and methods. Due to the variety of ecosystem targeting efforts in the EPA Regions and
the broad range of issues under consideration, some approaches do not fit into those
categories as well as others. Nonetheless, the remainder of this Section is organized
according to those themes.
Section 4.1 briefly compares Regional goals for various ecosystem targeting
efforts and describes the range of definitions of "ecosystem" that those goals entail.
Section 4.2 describes the different kinds of participants involved in each Region's
approach. Section 4.3 provides an overview of the various criteria the Regions have
adopted to define high-priority ecosystems. Section 4.4 provides a brief categorization
of data types, sources, and issues identified by the Regions. Section 4.5 attempts to
categorize the methods that have been used to analyze the data. Section 4.6 provides
some final conclusions.
55
-------
4.1 GOALS
A definition of goals for an ecological targeting or related effort helps to guide the
selection of criteria, data, and methods used in the effort. This is consistent with EPA's
1998 Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment, which indicates that defining risk-
management goals is a first step in any ecological risk assessment. Table 4-1 presents
highlights of some of the more prominent Regional initiatives.
As illustrated in Table 4-1, some Regional goals are related to "natural
resources" or the "environment" rather than to ecosystems per se. The associated
assessments tend to have integrated analyses in which many attributes of ecosystem
structure or function are related to human health and welfare concerns (e.g., Regions 1,
6, 7). For example, ecosystems in Region 1 are evaluated for their ability to provide
wildlife habitat and sustain biodiversity and to provide services important to ecosystem
structure and function as well as to human health, safety, and welfare. In some
Regions, there is somewhat more emphasis on protection of ecosystems that have not
yet been degraded (e.g., Regions 1, 5, 9, and 10) than on restoration of degraded
systems, despite the reverse relative emphasis in the national Clean Water Action Plan.
In general, the management goals are broad-based, and could not serve to
guide any particular assessment or even to identify what is considered a valuable or
high-priority ecosystem. Hence, the need for more specific and operationally useful
definitions of the values to be protected, i.e., the assessment endpoints. Those
definitions appear in the criteria discussed in Section 4.3.
4.2 PARTICIPANTS
This section on participants follows, rather than precedes, the discussion of
goals in Section 4 for two reasons. First, participation in the process of identifying goals
for an EPA Regional effort is generally limited to EPA staff. Second, which EPA staff
are involved is generally well defined within each Region. In contrast, all other
components of the ecosystem-targeting process, including developing criteria, data,
methods, and actually conducting an ecosystem-targeting assessment, are open to a
broader diversity of involvement, both from within and outside EPA.
Options for how and who to include in one or more aspects of the process of
developing or conducting and ecosystem-targeting effort are more diverse than the
examples provided in this report. Two dimensions of the topic discussed in this Section
are the selection of participants and the type and level of participation. Other possible
dimensions that are beyond the scope of this Section include how groups might reach
decisions with or without consensus.
56
-------
TABLE 4-1. Highlights of Regional Initiatives Related to Ecosystem Targeting
Region
Name of Initiative or
Workgroup Developing it
Goals
1
Resource Protection Project
(RPP)
To identify and protect New England's most
important natural resources
Ecological Assessment of
the United States Mid-
Atlantic Region: A
Landscape Atlas
To (1) evaluate relative ecological conditions at a
watershed scale; (2) provide customers from local
to Regional levels with a broad view of their
environment; and (3) integrate landscape ecology
principles into decisionmaking
GIS-based ecosystem-
stressor proximity
assessments
The Southern Appalachian
Assessment
To assist in strategic planning and program
evaluation in the Region based on ecological
risks as well as human health and welfare
To provide information on environmental
conditions and ecosystems to a variety of
customers
Critical Ecosystem Team
To (1) protect priority ecosystems (see criteria)
from adverse impacts of human activities and (2)
restore degraded ecosystems to their full
structural and functional potential
Strategic Environmental
Assessment Group
To strengthen and improve biological diversity
and ecosystem health in ways that also
strengthen and improved economic, social, and
cultural foundations
Ecosystem Protection
Initiative
State of the Environment
report
To help target RGI funds based on priority
ecosystem issues as well as human health issues
To assist Regional strategic planning
10
Comparative Geographical
Risk Assessment
To identify ecological threats before adverse
effects occur and protect those resources that are
at greatest risk
See Appendix A for acronym definitions.
57
-------
The examples in Section 3 of this report illustrate that some Regions look to EPA
staff primarily for support in initiating ecosystem-targeting efforts or in developing such
efforts for EPA customers. In Region 4, for example, ecosystem targeting for Regional
strategic planning is conducted by EPA staff. In Region 6, EPA staff completed the
early Comparative Risk Assessment (CRA) and developed the Cumulative Risk Index
Analysis (CRIA) and its pilot application to swine concentrated animal feeding
operations. EPA staff also are responsible for developing additional CRIA applications.
Region 7's Strategic Environmental Assessment Team consists of EPA staff only.
Region 10's Geographic Characterization Tool was developed and is used and being
refined by EPA staff. In most of these examples, the EPA staff include representatives
of all of the Regions' programs, either as direct participants or in an advisory capacity.
Section 3 also provided examples of Regions that have also involved experts
and stakeholders outside of EPA. Although Region 5's Critical Ecosystem Team is
comprised entirely of EPA staff, the Team has sent requests for input on criteria, data,
and methods of ecosystem targeting to over 50 Midwest organizations involved in
ecosystem work outside of EPA, EPA's state partners, and The Nature Conservancy.
The Team will decide how to use that input. Some Regions have more directly involved
experts, partners, and stakeholders from outside EPA. For Region 1's state-by-state
Resource Protection Project, the initial criteria for identifying high-priority ecosystems
were developed by EPA, but each state has the option to modify the criteria based on
lessons learned in previous state efforts. Identification of indicators for those criteria
and mapped data for those indicators are developed by large workgroups consisting of
experts from a variety of organizations, including other federal agencies, state-wide
resource agencies, interest groups, universities, and other state and regional
stakeholders. Both the Mid-Atlantic Assessment (MAA) in Region 3 and the Southern
Appalachian Assessment (SAA) in Region 4 were developed cooperatively between
EPA and other agencies. In the MAA, the initial data layers and methods of analysis
were developed by EPA Region 3 and EPA's Las Vegas ORD Laboratory staff in
cooperation with DOE and TVA. Additional data collection to refine and expand the
assessment will include other federal agencies, the states, universities, and other
participants. Development of the similar SAA included an even broader array of state
and federal agencies and stakeholders than did development of the MAA.
The degree to which participation is extended beyond EPA staff depends on
many factors. Some of the more obvious include the Region's stage in developing
ecosystem targeting, for which parts of the ecosystem-targeting process the Region
needs assistance, the goals and intended audience of the targeting effort, and the
Region's emphasis on state and other stakeholder involvement.
58
-------
4.3 CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING HIGH-PRIORITY ECOSYSTEMS
Many of the criteria used or considered by an EPA Region for identifying high-
priority ecosystems are summarized in Table 4-2. In that Table, the criteria are grouped
into four categories: ecosystem value-related, impact-related, risk-related, and other.
Regions 2, 3, and 7 have not yet developed explicit criteria for targeting ecosystems;
hence, they are not represented in the Table. Ecosystem attributes included in the
goals of Region 7's SEAG, however, are likely to be reflected in future criteria. Regions
5 and 8 are included in the Table, even though their criteria are still under development
and have not been finalized.
Not surprisingly, the most diverse of the four categories of criteria encompasses
the ecosystem value-related criteria. Because those criteria are similar to assessment
endpoints in ecological assessments, this diversity reflects the broad diversity of
potential assessment endpoints possible in ecological assessments. Some of the
criteria in that category are subsets of other criteria, and some reflect different ways of
describing what some might consider to be the same assessment endpoint. EPA staff
in Regions without established criteria noted that such criteria could help guide the
development of methods and data for ecosystem targeting.
In general, the criteria that define a high-priority or ecosystem or important
natural resource are more specific than the broad management goals described in
Section 4.1. Nonetheless, conceptual models of how field measurements can be used
to infer whether an ecosystem satisfies the criteria or not are needed before the criteria
can help to guide an assessment. The diversity of ecosystem-related criteria also
illustrates the lack of Agency, stakeholder, and scientific consensus on what ecosystem
attributes are most important to sustaining ecosystem and human health and welfare.
Several factors beyond ecological considerations can influence the selection and
wording of criteria for identifying high-priority areas in a Region. Key are the goals of
the ecosystem-targeting effort as described in Section 4.1. For example, if the purpose
of an assessment is to characterize the Region's ecosystems with respect to status and
trends, impact- or risk-related criteria might not be included. Known limitations on the
availability of relevant data might influence criteria selection (e.g., difficulty in using
trophic structure as a criterion). The level of effort that would be required to reformat
existing data or to develop new data compared with available Regional resources also
can influence criteria selection. The participants in the criteria-selection process are
additional likely influences. Indirect management goals, such as the likelihood of
success, and other factors also might be considered.
59
-------
TABLE 4-2. Examples of Criteria for Ecosystem-targeting from the EPA Regions
Criterion
Ecosystem Value-Related
resource of national, regional, or state significance
co-occurrence of multiple resources/amenities/services
presence of threatened or endangered species
scarcity of resource or ecological entity
still pristine/undisturbed by human stressors
level of ecological integrity
sustain/improve biodiversity
sustain aquatic and terrestrial productivity
suitable/adequa.te habitat for wildlife
sustain major game species
sustain normal trophic structure and function
sustain ecosystem processes and services of importance to
ecosystem structure and function
sustain ecosystem services relevant to human health and welfare
Impact (Effect)-Related
magnitude/degree of impacts
area! extent of impacts
direction and magnitude of trends in impacts
Risk-Related
proximity to threats
"at risk or threatened"
degree of "vulnerability"
Other
in "need" of restoration
potential exposure routes to impact human health and welfare
probability of successfully protecting resource
Region
1.4,5.6,8.9,10
1,4
1,10
4,6
1,4.5
4,9
5
4, 5, 10
6
10
4
10
6.10
6.10
6, 7. 8. 10
6.10
6.10
8.10
1.4.5.6
1,4
4.5,9
6
1.5.10
5
10
1
60
-------
4.4 DATA FOR ECOSYSTEM TARGETING
The list of data types and sources used for ecosystem targeting in one or more
EPA Regions is very extensive and can be categorized along different dimensions.
Data types can be organized according to general ecosystem type (e.g., terrestrial or
aquatic) and the data metric (e.g., single or composite measures). The list of sources
or databases available for each data type can be grouped in different ways. Some
include the scale of the database (e.g., state, regional, national), the analysis unit of the
database (e.g., county, watershed), and the consistency of the database (e.g., with
respect to data quality, sampling process used to obtain the data, statistical reliability,
and the scale of data collection).
Examples of data types and sources that are being used or that might be
considered for use by the EPA Regions are provided in several sections of this report.
Data types and sources used by some Regions are summarized in Section 3.
Additional information on data types and sources used by EPA Regions is included in
the supplemental information in Appendix C. Appendix E focuses on data types and
sources for potential indicators of terrestrial ecosystem "health," including existing
sources and those under development.
It is beyond the scope of this report to list all possible data types and sources for
ecosystem targeting or to evaluate data scale, quality, or other strengths and limitations
of each data source. Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 provide examples of some of the more
commonly used data types and sources related to valued ecosystem entities, potential
ecosystem stressors, and condition of ecosystems or their components.
Many data types are actually based on multiple measures (e.g., proportion of
watershed with cropland cover on slopes that are greater than 3%) or are considered
derived indicators or indices. Indicators and indices are covered in Section 4.5 under
Methods for Ecosystem Targeting.
4.5 METHODS FOR ECOSYSTEM TARGETING
The purpose of this Section is to summarize the general methods of analyzing
the data. The methods used by the Regions to target priority ecosystems could be
organized and discussed in a number of ways. This report discusses the methods
described in Section 3 in four categories: professional judgment (Section 4.5.1), GIS
analysis (Section 5.5.2), use of environmental Indicators (Section 5.5.3), and
prioritization models for ecosystems that meet some or all of the criteria (Section
4.5.4).
61
-------
TABLE 4-3. Examples of Data Types and Sources Related to Valued Ecosystem
Entities
Data Types
Examples of Data Sources
Available Nationally
Examples of Data Sources
Available at Regional/State
Levels
rare community
types
The Nature Conservancy, U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
state natural heritage
programs, TVA, NOAA
forest and
nonforest
ecosystems
National Forest System, LANDS AT
remote sensing, Forest Inventory
and Analysis (FIA), National
Resources Inventory (NRI)
state forestry services
wetlands
National Wetlands Inventory, USDA
National Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS). NRI hydric soils
state DNRs and natural
heritage programs, NOAA
federally listed
threatened and
endangered
species
USFWS, USEPA's Ecological
Sensitivity Targeting and
Assessment Tool (ESTAT)
state natural heritage
programs, NOAA
species with
viability concerns
USFS occurrence records
state natural heritage
programs, state biological
conservation data
major terrestrial
game species
LANDSAT remote sensing, FIA, NRI
state wildlife agencies
major aquatic
game species
state fish inventory data, state
water-quality data
other aquatic
species of concern
USFS databases on sensitive
species, The Nature Conservancy
(TNC)
state natural heritage
programs
waterbodies:
streams, rivers,
and lakes
EPA Reach File version 3.0
state agencies
See Appendix A for acronym definitions.
62
-------
TABLE 4-4. Examples of Data Types and Sources Related to Potential Ecosystem
Stressors
Data Types
Examples of Data Sources
Available Nationally
Examples of Data Sources
Available at Regional/State Levels
human population
growth
U.S. Census Bureau
point source
pollution
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
information system,
CERCLIS, RCRIS, EPA
Permits Compliance System
(PCS). EPA Industrial
Facilities Discharge File
state water-quality (305[b]) reports
nonpoint source
pollution
EPA National Database of
Fertilizer Sales, National
Listing of Fish Consumption
Advisories, NRI, EPA's Fish
Contamination Database,
USDA NRCS
state records of pesticide application,
local universities
air pollution
Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS),
NOAA's AIRMon, National Air
Monitoring Stations (NAMS)
state and local air monitoring
stations (SLAMS)
roads and
highways
U.S. Geological Survey (GS)
Digital Line Graphs, TIGER
Line File
aerial photographs in state tax
agencies
insect pests
USFS Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service,
USDA/APHIS National
Agricultural Pest Info. System
state DNR agencies
exotic (i.e.,
introduced) plant
and animal
species
NPS data on non-indigenous
species on National Park
lands
USGS exotic map database (specific
to the southwest)
extremes in
weather
NOAA's National Climatic
Data Center
state and local (e.g., airport) weather
records
resource
extraction
USFS statistics on logging,
BLM statistics on mining
See Appendix A for acronym definitions.
63
-------
TABLE 4-5. Examples of Data Types and Sources Related to Ecosystem
Condition
Data Types
Examples of Data Sources
Available Nationally
Examples of Data Sources
Available at Regional/State
Levels
Related to Ecosystem Vulnerability/Sensitivity
elevation
sensitivity to acid
deposition
measures related
to habitat
fragmentation/
connectivity
lack of protection
of areas supporting
high vertebrate
biodiversity
USGS Digital Elevation Model
(DEM)
USGS NRCS
LANDSAT Thematic Mapper
imagery, FIA, Multi-Resolution
Land Characteristics (MRLC) .
Consortium
TNC, National GAP Analysis
Program (also see Section
5.5)
same
local bedrock maps, state DNRs
same
state GAP analyses
Related to Level of Impact
forested
ecosystem health
forest insect and
disease conditions
ozone impacts on
forests
USFS maps of species
endangerment, patterns of
insect and disease outbreaks,
USFS Forest Inventory
Analysis
USFS databases
EMAP
state natural heritage programs,
state DNRs
state DNRs
R-EMAP
See Appendix A for acronym definitions.
64
-------
4.5.1 Professional Judgment
Some degree of professional judgment is required throughout any ecological
assessment process. Depending on the goals of the assessment and available
resources, there are differences in how and when such judgment might best be used.
For situations in which a Region might desire a highly prescriptive ecosystem-targeting
process that can be executed by a variety of non-ecologists, most professional
judgment will be used "up front" to develop the criteria, relevant data, and method of
data analysis, leaving only the execution of the assessment to customers with less
ecological expertise. In other situations, professional judgment might be exercised
more throughout the process, including execution of the assessment.
There are three types of professional judgment exemplified by the Regional
summaries in Section 3: EPA programmatic, stakeholder knowledge of the regional
ecosystems and their problems, and scientific expertise. EPA programmatic expertise
generally is needed to identify EPA customer needs, so that the targeting process will
provide the results or information that would be most useful in decisionmaking. Thus,
programmatic expertise is generally incorporated in the early stages of establishing an
ecosystem targeting process, including the development of goals and criteria. Some
Regions include representatives from each of their program offices in the process of
developing ecosystem-targeting approaches or capabilities, either as participants in
teams organized for that purpose (e.g., Region 5) or as advisors to such teams (e.g.,
Region 7).
To develop a targeting process that can be .used by a broader base of
customers, the judgments of the stakeholders are valuable input "up front." The
stakeholders, including the state agencies, often also have considerable knowledge
related to the values associated with the ecosystems and where the greatest risks or
impacts are found. Some EPA Regions are involved in ecosystem-targeting efforts as
only one of many participants (e.g., Regions 1 and 9), and function primarily to improve
consistency among assessments. Other EPA Regions lead ecosystem-targeting
efforts, but include stakeholders either as workgroup participants or advisors (e.g.,
Regions 3, 4, 5).
More ecological and scientific expertise generally is needed to develop
appropriate data sets and to establish the method of analysis for those data.
Considerable ecological/scientific expertise can be found in EPA, in many stakeholder
groups, and also in local educational institutions. This type of expertise generally is
used in developing data and methods and analytic tools (e.g., Regions 3, 4).
In Region 1, each state established a multi-stakeholder workgroup representing
a broad base of customer needs and scientific expertise. In those state Resource
Protection Projects, stakeholders and ecological/scientific experts not only developed
65
-------
many of the data layers considered, but also used their judgment to evaluate and draw
conclusions from the data. In this case, professional judgment can be considered the
"method" of analysis.
The methods by which a workgroup reaches its conclusion for an entire targeting
assessment or for one component of such an assessment (e.g., expert solicitation,
informal consensus, Delphi approach) depends on the goals of the effort and the
composition and size of the group. Those issues are beyond the scope of this report.
4.5.2 Geographic Information Systems
Given the broad array of relevant variables and large geographic areas to be
covered, GIS has become an invaluable tool in storing and presenting large data sets in
a geo-referenced framework, particularly for terrestrial systems. The ways in which GIS
is used, however, are numerous:
• As a relatively simple mapping tool, GIS facilitates ecosystem risk-related
assessments that use proximity of ecosystems and stressors as one indicator of
risk (see Section 4.5.4), providing overlays of maps depicting the ecosystems
with maps depicting the stressors.
If appropriate data are available, GIS also can be used to illustrate the spatial
relationship of impacted ecosystems with various human-generated stressors,
which can assist with diagnosing the cause of impacts (e.g., Regions 3 and 9
intend to use GIS that way).
• GIS can facilitate identifying ecosystems that fulfill multiple criteria for high-
priority systems. For example, it is an excellent tool for identifying geographic
areas that include large numbers of valued resources (e.g., Regions 1 and 10).
A more recent application of GIS moves beyond its assistance as a mapping tool
to a tool by which to evaluate environmental indicators (see Section 4.5.4). For
example, GIS is key to analyzing satellite imagery of land cover to estimate values for
indicators of terrestrial landscape characteristics (e.g., indicators of habitat
fragmentation, connectivity, and other indices of habitat suitability for many species of
wildlife) at one or more geographic scales. GIS can be used to easily calculate
indicators that might be based on measures such as the ratio of the area of edge
habitat to core habitat (e.g., where a 100 meter strip of forest at the border between
forested and open habitat is considered edge habitat and forest on the interior of that
habitat is considered core habitat). Another landscape characteristic that can influence
local biodiversity includes the number and size of unconnected patches of habitat. GIS
can automate the calculation of such indicators in a consistent and unbiased manner
across large geographic areas (e.g., states or EPA Regions). GIS data layers also
66
-------
facilitate estimating values for environmental indicators that are predicted from more
than one data type based on a model (e.g., runoff potential).
4.5.3 Environmental Indicators
Environmental indicators (Els) generally are developed to be measures directly
applicable to the assessment endpoints in an ecological risk or impact assessment or in
monitoring the outcome of actions intended to reduce impacts. As indicated in Section
4.5.2, Els can be derived from several types of original measurements:
• A single type of measurement (e:g., acres of wetlands);
• A simple composite of measurements (e.g., proportion of watershed with
cropland cover on slopes that are greater than 3%); and
• A model used to predict indicator from one or more measures (e.g., runoff
potential, habitat fragmentation, sustainability of timber production).
Developing an algorithm by which to estimate an El from more basic field data requires
professional judgment and a conceptual model of the relationship between the
assessment endpoints and the indicator.
Several examples of environmental indicators that are likely to be useful in
targeting high-priority ecosystems were provided in the Mid-Atlantic Assessment in
Region 3 and the Southern Appalachian Assessment and TVA assessment of potential
for biodiversity in Region 4: A large number of additional examples of potential
indicators of terrestrial ecosystem condition (or "health") are provided in Appendix E.
Those parts of this report provide numerous examples of four types of environmental
indicators:
(1) landscape characteristics, e.g.,
• greeness, and
• habitat fragmentation/connectivity.
(2) ecosystem condition, including
biotic components (e.g., supporting aquatic life), and
• abiotic components (e.g., soil condition).
(3) ecosystem value, e.g.,
• supporting or potentially supporting biodiversity (e.g., TVA analysis),
• supporting ecosystem services (e.g., nutrient recycling), and
• providing human-welfare services (e.g., flood protection, clean water).
(4) stressors (e.g., meeting pollutant-specific standards).
67
-------
4.5.4 Models Used to Prioritize Ecosystems
Using criteria to identify high-priority ecosystems implies a ranking system based
on those criteria. The ranking might simply be a "yes/no" system; either an ecosystem
fulfills the one or ajl of the criteria or not. However, it is more cost effective, it is more
cost-effective to rank ecosystems according to the degree to which they fulfill the
criteria established for the assessment and to apply resources in some way according
to relative rank. In this Section, methods for ranking priority ecosystems are described
in a way that corresponds to the four different approaches to ranking ecosystems
described by EPA in its 1993 Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples (U.S.
EPA, 1993). The four approaches are:
(1) numeric index approach;
(2) decision tree approach,
(3) data overlay approach, and
(4) multi-agency selection.
Of those, the data overlay approach corresponds to the uses of GIS described in
Section 4.5.2, and the multiagency selection approach is reflected in Section 4.5.1, in
the paragraph describing use of the professional judgment of multiple agencies and
stakeholders. A brief description and the strengths and limitations of each approach
are summarized below.
Numeric Index Approach
A common ranking technique is to assign weighted numeric index to each
ecosystem evaluation unit (e.g., a watershed or subwatershed unit). Values are.
assigned to indicate the degree to which the unit fulfills each criterion or indicator of a
criterion. The values might be assigned qualitatively by professional judgment (e.g., as
high, medium, or low) or might be assigned quantitatively using environmental
measures considered indicators of the degree to which the ecosystem unit fulfills a
criterion (e.g., percent cover with undisturbed land). Different weights can be assigned
to different indicators or criteria to reflect professional judgment on the relative
importance of each criterion or indicator, and then the weighted values summed to yield
a final score or index value. The Cumulative Risk Index Analysis (CRIA) in Region 6 is
a clear example of this approach. Values for criteria related to impacts and vulnerability
were assigned a value of one to four or five depending on numeric values for each of
the criteria. Professional judgment also can be used to assign scores for each criterion
into a small number of categories (e.g., three to five) in rank order. The area weighted
scores for impact and vulnerability are summed to provide a final score. Other
examples of this approach include the Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA) and
the Mid-Atlantic Assessment (MAA). The Index of Watershed Integrity (IWI), not
covered in this report, is another prominent example of the numeric index approach.
68
-------
A key strength of this approach is that it is standardized and reproducible, and
can be easily documented. If the ranking and index system was developed by multiple
agencies and stakeholders, the results might be well accepted. A limitation of this
approach is that as the index is based on a larger number of underlying indicators or
measures, it becomes more difficult to interpret the final score; hence the final score
cannot stand on its own, but must be qualified by some additional information about the
underlying values. Several EPA Regional staff noted that information on or maps of the
data layers used to develop a final score generally are more useful to them than maps
of the final score or index. Region 6 considers not only the final CRIA score for a facility
under evaluation, but also examines the scores for each of the criteria to determine
which criteria might be "flagged" as an issue for discussion with a permit applicant.
Decision-Tree Approach
A decision-tree approach basically is a series of questions with yes/no answers
that lead from an initial question to a final ranking through a series of intermediate
questions. A decision tree often can be illustrated in a simple diagram, hence the
name. EPA has used the decision-tree approach on occasion to rank environmental
problems or issues in some contexts, but the approach is not commonly applied. None
of the EPA Regions used the approach for prioritizing or targeting ecosystems.
The numeric index approach provides more flexibility in situations were criteria
can be evaluated numerically or from high to low on some scale. The decision tree
approach loses such quantitative information. In cases where there are only two or
three possible responses, or data do not support numerical scores, a decision tree can
be useful (U.S. EPA 1993).
Data Overlay Approach
This approach has been reviewed in Section 4.5.2, which described how GIS
can be used to assess proximity of stressors to valued ecosystems and areas with high
concentrations of valued resources or different stressors. GIS in particular is useful in
reducing large volumes of spatially distributed data to easily understood and visualized
depictions of the environment and in conducting the types of analyses described in
Section 4.5.2. Disadvantages include the cost of the hardware and software and issues
of data quality and coverage.
r
Multi-agency Selection
This approach was noted in Section 4.5.1, and the state-by-s.tate Resource
Protection Projects in Region 1 provide good examples of the approach. Participants
included the EPA Regional office, the USFWS, state departments of the environment
quality, natural resources, agriculture, conservation, environmental protection, and
69
-------
others, as well as NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy, Partners in Flight,
associations interested in parks and wetlands, regional planning agencies, local
universities, and local utility companies. Together, the workgroup participants agreed to
the goals of the project and criteria by which to identify important natural resources.
The workgroup members also compiled and analyzed the data and selected a set of
Resource Protection Areas. For each area, the workgroup members documented the
reasons that the group selected the area.
In general, the goal of this approach is to reach consensus among group
members, or at least all members agree to support a decision. There are formal
methods by which to build consensus, for example, the DELPHI approach; however,
those can be resource and time consuming.
A key strength of the approach is the acceptance and sense of "ownership"
accorded the participants in the process. The approach fosters cooperation and helps
build foundations for partnerships for the future, making implementation of decisions
more likely. On the other hand, consensus can be difficult to reach if the participants
have widely differing backgrounds (e.g., scientists and lay persons) and interests.
Moreover, if a group is perceived as biased because some stakeholders are excluded,
then implementation of its recommendations are less likely.
Combined Approaches
The four types of approaches to ranking or prioritizing ecosystems described
above are not mutually exclusive, and different approaches can be used in different
parts of the ecosystem-targeting process.
4.6 CONCLUSIONS
As noted in the introduction to this Section, no two EPA Regions are at the same
stage in the process of developing ecosystem-targeting goals, criteria, data, or
approaches, nor are the Regions following the same paths. One reason is that EPA
Regional approaches to identifying priority ecosystems for protection or restoration tend
to be adapted to region-specific conditions and opportunities.
Nonetheless, lessons learned in one context or location often are applicable to
other contexts and geographic regions. A question heard often during the cburse of the
interviews for this report was "what are the other Regions doing, and how can I find
out?" This report is one effort to help open opportunities for communication and
cooperation among the EPA Regions and other partners and stakeholders in the
protection of the environment. The Workshop in Las Vegas, NV, at EPA's National
Exposure Research Laboratory on July 28-30,1998, was another effort by EPA
Headquarters Office of Policy, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, to
70
-------
foster an exchange of ideas and experiences with ecosystem targeting and to help
expand scientific contributions to the targeting process.
4.7 REFERENCE
U.S. EPA. 1993. Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA/841/B093/001.
71
-------
APPENDIX A
ACRONYMS
-------
ACRONYMS
ABI Association for Biodiversity Information (The International Network of
National Heritage Programs Centers)
ADID Advanced Identification Program (for wetlands)
AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System
AOC Areas of Concern
ARD Air and Radiation Division
AREAL Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
BBS Breeding Bird Survey (North American)
BLM Bureau of Land Management (DOI)
BMP Best Management Practice
BRD Biological Resources Division (USGS)
CBC Christmas Bird Count (Audubon)
CBEP Community-Based Environmental Protection
CDEP NRC Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Natural Resources Center
CEIS Center for Environmental Information and Statistics
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
CETIS Complex Effluent Toxicity Information System
CIC CBEP Integration Committee (Region 6)
CLC CBEP Leadership Committee
CRIA Comparative Risk Index Analysis (Region 6)
CSI Common Sense Initiative
CWA Clean Water Act
CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOI Department of Interior
DOC Department of Commerce
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DRASTIC Standard system for evaluating ground-water pollution potential using
hydrogeologic settings (EPA)
DWR Division of Water Resources (Kansas)
DWS Drinking Water Supply File
Appendix A
-------
ECOS Environmental Council of the States
EOF Environmental Defense Fund
EDSL . EPA Spatial Data Library
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EOS Earth Observation Technologies
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPP Ecosystem Protection Program (Region 8)
EROS Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center (USGS)
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
ESTAT Ecological Sensitivity Targeting and Assessment Tool
FINDS Facility Index Systems
FRDS Federal Reporting Data System
FSRAMIS Forest Service Range Management Information System
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
GAP Gap Analysis Program
GCT Geographic Characterization Tool (Region 10)
GIS Geographic Information System
GLCPA Great Lakes Critical Program Act
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
GRIDS Geographic Resources Information and Data System
GW/WHP Groundwater/Well Head Protection
HQ Headquarters
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code (USGS)
IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
IWI Index of Watershed Indicators
KATS Kansas Action Targeting System
KDHE Kansas Department of Health and Environment
KW&P Kansas Wildlife and Parks
LAMP Lakewide Area Management Plan
LTM LANDSAT Thematic Mapper
LUDA Land Use and Data Analysis (USGS)
LV Las Vegas
MAA Mid-Atlantic Assessment
MAIA Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MoRAP Missouri Resources Assessment Partnership
MOS Margin of Safety
MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (Consortium)
MSS Multispectral Scanner System
NAAMP North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (USGS/BRD)
Appendix A
-------
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NADP/NTN National Atmospheric Deposition and National Trends Network
NALC North American Landscape .Characterization
NAMS National Air Monitoring Stations (EPA)
NAPAP National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
NATSGO National Soil Geographic Data Base
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NBS National Biological Service (DOI)
NCDC National Climate Data Center (NOAA)
NDVI Normal Distribution Vegetation Index
NEP National Estuary Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NEPP Dutch National Environmental Planning Process
NEPPS National Environmental Performance Partnership System
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NERP National Environmental Research Parks (DOE)
NEIWPCC New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
NGDC National Geo-physical Data Center (NOAA)
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC)
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPM National Program Managers (EPA)
NPL National Priority List
NPS National Park Service (DOI)
NRCS National Resource Conservation Service (USDA)
NRDC National Resources Defense Council
NRI National Resources Inventory (USDA/NRCS)
NWAP National Watershed Assessment Project
NWQTDS National Water Quality Technology Development Staff
OA Office of the Administrator
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OARM Office of Administration and Resource Management
OC Office of Compliance
OCFO Officeof the Chief Financial Officer
OCLA Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs
ODES Ocean Data Evaluation System
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (EPA)
OIRM Office of Information Resources Management (EPA)
OPA Office of Public Affairs
OPPE Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (older name; see OP)
Appendix A
-------
OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
OR Office of Reinvention (Office of the Administrator)
ORC Office of Regional Counsel
ORD Office of Research and Development (EPA)
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OSEA Office of Strategic Environmental Analysis (Region 5)
OSEC Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities (EPA)
OST Office of Science and Technology (in Office of Water)
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OTTER Oregon Transect Ecosystem Research (ORNL)
OW Office of Water
OWEC Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (EPA)
OWOW Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (EPA)
PAMS Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (EPA)
PCS Permit Compliance System (EPA)
PGDIC Plant Genome Data and Information Center (USDA)
POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
PPS Principal Place Selection
PROUTE Pollutant Routing Model
P-S-R Pressure-State-Response model
PWS Public Water Supplies
QSEM Qualitative Structural Equation Modeling
RAWS Remote Automated Weather Stations (USDA)
RCCC Reduced Cloud Cover Composites
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
REMAP Regional EMAP
RF1 ' River Reach File, Version 1
RF3 River Reach File, Version 3
RGI Regional Geographic Initiative
RPP Resource Protection Project (Region 1)
RTM Regional Team Manager
SCOPE Scientific Committees on Problems of the Environment
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe D/inking Water Information System
SEAT Strategic Environmental-Assessment Team (Region 7)
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
SLT Senior Leadership Team
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database (USDA/NRCS)
STORET STOrage and RETrieval system (EPA's national water quality database)
SWPP Source Water Protection Program
Appendix A
-------
TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System
TNC The Nature Conservancy
TM Thematic Mapper
TMLD Total Daily Maximum Load
TMP Toxics Management Plan
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal sites (RCRA program)
UIC Underground Injection Control
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI)
USFS United States Forest Service (USDA)
USGS United States Geological Survey (DOI)
WBS Waterbody System
WHPP Wellhead Protection Program
WLA Wasteload Allocation
WQBEL Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
WWF World Wildlife Fund
WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant
Appendix A
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF CONTACTS
-------
ECOSYSTEM TARGETING REPORT CONTACTS
EPA Office
ABI
EPAHQ
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Person
Richard Warner
Denise Shaw
Doug Norton
Rosemary Monahan
Deb Harstedt
Rabi Kieber
Susan McDowell
Tom DeMoss
Sumner Crosby
Cory Berish
Neil Burns
Tom Baugh
John Perrecone
John Schneider
Howard Zar
Linda Hoist
Mary White
Gerald Carney
Tom Nelson
Mike Bechdol
Sharon Osowski
Joe Swick
Phone #
540-786-6360
202-564-3234
202-260-7017
617-565-3551
617-565-3938
212-637-4448
215-814-2739
410-573-2739
215-814-2763
404-562-8276
404-562-8289
404-562-8275
312-353-1149
312-886-0880
312-886-1491
312-886-6758
312-353-5878
214-665-6523
214-665-6695
214-665-7133
214-665-7506
214-665-7456
-------
EPA Office
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
Person
Maria Downing
Karl Hermann
Stacey Erickson
Janet Hashimoto
Carmen Masseler
Bruce Duncan
Richard Parkin
Phone #
913-551-7362
303-312-6628
303-312-6696
415-744-1933
415-744-1750
206-553-8086
206-553-8574
-------
APPENDIX C-1
REGIONAL INFORMATION
REGION 1
-------
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER
THE CONNECTICUT RESOURCE PROTECTION
PROJECT
PHASE 1 REPORT
October 1995 - January 1997
Richard Hyde - Director, CT DEP Natural Resources Center
Jonathan Scull - Manager, CT DEP Geographic Information System
Prepared By:
Laurie Giannotti Project Coordinator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SUMMARY
II. RESOURCE PROTECTION PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Ecosystem Approach
B. Project Goals
III. METHODOLOGY
IV. RESOURCE MAP COMPOSITIONS
1. Habitat
2. Public Water supply
3. Agriculture
4. Forestry
5. Recreation
6. Threats
V. CONNECTICUT RESOURCE PROTECTION PROJECT FOCUS AREAS
VI. PHASE I OUTREACH
I. PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION
APPENDICES
A CT Resource Map Set
B Data Layer Documentation
C Site Discovery Database Information
D Using DEP's GIS to access the Resource Protection ARCView project
E New Hampshire Project's Unfragmented Natural Lands Methodology
-------
I. SUMMARY
The Connecticut Resource Protection Project is a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - funded
effort by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to identify and protect the
highest value resource areas in the state using an ecosystem approach that views resources as integrated
systems requiring collaborative management strategies. The project is being administered within the
Natural Resources Center under the direction'of Richard Hyde, Jonathan Scull is the project manager and
Laurie Giannoni is the acting project coordinator.
Phase I of the Connecticut project has successfully analyzed statewide resource information using DEP's
CIS and the cooperation of over 75 scientists, planners, and technical staff representing 20 federal, state,
municipal and private organizations. These scientists, planners, and technical staff were organized into
resource specific workgroups which provided the expertise for compiling six resource maps (Appendix
A). The maps display resource information regarding the following: habitat, public water supply,
agriculture, forestry, recreation and threats to resources. These maps are being utilized by DEP, various
workgroup participants, and others upon request (details in Section VI).
The six finalized resource maps were provided to a focus area workgroup consisting of all resource
workgroup members as well as other professionals with statewide resource knowledge. This focus area
workgroup convened to determine project "Focus Areas" within which Phase II of the project will be
initiated. The Focus Areas (Section V) were selected based upon: co-occurring resources, scarcity of
resources, resources of state significance, probability of successfully protecting resources, and proximity
of resources to threats. The boundaries of the Focus Areas are intended to provide a general
representation of the areas with the intent that they can be modified to conform to many resource
protection applications, for example, watershed, municipal, or special interest boundaries.
Focus Areas Selected:
Northwest Corner Connecticut River Valley Farmington River Area
Long Island Sound West Rock Ridge Area Saugatuck River Area
Pauchaug River Area Long Island Sound Natchaug River Area
The intent of Phase II of The Resource Protection Project is to work through existing programs and
facilitate partnerships to effectively protect valuable resources in these areas - not to create new
regulatory programs. One way this will be accomplished is through small implementation grants.
Approximately $55,000 will be spent in direct support of resource protection implementation projects.
The exact nature of the partnerships formed to carry out these projects varies from location to location and
is detailed in Section VII-C of this report. Additionally, we will continue to pursue appropriate links
between this resource protection project and other natural resource protection-oriented studies, programs,
policies and initiatives already completed, in place or being developed within Connecticut, for the purpose
of supporting existing efforts geared towards focused resource protection. We will continue to refine, add
to, and distribute the CIS data connected to the project. We also plan to produce and distribute area-
specific copies of the project maps to the municipalities within each focus area. We expect to support the
development of additional, locally-oriented geographic data, such as detailed open space inventories,
within some of the defined focus areas. The data used for the purposes of this project is being made
available through the DEP's Natural Resources Center both digitally and in hard copy upon request. The
State Office of Policy and Management will represent the focus areas in some way as part of a
forthcoming update to the State Conservation & Development Plan.
-------
II. RESOURCE PROTECTION PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Ecosystem Approach
There is a growing recognition that human health and welfare are dependent upon healthy,
functioning natural ecosystems. A 1990 report by the US EPA's Science Advisory Board, Reducing
Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, emphasized the inherent value
of ecological systems and their link to human health. It is also known that every agency,
organization, and community has a limited amount of time and money to spend on protecting the
natural resources that comprise the ecosystems. The US EPA, the New England State Environmental
Regulatory Agencies and the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission initiated
the Resource Protection Project in 1993 to help identify high value resources in each state and to
promote an ecosystem approach to resource management.
Protection of healthy resources, rather than restoration of impaired ecosystems, is the primary focus
of this effort. Preventive actions are often less costly than restoration efforts and usually result in
higher quality environments. Emphasis is being placed on determining places where effective
resource protection strategies can be supported and/or implemented.
Regionally, resource protection began as a pilot project within the state of New Hampshire. EPA
and The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission provided project coordination
and CIS technology to the state's project workgroup. The pilot resulted in a methodology as well as
a template for the resource maps. Rhode Island has recently completed its project and Maine is
beginning the process (contact Joel Zimmerman at New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission, 255 Ballardvale Street, Wilmington, MA 01887 or EPA New England, JFK Federal
Building, Boston, MA 02203). The intent is to provide EPA with a regional picture of important
resources. In January 1997 the EPA's National CIS Group awarded a Crystal Globe to the New
England Resource Protection Project for "technical excellence of national significance".
B. Project Goals
The goals of Phase I of the Connecticut Resource Protection Project were as follows:
• To bring together professionals from organizations and agencies committed to resource protection
in order to identify and map high value resources. The intent was to operate at a scale appropriate
for statewide planning purposes and, at a minimum, consistent with the New Hampshire and Rhode
Island Projects in order to provide a regional perspective.
• To identify resource Focus Areas statewide in order'to target resource protection efforts with
respect to biodiversity and human health and considering:
0 Co-occurring resources - area with a high variety of resources.
0 Scarcity of resource - area containing a resource that is very rare in the state.
0 Resource of state significance - area has the best example of a particular resource in the
state.
0 Probability of successfully protecting resources - protection and management measures
are easily attainable in the area.
-------
Proximity of resources to threats - a.) an area's natural resources are not in imminent
danger, thus there is a better chance of protection because the area has a healthy
ecosystem (emphasis on prevention rather than restoration), b). a natural resource is
threatened, thus there is a need to focus protection measures.
-------
III. METHODOLOGY
In New Hampshire and Rhode Island, staff from EPA and NEIWPCC worked together to coordinate the
resource protection project. In Connecticut however, the Department of Environmental Protection took
the opportunity to fully manage the project with funding provided by EPA New England. In Connecticut,
both CIS and resource experts are located in the same agency/building providing greater opportunities for
cooperation in compiling and analyzing data. It also provided DEP with ownership of the project making
it easier to communicate support of the project to the workgroup participants. To further demonstrate this
support, it was made clear to all workgroup participants that DEP would fund "resource protection
projects" within the Focus Areas identified by the project.
As mentioned earlier, the project goal was to identify important resources and to use this information to
focus resource protection efforts with respect to human health and biodiversity. In New Hampshire this
was accomplished through one composite workgroup containing resource experts, planners, scientists, and
managers who assessed resource information via CIS. In Connecticut this evolved into a two fold
process.
To begin, the identification of important resources statewide was accomplished by resource workgroups that were
assembled to assess the following six resource areas outlined by the New Hampshire project: Habitat, Public Water
Supply, Agriculture, Forestry, Recreation, Threats To Resources. The following agencies and organizations were
represented on one or more of the resource workgroups:
US Fish & Wildlife Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
EPA Office of Long Island Sound Program
CT Department of Environmental Protection:
Biology, Office of Long Island Sound Programs, Wildlife,
Water, Fisheries (Inland & Marine), Forestry, Parks &
Recreation, Greenways, The Council of Soil & Water
Conservation Districts
CT Office of Policy & Management
CT Health Department
CT Department of Agriculture
CT Council on Environmental Quality
Connecticut Farm Bureau
CT Association of Conservation Districts
CT Assoc. of Conservation & Inland Wetland
Commissions
Connecticut Forest & Park Association
CT Agricultural Experiment Stations
UCONN Cooperative Extension
AH Regional Planning Agencies
Partners In Flight
The Nature Conservancy
South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority
The Bridgeport Hydraulic Company
The Metropolitan District Commission
Members came to a consensus on mapped elements over a three to four month period. Most workgroups identified
-------
focus areas related to their specific resource. The maps are presented as Appendix A. Detailed descriptions of
individual map elements are provided in Section IV. These individual resource maps are being used by DEP. The
State Department of Agriculture, The State Office of Policy and Management, The Natural Resource Conservation
Service and others as described in Section VII.
The second task involved was to identify focus areas in order to target resource protection efforts with respect to
human health and biodiversity. To accomplish this, a single focus area selection workgroup was assembled from
members of the six resource workgroups and also managers, planners, and scientists with statewide resource
knowledge. This workgroup requested a CIS analysis showing where individual resource focus areas co-occurred.
Upon review of this analysis the group was surprisingly close to accepting it as the project Focus Areas. However, a
variety of concerns were discussed keeping in mind the selection criteria: Co-occurring resources, Scarcity of
resource, Resource of state significance, Probability of successfully protecting resources, and Proximity of resources
to threats. As a result, the group made some additions including: the Shepaug River basin, the trap rock ridge
system, and the Scantic River basin. Upon further review, the group asked that the areas be revised, removing areas
•designated urban by the Office of Policy and Management's Conservation and Development Plan. The group
accepted the result as the nine Focus Areas (see Section V).
Focus Areas Selected:
Northwest Corner Connecticut River Valley Farmington River Area
Long Island Sound West Rock Ridge Area Saugatuck River Area
Pauchaug River Area Long Island Sound Natchaug River Area
The boundaries of the Focus Areas are intended to provide a general representation of the areas with the -intent that
they can be modified to conform to many resource protection applications, for example, watershed, municipal, or
special interest boundaries.
-------
DATA LAYERS
The following is a listing of data layers in the order in which they appear in the legend for the Connecticut Resource
Protection Project map series. You will find the name as it appears in the legend; the name of the data layer
(Arclnfo export file or on-line coverage at DEP); the minimum appropriate scale that should be used to provide the
intended accuracy; a brief description including how to display the data in Arc View or a reference to documentation
prepared by the creator of the data. All data layers are found at DEP on the workstation called "water 1" in the
directory /data6/gis/laurie/Iayers unless otherwise noted. If there are problems/questions, contact Jon Scull at 424-
3597.
MAP 1 - HABITAT RESOURCES
NAME
DATA
LAYER
SCALE
DESCRIPTION
Waterfowl
overwintering sites
wtrfol
fow!2
1:125000
Migratory waterfowl overwintering locations and
migratory corridors as mapped by DEP Wildlife for
USFWS in the CT River watershed (1991) and for CRPP
(1996).
Generalized...
Nddblg.shp
1:24000
Generalized locations of listed species and significant
natural communities. Source = DEP Natural Diversity
Data Base 1996. Coverage is based upon NDDB
information on the biology and population status on rare
plants, and animal species (including invertebrates) and
significant natural communities in CT.
The shape file was created by selecting out the SITES
coverage discussed below.
Endangered...
(Spconc area)
SITES
1:24000
Endangered species concentration areas & significant
natural communities . Source DEP Biology Program
1996. A subset of the generalized locations of listed
species and significant natural communities, this coverage
was selected by Biology Program staff with several
criteria in mind: presence of a natural community at the
site, and the protection needs of the site.
Osprey nesting
roosting sites ,
OSPREY
1:24000
Platforms with active nests in any year since 1980.
Bald Eagle nesting
roosting sites
EAGLES
1:24000
Nesting and roosting sites since 1980.
-------
Colonial
Waterbirds
Shellfish beds
Potential and
observed eelgrass
beds
Habitat Resource
focus areas
Wetland Soils
DEP Property
Areas over 500
acres
Bass management
areas
Trophy Trout
Lakes
Trout management
areas
Bass/trout
management areas
American lobster
fin fish
Anadramous Fish
colbirds.shp
oysters
softclam
hardclams
observed
ppzostra.shp
habfocus.shp
stlgwet
PROPDEP
GESOOb
fmanpts.shp
fishline.shp
lobster.shp
anadfn.shp
1:24000
1:24000
1" = 2000'
1:250000
1:24000
1:250000
1:150000
Polygon data for the nesting areas of colonial waterbirds
(herons, turns, plovers, ducks) was extracted form DEP's
hydrography information, based on USGS maps. For this
representation, polygons with post 1985 nesting records,
as taken form the 1986, 1989, 1992, and 1995 colonial
waterbirds survey.
DEP Aquaculture Program created from 1990 (updated
1996) staff delineation on 1:24000 USGS maps.
Long Island Sound Resource Center/UCONN A very
Point.
During the 1993-1995 field seasons, a team of three
researchers equipped with a. GPS, Scuba, and a 20 foot
boat surveyed over 800 potential eelgrass locations. Their
GPS coordinates and field notes were used to create a
series of point coverages which were ploned on a
1 :24,000 scale base map of the CT shore. These point
locations and the nearshore bathymetry were then used to
delineate areas representing both observed and potential
eelgrass beds.
Digitized from workgroup effort on hard copy.
See report section titled Habitat Resources for details.
Reselected from digital soils data.
See on-line documentation at web site MAGIC.
Displayed as uniform areas.
See methodology for unfragmented natural lands within
habitat resources section of this report.
Digitized from information contained in the DEP Anglers
Guide 1997.
Display TYPE as BMA, TMA, TTL.
Digitized from information contained in the DEP Anglers
Guide 1997 coincident with hydrography data in DEP
library.
Linear in-stream areas.
Digitized from information obtained from DEP Marine '
Fisheries at 1:250000 scale for this project.
USFWS Draft data.
Showing existing runs of all anadramous species.
/gis4/usrs/nrc/rivers/analysis/anadfh.shp
-------
MAP 2 - PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES
NAME
Public water
supply reservoir
Potential public
water supply
watershed
Existing public
water supply
watershed
Potential high
yield aquifer
Water service
areas
Community well
Level B Aquifer
protection areas
Level A aquifer
protection areas
Water company
owned lands
Federally
designated sole
source aquifers
DATA
LAYER
reservoir
wtrshed
wtrshed.shp
hyagrev.shp
wtrsrv.shp
wells.shp
levba.shp
a041
aOOl
h201and
fedaqfr.shp
SCALE
1:24000
1" = 2000'
1996
1:24000
1987
1:24000
1994
1:24000
1987
1:24000
1984
1:24000
1984
1:24000
1:125000
1:24000
DESCRIPTION
Excluding abandoned supplies
PWS_STATUS o inactive
AV_LEGEND = poten watershed
CT Water Resource Planning Program is the source of the
information.
/gis7/adb/pws/layers/wtrshed
shedjyp o abandoned
shapefile was edited to include the Greenwich watershed.
source = Protection of High & Moderate Yield Stratified
Drift Aquifers, 1987.
Resource protection efforts were not recommneded for
Type III aquifers due to numerous groundwater conflicts
and consequently are not displayed.
Subset of Library data here at least 350 people served:
Subset of Library data here Tpopsrv90 greater than or
equal to 25 and PWS_status = active.
Rhode Island aquifers have been removed for the
purposes of this study.
See DEP's CIS Data Catalog, July 1996 (DEP
Publications (860)424-3555) for more details.
Killingly and Cromwell only were available at the time of
this report.
/data3/gis/dbg/active/levb/townlu
OPM Survey digitized from DEP Cartography inked map
' for this project.
Created by reselecting coincident features contained in
DEP Library watershed coverage using information
presented in an EPA 1987 report.
-------
MAP 3 - AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
NAME
Farmland
Preservation
Program Lands
Agricultural Lands
Prime/Important
agricultural soils
Softshell clam
beds
Hardshell clam
beds
Oyster Beds
Natural Resource
Conservation
Service Project
Coordinator Areas
Agricultural
Communities
Urban Landuse
AVTOWRshp
Lisbnd.shp
DATA
LAYER
PROPM
AGLUllS.shp
AGSOILS
SOFTCLAMS
HARDCLAMS
OYSTER
NRCS.shp
AGFOCUS
URBANGR
AVTOWN.shp
Lisbnd.shp
SCALE
1:24000
1" = 20001
min
mapping
unit = 1
hectare
1:24000
r = 2000'
:24000
" = 2000'
:24000
" = 2000'
:24000
11 = 2000'
NA
NA
min
mapping
unit = 1
hectare
DESCRIPTION
DEP Property. To display properly in ArcView, select
AFPID o 0.
/gis4/usrs/olisp/rem/prop/propm is the path to the data.
LANDSAT crop codes listed in section entitled
Agricultural Resources in this report. The shapefile was
created by reselecting Acres >= 10 acres and was then
edited by the workgroup to remove non-agricultural lands
in Fairfiled County.
See DEP's CIS Data Catalog, July 1996 (DEP
Publications (860)424-3555) for more details.
DEP/NRCS Digital Soils Data reselected for
prime/important farmland soils 10 or more contiguous
acres. See on-line documentation at the MAGIC web site.
To display properly in ArcView, select MELT = 2.
DEP Aquaculture Program created from 1990 (updated
1996) staff delineation on 1 :24000 USGS maps.
DEP Aquaculture Program created from 1990 (updated
1996) staff delineation on 1:24000 USGS maps.
DEP Aquaculture.Program created from 1990 (updated
1996) staff delineation on 1:24000 USGS maps
Digitized for this project using coincident features (ie
lines correspond to town boundaries). Original map
provided by NRCS on 8.5 x 1 1 hard copy.
Digitized for this project from 1 :250000 original made by
workgroup. See text in report body.
Used to "erase" urban areas from prime/important
agricultural soils. Image Tile created in GRID from LULC
data.
DEP library theme edited to remove it's L1S boundary so
it can be used with the digital LIS boundary.
Long Island sound bondary edited to 'remove' areas not is
CRPP study area.
-------
MAP 4 - FORESTRY RESOURCES
NAME
Area containing 50
- 2,000 acres-
Urban Interface •
> 2000 acres-
Coniferous Forest
Forest Legacy
Areas
Public Water
Supply Reservoir
Water Co. Owned
Lands
DEP Property
Municipal/private
property
DATA
LAYER
GE50AC
urbfores.shp
GESOOb
conifer
Folegacy
reservoir
H201and
Propdep
munprop
SCALE
1:24000
1" = 2000'
1:24000
P = 2000'
1:24000
1" = 20001
min
mapping '
unit = 1
hectare
1:24000
r = 2000'
1984
1:125000
1:24000
1" = 2000'
1:24000
I" = 2000'
DESCRIPTION
See methodology to determine unfragmented natural lands
within text Habitat Resources.
This layer has been reselected to display acres between 50
and 2.000 with 85% natural land.
See DEP's CIS Data Catalog re LULC LANDSAT
Imagery, July 1996 (DEP Publications (860)424-3555) for
more details.
See methodology to determine unfragmented natural lands
within text Habitat Resources.
This analysis shows >500 acres and 85% natural land that
is adjacent to a census block containing 1000
persons/sqmile or more.
See methodology to determine unfragmented natural lands
within text Habitat Resources.
This layer has been reselected to display acres greater than
2,000 with 85% natural land.
LU_CODE = 14 from the LANDSAT imagery, within
areas containing 500 acres or more and 85% natural land.
See DEP's CIS Data Catalog re LULC LANDSAT
Imagery, July 1996 (DEP Publications (860)424-3555) for
more details.
Generalized from amp contained in Forest Legacy Project
Report 1995.
reselected from DEP database to show PWS STATUS o
INACTIVE
Source = Community Water Systems in Ct, 1984
reservoirs and lakes used for potable purposes owned by
public or private water companies.
/gis7/data/adb/pws/layers
OPM Survey digitized from DEP Cartography inked map
for this project.
DEP Library data. Here reselected for AV_LEGEND =
state forest, park, wildlife area, wildlife sanctuary.
Draft data from the Office of Policy & Management. This
is an ongoing project with DEP NRC. Information can be
obtained from DEP Cartography.
-------
Forestry Focus
Areas
fibcusfin.shp
1:250000
Digitized from a map prepared by the workgroup. See
description in Forestry Resources section of this report.
MAP 5 - RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
NAME
Trail systems
Exceptional white
water section
Trout management
areas
Golf Course
.Scenic Roads
Existing
Greenways
DEP Property
Municipal/private
property
Federal Property
DATA
LAYER
tra!32S.shp
wwater.shp
fmanpts.shp
golf
i
scrdsq.shp
ctgmwys.shp
Propdep
munprop
fedprop
SCALE
1:24000
1" = 20001
1:24000
1" = 2000'
1:24000
I" = 2000'
1:24000
1" = 2000'
1:24000
r = 2000'
unknown
1:24000
r = 2000'
1:24000
1" = 2000'
DESCRIPTION
May include blue blazed, state owned, or private trail
systems published (ie Cheshire Trails book). Draft data
being updated by DEP cartography.
Created by DEP cartography for the CT Rivers
Assessment.
digitized for this project using information contained in
DEP's Anglers Guide 1 997.
non-archived data from DEP's library.
Department of Transportation designated. Digitized for
this project using coincident road centerlines and
referencing DOT Scenic Road Map 1996.
Information provided by the CT Greenways Committee
1994 study. Display as Gwtype = active.
Display as AV LEGEND o Flood Control.
See DEP's GIS~Data Catalog, July 1996 (DEP
Publications (860)424-3555) for more details.
Draft data from the Office of Policy & Management. This
is an ongoing project with DEP NRC. Information can be
obtained from DEP Cartography.
scenic easements, NPS, Army Corps, Subbases, Coast
Guard, National Wildlife Refuges. Obtained from the
Office of Policy & Management.
MAP 6 - THREATS TO RESORUCES
NAME
Documented
Contaminated
Sediment
DATA
LAYER
sedcontam.shp
SCALE
1:24000
l" = 2000'
DESCRIPTION
The locational information was provided by the DEP's
Water Bureau and digitized using coincident stream
centerlines.
-------
Sewage treatment
plants
Leachate &
Wastewater
Discharge
Inventory
Landfills
Waste
Epawaste
stp
Iwds
Indfl
mswsite
1987
1:24000
1" = 2000'
1:50000
Compilation data within 200 feet of true location.
/gis7/data/adb/sww/layers/stp
Additional on-line documentation exists at DEP.
/gis7/data/adb/lwds/layers/lwds
Lwds cod o auto, BW, CWG, LSC, OCS, RSS, RSSC.
RSSP, STP, SWTS, WELL, FSS, USD.
/gisS/howie/nadb/waste/layers
copied to /data6/layers
municipal solid waste facility
/gis7/data/adb/waste/layers/mswsite
includes leaf composts, transfer stations, bulk waste,
resource recovery sites.
from EPA region 1, Feb 1996
superfund, RCRA and Federal Facilities
ct_waste.doc = documentation.
-------
THE NEW H
RESOURCE
PRO
HIRE
A Progress
fn an
EcosystenjTManagement 1 Initiative
New
||Katherine Metzger Uelaim
Interstate Water Pollution Contro
Rosemary
US Environmental Pmtetfum
.
Joel Zimmermait
New\England Interstate Water Pollution
"Ailing Hsu
ROW Sciences, Inc./US Environmental Protection Agency
August 1995
-------
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements i
Progress Report Summary ii
Table of Contents • iii
The Resource Protection Project Approach 1
Participants and Goals 1
Table 1: Participants 2
Table 2: Goals and Objectives 2
The Resource Protection Project Methodology 3
GIS Applications • 3
Resource Map Themes : 3
Map 1: Wildlife Habitat 4
Map 2: Drinking Water Supplies 5
Map 3: Forestry 6
Map 4: Agriculture 7
Map 5: Recreation 8
Map 6: Potential Pollution Threats 9
Data Assessment • 10
Table 3: Wetlands Criteria 10
Targeting Criteria 11
New Hampshire High Priority Natural Resource Areas II
Map 7: The Seacoast 13
Map8: Great Bay • 14
Map 9: The Mid-Connecticut River \ 'alley 15
Map 10: Ossipee Lake 16
Map 11: Lake Umbagog 17
Map 12: Connecticut Lakes 18
Project Implementation 19
Appendix — Map Documentation 20
in
-------
THE RESOURCE
PROTECTION
APPROACH
PARTICIPANTS
AND
GOALS
There is a growing recognition that human health and welfare are dependent on
healthy, functioning natural ecosystems. A 1990 report by the Environmental
Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board, Reducing Risk: Setting
Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, emphasized the "inherent value
of ecological systems and their link to human health." It is also known that every
agency, organization, and community has a limited amount of time and money to spend
on protecting the natural resources that comprise ecosystems. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency, the New England state environmental regulatory
agencies and the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission initiated
the Resource Protection Project in 1993 to help target the most important natural
resources in each state and to promote an ecosystem approach to resource management.
Protection of healthy resources, rather than restoration of unpaired ecosystems, is the
primary focus of this effort. Preventive actions are often less costly than restoration
efforts and usually result in higher quality environments. Emphasis is being placed on
determining places where effective pollution prevention and resource protection
strategies can be implemented.
The scope of the Resource Protection Project - the six New England states -- was
determined to be too large and complex to approach all at once. Although the ecosystems
and watersheds of the region do not necessarily follow the states' boundaries, the
organization of such a large project required a state-by-state focus. New Hampshire has
taken a lead role in this endeavor by acting as the pilot project state.
The New Hampshire Resource Protection Project is serving as a template for similar
efforts that will take place across New England. Rhode Island and Connecticut have
undertaken similar projects using'methods developed in New Hampshire. Ideally the
remaining New England states will follow suit in the next few years so that it will be
possible to understand the regional patterns of natural resource use and values. This
progress report details the process and findings of the New Hampshire Resource
Protection Project.
The New Hampshire Resource Protection Project was funded by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and coordinated by the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC). Staff form EPA
and NEIWPCC worked together to collect data into a Geographic Information System
for analysis.- A New Hampshire.Resource Workgroup (Table 1), comprised of a wide
variety of statewide resource agencies, organizations and groups, was formed to
develop and guide the project.
The workgroup met throughout 1994 to review the project's progress, provide data and
interpret the project's findings. Agreement upon a set of goals and objectives was a key
task of the workgroup (Table 2). The members' professional and personal knowledge
of New Hampshire was a critical component to the project's successful attainment of the
first goal: identifying high priority natural resource areas in the state and developing a
methodology applicable to their neighbors. The workgroup's continued input and
leadership will help the project meet its second goal of developing strategies to protect
the high priority areas.
-------
Tnhle 1
Agencies and Organizations Represented
on the A't'H- Hampshire Resource Protection Workgroup
Appalachian Mounl;iu) Club.
Audubon Society of Now Hampshire
Business and Industn Association of New Hampshire
New En t: land Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
New Hampshire Department of Agriculture
New Hamp>liire Department of Environmental Services .
New Hampshire Department of Resources and
Economic Development
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department
Ne\\ Hampshire Office of State Planning
New' Hampshire Department of Transportation
• New Hampshire Lakes Association
• New Hampshire Rivers Council
• New Hampshire Timberland ()\\tiers Association
» Society for the Protection of New Hampshire l-'orests
» The Nature Conservancx
» Uni\ersir> of New Hampshire Complex S\ stems
Research Center
• University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
» United States En\ironmental Protection Agones
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service
• United Stales Forest Service
» United Stales Natural Resources Conservation Service
(formerly SCS)
Table 2
Goals and Ohiectives
dial I: Identify high priorit) natural resource ureas in New Hampshire, and in so doin». develop a
methodology that can he used in all of the New England Slates.
Olijvcm CM • Cialher lepresenlalives of appropriate agencies and organizations together in the form of ;i' Resource
Protection Workgroup
• Ci.ilher c\i>ting natural resource mlbnnalion and u>c CIS a-; a primary tool in the ideniitlcalion of high
priorii) natural resource areas
» De\ elop criteria for choo>uig liigh priority natural re>ource areas.
- Solicit comments on draft ciitena from others outside the workgroup.
» Develop draft list of high priority natural resource areas.
» Distribute draft list of high priority naniral resource areas to appropriate municipal, slate, private, and
regional organizations for review and comment.
» Develop final list of high priority natural resource areas.
» Prioritize list of high priority natural resource areas for implementation, taking into consideration local
input, funding, and other factors.
Coal 2: Develop and implement plans to protect high priority natural resource areas with all
appropriate parties.
Objecti\es: » Hold workshop(s) to develop implementation plans. Seek input at these workshop(s) from others outside
the workgroup, including substantial local involvement.
» Coordinate actions among all parties involved in the implementation plans. New England Interstate Waier
Pollution Control Conunission (NE1WPCC) will act as the lead in the coordination efforts.
» Convene semi-annual meetings of the Resource Protection Workgroup to evaluate the progress of
unplemenlaiion and to ensure its coordination
-------
Map 6
*, /"
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF POLLUTION^ V^
AND POPULATION DENSITY
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
/ 100SJ94 I
~i NH. Site*
[£ RCRA Sitw
•, Sinjetfuud SitM
[Z NPDBS Facflitie*
• *: NPDES Ducharye Location*
[*] Tatt^tfilla
._. 0-5 Peopie/Sqnara Km
M 5-25 Peopta/Squre Km
• 25-50 People/Square Km
• > SO People/Sqoan Km
• Major Lake*
5? Watcnhed Boondnne.
- Town Boundana
-------
5
1
o
I
ABOUT THE PROJECT
fine Rhode Island Resource Protection Project is pail of a New fngkmd-wide effort to identify
the region's most important natural resource areas. Initiated by the state environmental regula-
tory agencies, ITA-New Kngkmd, and the New l.ngland Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission, the project is a cooperative effort that is based on the understanding that human
health and welfare are dependent on healthy, lunclioning natural ecosystems. The Resource
Protection Project targets the states' most important natural resources for attention in order to
ma.\imi/e the limited staffing and funding available lor protecting the natural resources that
comprise these ecosystems.
To initiate the Rhode Island project, a workgroup made up of a diverse representation horn
statewide public and private organi/alions was convened in I99.S. The group adapted a process
developed hy the 1994 New Hampshire Pilot Project and established three goals lor Ihe project:
iX Identify "Resource Protection Areas" in Rhode Island that are in j^ood
ecological health or encompass important natural resources.
fH« Rhode Island Resource
FOR NORE INFORMATION
For additional information about the Rhode
Island Resource Protection Project, contact:
EPA-New England
|FK FrHrr^l RniMinr.
-------
Facilitate the protect ion o| critical natural resources in the identified
Resource Protection Areas by working with all appropriate parties.
Provide information and input to the New England region-wide
Resource Protection Project.
The workgroup met throughout 1996 ;ind studied a variety of science ;ind policy issues.
Geographic Information System (CilS) technology was used to provide a common understanding
of the state's natural resources. Using data from the Rhode Island Geographic Information System
(RKilS), information collected by the project, and computer analyses of the data, the workgroup
developed a series of maps depicting habitat, water supply, agriculture, forestry, open space, recre-
ational, and cultural resources, as well as potential threats to these resources. In January 1997, the
Resource Protection Project was awarded the Environmental Protection Agency's "Crystal (ilobe
for Technical Excellence of National Significance" for its innovative use of CilS.
The workgroup members identified nine Resource Protection Areas that they concurred
contain many of the state's most important natural resources:
Block Island
Fastern Blackstone
liastern Sakonnet
Hunt/Potowomut
Moosup River/ Western Blackstone
•'•• Narragansett Bay
:• South Coastal Ponds
•'•• Western Pawtuxet
v Wood/Pawcatuck
As the Resource Protection Project proceeds, its participants will work to implement the project
goals through existing programs and facilitate -partnerships to protect valuable resources in Un-
identified areas as effectively as possible. 1'lic project will not acute new regulatory fm^nnm.
Protection strategies will differ for each region. In these times of limited fiscal resources, howev-
er, implementation will not be possible without the full involvement of local governments, state
environmental and resource agencies, private organizations, and federal agencies. A
A world wide web site,
!iUp:/ \vw\v.ei1c.nri.etlii rirpp.
v.s been established to help disseminate
•he information gathered by the Resource
''otection Project. Vhe ivehsite. hosted by the
nhcrsitv of Rhode Island, provides computer
•. t.ess to the project's maps, dat.i. results, and
• 'ikcroup members. 1''" digital acumen of Pete
'.'.leuM and Roland Pi le at the L'Rl 1 nvi-
•
-------
APPENDIX C-2
REGIONAL INFORMATION
REGION 2
-------
US Geological Survey, New York Department of
Environmental Conservation, & Cornell University
Mark Bain; NY Investigator - MBBl@Cornell.edu
AQUATIC GAP IN NEW YORK STATE Mike Jennings; National GAP - Jennings@uidaho.edu
Methods for the conservation of aquatic species and communities over large areas (e.g.,
watersheds, regions, etc.) have not been developed despite extensive experience with
habitat assessment and biological surveys in most natural resource agencies. The U. S.
Geological Survey in cooperation with Federal and State agencies has developed a
geographic information system (GIS) methodology called Gap Analysis for identifying
the distribution of terrestrial species over large spatial areas. The development and
application of Gap Analysis to aquatic systems began in mid-1995 with a pilot study in the
Allegheny River basin of western New York. The New York Aquatic GAP study resulted
in the development of the basic GIS structure for predicting aquatic species distributions
in flowing water habitats, and the assembly of GIS data layers on surveyed aquatic
communities (fish and invertebrates). The aquatic GAP system uses a standardized .
stream reach accounting framework with habitat classified into one of 18 types for fish
species predictions and one of 8 types for invertebrate taxa predictions. Stream habitat
types were defined using the following sets of physicochemical attributes: stream size,
physical process integrity, water quality, gradient, and riparian forest cover. The pilot
study succeeded in predicting the .expected distribution,of fish and invertebrate species
and assemblages. Adequate biological and physicochemical data are practical to obtain,
and available data are compatible with watershed-scale GIS uses. Extensive biological
survey data have been incorporated in the GIS to conduct an independent test of the
species and assemblage predictions. The main tasks presently underway are linking land
processes to aquatic habitats, and enhancing the basic system with GIS layers on lentic
habitats and management status. This New York Aquatic GAP study will largely be
complete by mid-Fall 1997 and the project staff will be promoting the new technology to
state and federal agency users.
Sample applications of Aquatic GAP in agency programs-
• Mapping and tracking habitat types at regional and state levels.
• Summarizing and analyzing statewide amounts of habitat by type
• Implementing uniform habitat classifications for survey and analyses
• Mapping actual and potential locations of protected, target, or exotic species
• Identifying and tracking key habitats such as migratory fish spawning areas
• Assessing the known and potential distribution of assemblages such as
coldwater fishes, anadromous species runs, large river faunas.
• Displaying and targeting management activities like riparian restorations,
public, access areas, habitat improvements, protected habitats, etc.
• Assembling diverse regulatory information such as water quality classes,
navigable water designations, protected nursery waters/etc.
Extensive background and protocol details at http://uituiu.dnr.cornell.edu/hydro2/aquagap.htm
-------
Summary of NY Gap Analysis in Aquatic Environments http://www.dnr.cornell:edu/hydro2/gapsum.htn-
AQUATIC GAP ANALYSIS: TOOL FOR WATERSHED SCALE
ASSESSMENT OF FLUVIAL HABITAT AND BIODIVERSITY
ABSTRACT
Methods for the conservation of stream habitat and biodiversity at the watershed scale have not been
developed. Watersheds span large land areas, encompass a connected range of stream sizes, and integrate
natural and altered properties of a drainage area. Methods are needed to identify the locations of high
biodiversity in watersheds, compare aquatic biodiversity distributions among regions, and provide
watershed-scale information useful for targeting conservation measures. The National Biological Service
(USA) in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies developed geographic information system
(GIS) methodology called Gap Analysis to identify the distribution of biodiversity over large spatial areas.
To date, it has been used to address only terrestrial conservation needs. We are developing an aquatic
version of the Gap Analysis in the Allegheny River drainage in western New York State to define the
methodology and evaluate the feasibility of predicting biodiversity distribution at the watershed scale.
Our standardized stream reach accounting system is based on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Reach File 3 System. Each stream reach is classified into one of 18 habitat types for fish faunal predictions
and one of 8 habitat types for invertebrate faunal predictions. Habitat types were defined using the
following sets of physicochemical attributes: stream size (headwaters, large streams/small rivers, large
rivers), physical habitat (dominated by natural geomorphological processes, moderately altered, and
dominated by human structures and controls), water quality (suitable for life support, biologically
stressful), gradient (steep, low slope) and riparian forest cover (closed canopy over channel, open channel).
Stream size was determined from drainage area using the GIS. Physical habitat, reach gradient, and riparian
forest cover were classified from topographic and land use maps. Physicochemical data from the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency STORET database provides a means to classify water quality. Using our
habitat typing system, we predict that the highest fish diversity will be found in medium size streams with
natural fluvial channels and good water quality, whereas the most reduced fish faunas will be found in
large rivers with highly modified channels and poor water quality. For invertebrates, we predict that the
greatest diversity (in terms of ecological function groups) will be in small and medium size streams with
primarily a closed canopy, steep gradient, and good water quality.
Our GIS modeling effort succeeded in predicting the expected distribution of fish and invertebrate diversity
at the watershed scale. Adequate biological and physicochemical data appear available and compatible
with watershed-scale GIS programs. We also have extensive biological survey data that provides an
independent means to testing the validity of our biodiversity predictions.
INTRODUCTION
Methods for the conservation of stream habitat and biodiversity at the watershed scale have not been
developed. Watersheds span large land areas, encompass a connected range of stream sizes, and integrate
natural and altered properties of a drainage area. Methods are needed to identify the locations of high
biodiversity in watersheds, compare aquatic biodiversity distributions among regions, and provide
watershed-scale information useful for targeting conservation measures. The National Biological Service
(USA) in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies developed geographic information system
(GIS) methodology called Gap Analysis (Scott et al. 1993) to identify the distribution of biodiversity over
large spatial areas. To date, it has been used to address only terrestrial conservation needs. We are
developing an aquatic version of the Gap Analysis in the Allegheny River drainage in western New York
USA to resolve two main questions: (1) is there adequate biological information to link faunal composition
to stream reaches (tributary confluence to confluence") on a laree scale and (2} Can useful ohvsicochemical
lofS . 06/26/9800:05:29
-------
Summary of NY Gap Analysis in Aquatic Environments http://www.dnr.comell.edu/hydro2/gapsum.htm
data be assembled for stream reach habitat classification? This study seeks to create a methodology to
answer these questions and evaluate the overall feasibility of predicting biodiversity distribution at the
watershed scale.
METHODS
The basic elements of our GIS model are stream segments, where a segment is the portion from tributary
confluence to tributary confluence or in lakes from stream mouth to stream mouth or outflow. A River
Reach File version 3.0 Arc/Info layer was obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
numerically and graphically catalog the stream segments in the Allegheny River basin. Each stream
segment in this file is numbered and geospatially referenced at the 1:100,000 topographic (U.S. Geological
Survey [USGS]) map scale. There are 1340 stream segments in the New York portion of the Allegheny
River basin. All stream segments in the Reach File were highlighted on 1:24,000 USGS maps to ease
identification of segments and help delineate drainage divides. The divides were then digitized and edge
matched to form a complete map layer. A program to calculate accumulated drainage area can use this
layer to obtain the total drainage area for any stream segment. The accumulated drainage area
measurements are used in classifying stream size.
Models for predicting biodiversity
Each stream segment was designated as one of 18 habitat types which were used to classify flowing water
habitats to make predictions of characteristic fish species. Habitat types were defined using the following
sets of physicochemical attributes: stream size (headwaters, large streams/small rivers, large rivers),
physical habitat (dominated by natural geomorphological processes, moderately altered, and dominated by
human land use and controls), and water quality (suitable for life support, biologically stressful). As
mentioned above, the drainage area GIS layer was used to determine stream size. Topographic and land use
maps were used to determine physical habitat, reach gradient, and riparian forest cover. Physicochemical
data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency STORET database provided a means to classify
water quality.
A list of fish species recorded from the Allegheny River basin was developed to classify fish species by
habitat type. Information was gathered from various "Fishes of" books and previous bioassessment and fish
distribution studies (Bramblett and Fausch, 1991; Karret al., 1986; Ohio EPA, 1989; Schlosser, 1982).
Stream size preference was categorized as headwaters, large streams/small rivers, and large rivers. In cases
where a species was associated with more than one stream size, both categories were used,with the first
designation indicating the primary stream size. Tolerance to habitat degradation was categorized as
intolerant, moderately tolerant, or tolerant: Three water quality tolerance ratings have been used in past
classifications (intolerant, moderately tolerant, tolerant). These were regrouped into two categories
(intolerant, tolerant) by moving moderately tolerant species into the intolerant class. Thus, only the most
tolerant fish species are considered tolerant in this study.
The classification of habitat types for invertebrate taxa was handled in a similar way as fish. Stream
segments were classified into one of eight habitat types for invertebrate diversity predictions using the
following sets of physicochemical attributes: gradient (steep, low slope), riparian forest cover (closed
canopy over channel, open channel), and water quality (suitable for life support, biologically stressful). All
large rivers were considered to have open channels regardless of riparian status. Physical habitat, reach
gradient, and riparian forest cover were classified from topographic and land use maps for each stream
segment. Physicochemical data from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency STORET database was
used to classify water quality.
The approach for predicting characteristic invertebrate taxa by habitat type was the same as the approach
fXr fioVi- T*irrV»t Kiinrlro/^ arid c-oworvt^or* tovo fmr\ct\*r V*e*r»t-V»i/-» inco/-»tc\ \\rf*rf* ror»r*rrloH ir» ettv»orr» <*nA nwor
2 of 5 i . 06/26/9800:05:30
-------
Summary of NY Gap Analysis in Aquatic Environments . http://www.dnr.comell.edu/hydro2/gapsum.htm
samples in the New York portion of the Allegheny River basin. Almost half of these taxa were identified at
the species level. Sample data is from bioassessment surveys completed in 1981 and 1989-1990 by the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation [NYDEC], Division of Water (Bode et al.,
1991, 1993). Feeding guilds Were assigned from Bode et al. (1991) as follows: predator, collector-gatherer,
collector-filterer, scraper, or shredder. Species and genus-level tolerances for degraded water quality were
based on Bode et al. (1991) using the categories: tolerant and intolerant. Family:level tolerances were taken
from Hilsenhoff (1988). When taxa were not assigned a family tolerance by Hilsenhoff (1988), their
species tolerance was used. The life style habit of each taxa was taken from Merritt and Cummins (1984)
for the insects, and from Pennak (1978) for the other invertebrates. Life habit categories were: burrower,
clinger, swimmer, climber, sprawler, and not specific. When several habits were listed for a taxa, the first
was used for our classification.
Testing the biodiversity predictions
We are relying on GIS layers of measured data for fish and invertebrate assemblages to indicate
biodiversity priority areas. Two map layers, fish species richness and biological integrity (a community
quality index), were developed to test fish assemblage diversity. For the fish species richness layer, we
assembled all known data in recent decades that reports on whole fish community collections. The primary
sources were: intensive surveys of the French Creek portion of the Allegheny River basin and recent (late
1980s and 1990s) surveys conducted by the NY Department of Environmental Conservation. A total of 114
fish species have been recorded in the New York portion of the Allegheny River basin. For the index of
biotic integrity map layer, we modified the original index of biotic integrity (Plafkin et al. 1989; reviewed
in Karr et al. 1986; Karr 1991) for our study area. We need further refinement of the our index of biotic
integrity because quality ratings are too low for species-poor, coldwater streams in forested areas. A
headwater index of biotic integrity will soon be published (Lyons et al. 1996) to correct this problem.
We gathered data from the 1980s covering invertebrate assemblage collections (largely 100-organism,
benthic kick-samples) to test the invertebrate biodiversity predictions. The primary sources were: intensive
surveys of the French Creek portion of the Allegheny River and bioassessment surveys conducted by the
. NYDEC (Bode et al., 1993). The NYDEC bioassessment collections are the most extensive, and field
sampling was done with multiplate samplers (1981) and 100-organism kick netting (1989-1990). Details of
the sampling protocol and processing is fully described by Bode et al. (1991). We are relying on GIS layers
of taxa richness and six measures of community quality to indicate biodiversity priority areas due to the
high taxonomic diversity of aquatic invertebrates. The six community parameters calculated for each
invertebrate collection are taxa (species) richness, EPT index, biotic index, family-level biotic index,
diversity (Shannon-Wiener), and percent model affinity. Methods and scoring criteria for each described in
Bode et al. (1991) except for the family biotic index which was taken from Hilsenhoff (1988) with some
scoring modifications.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
In the beginning of the study we were concerned that the Environmental Protection Agency River Reach
File version 3.0 base layer of stream segments may not meet our needs. After extensive use it was
determined to have many advantages for our purposes. The streams and lakes in the Reach File matched
what was printed on the 1:100,000 scale USGS topographic maps. This was important for matching reach
numbers from the Reach File to habitat classifications from the topographic maps. The reach numbers also '
served as a useful link to other data sets and coverages. In addition, the navigational attributes of the Reach
File were useful for tracing upstream and downstream directions from any point on a stream and hence
determining cumulative drainage area.
Our predictions for fish diversity indicate that mid-size streams should have the highest diversity (figure 1).
3 of 5 06/26/9800:05:31
-------
Summary of NY Gap Analysis in Aquatic Environments http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/hydro2/gapsum.htni
Aitnougn large rivers generally nave longer species lists tnan smaller waters, tne middle size class 01
streams had the greatest number of characteristic species. Water quality appears to diminish fish diversity
to a much greater degree than habitat degradation. However, degraded water quality is much less common
on the watershed scale than habitat alteration. Therefore, we expect that habitat alteration will have a more
pervasive effect on fish diversity than water quality degradation, but water quality has a stronger effect in
fish diversity when it is stressful.
As for fish, water quality degradation appears to have a much greater impact on invertebrate diversity than
physical habitat alteration (Figure 2). Degraded water quality is much less common on the watershed scale
than habitat changes like riparian deforestation and channelization. Riparian vegetation removal causes
open canopy stream segments shifting the community to a new faunal composition more oriented to use of
algae as a food source. The combination of a diverse food base (allocthonous input from riparian forest)
and coarse substrate provides the widest range of feeding guilds and life habit groups. Consequently, we
predict that shaded and high gradient streams will have the highest anticipated taxonomic diversity for
invertebrates.
Combining predicted patterns for fish and invertebrates, we expect that overall biodiversity is likely to be
highest in mid-sized streams with a high gradient, forested riparian zones and valley, and suitable water
quality. Stream segments with this combination of attributes will be expected to have the highest diversity
of fish and invertebrates. These high diversity stream segments are likely to be sparsely distributed
throughout watersheds with abundant human land uses.
The measured data used to test the biodiversity predictions show a scattered distributional pattern of
diverse, quality fish communities for both species richness and biological integrity. The highest rated
stream segments are on mid-size streams spread across the river basin. Therefore, field data does not
indicate clusters of high diversity and quality stream segments for fish in the Allegheny River basin.
Rather, what appears to be priority conservation sites are well dispersed in the region.
Our GIS modeling effort succeeded in predicting the expected distribution offish and invertebrate diversity
at the watershed scale. Adequate biological information and useful physicochemical data appear available
and compatible with watershed-scale GIS programs. However, more work needs to be done to develop a
sound method for the conservation of stream habitat and biodiversity at the watershed scale. Further studies
are planned to determine the predicted biodiversity of mussels in the Allegheny River basin and create an
erosion model to link land cover to biodiversity.
REFERENCES
Bode, R. W., M. A. Novak, and L. E. Abele. 1991. Quality assurance work plan for biological stream
monitoring in New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of
Water, Albany, NY.
Bode, R. W., M. A. Novak, and L. E. Abele. 1993. 20 year trends in water quality of rivers and streams in
New York State based on macroinvertebrate data 1972-1992. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Albany, NY.
Bramblett, R. G., and K. D. Fausch. 1991. Variable fish communities and the index of biotic integrity in a
western great plains river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 120;752-769.
Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:65-68.
4 of 5 • 06/26/9800:05:31
-------
Summary of NY Gap Analysis in Aquatic Environments http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/hydro2/gapsum.hlm
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch,, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological
integrity in running waters: a method and its rational. Special Publication 5, Illinois Natural History
Survey.
Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological
Applications 1:66-84.
Lyons, J., L. Wang, and T. D. Simonson. 1996. Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity
for coldwater streams in Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16:241-256.
Merritt, R. W., and K. W. Cummins. 1984. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America.
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Vol. III.
Standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate
communities. Ohio EPA, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Columbus, Ohio.
Pennak, R. W. 1978. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New
York.
Tlafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic invertebrates and fish. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington, DC.
Schlosser, I. J. 1982. Trophic structure, reproductive success, and growth rate of fishes in a natural and
modified headwater stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 39:968-978.
Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F.
D'erchia, T. C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ulliman, and R. G. Wright. 1993. Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to
Protection of Biological Diversity. Wildlife Monographs. 123:1- 41.
Manuscript: Proceedings of the ECOHYDRAULICS 2000 Symposium, Quebec City, June 1996
2nd International Symposium on Hydraulics and Habitats
International Association for Hydraulics Research
Marcia S. Meixler. Mark B. Bain, and Greg H. Galbreath
Goto:
• NY Aquatic Gap Homepage
• Hydroecology and Fish Biology Homepage
• Department of Natural Resources
• Cornell University
5 of 5 • -06/26/9800:05:32
-------
APPENDIX C-3
REGIONAL INFORMATION
REGIONS
-------
Diviron.Tental Protection
Agency
Tin* -HA1V I K
The MAIA program includes the following components:
^ORD/Region 3 Agreement
~> Partnerships
^Assessment Process
-'Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
->MAIA Inventory of Monitoring Programs
~> Integrative Indicators
v> Wetlands
*-> Groundwater
EPA's Region III and the Office of Research and Development (ORD)
are working jointly on a model ecosystem-based program for the
Mid-Atlantic region. The Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)
encompasses the mid- Atlantic region of the eastern United States and
its watersheds, defined by the land and near-coastal area that includes
all of EPA Region III and parts of Regions II and IV. States completely
covered are: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and West
Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. Also included are parts of
New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina. Because of its dense
population and proximity to Washington, D.C., the MAIA study region is
one of the most data-rich areas of the county (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay
Program has been collecting data since the late 1970s).
MAIA is being designed to:
• balance ecological, economic, and social concerns
• build partnerships and involve stakeholders in the analysis of the
problem, goal setting, and solution development
• use partnership/stakeholder interest to integrate actions by federal,
state, tribal, and local agencies; between government and private
enterprises; and between government and local communities
MAIA will build upon ORD's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP), which is an applied research, monitoring, and
assessment program designed to describe the condition of our nation's
ecological resources. By coordinating, leveraging and integrating existing
monitoring and research programs, EPA and its partners will achieve
much more than would otherwise be possible as individual organizations.
The EPA and its partners will work together to:
• define realistic environmental goals and related environmental
assessment questions
• characterize ecological resource condition for the geographic area
-------
(e.g., ecoregions, watersheds) based upon exposure and effect
information
• identify possible associations with stressors including landscape
attributes that may explain impaired conditions for both specific
resources and the overall ecosystem
• manage for the long term, providing the set of multiple uses of
ecological resources that society now desires without undermining
the system's capacity to provide these and other uses in the future
• target geographic areas and critical resources for protection,
restoration, or other management action
• measure environmental progress
• improve the quality of environmental science and promote use of
"good science" in environmental decision making
• use MAIA as a demonstration of the integrated assessment
framework for the other EPA Regions and the rest of the nation
The data to be used for the initial assessment are from existing EMAP
information, but will expand as assessment questions are revised and
expanded, and 'data are acquired through new partnerships on the
Federal, State and local levels. MAIA scientists and managers will
assemble all the data collection efforts and the mandates, and begin
optimizing the effort using analysis, statistics, and conceptual models.
MAIA will strive to address comparative risk assessment goals by
addressing the following basic assessment questions:
1. Is there a problem?
2. Where is the problem?
3. What is the cause of the problem?
4. Are things changing?
5. What does it mean to the community?
6. What can we do about it?
In 1996 we have held a series of meetings with our federal and state
partners to develop detailed Assessment Questions by resource
(estuaries, streams, landscape, etc). The partners are working together
to evaluate and assess existing data and information, and produce
resource-specific State of MAIA Reports which respond to the
Assessment Questions. The development of Assessment Questions,
and State of MAIA Reports in response to them will continue in 1997 for
other resource groups. New data collection will begin once data gaps are
identified.
MAIA POINTS OF CONTACT
Region III - Tom DeMoss (410)573-2739
ORD - Barbara Brown (401)782-3088
Last Updated 10/28/97
-------
&EPA
Envirroirnental Protection
Agency
,%t\l\ I
ll I 14 i»l
-------
NVR
UWTEO STATES
ENVHMNMtNTAinMTfCnON
ACWCT
SSliNS
What's New at ESD
Work in Progress
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
April 1998
Dear Reader:
EPA has just issued An Ecological Assessment of the United States
Mid-Atlantic Region: A Landscape Atlas. Using satellite imagery and spatial
databases, we have inventoried a wide array of information to show patterns
and trends on our landscape that relate to four themes: 1) people in the
landscape, 2) water resources, 3) forests, and 4) landscape changes. The Atlas
provides data on landscape patterns within the mid-Atlantic region and
compares them to the rest of the nation.
The Atlas represents three years of collaboration among scientists in the Office
of Research and Development's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, National Exposure Research Laboratory in Las Vegas, EPA Region
III, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The Atlas also has been developed in the spirit of the national monitoring
framework of the interagency Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources (CENR) and will serve as a cornerstone for future assessments of
the nation's ecological resources. It is a companion in a series of documents
being developed by EPA to report on the conditions of our estuaries, forests,
groundwater, and agricultural lands.
Although its focus is in the mid-Atlantic region, the Atlas presents concepts
and approaches that can be applied to other regions of the country. This Atlas
enables us to take a broader view of our landscape. By widening our
perspective about the environment, it becomes easier to see where changes
occur and to anticipate future problems and trends before they materialize.
W. Michael McCabe
Regional Administrator
Region III
Henry L. Longest II
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Research and
Development
An Ecological Assessment of the United States
-------
Mid-Atlantic Region: A Landscape Atlas
Overview
The /Masfhttp://www.epa.gov/ernap/htrnl/atals.html') is an EPA report
assessing relative ecological conditions across the mid-Atlantic region of the
United States (encompassing Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia). The Atlas identifies, with
never-before achieved detail and comparability, patterns of land cover and land
use across the region. It presents 'an ecological snapshot to help the reader
visualize and understand the environmental conditions across the region, and
how the pattern of conditions can be applied to community-based
environmental decision making. The Atlas represents one of the first
regional-scale ecological assessments of the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP), will contribute to comprehensive ecological
assessments being conducted by EPA Region III, and will be useful to states,
local communities, and others.
The report is based on data from satellite imagery and spatial databases on
biophysical features such as soils, elevation, and human population patterns. It
compares nine landscape indicators on a watershed-by-watershed basis for the
lower 48 states (at a relatively coarse-scale resolution of 1 km), placing the
mid-Atlantic region in the context of the rest of the country. Using finer-scale
spatial resolution (e.g., 30-90 meters), the report then analyzes and interprets
environmental conditions of the 125 watersheds in the mid-Atlantic region
based on 33 landscape indicators. Results are presented relative to four general
themes identified by stakeholders in the region: (1) people (potential human
impacts), (2) water resources, (3) forests (forest habitat), and (4) landscape
change.
The Atlas compares watersheds using color codings based on the author's
interpretation of "more" vs. "less" desirable ecological conditions. For
instance, a high degree of forest cover is rated as more desirable than limited
forest cover. The watersheds are ranked relative to each other, not on an
absolute scale of ecological desirability. All indicator values are presented for
each watershed in an Appendix, so readers can draw their own conclusions.
Major Findings of the Atlas
C. The mid-Atlantic has diverse spatial patterns of agriculture and urban
lands as compared to other parts of the country (about 10% of the nation's
watersheds have been almost completely converted to agricultural land,
while about 40% of the nation's watersheds have only small amounts of
agriculture, excluding livestock grazing). Mountainous watersheds in the
mid-Atlantic region have the least amount of agricultural and urban land
cover and coastal areas the greatest.
C Mid-Atlantic watersheds have relatively high (more desirable) values for
forests, forest connectivity, and forests near streams (riparian zones) as
compared to other parts of the country, especially the Midwest and
southwestern United States.
C- Six watersheds in the south-central portion of the region along the border
with North Carolina, ten watersheds in the southwestern portion of the
-------
region, and three watersheds in north-central Pennsylvania have the most
desirable landscape conditions based on the suite of landscape indicators.
These areas have relatively low values for population, road density, and
agriculture, and have the highest amounts of forest and riparian vegetation.
k Nineteen watersheds in the northwestern, northeastern and Norfolk,
Virginia areas of the region have the least desirable landscape conditions.
These watersheds have high values for population density, road density,
agriculture on steep slopes, and sulfate deposition, and low values for
riparian vegetation and interior forest indicators. These areas are typically
around the major metropolitan areas of Baltimore-Washington, D.C.,
Pittsburgh, and Norfolk.
C The remaining watersheds fall between the most desirable and least
desirable conditions. Some appear to be in a desirable condition relative to
one environmental theme, but in a less-desirable condition relative to
another. For example, watersheds in the Delmarva Peninsula are in better
relative condition from a water quality perspective, but provide little
interior forest habitat. Conversely, several watersheds throughout the
Ridge-and-Valley and Appalachian Plateau areas have the opposite
pattern, with relatively more interior forest habitat but less-desirable
conditions for water-related indicators (such as the amount of crop land on
steep slopes).
Comparison of the Atlas to EPA's Index of Watershed Indicators
In October 1997, EPA issued its first Index of Watershed Indicators report. The
Index and the Atlas have some similarities and share some underlying data, but
there also are important differences. The Atlas examines both water conditions
and non-aquatic resources (such as forest condition), whereas the Index focuses
on aquatic resources; the Atlas emphasizes the mid-Atlantic rather than
presenting a national assessment; and, unlike the Alias, the Index incorporates
information from direct water quality monitoring. Future editions of the Index
may adopt some of the approaches developed for the Atlas.
Obtaining the Atlas and its Datasets
To order copies of An Ecological Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic
Region: A Landscape Atlas, publication no. EPA/600/R-97/130, call EPA's
Center for Environmental Research Information at (513) 569-7562. An
electronic version of the Atlas will be available through the World Wide Web
at http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/atlas.html. An abstract, index, and
information about obtaining a CD-ROM version or the underlying datasets
(expected to be accessible in Fall 1998) will be made available through this
website.
This report represents the collaboration of NERL - Las Vegas of EPA's Office
of Research and Development (ORD); EPA Region III; the Tennessee Valley
Authority; and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, as well as input from many
other scientists. Technical questions may be directed to Bruce Jones. ORD, or
Thomas DeMoss, Region III (410-573-2730). The Atlas
(http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/atlas.html) is one of a number of reports
underway as part ofEMAP. ReVA, and Region III Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA) project.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-97/130
November 1997
An Ecological Assessment
of the United States
Mid-Atlantic Region
A Landscape Atlas
••&']
mm
•«-»
-------
-•-"'«'-.. •- : : ;-..,,. • ' .-•
.',-'-i\-"r£^f--->~*.'f-''" .; -A«-;>'.;< •.'•~ c:.',.«,~: • * '"- ''"''• '•.%,.: •.••.*•'••",'
.•:••'•••.:..-.••.:•-,': . ..J". , .... : ..._.......•.,....
Chapter 1; Taking a Broader View
Environmental quality affects our health, our quality of
life, the sustainability of our economies, and the futures
of our children. Yet pressures from an increasing popula-
tion coupled with the need for economic development
and an improved standard of living often have multiple
effects on our natural resources. So just as a person
with a less-than-healthy lifestyle is more prone to infec-
tion, a weakened ecosystem is more vulnerable to
additional stress. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to see
these changes in environmental quality because they
occur slowly or at scales we do not normally consider.
There is growing public, legal, and scientific awareness
that broader-scale views are important when assessing
regional environmental quality. In the past, media atten-
tion has concentrated on dramatic events, focusing our
environmental awareness on local or isolated phenom-
ena such as cleaning up Superfund sites, stopping
pollution from a drainage pipe, saving individual endan-
gered species, or choosing a site for a county landfill. In
an era of environmental regulations, measures of envi-
ronmental quality were based on legal standards, like
those for drinking water or air quality. As a result they
reflected a limited view of the environment and the
multiple factors that contribute to environmental prob-
lems. In response, scientists studied fine-scale model
systems and often considered humans to be external
factors. Today, our perceptions are changing. We
realize that humans and our actions are an integral part
of the global ecosystem, and that the environment is
complicated and interconnected with human activities
across local and regional scales. We have begun to take
a broader view of the world and of our place in natural
systems.
Technological advancements have made it easier to
obtain new views of overall environmental quality. Com-
puters and satellites allow us to study larger patterns and
processes. Combined with a better understanding of
how the pieces fit together, these technologies help us to
assess where we are now with regard to environmental
quality, to envision where we hope to be in the future,
and to identify the steps we need to take. This atlas
takes advantage of these advanced technologies in
assessing environmental condition over the mid-Atlantic
region of the United States.
Just as we now watch broad-scale weather patterns to
get an idea of whether it will rain in the next few days, we
can develop a better assessment of current environmen-
tal condition by combining regional and local-scale
information. Broad-scale weather patterns are important
because they affect and constrain what happens locally
on any given day. By taking a broader view of the envi-
ronment, or widening our perspective about how the
environment is put together, it becomes easier to see
where changes occur and to anticipate future problems
before they materialize.
Chesapeake Bay Program
7?7e Chesapeake Bay Program is one of the groups which helped to identify the
environmental issues ofconcemin the mid-Atlantic region. The Chesapeake
Bay watershed covers a large portion of the area considered in this atlas.
In the past, public and legal attention has been focused on site-specific
environmental problems such as what is coming out of individual drainage pipes.
-------
-, . ,
.... ....<-,...,»..
' .
Purpose and Organization of this Atlas
This atlas is an environmental assessment of the mid-
Atlantic region of the United States (Figure 1.1). The
assessment was done using measurements derived from
satellite imagery and spatial data bases. The information
presented in this atlas is intended to help the reader
visualize and understand the changing conditions across
the region, and how the pattern of conditions can be
used as a context for community-level situations. This
atlas does not provide site-specific analyses of small
areas such as individual woodlots. This atlas was devel-
oped as part of the Environmental Monitoring and As-
sessment Program (EMAP), and is part of a larger,
multi-organizational effort to assess environmental
condition in the mid-Atlantic Region.
atlas is divided into four chapters with one
appendix. This chapter introduces the reasons
for doing a broad-scale regional analysis of
environmental condition.
Erie
Chapter 2 places the mid-Atlantic region into
the context of the lower 48 states. In Chapter 3,
the landscape conditions in the mid-Atlantic region are
analyzed and interpreted in terms of a set of ecological
indicators, summarized by watersheds within the region.
Chapter 4 summarizes the overall picture painted by
these landscape indicators and compares relative condi-
tions among watersheds in the region. The Appendix
provides methodological information which is not in
Chapter 3, and has a listing of all indicator scores for
every watershed in the mid-Atlantic region.
Harris burg
Philadelphia'
-"">'
Wilmuigjory
* '
-!
Pittsburgh
. •
Morganlown
Figure 1.1.
The mid-Atlantic region.
,
Charleston
"!, Baltimore iv. Nff
',- *x*--., ;• ,1 Annapolitf-v. ?*?*', \ f >v
^>t^ X V^v^
^^S*J7/
S3: f;f
-•* tA^
iti^ »t>;
Richmond* . "^ *F
. -v'C -^*-
" "'"'v«-, '";
"•-X^«s,\
NorfolT fk
P' Roanoke
Kilometer*
-------
• - '--,•' " ' • ' ": '-•
~ -
. -.."($m
Landscape Ecology and the Analysis of
Broad-Scale Environmental Condition
To most people, the term "landscape" suggests either a
scenic vista or a backyard improvement project. To
ecologists and other environmental scientists, a land-
scape is a conceptual unit for the study of spatial
patterns in the physical environment and the influence of
these patterns on important environmental resources.
Landscape ecology is different from traditional ecology in
several ways. First, it takes into account the spatial
arrangements of the components or elements that make
up the environment. Second, it recognizes that the
relationships between ecological patterns and processes
change with the scale of observation. Finally, landscape
ecology includes both humans and their activities as an
integral part of the environment.
There are many applications for landscape ecology and
broad-scale information in regional assessments. For
example, we can identify the areas that are most heavily
impacted today by combining information on population
density, roads, land cover, and air quality. In the mid-
Atlantic region, we already have good information (from
the U.S. Census Bureau) about which counties are most
urbanized. But which counties have only a small propor-
tion of adjacent forest cover along the stream length?
Which counties are character-.
ized by a high degree of ^-.^••^~:^
forest fragmentation? What
about information for water-
sheds instead of counties?
Broad-scale measurements
can be taken in order to
make relative comparisons of
these indicators over the
entire region. Broad-scale
data can also help in identify-
ing the most vulnerable areas
within the region. Vulnerable
areas are not yet heavily impacted, but because of their
circumstances they are in danger of becoming so. One
example might be a watershed that has a relatively high
percent of forest cover, but is also experiencing rapid
population gains. Such an area might be more vulner-
able to forest fragmentation than a similar area with less
population or less forest area.
The ability to place localities into a regional context is
another benefit of this approach. Some individual cities
and neighborhoods in the mid-Atlantic Region may seem
isolated, perhaps within a large forested area. However,
all are connected by physical features and by ecological
processes. Water flows from one place to another, roads
provide a connecting infrastructure, and land cover
patterns of forest and agriculture form a connected
backdrop for all of our activities. While land management
decisions are made and implemented at a local scale, a
regional perspective can guide our decisions and make
us better stewards of our environment. By placing our
homes, neighborhoods, and government organizations
into a regional landscape picture, we can begin to make
informed decisions that consider not only our goals and
actions, but our neighbors' as well.
-------
- - • . •• • -••--•
' - " • • : ' .' ' " ' -.' • .
: > ' "' , '• '
,.:..,.•
Figure 1.2 illustrates how a single community is linked to
the landscape at several different scales and across
different mapping units (watersheds and counties in this
example). A small city is highlighted in the middle of the
figure. At this scale we concentrate on individual land
parcels and roads, and our decisions are based on a
local perspective. Broader-scale perspectives emerge
as we follow the lines up either side of the figure. We
see that the community is part of both a watershed (left)
and a county (right), which, in turn, are components of
groups of watersheds and counties. These larger groups
are components of the entire region.
How Can Landscape Indicators Help Us
Understand Environmental Conditions?
An indicator is a value calculated by statistically combin-
ing and summarizing relevant data. Well-known
economic indicators include the seasonally-adjusted
unemployment percentage and number of housing starts,
both of which indicate overall economic condition. In
these indicators, seasonal adjustment is made with a
model, and most economists look at several indicators
together instead of just one at a time. Similarly, land-
scape indicators can be measurements of ecosystem
components (such as the amount of forest) or processes
(such as net primary productivity), and modeled adjust-
ments can be used to help interpret the measurements in
order to understand overall ecological conditions.
Figure 1.2.
This atlas may help to understand how a
city (bottom center) fits into a larger
context of either watersheds (left
branch) or counties (right branch).
-------
i
•••, . *-,
Figure 1.3 shows an example of measuring spatial
patterns as an indicator of stream conditions. The
distribution of streamside land cover has been mapped
for the same county that was shown in Figure 1.2.
Stream segments that are green have adjacent forest,
and segments that are yellow and red have adjacent
agriculture and urban land cover, respectively. The
pattern of streams in relation to land cover is an indicator
of conditions within the stream. Forests filter pollutants,
Figure 1.3.
Spatial patterns of land cover in
relation to streams fora county in the
mid-A tlantic region. Stream segments
are colored green, yellow, or red,
depending on whether the segments
are adjacent to forest, agriculture, or
urban land cover.
preventing them from reaching the water, whereas
agriculture and urban land often contribute pollutants to
streams. A simple summary indicator might be the
percentage of stream length in the county that is adjacent
to forest land cover. To refine this indicator, a model
might help to account for "natural" conditions, for example
whether or not forest was the natural land cover for the
county.
-------
,
How Were the Landscape Indicators Selected?
As a starting point for selecting indicators, we considered
what people in the region said they cared about. For
example, concern for wildlife populations provides a
reason to examine indicators of habitat fragmentation.
Fragmentation of natural habitats can severely affect
animal populations, as shown by the conceptual model
illustrated in Figure 1.4. Concerns from the mid-Atlantic
were then matched to our ability to take meaningful
measurements, recognizing that some things just can't
be measured very well given the available data or mod-
els. As a result of workshops and advice from people in
the mid-Atlantic region, four general environmental
themes were identified — people, water, forests, and
landscape change. Figures 1.5 and 1.6 are pictorial
representations of key landscape attributes that affect the
sustainability of environmental condition across broad
scales. Figure 1.5 shows some key landscape compo-
nents that sustain a high quality environment, and Figure
1.6 shows some human modifications of the landscape
that can reduce the sustainability of natural resources.
These illustrations represent some of the important
landscape indicators analyzed in this atlas.
I
Large-scale
disturbance
(fire or flood)
Population
persists
Recovery
Large-scale
disturbance
\
S $
-------
• ... ..,;;... ..
.
.....
Forest connectivity
is crucial for the
persistance of
forest species,
especially in areas
with moderate
amounts of
agriculture
Figure 1.5.
A pictorial representation of some
landscape components that sustain
a high-quality environment.
Riparian zones
filter sediments
and pollutants,
especially in
agricultural
areas, in
addition to
providing
important
wildlife habitats
Large blocks of
interior forest
habitat are
important for
many forest
species
The number of
forest scales
surrounding a
point in the
landscape
determines the
variety of
forest species
found there
Forest edge
habitat is
important for
many species
that require more
than one habitat
type to survive
-------
The indicators reported in this atlas are not appropriate
for addressing some kinds of questions. For example,
they are not intended to assess conditions for very small
areas. The goal was to develop a consistent and com-
prehensive look at the entire region, and there were
trade-offs between the level of detail and the size of the
area that could be considered. Future work would look
at smaller areas using more detailed data sets. The
regional perspective would be a valuable guide to deter-
mine where this additional expense might be warranted.
The indicators reported here were not evaluated in
absolute terms; only relative comparisons were made. In
order to set absolute standards like the ones which exist
for drinking water and air pollution, the system must
either be very simple or intensively studied to provide
detailed scientific information. Regional ecosystems
t.. - simply too complicated to set absolute standards
using our current technology and understanding.
Landscapes are very complicated, and the generality of
the conceptual models is an accurate reflection of level
of scientific understanding concerning landscape dynam-
ics. Scientists who study landscape ecology are trying to
improve our ability to interpret landscape indicators
relative to environmental values. The improvements will
help to interpret the information that is contained in this
atlas and may suggest new landscape indicators that we
have not considered. In the meantime, it is worth explor-
ing how much is known about regional environmental
conditions and what conclusions can be made using
state of the art landscape indicators.
How Were the Landscape Indicators Measured?
Many kinds of data were used to prepare the indicators
shown in this atlas. Federal agencies were the primary
source for data, including maps of elevation, watershed
boundaries, road and river locations, population, soils,
land cover, and air pollution. Sources included the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the U.S: Census Bureau, and the
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium
(MRLC).
Data collected by satellites were used to map land cover
and its change over time. The sensors carried on satel-
lites measure the light reflected from the Earth's surface.
Because different surfaces reflect different amounts of
light at various wavelengths, it is possible to identify land
cover from satellite measurements of reflected light.
Figure 1.7 illustrates the differential reflectance properties
of water, sediments suspended in water, and land sur-
faces for a typical satellite image. Examples of land
cover maps derived from satellite images appear later in
this atlas.
In a typical digital map, data are stored as a series of
numbers for each map. These maps can be thought of
as checkerboards, where each grid square (or pixel,
which is an abbreviation of "picture element") represents
a data value for a particular landscape attribute (for
example soils, topography, or land cover type) at a
specific location.
-------
:^S£iM^M-iM^!~
Several techniques are used to take a measurement of a
landscape indicator. One method ("overlaying") simply
examines maps of different themes in order to extract
information about spatial relationships among the themes
(Figure 1.8). For example, by overlaying maps of land
cover and topography, we can look at the occurrence of
agriculture on steep slopes. These relationships are then
stored as- a new map which combines the information
from the original set of maps. Another method ("spatial
filtering") can be thought of as using a "sliding window" to
calculate indicator values within small areas that are part
of a larger map (Figure 1.9). Spatial filtering is used here
to create surface maps of indicator values; these surface
maps help us to visualize the spatial pattern of indicators
in more detail than is provided by the watershed-level
summaries described in the following section.
Land cover (with agriculture in red) is combined with topography to
indicate agriculture on steep slopes. The combined map shows
agriculture on slopes greater than 3%.
Figure 1.8.
Example of overlaying digital maps to produce anew map of an indicator.
-------
Original land
cover data:
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Resulting, spatially
filtered data:
In this example of the spatial filtering process, a 3 pixel by 3 pixel
window (outlined in red - top row of figures) is used to map land
cover diversity. In step 1, there are 2 cover types in the window
which maps to a single blue pixel at the center of the window. In
step 2, the window slides over one pixel. There are 3 cover types
in the new window, mapping to a single green pixel in the center of
the window. In step 3, the window again slides over one pixel. The
third window includes 3 cover types and maps again to a single
green pixel.
Legend for Filtered Coverage
One Cover Type
Two Cover Types
Three Cover Types
Four Cover Types
More Than Four Cover Types
Figure 1.9.
Illustration of spatial filtering which creates a surface map.
-------
How Were the Landscape Indicators Summarized?
This atlas uses watersheds, as defined by USGS hydro-
logic accounting units, to summarize landscape indicator
values (Figure 1.10). Roughly speaking, hydrologic
accounting units follow watershed boundaries. In many
ecological studies, especially those which assess water-
related concerns, watersheds are an appropriate unit for
summarizing data. A watershed is defined as an area of
land that is drained by a single stream, river, lake, or
other body of water. The dividing lines between water-
sheds are formed by ridges. Water on one side flows
into one stream, while water on the other side may flow
into a different stream. Thus, watersheds are a natural
unit defined by the landscape. Strictly speaking, the
USGS hydrologic accounting units are not watersheds in
the classical sense of a topographically-defined catch-
ment area. They are used in this atlas because they are
generally accepted and consistent across the entire
nation.
To determine relative condition, the watersheds were
ranked by the values for a given indicator, from highest to
lowest, and then were divided into five groups. Each
group had an equal number of watersheds; at the na-
tional scale (Chapter 2) there were approximately 425
watersheds in each group. At the mid-Atlantic regional
scale (Chapters 3 and 4) there were 25 watersheds in
each group. All watersheds within the same group were
colored with one of five colors, using green to represent
more-desirable conditions and red to represent less-
desirable conditions. Maps based on rankings are useful
for comparing relative conditions, but they do not convey
the actual values of the indicators. That information is
summarized in the companion bar charts which show the
number of watersheds with different indicator values. By
looking at the map and bar chart together, it is possible to
estimate the ranges of indicator values associated with a
given watershed group.
As a practical matter, the authors of this atlas made
judgment calls when assigning 'red1 and 'green' colors to
the maps, and 'more desirable' and 'less desirable'
interpretations to the indicator values. For example,
forest edge was colored 'green1 and interpreted as 'more
desirable' when its values were high because the mea-
surement was included as an indicator of a type of
habitat. Similar judgment calls were made for other
indicators. Higher values for the vegetation-increase
indicator were considered to be a negative impact be-
cause much of this change did not represent restoration
of the potential natural vegetation, but rather was more
strongly associated with human activities. One of the
advantages of presenting indicator scores for all water-
sheds (see Appendix) is that any reader can simply
redefine the color scheme and make new judg-
ments based on other criteria.
To calculate indicator
values for a watershed,
the watershed boundary is
overlayed on a GIS
coverage. Information for
that watershed is then cut
out from the larger
dataset.
Figure 1.10.
Illustration of the cookie-cutter
process that was used to
summarize information by
watershed.
-------
Hoiv to Read the Maps and Charts in this Atlas
Figure 1.11 illustrates the types of maps and charts that
appear in Chapters 2 and 3, with some description of
their various elements. It may be useful to bookmark
this page for later reference.
The map of mid-Atlantic watersheds is color-coded
to show relative conditions among watersheds. The
colors range from red to green, indicating rela-
tively "less desirable" and "more desirable"
conditions, respectively.
A quintile
Contains 1/5 of
le watersheds.
Ouintiles are
formed after
ranking
watersheds for
the indicator.
Quintile
1
2
3
4
5
The Data Range
shows the
indicator values
for watersheds
contained in
each quintile.
Data Range' (Percent)
< 70.600
70.600-76.869
76.870-84.579
84.580-89.889
> 89.890
The value shown on the X axis is the upper limit of a
data range. For example, this bar shows the number
of watersheds with data values between 60-70.
10 20 . 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Indicator Value
A brief explanation of the essential methods is given.
Details are in the Appendix.
Woody landcover along streams was calculated as the percent
of streamlength with forest landcover types. By intersecting a
buffer zone around each stream with the landcover, a dataset is
created which records all landcover types within a specified
distance to stream center.
Sources: USGS 1:1,00,000 River Reach 3 stream data, and
MRLC 30 meter Landsat land-cover data.
Figure 1.11.
How to read the maps and charts in this atlas.
-------
APPENDIX C-4
REGIONAL INFORMATION
REGION 4
-------
Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA)
Terrestrial Technical Report
The purpose of the SAA terrestrial technical report was to examine the status
and trends (1) forest health and (2) terrestrial plant and animal resources. The SAA is
an interagency effort that began in the summer of 1994 and ended in May 1996. The
SAA area includes seven states, 135 counties, approximately 37 million acres, seven
national forests, and two national parks. The results of the assessment will be used in
national forest plan revisions and other planning efforts. The information in the
terrestrial report attempts to provide an ecosystem-based approach for the
management of natural resources in the assessment area rather than using artificial
boundaries of counties, states, or national forests and parks.
Participants in the assessment included the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Forest Service (USFS); U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and National Park Service (NPS); Department of Energy's (DOE's)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL); and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
The Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere program coordinated the
interagency efforts to produce this report.
The goal of the assessment was to create an information base to define
resource management objectives, desired future conditions, standards, guidelines and
management directions.
Data on Valued Resources and Stressors.
Resource Data Types
Rare Community Types .
Wildlife and Plant Species
Ecological Mapping Units
Forest and Nonforest
Ecosystems
Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered Species
Species with Viability
Concern
Data Source
The Nature Conservancy, Natural heritage programs
and agencies including TVA, USFS, and USFWS
The Nature Conservancy
National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units
National Forest System, LANDSAT remote sensing,
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), Continuous
Inventory of Stand Conditions (CISC), and Natural
Resources Inventory (NRI)
FWS, state heritage programs, Element Occurrence
Records (EOR)
State heritage biological and conservation data, state
heritage sitebasic records, and FS occurrence records
-------
Resource Data Types
Major Game Species
Landscape-Level Habitat
Suitability Indicators for
Selected Species Grouping
Data Source
State wildlife agencies, LANDSAT, FIA data, and NRI
data
LANDSAT Thematic Mapper imagery, 1 : 100,000 scale
ownership, road, and elevation coverages and water-
stream reach coverage, CISC data, and FIA data
Stressor Data Types
Natural Disturbance
Silviculture and Prescribed
Fire
Tree Declines
Exotic Diseases
Insect Pests
Exotic Plants
Data Sources
Forest Inventory and Analysis data; and National
Interagency Fire Management Integrated database
unknown
FIA surveys; Continuous Inventory of Stand Conditions;
and 1991 National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program
1993 and 1994 Forest Service data
Forest Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), the states of Ml, WV, VA, and NC, the
National Park Service on a pilot project called "Slow the
Spread"
unknown
Methods. The assessment included a series of town hall meetings where the
public presented suggestions and addressed questions. Concerns from land managers
and policy makers supplemented the questions from the town hall meetings and formed
the structure of the SAA. Eight main questions were identified from the public outreach
and consultation with agencies, four questions concern wildlife and botanical resources
and the other four concern forest health. The four wildlife and botanical resources
questions relate to: (1) the range of plant and animal species, (2) status, trends, and
spatial distribution of populations and habitats, (3) habitat criteria to sustain viable
populations, and (4) general habitat conditions to conserve and protect species and
their populations. The four forest health questions relate to: (1) changes in forest
vegetation, (2) potential effect of fire, (3) effects of native and exotic pests to forest
health, and (4) effects of management practices on forest health and integrity. Existing
data was stored, retrieved, analyzed, interpreted, and displayed using GIS technology.
Appendix C-4
JulyS, 1998
-------
The GIS products provided answers to the eight questions outcoming from the town hall
meetings.
Results. Using this method, the assessment provides information to analyze.or
respond to the eight main questions. Examples of the findings are: (1) the production of
a "short list" of 472 plant and animal species; (2) 31 rare community types occur in the
SAA area; and (3) fire may be useful in slowing or stopping the current trend from oak
domination to domination by more shade-tolerant species.
Strengths. The assessment clearly identifies research and information needs
as well as conservation practices to be pursued by interested parties.
Limitations. The assessment was limited by availability of data and a
compressed two-year timeframe to gather the data.
Source. Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. July,
1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment, Terrestrial Technical Report. R8-TP
26, United States Department of Agriculture.
Appendix C-4 3 July 8, 1998
-------
[This page left intentionally blank]
Appendix C-4 . 4 July 8,1998
-------
Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA)
Aquatic Technical Report
The purpose of the SAA aquatic technical report was to collect and analyze
existing information for the Southern Appalachian region on aquatic resource status
and trends, riparian condition, impacts of various land management or human activities,
water laws, aquatic resource improvement programs, and water uses. The SAA is an
interagency effort that began in the summer of 1994 and ended in May 1996. The SAA
area includes seven states, 135 counties, and approximately 37 million acres. The
report identifies cooperative research opportunities for interested citizens, businesses,
and government agencies.
Participants in the assessment included the USEPA; USFS; USFWS; U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) National Biological Service (NBS) and National Park Service
(NPS); DOE ORNL; Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration;
TVA; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE); and the states of TN, GA, and NC.
The goals of the assessment were set to identify and develop information that
could be transformed and analyzed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The
information in the aquatic report attempts to provide an ecosystem-based approach for
the management of natural resources in the assessment area.
Data on Valued Resources and Stressors.
Resource Data Types
Waterbodies: Streams,
Rivers, and Lakes
Condition of Waterbodies
Sensitivity of Streams to
Acid Deposition
Threatened,
Endangered, and Special
Concern Aquatic Species
Status of Trout
Populations
Data Source
USEPA Reach File version 3.0 (RF3) based on the 1:100,000
scale USGS Digital Line Graph (DLG) data
1 994 State Water Quality Reports to Congress (state water
305[b] reports); "River Pulse" documents from TVA; and
USEPA STORET database of water quality data
Generalized bedrock map of the Southern Appalachian
Mountains; and Virginia Trout Stream Sensitivity Study
(VTSSS) database
Element Occurrence Record (EOR) data from seven state
heritage programs
State inventory data and state water-quality data
Appendix C-4
July 8, 1998
-------
Resource Data Types
Data Source
Other Aquatic Species at
Risk
SAA state natural heritage programs; Forest Service
databases for sensitive species; Forest Service Southern
Region Aquatic Species Being Reviewed for Sensitive Species
Designation that Occur on the SAA National Forests; and The
Nature Conservancy Endemics and Near-Endemics of the
Southern Blue Ridge of NC, VA, TN, GA, and SC.
Fish Community Integrity
Summary of Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)-based fish
community assessments in the Blue Ridge of western NC
provided by the NC Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources; and Summary report on IBI-based fish
community assessments provided by TVA Holston River
Action Team
A Case Study of Benthic
Macro-Invertebrates in
the SAA Area
Monitoring program conducted on the George Washington
National Forest
Stream Habitat Condition
Summary report on fish community and habitat assessments
in the Holston River watershed provided by TVA; Summary
data on fish community assessments in the Hiwassee River
drainage provided by TVA; and Preliminary data from a
multistate Regional Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment (R-EMAP) study (the MAHA)
Land Cover and Aquatic
Systems
Land cover analysis of remotely sensed LANDSAT Thematic
Mapper scenes provided by Pacific Meridian; and Ecological
regions defined by Omernik's Ecoregions of the Continental
United States
Riparian Inventory
GIS coverages based on EPA river reach database (RF3) and
a 100-foot (30-meter) buffer surrounding watercourses
Stressor Data Type
Industrial Sites, Landfills,
and Other Locations
Mining Activities
Data Sources
EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
database
1994 State Water Quality Reports to Congress (state water
305[b] reports)
Appendix C-4
July8, 1998
-------
Stressor Data Type
Riparian Zone Forest
Cover
Roads and Highways
Wastewater Discharges
Population Pressure/Land
Use/Nonpoint Source
Pollution
Data Sources
1994 Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in Macon County, NC;
1 993 Fernow Experimental Forest in Tucker County, WV;
TVA, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, National Park Service,
and National Biological Service at Gatlinburg, TN
USGS 1:100,000 Digital Line Graph (DLG) files
EPA Permits Compliance System (PCS) database; and EPA
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
1994 Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) database; and 1985
EPA National Database of Fertilizer Sales and 1987 animal.
population figures from the Census of Agriculture; and
National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories (NLFCA)
database and EPA's Fish Contamination Database
Methods. The assessment included a series of town hall meetings where the
public presented suggestions and addressed questions. Concerns from land managers
and policy makers supplemented the questions from the town hall meetings and formed
the structure of the SAA. Five main questions were identified from the public outreach
and consultation with agencies. Existing information was gathered and analyzed using
GIS technology. The GIS products provided answers to the five questions outcoming
from the town hall meetings and were compiled into a database. The assessment
compiles existing data and information about the aquatic resources and addresses
future trends wherever possible. This aquatic assessment uses an ecosystem-based
approach, however, some information relies on county or state boundaries.
Results. Using this approach, the assessment provides integrated findings in
the following topics: (1)'recent human population trends and projected wastewater
infrastructure needs (1995-2005); (2) interaction of mining impacts with atmospheric
sulfate deposition; (3) roadless areas and wildernesses as refuges for terrestrial and
aquatic plant and animal resources; (4) population pressure on aquatic systems due to
land uses; and (5) riparian areas as habitats for plants and animals.
Strengths. The aquatic assessment identifies information and data gaps for the
SAA area necessary to evaluate the current status of the aquatic resources, the
changes in aquatic conditions over time, and the effectiveness of the water quality
protection programs.
Limitations. The assessment was limited by availability of data and a
compressed timeframe to gather the data. This effort was extended during a two-year
period. In addition, aquatic resource data are lacking in some areas or are available in
locations that may not be representative of the whole SAA area.
Appendix C-4
July8, 1998
-------
Source. Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. July,
1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment, Aquatic Technical Report. R8-TP 26,
United States Department of Agriculture.
Appendix C-4 8 July 8, 1998
-------
Identifying Priority Natural Areas in EPA Region IV
The identification of priority natural areas in a region requires a multidimensional
assessment of criteria that reflect qualities associated with "naturalness" such as scenic
beauty, wildlife habitat, conservation of native biodiversity, and recreation opportunities.
Each of these qualities is valued differently according to what the goals of protection are,
i.e. identification of natural areas for human use would place greater weight on scenic
value and recreational opportunities while identification of natural areas for conservation
would place greater weight on habitat diversity and connectivity. Determining the weights
for the components of "naturalness" depends on EPA's goals,
Mapping Potential Biodiversity - In FY 97, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
demonstrated a methodology for mapping potential biodiversity as a measure of ecological
vulnerability for power transmission routing. Much of this methodology could easily be
adapted for a similar regional-scale assessment. Using data available from the Southern
Appalachian Assessment (SAA), potential habitat was mapped for different response
guilds of wildlife species. Response guilds defined for the transmission routing consisted
of groups of species that respond similarly to the ecological impacts of establishing new
transmission lines - 1) forest fragmentation, 2) changes in amount and distribution of edge,
3) increased proximity to human activity, and 4) changes in water quality and flow.
Potential habitat was mapped at 3 scales ranging from local to regional to reflect the
differences in habitat requirements for different size species. Habitat for each scale and
each response guild was then overlaid; the number of potential habitats that coincided
spatially was then used as a measure of potential biodiversity. Areas of high potential
biodiversity (high number of habitats intersecting) indicated potential ecological
vulnerability and were mapped as areas to try to avoid when routing transmission lines.
For a regional assessment, MRLC data available from Region IV is being used as input
data to map available habitat for the first 2 response guilds. Mapping of other response
guilds will be depend on availability and quality of other GIS coverages. The human
proximity response guild could be done as in our transmission routing demo which
adapted the methodology used to map recreation settings for the SAA (SAMAB Southern
Appalachian Assessment, 1996, Rimers et al., 1998 (submitted)). The SAA used land
use/land cover plus traffic counts to estimate human intrusion on the landscape. However,
digitizing traffic counts for all of Region IV would be cost-prohibitive, therefore we would
recommend developing a model based on proximity to urban areas and road networks.
Available habitat for species sensitive to human proximity would then be mapped using a
varying window size to represent species that operate at different spatial scales.
Mapping of habitat for species sensitive to water quality is more problematic and will
depend on availability of high-quality input data. This will require a careful assessment of
data that are available (DEMs, rivers and streams) and may include other data such as soils
and mapped wetlands.
-------
Other response guilds, e.g. those representing different landscape configurations such as
herbaceous areas adjacent to forest, or within a certain distance from water, may also be
included to represent a more holistic view of biodiversity (Riitters et al. 1997).
Riitters, K.H., R.V. O'Neill, and K.B. Jones. 1997. Assessing habitat suitability at
multiple scales: a landscape-level approach. Biological Conservation 81 (1997): 191-202.
Riitters, K.H, Larry Hayden, Steve Hendricks, and Karl Hermann (submitted to
Computer. Environment and Urban Systems). A regional map of outdoor recreation
settings.
-------
The Performance Improvement Team
for the Environment
Presented by
e Performance Improvement Team
If the science ihowt ttat we
have to do more to ensure that
our kid* are safe from pollution,
then that it precisely what
we will do.'
Cmd gram*,, F*nt*y IWI
nee Improvement Team
•arlsti (Laatfar) JonMwten
MckDuboaa
MUCoagrova
Subcommittee
rtyl
Alton Anttay
Production Designer
M4/98
JoBnaan
A Strategy for Change
-------
Communication with public and Rg 4
employees to identify issues.
Product: Commentary on the Environment
6/24/98
The Formu
Phase
Strategic Environmental Assessment Corp (SE/4C) and
Regional Planning Council (RFC) filter and rank issues
identified in Step 1. Results presented to EMT for
Review.
Product: Parameters index
•h*f ,-*V •: ••". l/ - >
?..-'** »3fv,•!*•*• '••«•; :
SEAC uses Parameters Index to analyze
temporal and spatial relationships.
Product: Ecological Assessment Atlas
The vision for Region 4.
Created by selecting and
ranking priorities.
Product: Agenda for Action (Draft)
-------
Phase 2
Regional managers and States agree on priorities
while Divisions and Programs develop their
portion of the Region's Strategic Operating Plan.
Products: Region's Strategic Operating Plan
Performance Partnership Agreements
Agenda for Action (Final)
Program Targets
Phase 3
Strategic Operating Plan Implementation
Phase 4
6/24/98
Evaluation - By hitting the targets
did the Region make a difference?
Reporting - Summarize our
successes and continuing goals.
Product: State of the Region
Report
-------
e Timing
Headquarters'
Next Year's budget
sent to OMB Next Year's budget Next Year's budget
Draft GPRA Documanta Written sent to Congress and GPRA Documents Finalized
-*-
AA-RA
Negotiations
Oct I Nov I Decj Jan I Febl Mar | Apr I May I Jun | Jul I Aug I Sept
2000 1 Phasel
brYear2001 Planning Envt
-VV*
1
1
2Q02 | Phase 1
I,, „ -.
1
|— Phase 4 Eva!
Prepare State of Region Re|
Year 2001 End.of.Year .
Accountability Report
j
rnimentaiy on fie Meet with
iDnmentCompjetad State Directors
~~ st! JmJT °?nrfi Dlvlt Ion/Program*
parameters maex^ Develop develop Operating Plans
j Assessment
: it Complete Draft
!. . ^Agenda! for Action
* ' •
j 1
Phas^ 3 Implement Planf developed in Year 2
| Velar 2001 Md-Year
j Accountability Report
j j
Plann'inir for 7003 l 1 Phase 2 Plan
Phasi 3 Implement Plani developed in Year 2
luationj/Reporting for Year 2001 — j
._., • ^ State of Region
^^ ! ^ Report Final
j Year 2002 Mid-Year
• ActounUblllty Report
^r i
ning for 2001
f>. Final
Agenda for Action
^ Region's
" ^ Strategic
OpenMlona Plan
ning for 2002
ling for 2003 j
nni I
-------
August 4, 1998
Phase I
Step 1.
Communication
The identification of
environmental issues, concerns,
questions and problems first
begins with communication, both
internally and externally. EPA
must establish a dialog with the
public, industry, environmental
groups, Congress, State and local
governments, the press and our
own staff and experts. Such
exchanges with key stakeholder
groups increase their
understanding of the Region's
Integrated Planning System (IPS)
and develop necessary support.
Inclusion of a public participation
element also provides these
groups with an opportunity to
assist the Region in developing
environmental priorities,
determining the best use of
resources, and meeting strategic
Agency goals. '
Responsible
External Communication •-'."• •\^i
* At the start of each fiscal year,
the Office of External Affairs
(OEA) will identify key4udiences
and stakeholders and^ solicit their
input in the Region's Integrated
Planning System (IPS). Requests
may vary from formal meetings,
informal telephone conversations
or written materials. When
possible, OEA will capitalize on
already established associations
and planned meetings (i.e., Yearly
State Director's meetings).
* OEA will manage an Internet
home page describing the
Region's IPS process, reporting
results of the process and
presenting success stories of
environmental improvements
within the Region.
Internal Communication
* The Planning and Analysis
Branch (PAB) and OEA will hold
a yearly meeting with all
managers to review, in detail, the
Region's blueprint for developing
and implementing the Strategic
Plan. Under the direction of
knowledgeable and well-equipped
managers, Regional staff will not
only follow, but will also
participate in the IPS process.
* To keep Senior Management
updated throughout the IPS
process, OEA and PAB will hold
quarterly briefings with the
Executive Management Team.
Information will also be presented
to the Region's staff on a periodic
basis.
* Each year, OEA and PAB will
present to Region 4 staff an
overview of the IPS process for
the current fiscal year. Comments
and suggestions can be sent by e-
mail directly to OEA and PAB.
Staffing Resources
Office of External Affairs - One
full-time position will be created
to fulfill the OEA's commitments
during this Step. This position
has been approved and was
recently advertised.
Contractor - to assist in the
collection and compiling of
comments, suggestions, concerns
and ideas submitted during this
the Communication process. The
contractor can also assist in the
development and distribution of
planning documents. These
services will be needed on a
yearly basis.
Products
Commentary on the Environment
r
Commentary on the
Environment
A collection of comments,
suggestions, concerns and ideas
brought forth in Phase I's request
for input. Issues nominated by
stakeholders, States, Regional
employees and managers, and our
various other customers will be
included in the document. The
Office of External Affairs will
distribute copies to all
participating stakeholders,
Regional managers and staff,
States and the public at large.
-------
August 4, 1998
Phase /
Step 2. Filtering
Building upon the results of Step
1, Step 2 Filters the concerns,
issues, suggestions, comments
and ideas expressed in the
Commentary on the Environment
and compiles those which align
with the Agency's National
Strategic goals and objectives,
Government Performance Review
Act (GPRA) and Regional
interests into an Issues Index.
These key issues define the
parameters to be used when
conducting in depth analyses and
formulating detailed solutions.
Each year, in the early Phase of
the Region's annual Integrated
Planning System (IPS) process,
the EMT shall review and refine
the Issues Index.
Responsible Party.
The Strategic Environmental
Assessment Corps (SEAC)j in
coordination with the Regional
Planning Council (RPC), will >.
filter the items in the Commentary1
on the Environment to create.the7
Issues Index. The SEAC and RPC
will present the proposed //wfex to
the EMT for approval before
moving on to Step 3,"Analysis.
, ..V--.iX
Staffing Resources
* To staff the SEAC, 9 full-time
positions will be needed. The
SEAC will exist within the
Planning and Assessment Branch
(PAB).
* The RPC will be made up of
existing positions from within the
Region's Divisions, PAB, OEA
and the Comptroller Branch.
Each Division will have at least
one full-time employee, at the GS
12/13 level, serving on the RPC.
(Refer to page 6 for more
information.)
Products
Issues Index
Issues Index
Serves as the initial starting point
for defining the Region's annual
priorities. The Index is a list of
issues that will receive spatial
(space) and temporal (time)
analysis through the use of
Geographic Information Systems
(CIS). The Regional Planning
Council (RPC) and the Strategic
Environmental Assessment Corp
(SEAC) create the Issues Index by
filtering the issues brought forth
in the Commentary on the
Environment. The Agency's
national goals and objectives
serve as the guideline for
selecting the most significant
issues for inclusion on the Index, j
Strategic Environmental
Assessment Corp
The Strategic Environmental
Assessment Corp (SEAC) will
consist of a dedicated group of
persons within the PAB that will
organize,, aggregate and analyze
data useful for setting strategic
direction, selecting Regional
priorities and tracking
environmental results. A total of
nine specialists will work together
using GIS and sound science to
analyze the spatial (space) and
temporal (time) relationships
between natural resources, species
populations, pollution sources arid
environmental hazards. Individual
responsibilities and areas of
expertise will include the
following:
Two full-time positions will be
responsible for tracking and
reporting on Regional
accomplishments and for
preparing the Agenda for Action
pursuant to GPRA.
Four GIS analysts, each assigned
two States, will use their scientific
expertise to evaluate issues
brought forth in the Issues Index
and develop the Ecological
Assessment Atlas.
A human health specialist with a
strong background in human
health targeting, toxicology and
risk assessment principles will
coordinate with the Centers for
Disease Control, the Agency for
Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry and various universities
regarding health trends and issues.
Their expertise will be used to help
identify, analyze and prioritize key
health issues which the Region
should address.
A natural resource analyst to
coordinate the development of the
Ecological Assessment Atlas and
the State of the Region Report.
A Data Management Technician
will maintain spatial and temporal
-------
August 4. 1998
data which serves as the basis for
CIS analysis.
PAiase /
Step3. Analyses
The Issues Index, developed in
Step 2, shall serve as the
foundation for Step 3. Through
the use of computer technology,
Regional experts can examine the
temporal and spatial relationships
between criteria such as natural
and manmade resources, pollution
sources, environmental hazards
and population locations. By
using a Tiered approach,
individuals can evaluate the
relationships at a Regional level
(Tier 1), a State level (Tier 2) or a
more local
level (Tier 3), such as a county or
watershed. This technology will
be used to analyze the questions
and issues set forth in the Issues
Index. The results of the issues
analyses will reveal areas within
the Region which contain
vulnerable populations, have
unique ecological value, are
undergoing environmental ^v
degradation, or fail to meet. Av
compliance requirements. The.^X
results will also reveal on going
natural resource and pollutant
trends which may require' special
attention.
Responsible Party
The SEAC, with support from the
Information Management Branch,
maintains primary responsibility
for creating and analyzing the
Issues Index. When necessary,
the RPC will correspond with the
SEAC to provide Divisional
insight. The Executive
Management Team (EMT) will
serve as a consulting and review'
Products
-------
August 4, 1998
Phase I
Step 4.
Summation
This final Step of Phase I allows
for a more holistic approach to
planning by cutting through
traditional Divisional
boundaries. From the
information in the Ecological
Assessment Atlas created in
Step 3, the interconnectedness
of each media type (air, water,
land) becomes more apparent.
Thus, Regional planners can
better visualize the end points
that must be reached to ensure
the protection and restoration
of the environment as a whole.
In Step 4, the Strategic
Environmental Assessment Corps
(SEAC) and the Regional . ..
Planning Council (RPC) will N
work together to convert the
geographic information in the '
Ecological Assessment-Alias into
realistic environmental and public
health priorities that will help the
Region reach its desired .• X
environmental • \j?
end points. The SEAC and RFC
Agenda for Action
A road map through the Regional and National priorities for the Fiscal Year.
Developed from information brought forth in the Commentary on the
Environment and Ecological Assessment Atlas, the Agenda for Action is a
living and dynamic document, responsive to partnerships and changing
conditions. Highlights the expected outcomes for the Fiscal Year and serves as
Senior Management's vision for the Region. The Agenda also serves as the
blueprint for planning and targeting activities conducted by the Region's
Divisions and Offices. The Office of External Affairs, Regional Plan.
will then rank the priorities and
assemble them into a Draft
Agenda for Action for the.
Executive Management Team's
(EMT) approval. In Phase II, the
Regional Administrator and .
Senior Management, after
consulting wmYState
•Environmental Commissioners
and stakeholder organizations,
will finalize the Agenda for
Action.
y
Responsible Party
Together, the SEAC and RPC
will create an Agenda for Action
that accurately reflects the
Region's, as well as the
Agency's, priorities for
protecting and restoring the
environment. Senior Management,
through the EMT, will have an
opportunity to edit and amend the
.Agenda before giving final
approval. The Office of External
Affairs (OEA) is responsible for
' publication and distribution of the
Draft and Final Agendas.
Products
jb
Draft Agenda for Action
-------
August 4. 1998
Phase II
Step 1. Agreement
Before the creation of any
programmatic plans, the Regional
managers, State Environmental
Commissioners and key
stakeholder organizations should
agree upon the priorities set forth
in the Draft Agenda for Action
and the responsibilities each
group will undertake. Through
formalized gatherings, such as the
State Director's Meeting, all
parties can discuss their individual
priorities and set a direction for
reaching their desired goals. The
agreed upon priorities will be
presented in the Final Agenda for
Action. Work agreements with
States can be formal, such as
Performance Partnering
Agreements (PPA), or informal.
The results of these discussions
will guide individual Division and /
Program Operating Plan ;
negotiations conducted later in .X
Phase II.
•\.
Responsible Party .,•
The Regional Planning Council
(RPCX with assistance from .
Strategic Environmental , -f
Assessment Corp (SEAC)/ holds
the primary responsibility for
developing a procedure to discuss
strategic planning wjth States and
stakeholders. Responsibilities
include explaining the Integrated
Planning System, preparing data
and materials, and organizing
essential meetings. The RPC
also coordinates all activities with
the EMT, the Performance
Partnership
Agreements/Performance
Partnership Grants Coordinating
Committee, the OEA Liaison and
Division planning staffs, where
existent. The SEAC, based upon
comments and agreements, will
amend and finalize the Agenda
for Action.
Staffing Resources
This function requires no new
staff. However, for those
participating, these activities
would require more time away
from regular assignments..
Products
/ /
Agenda for Action ~ Final
ju ^
, Performance Partnership
^Agreements
jg
• State Agreements - an
agreement with States on overall
priorities. The agreements can be
formal, such as a PPA, or
informal. These agreements
further define Regional priorities
and set a course for the creation
of a Regional Operations Plan.
Performance
Partnership Agreements
Performance Partnership
Agreements (PPAs) with the
States significantly benefit from
the Region's Integrated Planning
System. The Agenda for Action,
detailing the Region's highest
priority environmental and public
health concerns, will serve as a
valuable tool when negotiating
PPAs. The Region's current
PPAs contain negotiated sections
referrring to 'Joint Projects' and
'Compliance Assurance and
Enforcement Strategy
Coordination'. In addition, each
of these agreements contain 'Core
Measures' and an 'Improving
Data Management Section' which
support data improvement efforts.
The Region's three current PPA
States are Florida, Georgia and
North Carolina. By initially
focusing on these three States,
SEAC's analytical function can
be phased in and State Managers
can learn along with the Region.
Eventually, all States can
participate in the Integrated
Planning System regardless of
their willingness to participate in
a PPA. Joint strategy planning
sessions, focusing on cross-
program priorities could be used
in lieu of PPAs. The Region's
Environmental Accountability
Division has already scheduled
meetings of this type to discuss
compliance and enforcement
concerns.
-------
August 4. 1998
Phase //
Step 2.
Division and
Program Planning
Using the Agenda for Action as a
compass, the Divisions and
Programs will integrate the
Region's priorities into their
annual planning and targeting
activities. Maps from the
Ecological Assessment Atlas will
provide a spatial (space) and
temporal (time) reference for
Division planners so they can see
where issues and resources are
located and when problems are
occurring. Information from
both documents can be used
when developing Divisional
Operating Plans, State and
Headquarters' Memorandums of .
Agreement, grants, work plans '-.
and Performance Partnership
Agreements.
Operating Plans will identify that
particular Division's high -\
priority issues and sensitive '. N,
areas to be addressed during
fiscaf year and will be '[
communicated clearly to all
Division personnel for their
individual planning.. Flexible
resource&shouMke'directed to
those areas determined to be
high priority or sensitive. This
will also improve Division
inspection scheduling,
compliance assistance,
enforcement, file reviews, air
and water quality assessments
and grants issuing.
All the Divisional Plans will be
pulled together by the Regional
Planning Council (RFC) and
compiled into a Region's Strategic
Operations Plan. The Executive
Management Team (EMT) will use
the Strategic Operations Plan to
ensure resources are effectively
distributed, not just in the Divisions,
but across the entire Region.
Responsible Party
Divisions
* Each Division will develop an
Operations Plan which builds upon
information in tile Agenda for Action
and the Ecological Assessment Atlas •
and outlines Divisional priorities and
issues for the fiscal year.
* Divisions will develop an annual
review process to determine where
resources are being utilized and
where flexible resources can be
shifted to help meet targets. This
includes allowing projects, initiatives
and CBEPs to be closed out once
completed so resources may be freed
up. Work being done by Division
staff as well as States should be
evaluated to determine why it is
being done and if it supports
Regional and National goals and
objectives.
* Each Division will evaluate their
internal data and CIS capabilities to
ensure that it is able to support the
Integrated Planning System and
provide the level of detail needed to
support staff work plan activities.
The preliminary assessment will
include recommendations for
additional resources needed
including
personnel, hardware, software, etc.
Continual assessment will ensure
that the resources are in place to
complete work plan activities.
Divisional Planners:
Their Role
~ Serves as their Division's
representative on the Regional
Planning Council
~ Assists in identifying and
researching environmental issues
for their Division
~ Maintains list of priority
environmental issues significant to
the work of their Division
~ Tracks their Division's progress
toward achieving commitments
~ Assists in the coordination of
cross-media and cross-State
activities
~ Assist in the production of
Regional reports and documents
related to integrated planning
~ Serves as the point of contact for
managing their Division's CIS data
needs
-------
August 4, 1998
* Each Division will adjust their
structure in a way that supports
communication of targeting and
planning needs both to and from
the Branches, staff, senior
management, Division CIS
personnel and Division Planner.
Regional Planning Council
The RFC will collect Division
Operating Plans to create the
Region's Strategic Operations
Plan. During this Step, the RFC
will carefully read through each
Division Plan to find areas of
overlap or missing priorities. If
necessary, the RFC will present to
the EMT suggestions for
redistributing Regional resources
to ensure all priorities expressed
in the Agenda for Action and the
National Strategy are being or can
be addressed.
Staffing Resources
Each Division would need to
designate a minimum of one
Division Planner who would
coordinate planning and targeting
activities full-time throughout'the
year. This position does not ".. :'V->
currently exist. Individual;.
Divisions, after careful ' |
assessment of GIS and data
capabilities, may need additional
personnel, hardwarejor software
capabilities.-
Products
Divisional Operating Plans
Strategic Operating Plan
State Management Teams
The EMT/PIT studied several possible '
roles for State Management Teams, I
including I
I
/ Assessing state capability to support the)
Region's responsibility under CPRA |
/ Designing and tracking programmatic
indicators of state performance
/ Designing and tracking environmental
indicators of state performance
/ Acting as the regional contact for all
joint state/EPA ventures, initiatives, and
reinvention activities (examples: CSI,
Project XL, CBEP, PPA/PPG)
Enforcement and
(Accountability Division
I
I Under the new planning system. EAD
and the Enforcement Branch Chiefs
will work together to ensure
coordination of targeting, planning and
screening activities on multi-media
The first three items above are the
responsibility of the divisions, and
assignment to SMTs would mean. . .
duplication of effort. The fourth item was I
dismissed because the region already has I
teams formed to meet the challenges of I
CSI, Project XL, etc. ,
'enforcement and compliance assurance
(issues of regional and national
(significance. This should ensure better
(targeting and efficient resource
(utilization in high risk and high
At least one full time EAD planner
will be assigned to serve on the
A suggestion as made that a pilot State
Management Team for the States of
Tennessee and Kentucky be set up and
'staffed with 3 full-time EPA employees
for one year. This experiment would
allow a full examination of the SMT
concept.
This suggestion was rejected as too costly.
After a considerable amount of
discussion, the EMT/PIT recommends
that the role of State Management Teams
be studied by a separate group, possibly
including some of the current SMT
Leaders. The group would be charged
with recommending changes in the
resourcing and alignment of State
Management Teams.
'Regional Planning Council. The
'planner will coordinate the
I incorporation of the Region's priorities
(into EAD targets and activities.
-------
August 4, 1998
Phase III.
Implementation
\
•\
f
Implementation of the Regional
plan begins on October 1 and
represents the culmination of
several months of planning and
analyses.
Responsible Party
Each program manager is
responsible for implementing
their portion of the plan which is
based on discussions with EPA
HQ, Regional and State managers.
Most of the plan fits logically
with the Regional organization of
Division, Branch, Section and
lead staff. For special projects or
cross-media interests, a person
would need to be designated as ;
responsible for implementing the
activity, reporting on it and
providing analysis of progress.
f ' \ S
Products , -•
. * . *•
Products of this activity will be
the myriad activities performed by
Region 4 and its partners,
including permitting, inspections
and other compliance work,
monitoring, analysis, assistance
and community work. While not
all of these activities would be
reflected in the required reporting,
they would contribute to the
accomplishment of environmental
goals identified in the plan. In
this sense, the ultimate product of
this implementation step is a
cleaner and more protected
environment.
-------
August 4. 1998
Phase IV.
Reporting and
Evaluation
Phase IV puts into place, a much
needed process to track outputs
and outcomes and to assess the
success of programmatic activities
on a Region-wide level. Although
Divisions will continue to report
directly to their Headquarters'
counterparts, the Region will have
a mechanism for measuring
progress on specific program
issues and across each State. The
results and their impacts will be
assembled into a State of the
Region Report. Information
gathered in this stage will flow
back into Phase I of the Integrated
Planning System to serve as a
resource for developing Fiscal
Year priorities and the Region's
Operations Plan.
Responsible Party
The Strategic Environmental
Assessment Corp (SEAC) and
Regional Planning Council (RPC)
will serve as the central points
for pulling together periodic . .
Division reports. Each Division''
will be responsible for <'
maintaining the information
required to support the,reporting
process and to report-as
scheduled Once collected,
SEAC will analyze the
individual reports on a Regional
scale to determine trends,
impacts and progress. SEAC's
finding will be presented to the
Executive Management Team
(EMT). The Science and
Ecosystem Support Division
(SESD) will provide expertise and|
evaluation For ecological issues.
The Office of External Affairs
(OEA), in coordination with the
RPC, SEAC and SESD, will
oversee the production and
distribution of the State of the
Region Report.
Staffing Resources %
The current staff of the SEAC,
SESD, OEA, the Divisions and
the creation pf the Regional
Planning Council should be
adequate to compile information
regarding Regional progress.
Some additional resource support
through contractors or SEE
employees may be necessary to
evaluate the information and
produce the State of the Region
Report. As the system is made
operational and refined staffing
needs will become more apparent.
Products
* State of the Region Report
* Quarterly GPRA Reports
Science and Ecosystem
Support Division
State of the Region
Report
An assessment of the state of the
environment in the South and the
Region's ability to solve
significant problems during the
previous Fiscal Year. Evaluates
the progress made on a State-by-
State basis by monitoring key
environmental indicators. The
Report also highlights stories that
In the Integrated Planning System.
SESD will provide a unique
chemical, biological and engineering
expertise. SESD's specific functions
will include:
- insight on the relative importance
and complexity of current science
issues
~ assessments of the field, laboratory
and Quality Assurance issues that will
impact data collection activities
~ guidelines for determining the
usefulness of historical air. water and
waste data
~ assessment of data used for
modeling purposes
~ evaluations of specific historical
data sets with regard to usability,
quality and the adequacy of
previous assessments
~ recommendations for the
development and implementation of
new regional data bases
~ regional capability for
environmental measurements to meet
GPRA goals
~ Community Based Environmental
Protection (CBEP) sample/data
- collection planning assistance for
determining data/science needs at
new CBEP/Geographic Initiatives
- CIS capability using SESD data
~ RMAP support for characterizing
biological and chemical quality of
key surface waters
-------
August4, 1998
Headquarters
GPRA Process
Stage 1.
Draft Guidance and
Measures
Following the annual submittal of
the Agency's budget to the Office
of Management and Budget
(OMB), the Associate
Administrators (AAs) begin to
design a plan which best utilizes
the allocated resources to meet
EPA's strategic goals and
objectives. The following
documents are created by the end
of each December, the Agency's
Draft Operating Guidance, Core
Performance Measures, and
Annual Performance Goals and
Measures (APGs and APMs).
These documents provide national
direction and focus to the Agency
programs carried out in the 10
Regions and SO States. In
addition, the documents act as
templets for establishing.
operational planning agreements
between the Agency's National
and Regional programs and
between Regional and State ;X
programs. ,• .r
Headquarter's AAs take primary
responsibility for developing the
Draft Operating Guidance for
their respectiveprograms. At this
stage, Regional input comes
directly from each program's
Lead Region. AAs work with the
Environmental Council of States
(ECOS) to create the Core
Performance Measures. The APG
and APM documents, which are
part of the proposed budget, list
the commits the Agency shall
achieve during the upcoming year.
The Regional SEAC and RPC
shall refer to the Draft Operating
Guidance and Core Performance
Measures when creating the
Issues Index. This ensures the
incorporation of Headquarters
initiatives and priorities into the
Region's Strategic Planning
Process.
Stage 2.
Budget to Congress
The President's budget, as
submitted to Congress in early
February, provides the Region
with a general idea of proposed
resources and budget priorities.
Along with the budget, the
Agency sends the Annual
Performance Goals and Measures
(APGs and APMs) to Congress.
The APGs and APMs highlight,
for Congress, the Agency's
commitments and planned
accomplishments for the next
fiscal year. The Region receives
copies of the APGs and APMs
after the President's budget goes
to Congress. These documents,
once made available, will aid in
the development of the Region's
priorities.
Stage 3.
Final Guidance and
Measures
By May 1 each year, Headquarters
amends and finalizes the Agency
Operating Guidance and the Core
Performance Measures. The
Region, in turn, will use these
documents as a resource for
preparing its Strategic Operating •
Plan.
Stage 4.
Memorandums of
Agreement
Overarching Memorandums of
Agreement (MOAs) are compacts
between AAs and RAs which
identify the most significant
National and Regional priorities
and allocate resources to achieve
the Agency's desired goals and
objectives. During August and
September of each year, AAs and
RAs will meet to negotiate the
National and Regional priorities.
By using strategic planning to
identify high priority issues and
multi-media planning to develop
program targets, the RA can
satisfy the AAs requirements
without sacrificing the Region's
primary environmental and public
health needs.
10
-------
August 4. 1998
Information
Management
Continued improvement of data
management within EPA's
Region 4 is an important short-
and long-term goal. As EPA
moves toward GPRA goals and
reporting, it is essential that a
coordinated data management
system be in place to support each
of the divisions in reporting on
individual GPRA goals and
objectives. The following goals
are designed to improve spatial
data management in Region 4:
GoaM: Provide to
appropriate regional staff
desktop CIS capabilities
using Arcview.
Desktop users need and want the
ability to view data spatially and
integrate program activities with
other divisional priorities. Steps
needed to meet this goal include
new Windows 95 Pentium
machines for desktop users.
(complete by Oct 1, 1998), more
Arcview support, and the
establishment of an ARCVIEW
users group (established May^r""
1998). Support the migration of
CIS activities to other platforms
such as Windows NT.
-
~ Arcview training ^-(6 Courses
provided per year)
~ More ARCVIEW license seats for
the LAN needed
~ Upgrading to the current version
ARCVIEW needed
Goal 2: Establish a central
electronic data warehouse
that will contain data and
documentation to support all
Region 4 environmental
activities.
The existing CIS spatial data
library would be a subset of
warehouse. Promote connections
with state and national database
managers to provide access to
other data sets. Provide training
and assistance for use and
applicability of the data in the
data warehouse. Ensure that the
central data warehouse provides
the best resource for complete,
accurate and most recent data set
available, so users will support it
instead of fragmented localized
data sets.
~ Needs Oracle trained Database
, Administrator
- Coordinate with Regional Planning
Council (EPA)
- Conduct a 30-day study to assess
the feasibility of central
Environmental Information Officer
~ User survey as a first step
(Appendix matrix)
Goal 3: Continue
enhancements to the GIS
spatial data library.
Metadata about the data sets is
required for all data in the new
library. The GIS Users Group
will provide guidance on the
library design and implementation
'as well as new data that will be
added to the library according to
the needs of users.
- New contact point is Rock Tabor.
~ Distribute current hard copy version
of library for Divisions.
- Develop enhancements to the
spatial data library by coordinating
with the GIS Users Group.
~ Request outside re view of the GIS
data library.
Goal 4: Improve access to
information, GIS library and
Arcview programs.
Currently, access to the GIS library
from the desktop (LAN) is extremely
slow and inefficient. Technical
considerations are being considered to
improve access to the GIS library
from the LAN. Coordinate national
EPA data programs in regional
activities to link national, regional and
state data sources.
- Token ring /Ethernet connectivity needs
to be improved (Henry Strickland).
-LAN based catalog of the electronic data
warehouse.
Goal 5: Revise the prototype
Memorandum of Agreement
between the GIS&IRS and the
various divisions to coordinate
data use and support of region
wide GIS activities.
An assessment of needs and an
agreement between the GIS&IRS and
the various divisions utilizing digital
data will encourage an efficient use of
EPA resources. A protocol for.
incorporating new data in the central
data warehouse should be included.
11
-------
August 4, 1998
Information
Management
Continued
This should also include
agreements with all contract/grant
applicants that data will be
provided in a standardized
electronic format.
- Memorandum of Agreement
between Divisions and GIS&IRS. •
Goal 6: Continue to provide
centralized GIS support to
regional staff and the
distributed GIS network.
In addition to the central GIS
experts (GRITS), the distributed
network consists of 10 Unix
workstations and several
Windows NT workstations in the
divisions.
.t
~ Need an additional systems
administrator \
~ GIS Users Group is looking at
recommendations for
implementing spatial data project £
quality control/quality assurance/
'
Goal 7: EPA has a large
investment in specific
environmental site data with
quality control and quality
assurance.
Some of this historic data and
personal expertise will lend itself
in developing a natural resource
atlas of environmentally sensitive
areas.
-Better integration and utilization
ofSESDdata
~ Desktop access to R4LIMS for
project tracking, locations! data
and analytical data access.
~ Availability of SESD reports
and associated data
Performance Challenge: To be
proactive in providing these
high quality information
management and data products
in a timely and efficient manner
while providing leadership in
the use of data for
environmental protection.
Summary: In order to meet these
goals 1MB proposes three (3) new
positions to be organizationally
located in the GIS&IRS. One person
. would be a Systems
Administrator/Operator to provide
additional computer support for
establishing better connectivity, data
access and migration to Windows NT.
/ Another would be a Database
Administrator to provide technical
support of central data warehousing
and management of the databases-
(Oracle experience). The third would
be a Environmental Data Manager
that would be responsible for •
providing data for the region that
meets Agency data standards, and
' would coordinate data activities
within the region and between the
region and state and national data
programs. This person would need
enough authority to deal with these
issues and problems.
\
12
-------
APPENDIX C-5
REGIONAL INFORMATION
REGION 5
-------
DRAFT
Ecosystem Protection in Region 5
DRAFT
OSEA
Water
(Sect. 319 (Non-point source)
Wetlands/Watershed
Education/Outreach
Clean Water Action Plan
Pesticides |
FIFRA endangered species program
GLNPO
Basin-wide view
SOLEC
OPA
CBEP
Regulatory Innovation
ESA/NEPA
Measuring for Results
Communications
Environmental Education
Environmental Software
ARD
Global Climate Change
Energy Star
Beneficial Landscaping
Waste
Superfund & RCRA
Eco-risk assessments
Critical Ecosystem Team
dentify gaps and integrate programs
Prioritize places to work
Test new models for ecosystem protection
Ecological expertise
Communicate and advocate for biodiversity
Focus on environmental results^
Grant program - habitat I Regional Teams
Priority Places
Priority Approaches
HQ
NPM's
ORD
OSEC
Other Regions
SEP's
Legal issues
Prepared for: Regional Summit on Ecosystem Protection
March 6,1998
Prepared by: John Perrecone
Critical Ecosystem MM
353-1149
-------
APPENDIX C-6
REGIONAL INFORMATION
REGION 6
-------
Took Forward" J
*
\
-
"Look Back"
GISDatebases
Vulnerability + Impact
EJ
NEPA teview
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK INDEX ANALYSIS (CRIA)
(Swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations)
January 24, 1997
VERSION 6.0
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK INDEX ANALYSIS (CRIA)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction p. 3
I. WATERSHED SUBUNIT AREA ( Az / A^ ) CRITERIA p. 5
II. DEGREE of VULNERABILITY (Dv) CRITERIA p. 6
CRIA Vulnerability Criteria .' p. 6
Ground Water Probability p. 6
Rainfall p. 7
Surface Water Use p. 8
Distance to Surface Water p. 9
Population Around Facility p. 10
Other Industries, Pollution Sources, or
Protected Lands (Quadmapper Data) p. 11
Wildlife Habitats p. 12
Soil Permeability p. 13
Ground Water Quality (Nitrate-Nitrite) p. 14
Economic (Environmental Justice) p. 15
Minority (Environmental Justice) p. 16
Surface Water Quantity p. 17
Water Quality (STORET Data) p. 18
Other CAFO Facilities p. 19
III. DEGREE of IMPACT (Dz) CRITERIA p. 20
CRIA Impact Criteria. p. 20
Livestock Population Density : p. 20
Lagoon Loading Rate p. 21
Treatment System Liner p. 22
Land Application Technology p. 23
Nitrogen Budget p. 24
Storage Capacity. . . .• p. 25
Groundwater Protection. p. 26
Employment p. 27
Odor p. 28
Transportation p. 29
Wildlife Habitat Effected p. 30
Density of CAFOs p. 31
Proximity of CAFOs p. 32
Phosphorus Budget p. 33
Endangered and Threatened Species p. 34
Cultural Resources p. 35
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK INDEX ANALYSIS (CRIA)
Regulated concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are
lots or facilities where animals have been, are, or will be
stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of at least
45 days in any 12-month period, and the animal confinement areas
do not sustain crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest
residues in the normal growing season (40 CFR 122.23[b]). The
following Cumulative Risk Index Analysis (CRIA) is a pilot
project to consider the potential for significant, cumulative,
environmental effects from swine CAFOs.
Similar risk evaluation components are found in the Human
Health Risk Index (HHRI) used for Regional enforcement targeting
and in the Region 6 Environmental Justice Risk Index (EJRI). The
CRIA is an environmental assessment tool to facilitate
communication of technical -and regulatory data upon which better
agency decisions can be made. The CRIA is designed to better
understand the effectiveness and results of CAFO controls. The
tool is not intended to be used alone in evaluating potential
effects. The user must be familiar with the ranking criteria to
appropriately consider the vulnerabilities of the affected
environment and the potential for cumulative environmental
effects.
The CRIA considers environmental vulnerabilities and
potential effects of individual CAFO projects by watershed
subunits called Hydrologic Unit Catalogs or HUCs. A watershed
subunit is created by merging watershed area data and State
stream segment information. The HUC becomes the methodology's
base analytical unit.
Cumulative risks are identified through evaluation of: 1)
Areas of regulated and unregulated CAFOs; 2) environmental
vulnerabilities (e.g., ground water depth or soil permeability)
and; and 3) impacts from known CAFO projects (water quality,
vector/odor, wildlife habitat) specific to each watershed
subunit.
Cumulative risk criteria are summed using a mathematical
algorithm. Key components of the algorithm are Area of known
CAFO projects (AT) , Area of the Watershed £ubunit (A^) , Degree of
Vulnerability (Dv) , and Degree of Impact (D^ .The CRIA algorithm
is as follows:
CRIA = [SA / AWS] Dv DT
where:
CRIA = Potential for significant environmental risk
A = Area of known CAFO projects
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK INDEX ANALYSIS (CRIA)
= Area of watershed subunit
Dv = Degree of Vulnerability for subunit (e.g., ground
water depth, rainfall, soil permeability,
populated areas).
Dr = Degree of Impact produced by regulated CAFO
projects within the .watershed subunit (e.g.,
animal population density, land application,
lagoon systems).
The CRIA for swine CAFOs is calculated for each facility in
a watershed subunit area. Total areas (A) of known projects in a
watershed subunit are scored from 1 to 4 based on the percentage
of the watershed area they represent. Vulnerability and impact
factors are identified, and criteria for each were developed.
Each Dv and DT criteria is scored from 1 to 5.
The calculations involve:
1) summing the areas for known projects (A) and
determining what percent of a watershed subunit is
affected. ([SA / A^] X 100); these percentages are
scored on a 1 to 4 scale [no project(s) = 0 score].
2) summing the vulnerability and impact criteria scores,
and calculating the average for Dv and Dx respectively;
3) multiplying the A score by the average Dv score by the
average Dr score.
The maximum score possible in a watershed subunit (HUC) is
100. The summation factor (SA) is cumulative for CAFOs in the
watershed subunit. Maximum rank for [SAX / A^] is 4, maximum for
Dv is 5, maximum score for Dx is 5.
CRIA = [EAt / A,,..] (Dv) (DT)
[4] (5) (5) = 100
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
I. WATERSHED SUBUNIT AREA [2A / Aws] CRITERIA:
[£A! / AWS] is the ratio of the cumulative area effected to the
watershed subunit area evaluated. [SAX / Aws] :
CRIA Area Criteria;
Area Score
0% =0
< 5% =1
2 5% and < 10% = 2
* 10% and < 15% = 3
2 15% = 4
References:
U.S. Geological Survey. 1995. Watershed Boundaries for Oklahoma.
Joel Cederstrand and Allen Rey, Oklahoma City, OK.
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. 1996. CAFO Database.
Oklahoma City, OK.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Region'6 Comparative Risk Project. Overview
Report. Office of Planning and Analysis. Dallas, TX.
U.S. EPA. 1992. A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative Impact
Assessment: A Proposed Methodology. Office of Research and
Development, EPA/600/R-92/167, Washington, D.C. .
U.S. EPA. CAFO Location Data Set. Region 6 CIS Data Library.
Dallas, TX.
U.S. EPA. Undated. New Source NPDES General Permit
Environmental Information Documents. Office of Planning and
Coordination. Dallas, TX.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) One square mile = 27,878,400 sq.ft.
2) The potential for negative environmental impact increases as
the percentage of watershed subunits (HUC) used by CAFO
industries increases.
3) Cumulative impacts can be measured by assessing known CAFOs
impacts in watershed subunits.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
II. DEGREE OF VULNERABILITY (Dv) CRITERIA:
Dv is the sum of individual criteria scores divided by the number
of vulnerability factors used in the Degree of Impact (Dv)
assessment. [v scores / no. v]
1) Dv Criteria: Ground Water Probability
Probability1 Score
* 2.5% . =1
> 2.5% and s 5% =2
> 5% and < 10% =3
> 10% and * 20% =4
> 20% . = 5
Probability of ground water being within 8 ft. of surface.
References:
NRCS (National Resource Conservation Service), downloaded from
NRCS in Oklahoma City, OK. Ten acre grid soils data. 1995/96?
U.S. EPA Region 6, Mike Bechdol, Cross Functional Workgroup.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Drastic: A Standardized System for Evaluating
Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hvdrogeologic Settings.
EPA/600/2-87/035. Environmental Research Laboratory. Ada, OK.
U.S. EPA Region 6, GIS, ERI Directory, Subdirector NewSoils.arp,
(Jeff Danielson, CDSI)
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Area of the CAFO is represented as the CAFO area plus a ten a
acre buffer around each site.
2) Only those 10 area square areas with a > 20% probability of
ground water being within eight feet of the surface (scaling
score of 5) were used for the criteria site percentage
estimate.
3) The eight foot soil profile estimates the probability of
ground water vulnerability beneath CAFO facility and buffer
area.
4) The higher the probability of ground water beneath the CAFO
facility the more vulnerable the resource.
5) This criteria may extend outside the watershed.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Mike Bechdol (6EN-SG), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7133)
Tom Nelson (6WQ-0), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7128)
Jeff Danielson (CDSI Contractor) EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8559)
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRTA)
2) Dv Criteria: Rain'fall
Rainfall
Score
< 12
* 12
* 25
> 37
* 50
.5
.5
.5
in.
in.
in.
in.
in.
/yr
/yr
/yr
/yr
/vr
and <
and <
and <
: 25
: 37.5
: 50
in.
in.
in.
/yr
/yr
/yr
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
References:
Blacklands Research Center, 1995. Humus - Hvdrolocric Unit
Modeling for the United States. USDA/NRCS, USDA/ARS, and Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX.
U.S. EPA Region 6, CIS, (Tom Nelson, 6WQ-0)
U.S. EPA, 1991. Regional Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability and
Sensitivity in the Conterminous United States. EPA/600/2-91/043,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) The greater the annual rainfall, the more infiltration to the
ground water.
2) The greater the annual rainfall, the more runoff to surface
water.
3) All known CAFOs in a watershed subunit (HUC) receive a
comparable amount of annual rainfall.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Mike Bechdol (6EN-SG), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7133)
Tom Nelson (6WQ-O), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7128)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Jeff Danielson (CDSI Contractor,) EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8559)
Joe1 Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
3) Dv Criteria: Surface Water Use
Supporting Designated Use Score
no data
* 99%
< 99% and 2: 76%
< 76% and > 50%
< 50
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
References:
U.S. EPA, 1994. Watershed Agricultural Impact Task Force.
W.A.I.T. Report. Research Triangle Institute (RTI), Charles
Spooner.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Clean Water Act. Section 305 (b): Oklahoma State
Water Quality Inventory Reports. 303 (d) List..Dallas. TX.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) CWA 305(b) reports describe the surface water quality for 8
digit HUCs.
2) Stream segments with no data are assumed to be good quality.
3) Designated uses are defined in the referenced EPA W.A.I.T.
report.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (x6523)
Paul Koska, (6W-QT), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX. (X8357)
Charles Spooner, (RTI), EPA HQ, Washington, D.C. (202/260-1314)
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS- (CRIA)
4) Dv Criteria: Distance to Surface Water
Distance to Vulnerable Water Score
> 8,100 ft
<, 2,700 ft and > 8,100 ft
<, 900 ft and > 2,700 ft
< 300 ft and > 900 ft
<. 300 ft
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= '5
References:
U.S. Census Bureau, 1992. TIGER/Line Census Files, (machine-
readable data files) prepared by the Bureau o the Census,
Washington, D.C.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Vulnerable surface waters for this criteria are only those in
the U.S. Census Bureau, TIGER 1992 Database .
2) The closest surface water is assumed to be down gradient from
CAFO pollution sources.
3) Distance to surface water is measured as straight line
distance from the outer boundary of the land application area
(incorporation of drainage distances are future enhancements).
4) This criteria may extend outside the watershed.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Tom Nelson (6WQ-0), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7128)
Angel Kosfiszer (6WQ-0), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X2187)
Mike Bechdol (6EN-SG), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (7133)
Jeff Danielson (CDSI Contractor) -EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8559)
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
5) Dv Criteria: Population Around Facility
Population (per square mile)1 Score
< 20
^ 20 and < 40
* 40 and < 60
2 60 and < 80
* 80
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
1Within two (2) mile buffer around CAFO.
References:
U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. Census of Population and Housing. 1990:
Public Law. (P.L.) 94-171 Data on CD-ROM (Name of State) [machine
-readable data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. —
Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1991.
U.S. EPA, 1991. Regional Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability and
Sensitivity in the Conterminous United States. EPA/600/2-91/043,
Office of Research and Development,' Washington, D.C.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Human-population areas can be negatively impacted by known
CAFO industries.
2) The closer populated areas .are to known CAFOs, the more
potential for negative impacts.
3) Environmental Justice Index (EJI) or other ethnic/demographic
considerations will be conducted as a separate assessment.
4) This criteria may extend outside the watershed.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
David Parrish (6EN-X), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8352)
Jeff Danielson (CDSI Contractor) EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8559)
10
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
6) Dv Criteria: Other Industries, Pollution Sources,
or Protected Lands (Quadmapper Data1 and state
data)
Number within a two mile buffer Score
No industries or land areas = 1
One industry or land area = 2
Two industries or land areas = 3
Three industries or land areas = 4
Four industries or land areas = 5
locations for solid waste landfills, water supply intake points,
RCRA Sites, Indian Reservations, Superfund (NPL) sites. Federal
Facilities, and Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) sites.
References:
U.S. EPA, 1996. Region 6 EPA Geographic Information System (CIS)
Data Library. Quadmapper Documentation , Office of Planning and
Coordination, Dallas, TX.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Watersheds can be negatively effected by the cumulative
impacts of regulated CAFOs in combination with other
industries.
2) Other industries are defined as those in the Region 6 EPA
Quadmapper database and CAFO locations from state databases.
3) Industries within two miles of regulated CAFO facilities are
factors in the assessment of cumulative environmental impacts,
4) This criteria may extend outside the watershed.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
David Parish (6EN-X), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8352)
Jeff Danielson (CDSI Contractor) EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8559)
11
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
7) Dv Criteria: Wildlife Habitats
Coverage of HUC Subunit ' Score
< 20%
S: 20% and < 30%
s 30% and < 40%
> 40% and < 50%
> 50%
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
References:
NRCS, 1995. Landuse Dataset, Oklahoma City, OK
Department of the Interior, 1976. A Land Use and Land Cover
Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data, James
Anderson, third printing 1978.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Wildlife Habitats are represented by wetlands, rangelands,
forest lands, woodlands, including bottomlands.
2) Percent coverage is quantitative only. No decisions as to
wildlife habitat quality were made.
3) There is no association between this vulnerability score for
wildlife habitats and the potential effect, if any, on listed
Federal Endangered and Threatened Species, subject to the
requirements of the ESA.
5) The EPA will conduct a separate review with the U.S. Corps of
Engineers and/or the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, as necessary, to document compliance with Section 404
of the Clean Water Act.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Tom Nelson (6WQ-0), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7128)
David Parrish, (6EN-X), EPA Region'6, Dallas, TX (X8352)
12
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
8) Dv Criteria: Soil Permeability
Rating1 Score
< 0.
* 0.
> 0.
* 2.
> 6.
02
02
6
0
0
in.
in.
in.
in.
in.
/hr
/hr
/hr
/hr
/hr
and <
and <
and <
: 0
: 2
: 6
.6
.0
.0
in.
in.
in.
/hr
/hr
/hr
=
=
=
=
=
1
2
3
4
5
:Permeability racings are by 10 acre grids. The average of Che grids, inside or couching
Che CAFO boundary is ranked 1-5. In addicion a sice is scored a 5 if >20% of che CAPO
area and adjacenc buffer is * 6.0 in/hr.
References:
NRCS (National Resource Conservation Service), downloaded from
NRCS in Oklahoma City, OK. Ten acre grid soils data. 1995/96?
U.S. EPA, 1993. A Review of Methods for Assessing Aquifer
Sensitivity and Ground Water Vulnerability to Pesticide
Contamination. 813-R-93-002, Office of Water (WH-550),
Washington, D.C.
Lin, H.S., H.D. Scott, and Jim McKinny, 1995. Identification of
Optimal Locations for Sampling Ground Water of Pesticides in the
Mississippi Delta Region of Eastern Arkansas. Department of
Agronomy, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.
U.S. EPA, 1991. Regional Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability and
Sensitivity in the Conterminous United States. EPA/600/2-91/043,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1996. Ground Water Protection Methodology. Region 6
EPA, Ground Water Protection Branch, Dallas, TX
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Soil and ground water characteristics are assumed to be
consistent over the CAFO area. Slope of the land is not
evaluated.
2) Permeability ratings refer to the upper six to eight feet.
3) Although CAFO land application activities normally include
some soil disturbance (e.g., tilling, irrigation, disking,
etc.), permeability ratings are based upon undisturbed soil
conditions.
4) This criteria may extend outside the watershed.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Mike Bechdol (6EN-SG), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7133)
Tom Nelson (6WQ-O), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7128)
Jeff Danielson (CDSI Contractor) EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8559)
13
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
9) Dv Criteria: Ground Water Quality
Average Nitrate-Nitrite Score
< 3 mg/L
£ 3 mg/L and <
> 4.5 mg/L and <
> 6 mg/L and <
> 7.5 ma/L
: 4 . 5 mg/L
: 6 mg/L
: 7.5 mg/L
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5 •
References:
Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1993. Statistical Summary of
Groundwater Quality Data; 1986-1991 for the Manor Groundwater
Basins in Oklahoma. FY 93 106 Groundwater Task 400, Planning and
Management, Bob Fabian, Oklahoma City, OK.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's
Strategy for the 1990's (part D: Agency Policy on EPA's Use of
Quality Standards in Ground Water Prevention and Remediation
Activities). 21Z-1020. Office of the Administrator (WH-550G).
Washington, D.C.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate in ground
water is 10 mg/L established under the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
2) Phosphates and other nutrients are not included in this
criteria. Nutrients will be covered in separate criteria (i.e.
Surface Water Quality)
3) Oklahoma ground water quality-data is presented at the county
and aquifer level. Approximation of sampling locations were
derived from combining aquifer, watershed, river, and
county location data.
4) Where counties include more than one aquifer, the watershed
that incorporated a certain river was assumed to be associated
with the aquifer with the same name as the river.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Bob Fabian, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Planning and
Management Division, Oklahoma City, OK (405/530-8800)
Clay Chesney (6WQ-SG), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7128)
Jeff Danielson (CDSI Contractor) EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8559)
David Parrish, (6EN-X), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8352)
14
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
10) Dv Criteria: Economic (Environmental Justice)
Economic Ranking by EJ Method1 Score
Economic status is £ the State average = 1
Status is s 1.33 times the State avg. = 2
Status is s 1.66 times the State avg. = 3
Status is z 2 times the State avg. = 4
Status is > 2 times the State aver. = 5
1EJ rankings are modified to only the Economic factor.
References:
U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. Census of Population and Housing. 1990:
Public Law. (P.L.) 94-171 Data on CD-ROM (Name of State) [machine
-readable data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. --
Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1991.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Computer Assisted Environmental Justice' Index
Methodology (August 1995 Revision). Office of Planning and
Analysis, Enforcement Division, Region 6 Environmental Protection
Agency, Dallas, TX.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Executive Order 12898: "Federal Actions to
Address Environmental- Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations". 59 Federal Register Notice 7629 (1994).
Council of Environmental Quality. 1996. Draft Guidance of
Addressing Environmental Justice under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) (April, 1996). Executive Office of the
President, Washington D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Environmental Equity: Reducing Risk for All
Communities. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (PM-221),
EPA230-R-92-008, June 1992. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Lavelle, M., and M. Coyle. 1992. Unequal Protection: The Racial
Divide in Environmental Law. The National Law Journal, Vol. 15,
No. 3,2-12,
U.S. Census Bureau 1990, TIGER 1992 update, STF3A Census
Coverage, P.L. 94-171.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations,. Uncertainties:
1) Demographic data will be 1990 STF3A Census coverage.
2) The economic analysis calculated for a four mile radius (50
square miles) from the center point of CAFO facilities.
3) This criteria may extend outside the watershed.
15
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
EPA Contacts:
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Jeff Danielson (CDSI Contractor) EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8559)
11) Dy Criteria: Minority (Environmental Justice)
Minority Ranking by EJ Method1 Score
Minority status is s the State average = 1
Status is <. 1.33 times the State avg. = 2
Status is s 1.66 times the State avg. = 3
Status is z 2 times the State avg. = 4
Status is > 2 times the State aver. = 5
1EJ rankings are modified to only the minority factor.
References:
U.S. Census Bureau 1990, Census of Population and Housing.
Summary Tape File 3 on CD ROM (Name of State) [machine-readable
data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. --Washington:
The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1992.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Computer Assisted Environmental Justice Index
Methodology (August 1995 Revision). Office of Planning and
Analysis, Enforcement Division, Region 6 Environmental Protection
Agency, Dallas, TX.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Executive Order 12898: "Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations". 59 Federal Register Notice 7629 (1994).
Council of Environmental Quality. 1996. Draft Guidance of
Addressing Environmental Justice under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) (April, 1996). Executive Office of.the
President, Washington D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Environmental Equity: Reducing Risk for All
Communities. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (PM-221),
EPA230-R-92-008, June 1992. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Lavelle, M., and M. Coyle. 1992. Unequal Protection: The Racial
Divide in Environmental Law. The National Law Journal, Vol. 15,
No. 3,2-12.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Demographic data will be 1990 STF3A Census coverage.
2) The minority analysis calculated for a four mile radius (50
square miles) from the center point of CAFO facilities.
16
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
3) This criteria may extend outside the watershed.
EPA Contacts:
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
12) Dv Criteria: Surface Water Quantity
Stream & Shoreline Score
< 0
;> 0
s 1
* 1
> 1
.917
.917
.15
.43
.7
mi/mi2
mi /mi2
mi /mi2
mi /mi2
mi /mi2
and <
and <
and <
: 1
: 1
: 1
.15
.43
.7
mi/mi2
mi /mi2
mi/mi2
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
References:
1) Vulnerable surface waters for this criteria are only those in
the U.S. Census Bureau, TIGER 1992 Database .
Wetzel, R., 1983. Limnology. 2nd ed., Saunders College
Publishing, New York, NY.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Surface waters are calculated for segment and shoreline
distances for streams, rivers, and lakes. Scaling scores
(rankings) are. derived from total miles in a watershed divided
by the area in square miles of associated HUCs.
2) River and lake surface water areas and depths are not
considered.
3) The more surface water area present in a watershed, the higher
potential for ecological impacts.
4) Shoreline is of considerable interest because of the
sensitivity of associated ecological communities.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
Tom Nelson (6WQ-0), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7128)
David Parrish, (6EN-X), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8352)
17
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
13) Dv Criteria: Water Quality (STORET Data)
# STORET Exceedances / Watershed ft2 Score
< 5
* 5
;> 5
2: 5
> 5
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
X
X
X
X
X
io-12
10
10
10
10
-12
-11
-10
-9
and <
and <
and <
: 5
: 5
: 5
.00
.00
.00
X
X
X
10-
10-
11
10
io-9
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
References:
U.S. EPA, Storet Database, Paul Koska and Mike Bechdol
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Assessed Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) contaminants (22
volatile organic compounds, 35 organics/pesticides, 17
inorganics/metals, and trihalomethane) can adversely impact
surface waters.
2) Water criteria standards from the SDWA are compared to STORET
ambient water data. Comparisons for 65 SDWA contaminants were
matched to surface (i.e. stream, lake, reservoir) and ground
water (well and springs) STORET data.
3) Exceedances are defined as STORET "sampling station data
reporting chemical concentration greater than the SDWA MCLs
(Maximum Concentration Levels). Sixteen years of data were
evaluated.
4) Eight digit HUCs were evaluated. The ranking values were the
quotients of the number of exceedances in specific HUCs
divided by the area in square feet of the associated HUC.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Mike Bechdol (6EN-SG), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7133)
Paul Koska, (6W-QT), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX. (X8357)
Jeff Danielson (CDSI Contractor) EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8559)
18
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
14) Dv Criteria: Other1 CAFO Facilities
Unregulated CAFOs in HUC Score
< 20% = 1
s 20% and < 30% = 2
* 30% and < 40% =3
> 40% and < 50% =4
> 50% : = 5
Operating under EPA NPDES General Permit and/or State permit, and
unregulated CAFOs.
References:
1) Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. 1996. CAFO Database.
Oklahoma City, OK.
2) U.S. EPA. 1996. CAFO Location Data Set. Region 6 CIS Data
Library. Dallas, TX.
3) Census Bureau. 1992 Census of Agriculture. Zip code
tabulations.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) The greater the percentage of unregulated CAFOs in an HUC, the
greater the potential for negative environmental impacts.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP.), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Tom Nelson (6WQ-0), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7128)
David Parrish, (6EN-X), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X8352)
19
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
III. DEGREE of IMPACT (Dx) CRITERIA
DT is the sum of individual impact criteria scores divided by the
number of impact factors used in the Degree of Impact (D:)
assessment. [ I scores /no. I]
CRIA Impact Criteria;
1) Dx Criteria: Livestock Population Density LPD
Animal Units/CAFO Acres (total acreage)
Livestock Pop. Density (LPD)1 Score
LPD <: 10
LPD > 10 and s
LPD > 20 and <
LPD > 25 and s
LPD > 30
20
25
30
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
1Animal Units/CAFO Acres(LPD of 10 is 25 swine per acre)
References:
Agri-Waste Technology, Inc., HUC Cumulative Risk Index Analysis
Swine Producer Group. October 26, 1996, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Guide Manual on NPDES Regulations for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Final. EPA 833-B-95-
001. Office of Water (4203). Washington, D.C.
National Archives and Records Administration. 1994. Code of
Federal Regulations. Protection of Environment. 40 Parts 100 to
149. Revised July 1.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) 0.4 animal unit is assigned to each hog weighing more than 55
Ibs. Two thousand, five hundred swine over 55 Ibs. each
equals 1000 animal units. For piglets, o.2 is considered an
equivalent animal unit.
2) The fewer the number of animal units per facility acre the
less potential for impacts.
3) CAFO acres is the total acreage and includes buildings,
treatment facilities, and application areas.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Chris Ruhl (6EN-AS), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7356)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
20
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
2) D! Criteria: Lagoon Loading Rate
NRCS Lagoon Loading Rate Score
s 100% NRCS Lagoon Loading Rate = 1
> 100% and <, 110% = 2
> 110% and < 120% = 3
> 120% and <. 130% = 4
> 130% = 5
References:
Agri-Waste Technology, Inc., HUC Cumulative Risk Index Analysis
Swine Producer Group. October 26, 1996, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service. Agricultural Waste Management System Component Design.
Figure 10-22 Anaerobic Lagoon Loading Rate.
Watson, Harold. 1991. Lagoons for Animal Waste Disposal.
Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. Auburn University, AL.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) NRCS has developed a map that suggests the appropriate lagoon
design volume (pounds of volatile solids per 1000 cubic feet
of lagoon per day). This design is exclusive of sludge
storage and waste storage.
2) Permitted facilities are not expected to exceed the 100%
Lagoon Loading Rate whereas non-permitted facilities may
exceed 100%.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Sharon•Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
21
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
3) Dr Criteria: Treatment System Liner
Hydraulic Conductivity Rate1 Score
£ 100% Hydraulic Conductivity Rate = 1
> 100% and <
> 105% and <
> 110% and <
> 115%
; 105%
; 110%
; 115%
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
1EPA NPDES General Permit for CAFOs (1993) defines the maximum
acceptable hydraulic conductivity as 1 X 10"7 cm/sec.
References:
U.S. EPA, 40 CFR 122, Liner Construction. NPDES General Permit
for Discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.
Agri-Waste Technology, Inc., HUC Cumulative Risk Index Analysis
Swine Producer Group. October 26, 1996, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Agricultural Waste Management System Component Design. Figure 10-
22 Anaerobic Lagoon Loading Rate.
Watson, Harold. 1991. Lagoons for Animal Waste Disposal.
Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. Auburn University, AL.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) The design, construction and operation of lagoons determine
their effectiveness.
2) Permitted facilities are not expected to exceed the 100%
Hydraulic Conductivity Rate whereas non-permitted facilities
may exceed 100%.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
22
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
4) Dz Criteria: Land Application Technology
Land Application Systems Score
•Innovative Technology = 1
Desirable = 2
Conventional = 3
Undesirable = 4
None = 5
References:
Dendy, D. and M. Ladd 1996. Comments on Draft Cumulative Risk
Analysis. ACCORD Agriculture, Inc., Farnsworth, TX.
U.S. EPA, Region 6, 1996. Swine CAFO Odors: Guidance for
Environmental Impact Assessment. Lee Wilson and Associates, Santa
Fe, MM.
Miner, J.R. 1995. An Executive Summary: A Review of the
Literature on the Nature and Control of Odors from Pork
Production Facilities. Prepared for the National Pork Producers
Council, Des Moines, Iowa, by Ron Miner, Bioresource Engineering
Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Innovative technology includes subsurface injection and
tillage of" waste within three hours of application.
2) Desirable technology includes low pressure sprinkler systems
(15-20 psi), minimizing land application impacts near
residents, low trajectory spray, and avoiding extra-fine
spray.
3) Conventional technology includes medium pressure (30-70 psi)
sprinkler systems, avoids weekends and holiday application,
and uses vegetative screens.
4) Undesirable technology includes high pressure sprinkler
systems (>80 psi), high trajectory spray, does not avoid
application on weekends or holidays, and does not use
vegetative screens.
5) Subsurface injection and tillage technology is assumed to
avoid high water tables and highly permeable soils.
6) Injection of slurry can reduce the odor by 80% and can reduce
ammonia emissions by 95%.
7) Above ground application of wastes should be tilled into the
soil as soon as possible to reduce the rate of odor emissions.
Plowing immediately after application reduces the rate of odor
emission during the first hour by 85%.
EPA Contacts:
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
23
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
5) DT Criteria: Nitrogen Budget
Crop Nitrogen Budget1 Score
s 100%
> 100% and £
> 110% and <
> 120% and s
> 130%
110%
120%
130%
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
Crop Nitrogen Budget percent is the ratio of the sum of the
annual plant available nitrogen produced and the commercial
nitrogen fertilizer to be used divided by the crop nitrogen that
can be utilized each year times 100.
References:
Agri-Waste Technology, Inc., HUC Cumulative Risk Index Analysis
Swine Producer Group. October 26, 1996, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. EPA, 40 CFR 122, Wastewater Removal and Land Application.
NPDES General Permit for Discharges from Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations.
U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Estimate of
land Area Needed for Waste Application and Value of Nutrients
Applied.
U.S. NRCS. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.Part 651,
Issued April 1992.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Annual plant available nitrogen is the amount of nitrogen
available to the plant from the applied waste effluent.
2) Land application crops typically require commercial
fertilizers in addition to nutrients from waste effluent.
3) Application rates of waste effluent might be limited by other
parameters (salt loadings, phosphorus loadings, hydraulic
loadings).
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
24
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRTA)
6) Dj Criteria: Storage Capacity
Storage Volume Score
> 90 days = 1
< 90 days and * 60 =2
< 60 days and * 30 =3
< 30 days and 2> 15 =4
> 15 days = 5
References:
Agri-Waste Technology, Inc., HUC Cumulative Risk Index Analysis
Swine Producer Group. October 26, 1996, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. EPA, 40 CFR 122, Wastewater Removal and Land Application.
NPDES General Permit for Discharges from Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations.
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1992. Agricultural
Waste Management Field Handbook.Part 651, Issued April.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Storage volume above the 25 year-24 hour storm can minimize
potential environmental impacts.
EPA Contacts:
Joe Swick (6EN-XP-) , EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
25
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
7) DT Criteria: Groundwater Protection
Distance of Well from Source1 Score
* 500 feet = 1 •
> 400 but < 500 feet = 2
* 300 but < 400 feet = 3
s 200 but < 300 feet = 4
< 200 feet = 5
1Source = water retention facilities,confinement buildings,and
application sites
References:
Dendy, D. and M. Ladd 1996. Comments on Draft Cumulative Risk
Analysis. ACCORD Agriculture, Inc., Farnsworth, TX.
Goan, Charles. 1992. "Well Water Protection on Poultry Farms."
University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Well location is a potential factor contributing to possible
ground water contamination.
2) Well and shaft (outside of well pipe) are potential conduits
for ground water contamination.
3) Well head protection criteria does not consider construction
and design parameters.
EPA Contacts:
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, -TX (X6523)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
26
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
8) DT Criteria: Employment
Job Units1 Score
4
3
2-
1
0
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
job unit is equal to the state average income
References:
Canter, Larry W. 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw-
Hill Book .Co. New York, NY.
Dendy, D. and M. Ladd 1996. Comments on Draft Cumulative Risk
Analysis, ACCORD Agriculture, Inc., Farnsworth, TX.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Job opportunities have both positive and negative economic
effects on the local community.
2) Agricultural jobs lost may not equal the job (units) created.
3} Construction jobs, are not included since they are primarily
short term, may include mostly migrant workers, and contribute
little to the local economy.
4) Only a small percentage of construction materials (items that
cannot be economically trucked in) and supplies are purchased
'locally and benefit the local economy.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
27
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
9) - Dj Criteria: Odor,
Total Number of Animals Score
< 5 X threshold1 = 1
s 10 X threshold = 2
s 15 X threshold = 3
s 20 X threshold = 4
> 20 X threshold = 5
1Threshold for swine =750 animals
References:
Miner, J. Ronald and C.L. Earth. 1988. "Controlling Odors from
Swine Buildings." Purdue University Cooperative Extension
Service. West Lafayette, Indiana.
U.S. EPA, Region 6, 1996. Swine CAFO Odors: Guidance for
Environmental Impact Assessment. Lee Wilson and Associates, Santa
Fe, NM.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) An individual's perception of odor is primarily a subjective
response based on attitudes and previous experience.
2) Odor may be associated with water pollution, flies, noise or
other issues.
3) Odor is an indicator of ineffective air pollution control.
4) Residents may be reasonably close to CAFO facilities.
5) Animal units does not equal number of animals (e.g., 2500
swine over 55 Ibs each equals 1000 animal units).
6) Swine odor is generally considered to be more offensive than
cattle odor.
7) Odor includes not only "odor", but includes chemicals such as
ammonia, methane gas, and hydrogen sulfide that may affect the
health of nearby residents.
EPA contacts (name, mail-code, telephone numbers):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
28
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
10) DT Criteria: Transportation
Number of Trucks/week Score
< 7 =1
7-14 = 2
15-21 = 3
22-28 = 4
> 28 = 5
References:
Carter, Larry W. 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment.
McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, NY.
Dendy, D. and M. Ladd 1996. Comments on Draft Cumulative Risk
Analysis. ACCORD Agriculture, Inc., Farnsworth, TX.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) The less truck traffic in the area the lower the potential for
nega t ive impac t s.
2) Trucks are defined as the vehicles used in feeding and
transporting (live) animals.
3) Potential negative impacts include traffic accidents, dust,
noise and odor.
4) Road surface conditions are considered to be unimproved,
county roads.
EPA contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
29
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
11) DT Criteria: Wildlife Habitat Effected
Acres Effected Score
< 10%
z 10% and < 20%
* 20% and < 30%
^ 30% and < 40%
* 40%
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
References:
Endangered Species Act of 1977, as amended.
U.S. EPA, 1996. Region 6 EPA Geographic Information System (CIS)
Data Library. State Land Use Data Set, Office of Planning and
Coordination, Dallas, TX.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Net effects include both direct and indirect, or the total
impacts of the facility (e.g. site and road construction and
facility operation).
2) Wildlife habitats include floodplains, wetlands, bottomland
hardwoods, rangelands, upland forests and grasslands.
3) "Acres effected" are compiled from State land use data sets.
4) The EPA will conduct a separate review with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and/or the National Marine Fisheries
Service, as necessary, to document compliance with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
5) The EPA will conduct a separate review with the U.S. Corps of
Engineers and/or the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation-
Service, as necessary, to document compliance with Section 404
of the Clean Water Act.
6) There is no intended correlation between this impact score for
wildlife habitats and the potential effect, if any, on listed
Federal Endangered and Threatened Species, subject to the
requirements of the ESA.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
30
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
12) Dx Criteria: Density of CAFOs1
Number of CAFOs in 5 mi radius Score
<, 2
3
4
5
> 5
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
Includes EPA and state CAFO data
References:
U.S. EPA. 1996. CAFO Location Data Set. Region 6 CIS Data
Library. Dallas, TX.
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. 1996. CAFO Database.
Oklahoma City, OK.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) The more CAFOs in a -watershed subunit, the greater the
potential for negative impacts.
2) Five mile radius is used to be comparable with other Region 6
risk index analyses /(e.g. Human Health Risk Index,
Environmental Justice Index).
3) The majority of CAFOs are assumed to be in the same watershed,
but there is the possibility that CAFOs can be in different
HUCs.
4) The number of five CAFOs in a five mile radius was chosen by
considering the size of the facilities (0.25-1 mi. sq.),
desirable distance between the projects (2 miles), typical
size of the 11 digit HUC, and the impacts of the CAFOs
(runoff and odor) on the watershed.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Gerald Carney, (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Tom Nelson (6WQ-0), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7128)
Angel Kosfiszer (6WQ-0), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X2187)
31
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRTA)
13) Dv Criteria: Proximity of CAFOs1
CAFOs Within 2 Mi of Each Other Score
0 =1
>1 = 5
Includes Quadmapper and state data
References:
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. 1996. CAFO Database.
Oklahoma City, OK.
U.S. EPA, Region 6, 1996. Swine CAFO Odors: Guidance for
Environmental Impact Assessment. Lee Wilson and Associates, Santa
Fe, MM.
U.S. EPA, 1996. CAFO Location Data Set. Region 6 CIS Data
Library. Dallas, TX.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) The closer the proximity of CAFOs, the greater the potential
for negative environmental impact (e.g., odor, noise) to the
watershed subunit.
2) The. majority of CAFOs are assumed to be in the same watershed,
but there is the possibility that CAFOs can be in different
HUCs.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Gerald Carney, (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Tom Nelson (6WQ-0), EPA Region 6, Dallas,'TX (X7128)
Angel Kosfiszer (6WQ^O), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X2187)
32
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
14) Dr Criteria: Phosphorus Budget
Crop Phosphorus Budget1 Score
<, 100%
> 100% and < 110%
> 110% and < 120%
> 120% and < 130%
> 130%
= 1
= 2
= 3
= 4
= 5
The Crop Phosphorus Budget percent is the ratio of the sum of the
annual plant available phosphorus produced and the commercial
phosphorus fertilizer to be used divided by the crop phosphorus
that can be utilized each year times 100.
References:
U.S. EPA, 40 CFR 122, Wastewater Removal and Land Application.
NPDES General Permit for Discharges from Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations.
U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Estimate of
land Area Needed for Waste Application and Value of Nutrients
Applied.
U.S. NRCS. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.Part 651,
Issued April 1992.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Annual plant available phosphorus is the amount of phosphorus
available to the plant from the applied waste effluent.
2) Land application crops typically require commercial
fertilizers in addition to nutrients from waste effluent.
3) Application rates of waste effluent might be limited by other
parameters (e.g., salt loadings, nitrogen loadings, hydraulic
loadings).
4) Buildup of phosphorus in the soil over time may have negative
environmental impacts (e.g., runoff of accumulated
phosphorus).
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Gerald Carney (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X6523)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
33
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
15) D: Criteria: Endangered and Threatened Species
Section 7 Compliance1 Score
Yes • =1
No ' = 5
1Section 7 of Endangered Species Act of 1977
References:
U.S. Department of Interior. 1977. Endangered Species Act. US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC.
U. S. EPA. 1970. "Implementation Regulations for the National
Environmental Policy Act", Washington, DC.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Federal non-compliance constitutes potential significant
adverse impacts on listed endangered and threatened species.
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP) , EPA Region 6, Dallas,' TX (X7456)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
34
-------
CUMULATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRIA)
16) Dx Criteria: Cultural Resources
Section 106 Compliance1 Score
Yes = 1
No = 5
1Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act
References:
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U. S,
C. Section 470-470w-6.
U. S. EPA. 1970. "Implementation Regulations for the National
Environmental Policy Act", Washington, DC.
Definitions, Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties:
1) Federal non-compliance constitutes potential significant
adverse impacts on cultural resources or historic properties
EPA Contacts (name, mail-code, telephone number):
Joe Swick (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7456)
Sharon Osowski (6EN-XP), EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX (X7506)
35
-------
A Source Water Vulnerability Assessment
for the Five-State Area Comprising Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
Mike Bechdol, Alan Noell, and Erlece Allen
Source Water Protection Branch (6WQ-S)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Abstract
Due to an increased emphasis on protecting the source waters which
supply public water systems, members of the Source Water Protection Branch
within the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 office developed a
methodology to assess the vulnerability of the Region's source waters to
contamination. Source waters are defined as current or potential sources of
drinking water originating from either surface or ground waters. Using 8-digit
USGS hydrologic codes, 400 watersheds were identified within the five states
comprising Region 6. The intent of this assessment was to rate the relative
vulnerability to contamination of these source waters on a watershed basis.
Accordingly, an overlay and index method was used as a screening process to
determine the most vulnerable watersheds. This consisted of identifying
databases which index potentially adverse natural and man-made conditions.
The identified databases which describe natural watershed characteristics
include databases which indicate the presence of rivers, aquifers, and shallow
ground water; the classifications of the geology, soil permeability, soil slope; and
the amount of run-off. Databases reflecting man-made stresses include land
use/land coverages; Superfund sites; Toxic Release Inventories; RCRA
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facilities; oil and gas wells; and roads,
railroads, and pipelines. Databases containing public water system maximum
contaminant level (MCL) violations and ambient water quality MCL
exceedences were also obtained. A geographic information system was used to
overlay these data on a watershed scale and to calculate a relative vulnerability
rating in each of the 400 watersheds in the five-state Region. These ratings are
graphically shown for Region 6. Although overlay and index methods have
inherent uncertainties, they provide the means to identify source waters which
have a higher risk-based potential for contamination. Once these source waters
are delineated, the more vulnerable areas can be further evaluated.
-------
Region 6 Base Map
Intrinsic Surface
Water (15%)
Rivers (40%)
Runoff (30%)
Slope (30%)
Anthropogenic
Surface Water (15%)
Land Use/Land Cover (50%)
Superfund Sites (10%)
TR1 Sites (10%)
Roads (10%)
RCRA Sites (5%)
Railroads (5%)
Pipelines (5%)
Oil & Gas Wells (5%)
Combined Monitoring
Data (20%)
SDWIS (60%)
STORET (40%)
Intrinsic
Ground Water (15%)
Aquifer/Geology (50%)
Surface Permeability (25%)
Complementary Slope (15%)
Depth to Water (10%)
Anthropogenic
Ground Water (15%)
Land Use/Land Cover (35%)
Superfund Sites (15%)
Oil & Gas Wells (15%)
RCRA Sites (10%)
Pipelines (10%)
TRI Sites (5%)
Roads (5%)
Railroads (5%)
I
Combined Monitoring
Data (20%)
SDWIS (60%)
'STORET (40%)
Source Water Vulnerability
Figure 1: Flow Chan and Parameter Weightings
3.3. Slope Ratings
-------
APPENDIX C-7
REGIONAL INFORMATION
REGION 7
-------
MISSOURI AQUATIC GAP ANALYSIS PROGRAM
The Missouri Aquatic GAP Pilot Program was initiated in 1996 in partnership with a multi-
agency state-wide assessment program, the Missouri Resource Assessment Program,
(MORAP). Missouri was selected as a location for an Aquatic GAP Analysis pilot effort
because of 1)the relatively robust existing data set within the state on biological aquatic
resources; 2) because of an ongoing terrestrial GAP Analysis Program in Missouri, and, 3)
willing Federal and State partnership organized under MORAP.
Aquatic Gap is being designed to address a similar set of questions as the terrestrial GAP
Analysis Program; what is the distribution of important biological resources in the
landscape? Are these resources effectively managed and protected? Are there gaps in
our knowledge that significantly affect our ability to successfully manage biological
resources? Are there gaps in resource Ownership or management that adversely affect
our ability to management imperiled or other important biological resources?
As a pilot effort, the Missouri Aquatic GAP Analysis Program has the additional goals of
assisting in developing the standards for a national Aquatic GAP Analysis. We will focus
on identifying the most efficient methods to produce agreed upon information and also
calculate cost estimates for producing statewide data layers.
There are basically 10 digital data layers for Aquatic GAP, some of which overlap with
those produced for terrestrial GAP. Each data layer is described separately to give you a
better understanding of the types of information that will be developed in the Aquatic GAP
Analysis Program.
Aquatic Gap Data Layers
1. Land cover (completed for Missouri Terrestrial GAP Analysis Program) completed at
the Level-1 classification. Includes urban, open water, forest, grassland, and cropland.
Should be completed by September 1997.
2. Land Stewardship/Ownership (completed for terrestrial) Produced by MoRAP.
Completed in April 1997, currently working on metadata
3. Land management codes (completed for terrestrial GAP Analysis in Missouri).
4. Completion of EPA-River Reach File version 3. This is a standard resource for
depicting rivers and streams in GIS systems. Entire state should be done in
September 1997. As we receive these files we will begin populating them reach by
reach with our compiled species collection data.
5. Digital NWI maps. Currently 60% of Missouri has been completed. Completing the
remaining 40% has become an official MORAP project. Once the state Is completed we
will link the riverine classes found in the digital NWI files to the RF3 file.
6. Aquatic biota distributions (known distributions). Species collection records will be
linked to the RF3, reach by reach. Taxonomic priorities are: Fish, naiads, crayfish,
other benthic inverts, amphibians, aquatic vascular plants, aquatic mammals, and
waterfowl/wading birds.
i
7. Aquatic biota models (predicted distributions)
-------
8. Water management information. What are the water management activities within the
state, including soil and water conservation districts plans, state and municipal plans,
management of waters on federal lands, etc.
9. Water quality. Use existing water quality data. Mapping this information will assist in
relating water use activities with changes in-aquatic biologal resources.
{0. Watershed boundaries.
In combination, and in a CIS format, the information developed by the Missouri Aquatic
GAP Pilot can be a powerful and effective tool in managing biological resources, and an
important early step in developing the standards for a national Aquatic GAP Analysis
If you have any questions please feel free to contact:
Scott P. Sowa,
Aquatic Resources Coordinator MORAP
4200 New Haven Road
Columbia, MO 65201
ph: 573-875-5399 ext 1715
fax:573-876-1896
-------
Table 1. GIS Maps of Priority Places Identified by the Air, RCRA, and Toxics
Division and Superfund Division Programs in Region 7
Map
Air: "National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for Carbon Monoxide (CO)"
Air: "National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Lead"
Multiprogram: "Lead Paint Assistance
Grants"
Air: "National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Ozone"
Air: "National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Paniculate Matter of Less Than 10
Microns (PM10)"
Multiprograms: "Counties Zoned 1 for
Radon"
Air: "National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Sulfur Dioxide (SO.,)"
Superfund: "Superfund Priority NPL and
Non-NPL Sites"
Purpose
Identify the current CO nonattainment areas.
?
Identify areas that are or could violate the lead
NAAQS.
Identify risk areas for lead poisoning in children
from lead based paint.
Identify the counties that are violating the
ozone NAAQS.
Identify areas that are or could violate the
PM 10 NAAQS.
Identify counties having the highest potential
for elevated indoor radon levels. Assist
targeting radon program activities and
resources at the national, state and local levels.
Identify areas that are or could violate the SO2
NAAQS.
Indicate the location of priority sites established
by the Superfund program.
Table 2. GIS Maps of Priority Places Identified by the Water, Wetlands and
Pesticides Division Programs in Region 7
Map
CBEP1: "Community Based Environmental
Protection Project Areas"
GW/WHP2: "Groundwater/Well Head
Protection"
Purpose
Indicate the places selected for CBEP Projects
in 1996.
Indicate 23 sites chosen for immediate
groundwater modeling.
1 Community Based Environmental Protection Project
2 Groundwater/Well Head Protection
Appendix C-7 1
July 9,1998
-------
Map
Municipal: "Small Municipalities Receiving
1 04g Technical Assistance Grants"
Endangered Species Act: "Voluntary
Pesticide Application Limitation Locations
due to Presence of Endangered Species"
Federal-State: "Pesticide Groundwater
Vulnerability and Surface Water
Interchange"
State: "State Designated Pesticide
Management Areas"
Municipal: "Significant Industrial Pollutant
Discharges'to Municipal Sewer System"
"Communities without Pathogen Treatment
for Sludge"
"Native American Tribal Lands"
"Underground Injection Control (UIC)"
Wetlands: "Areas with Targeted Wetland
Protection/Restoration Activities"
Purpose
Present the 1996 Annual State 104g
designations of 99 facilities.
Depict the counties where pesticide application
should be limited for Endangered Species
Protection.
Indicate the areas needing the most protection
from groundwater contamination.
Depict areas designated by the States as
pesticide management areas identified for the
improvement of both surface and ground water
quality.
Indicate towns with a pretreatment program
that have significant industrial users.
Indicate major facility locations that are not in
compliance with Part 503 for Sludge
Regulation.
Present the location of Tribal Lands.
Indicate the highest priority 47 Class I UIC
wells in Kansas.
Indicate large areas targeted by WWPD/WRPB
for Section 404/Wetlands Protection Program
activities.
Source: Risk Assessment/Prioritization Team. May 19,1997. Region 7's Community Based
Environmental Protection, Report to the Steering Committee.
Appendix C-7
July 9,1998
-------
Table 3. Stressor Locations Identified by the Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division
Programs in Region 7
Title
Data Source
"Phase I Acid Rain Sources"
Based on the annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
dioxide or nitrogen oxides emission rate as
reported in the NAPAP Emissions Inventory,
Version 2, National Utility Reference File.
"Currently and Formerly Operating
Crude Oil Refining Sites"
Based on a collaborative effort with HO and
regional cross-media enforcement personnel, oil
refineries were identified as a Regional priority
industrial sector.
"PCB Facilities Requiring Multiple
Inspections in FY95"
Based on Missouri and Iowa inspections reported
to Region 7 and the inspections in Nebraska and
Kansas performed by the Toxic Substance
Prevention and Planning Branch.
"RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
Categorized as High Priority"
Quantitative values to particular conditions at a
facility are based on the RCRIS database and
knowledge from EPA personnel familiar with the
facility (objective and somewhat subjective values
are used).
'Thermal Treatment Sites Regulated by
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act"
Identifies high priority units for the RCRA permitting
and compliance branch.
"Counties with Most Releases/Transfers
of Toxic Chemicals"
The states use the Toxic Release Inventory
information (updated yearly) to answer inquiries
and the Toxic Substance Prevention and Planning
Branch uses the program for enforcement and
pollution prevention.
Source: Risk Assessment/Prioritization Team. May 19,1997. Region 7's Community Based
Environmental Protection, Report to the Steering Committee.
Appendix C-7
July 9,1998
-------
Table 4. Tools for Prioritization in Region 7
Title
Description
Data
Comments
Examples/Goals
Airshed
Modeling
Three common types of
air modeling: Short Term,
Urban, and Regional
Sources: Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS), emission
records from sites, and monitoring
data
Modeling results depend
on the quality of the data,
therefore, applying the
technique in places
without strong public
support is not
recommended.
Used to assess
compliance with
NAAQS
Florida's
Environmental
Indicators and
Performance
Measures &
Goals and
Indicators
An indicator-driven model
for use in environmental
management planning;
based on principles from
the Dutch National
Environmental Planning
Process (NEPP), and the
Chesapeake Bay's
Program
Sources: Environmental Indicator
Technical Assistance Series, Vol. II:
Catalog of Data Sources, October
1996, produced for EPA and the
Florida Center for Public Management
of Florida State University.
Florida is still developing
this model. Federal
agencies collect most of
the data at the national
level for these analyses.
The goals and
indicators could be used
for: Agency evaluation,
strategic planning and
budgeting, setting goals
and objectives,
measuring and
communicating
programs, public
relations, and
environmental
education.
Kansas Action
Targeting
System (KATS)
A GIS data-aggregation
application describing
priorities for surface and
ground water
39 data layers provided by Kansas
Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), Division of Water
Resources (DWR), Kansas Wildlife
and Parks (KW&P), EPA and other
sources
Individual datasets in the
model have been more
useful than KATS itself.
KATS final analysis has
been used to set
Nonpoint source 319
priorities.
Appendix C-7
July 9, 1998
-------
Title
Description
Data
Comments
Examples/Goals
Large Scale
Assessments
Landscape-level
assessments; conducted
both theoretically and
experimentally
Sources: Environmental Indicator
Technical Assistance Series, Volume
II: Catalog of Data Sources, October
1996, produced for EPA and the
Florida Center for Public Management
of Florida State University.
Landscape ecology is a
relatively new discipline.
Federal and state
agencies collect most of
the data used for these
analyses; however,
statistical reliability must
be checked.
Examples include the
Hubbard Brook study,
REMAP, Florida Center
for Public Management
Indicator Driven Model,
Dutch NEPP, and the
Chesapeake Bay
Environmental
Assessment.
Missouri
Resources
Assessment
Partnership
(MoRAP)
A cooperative involving
state and federal
agencies (including EPA
as of 1998) designed to
provide datasets to
individual partners
Key Moral projects include
documenting existing Missouri
datasets; mapping land types;
digitizing and field ground truthing soil
maps.
A Technical Committee
reviews dataset
development project
proposals to ensure
sound data standards,
and then presents them
before a Steering
Committee for potential
funding.
The goal is to
disseminate .high quality
natural resource
information at the
lowest possible cost to
the Moral partners
Qualitative
Structural
Equation
Modeling
(QSEM)
A parametric technique,
QSEM is a framework
and method for appraising
ecological assessments.
Source: EPA/ORD Corvalis
QSEM provides a unified
approach to indicator data
development, appraisal
and validation. It may be
used to choose cost
effective qualitative
assessments. It has not
yet been used for
decision making.
QSEM could help
decision makers and
resource managers
understand the level of
reliability an ecological
assessment affords
them within the limits of
their available budget.
Appendix C-7
July 9, 1998
-------
Title
Description
Data
Comments
Examples/Goals
Regional
Environmental
Monitoring '
Assessment
Program (R-
EMAP)
Implemented when the
data collection of water
samples began in
Kansas, Nebraska, and
Missouri. Water sampling
occurred at 300 stream
sites during the summers
of 1994 and 1995.
Sources: analysis of fish community
structure; quantity and size of sport
fishes; presence and extent of
disease, parasites, and deformities in
the fish population; degree of
contamination of water, sediment and
fish tissue from toxic pollutants
(pesticides, metals); degree of
nutrient loading (for streams) and
trophic condition (for lakes); habitat
evaluation; land use evaluation; and
analysis of macro-invertebrate
community structure.
R-EMAP is very
appropriate for use in
setting priorities when a
scientific perspective is
needed in the
prioritization process.
Demonstrate the utility
of a probabilistic
monitoring design and
EMAP methodology,
and the utility of EMAP
for resolving issues of
importance to Regions
and States
Synoptic Model
for Wetlands
Intended to be only a
"first-pass" priority setting
tool
The models need spatially referenced,
accurate data collected consistently
across the area being analyzed. Most
datasets are therefore national. See
list of database variable later in this
Appendix (C-7).
Large-scale mechanistic
gaps in our knowledge
prohibit most synoptic
models from being
predictive in any
quantitative sense. The
models are best used for
establishing relative
priorities.
Twelve Synoptic
Assessments are
current or completed in
Region 7.
Source: Risk Assessment/Prioritization Team. May 19,1997. Region 7's Community Based Environmental Protection, Report to the Steering
Committee.
Appendix C-7
6
July 9, 1998
-------
List of Data Attributes for the Kansas Action Targeting System (KATS)
Resource Component
Public Water Supply Value
Industrial Water Supply Value
Irrigation Supply Value
Livestock Water Supply Value
Domestic Water Supply Value
Aquifer Depth
Ground water Recharge
Well Density
Watershed Population
Reported Chemigation Sites
Well < = 50 feet
Grazing Livestock
Irrigation Systems
Feedlots
Agricultural Trade Centers
Landfills
Wastewater Treatment
Identified Sites
Storage Tanks
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
SIC Code Facilities
Landcover
Surface Drinking Supplies Value
Storage Water Supply Value
Domestic Water Supply Value
Industrial Water Supply Value
Irrigation Water Supply Value
Livestock Water Supply Value
Threatened and Endangered Value
Species in Need of Conservation Value
Valuable Fisheries Value
Boating and Canoeing Value
Swimming and Skiing Value
Fishing Value
Non-Contact Recreation Value
Erodibility/Slope Hazard
Precipitation
Aquatic Life Sensitivity
Component Source
KS Dept. of Agriculture, Did. of •
Water Resources (DWR)
DWR
DWR
DWR
KS Dept. of Health and
Environment (KDHE)
USGS/KS Water Office (KWO)
USGS/DWR
DWR/KDHE
1992 CENSUS
DWR
DWR/KDHE
KS Dept. of Agriculture, Did. of
Ag Statistics
DWR
KDHE
KDHE/KS Dept. of Ag., Did. of
Plant Health/KS Feed and Grain
Dealers
KDHE
KDHE
KDHE
KDHE
KDHE
KS Dept. of Human Resources
Data Access and Support Center
(DASC)/KS Applied Remote
Sensing (KARS)/KWO
DWR/Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
KWO
KDHE
DWR/EPA
DWR/EPA
DWR
KDHE
KDHE
KDHE
KS Wildlife and Parks (DW&P)
KW&P
KW&P
KW&P
USDA NRCS
KSU Weather Library/DWR
KDHE
30
-------
EPA Region 7 Synoptic Model Dataset Status 1/96:
VARIABLE (used?)
Biodiversity Maintenance Function:
Database and Description
Ealh
TE(y)
TNC(y)
BIRD.DIV (n)
WETLAND.HA (y)
WETLAND.DIV (y)
EPA R7 T&E occurrences
(richness of threatened and endangered wetland species)
TNC Gl & G2 species occurrences
(richness of threatened and endangered species)
NBS Christmas Bird Counts and Breeding Bird Survey
(diversity of wetland breeding birds) '
NRI wetland area (waiting on NWI wetland area)
(total wetland area, all classifications)
Derived spatial landscape index - based on NRI or NWI
wetland area (SW diversity of wetland type)
/usrlO/datalOO/nri
/usrlO/datalOO/nri
Development Stress:
AG.DENS (y)
PRMFARM (y)
POP.DENS (y)
NRI agricultural landuse
(total area in watershed under row and non-row cropping)
NRI prime farmland area
(Total area in watershed considered to be optimal for
agricultural production)
1990 census bureau population counts
(human population density aggregated by county,
convened to HUC value)
Water Quality Support Function:
ERODE (y)
TRI.EMS (y)
PESTHERB.LBS (y)
NRI USLE total water caused erosion
(erosion potential)
EPA R7 air, land and water based toxic emissions
(total industrial output)
USDA/Resources for the Future pesticide use
(total pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide Ibs. applied)
/usrlO/datalOO/nri
/usrlO/datalOO/nri
/usrlO/datalOO/nri
/usr6/datalOO/tri/"st"
/usr4/data/pesticides/
pest_huc/co_huc
31
-------
VARIABLE; fused?)
GWVI_N or _P (y)
STRM12_LNGTH(n)
TOT_LNGTH (n)
STRM.ORDER (n)
Database and Description
USDA derived index of groundwater vulnerability
(combination of precipitation, potential chemical use,
soil leaching potential and hydrological type; _N refers
to Nitrogen vulnerability and _P to pesticide vulnerability)'
RR-3
(stream length for each reach classification)
RR-3
(total stream length)
Derived index
(ratio of small stream length to total length)
Path
Flood Reduction Function:
RUNOFF (n)
NRI overland runoff potential
(sum of area weighted curve numbers for each hydrological
soil class - landuse pair in the subunit)
/usrlO/datalOO/nri
SLOPE (n)
GWJDEPTH (n)
HYDRIC (y)
WETPROP_MAIN (n)
WET_MAIN (n)
USGS Digital Elevation Models and RR-3
(slope of main channel in each HUC)
USGS DEM, well log database, or STATSGO
(mean depth to ground water)
NRI hydric soils
(total hydric soils area)
NWI wetland area
I(wetland area within a buffer area around main channel)
Derived index - NWI wetland area
(ratio of wetland area within a buffer zone around main
channel to total wetland area)
/usrlO/datalOO/nri
library: counties; layer:
nwi
library: counties; layer:
nwi
32
-------
APPENDIX C-8
REGIONAL INFORMATION
REGION 8
-------
DRAFT
December 12, 1997
Revised: January 21', 1998
Region 8 State of the Environment Report
Framework Proposal
Content Model
The proposed State of the Environment (SOE) report framework follows the basic model
organization of state, pressure, response. In this model we look at our understanding of
resources, the stressors and impacts on those resources, the ecological and human health effects
of the degraded resources, and finally What is being done to improve the quality of the resources
and/or mitigate the adverse effects. We attempt to portray a complete picture to ensure the
proper context for what we understand and what is being done. In this respect, the EPA
sponsored projects and programs will be understood in their potential to make significant or only
minimal improvements. The model components include the following:
State
- this component attempts to characterize the resource with respect to extent and condition. Of
particular interest is the status and trends of meaningful indicators.
Examples: - composition of air, air quality
- provide status and trends of air quality
- include the distribution and extent of water resources (streams, lakes,
groundwater, estuaries)
Pressure
stressors/impact sources
natural vs anthropogenic
anthropogenic sources - point, non-point
where are the major sources
Response
a) What are the Effects?
- what are the ecological and human health effects of the stressors and/or degraded
resource condition? What is the extent of the effect(s)? What is a known effect
vs a probable effect?
b) What is being done?
- this is where we include EPA goals, objectives, and possibly sub-objectives
-------
Example: What is being done to improve air quality (programs,
projects...)
- EPA goals, objectives, sub-objectives
- state and EPA programs
- successful local stories of improvement and reporting
- highlight specific stories of programs, projects, or geographic areas where efforts
to improve the quality of resources or mitigate adverse effects are in the works.
-Examples might include the Clear Creek watershed, air quality in Denver and
Salt Lake,...
Organizational Outline
The organization of the SOE follows the concept of reporting on the land, air, water,
ecosystems, and people of the region. The idea is to follow both societal and ecological values in
telling the story of environmental condition and what is being done about it.
Values
- Clean Air
- Clean Water
- Healthy Ecosystems
- Healthy Human Environments
Chapters
- Intro/Overview - presentation of values
-Air
-Water
- Ecosystems
- Mining Issues
- Human Dimensions
- Summary
-------
Region 8
Environmental Indicators
September 1998 Expectations
* A Regional Database of the Core Indicators
' A Web-Based, CIS-Enabled Indicator Reporting
System
' A State of the Environment Report (Prototype)
• Interpretation and Value Added to the Core Indicators
• Hardcopy Reports)
- Intranet Delivery of the Reports) with Linked Access
to the Indicator Reporting System .
State of the Environment
Proposal
Region 8
State of the Environment
Report
SOE Program with Annual Updates
Three-Year Build Up to Full Program Status
Emphasis on Environmental Indicators
State'- Pressure - Response Model
State of the Environment (SOE)
„ . ,„. Vision
• Regional Picture
• Comprehensive Statement about the Environment
• Bigger than EPA - multiple partners (experts)
• Program with Annual Updates
• Web-Based Reporting and Information System
• Ecosystem Targeting Tool and GPRA Tool
• Summary (color glossy) and Technical Reports
• One Stop for gaining a cpmprehrensive
understanding of the regional environment
State of the Environment (SOE)
SOE Program Recommendations
•Targeted Audience(s)
' A) Region 8 staff
» B) Regional States, Tribes, and Local Governments
• C) All of EPA
• D) Other Federal Government Agencies
• E) NGOs. Industry....
• F) Congress
• G) Public
> H) Scientists / Researchers
• Recommendation
- Begin with A, and some of B, evolve to All
State of the Environment (SOE)
SOE Program Recommendations
• Process for Producing the SOE
• Decentralized / Centralized Mix
- Program-based Indicator and Chapter 'Champions'
»Centralized Support and Assembly with an Interoffice
SOE Workgroup for Planning, Oversight, and
Coordination (Members are Chapter 'Champions' and
Key Support Staff)
-------
State of the Environment (SOE)
SOE Program Recommendations
* Focus of the SOE Report
• For FY98 - Expand Beyond EPA Domain using Other
Agency Data, but doing all the work within EPA
(the Core Indicators with interpretation plus additional
indicators and information for a more comprehensive
picture)
' In early FY99 • Host a Workshop to Explore the
Feasibility of Participation in a Multiagency SOE
Program Effort to Provide a Comprehensive SOE
State of the Environment (SOE)
Values / Issues Focus
Questions - Based on Values and Issues
Values
- Clean Air (Air Quality)
Clear Visibility
- Healthy Air
»Clean Water
-Safe Drinking Water
- Healthy Aquatic Habitats
• Healthy'Ecosystems
- Healthy Human Environments
State of the Environment (SOE)
Organization Outline
• Chapters (with values / issues focus)
- Introduction / Overview
-Air
•Water
•Hazardous Waste
• Mining
- Ecosystems
• Human Dimensions
- Summary / Conclusions
State of the Environment (SOE)
September 1998 Products
• Prototype Summary Report
• SOE Information System
• Intranet-Based and CIS Enabled
» Contains 'Core' Indicators (Plus more)
• 'Levels' of Information:
- Summary Report
. Indicator Repotting System Module
• Solid SOE Workgroup and Foundation for Future
State of the Environment (SOE)
Critical Development Staff
• SOE Workgroup
» Members include Chapter 'Champions' and Principle
Support Staff
• Regular Working Meetings
• Coordination. Guidance, and Oversight Roles
• Group Authorship of Intro/Overview and Conclusions
• Chapter 'Champions' - from Programs
a Indicator 'Champions' - from Programs and CIS
• Information Management (CIS)
State of the Environment (SOE)
FY98 Timeline
•Rotes and Responsibilities Defined March 30
• Indicator Development Complete May 30
• First Draft of Chapters Complete May 30
• Review of First Draft Complete June 30
• Final Draft of Chapters Complete July 30
• Final Graphics Complete August 30
• Technical Editing Complete August 30
• Peer Review Complete September 30
-------
TERRESTRIAL GAP ANALYSIS
EXAMPLE FROM UTAH
National Program. At the national level, the GAP Analysis Program is
coordinated by the U.S. Geologic Survey Biological Resources Division, and is
supported through the Center for Biological Information in Denver, CO. GAP began in
1989 as a USFWS project, and is now operational nationwide. It works cooperatively
with individual states, and is conducted by a variety of institutions, including USEPA,
tate Natural Heritage programs, The Nature Conservancy, and the Department of
Defense.
Mission Statement. To prevent conservation crises by providing conservation
assessments of native vertebrate species and their habitats and to facilitate the
application of this information to land-management activities.
Example from Utah. The LANDSAT Thematic mapper (TM ) was used. The
cover-type associated with spectral classes was defined using two steps:
(1) Post-classification correlation of 1,700 field training sites to spectral classes, and
(2) Post-classification ancillary GIS modeling using ecological parameters of
elevation, slope, aspect, and location to further refine spectral classes
representing multiple cover types.
This method provides "a framework to optimize landscape remote sensing cover-type
modeling using a multiple scene mosaic."
The large study areas requiring the spatial resolution of Landsat TM data invariable
require multiple scenes. Classification of those scenes can be carried out individually
or as multi-scene mosaics. The latter approach is much more cost-effective if it can be
made sufficiently accurate.
Source. Homer, C.G., Ramsey, R.D., Edwards, T.C. Jr., and Falconer, A. 1997.
Landscape cover-type modeling using a multi-scene thematic mapper mosaic.
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 63(1):59-67.
-------
APPENDIX C-9
REGIONAL INFORMATION
REGION 9
-------
REGION 9 CIS DATA LAYERS
Region 9 has developed or obtained Region-wide GIS data layers for the
following data types:
• air nonattainment areas,
• airports,
• coastal bathymetry,
• digital chart of the world,
• endangered species,
• groundwater basins,
• hydrologic basins,
land ownership,
• Mineral Availability System (MAS),
• National Prioirity List (NPL) sites,
• National Uranium Resource Inventory (NURE),
• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI),
RCRA sites,
• River Reach 3,
• sand and gravel mining operations,
• SPOT satellite imagery,
• Toxic Release Inventory (TRI),
US Census Bureau 1:100,000 Scale, 1992 TIGER Line File,
USGS 1:250,000 GIRAS land use/land cover,
• US Census Bureau demographics,
USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM),
USGS Digital Raster Graphics (DRG),
• vegetation, and
• zip codes.
Appendix C-9 July 9,1998
-------
At the 1:100,000 scale, the 1992 TIGER Line File coverage for Region 9 includes the
following:
• roads (59 separate classifications of roads; includes addresses),
• railroads (20 classifications),
• pipelines (e.g., enclosed pipe, carrying fluid or slurry, situated above ground or
below ground),
• transmission line (high voltage electrical line),
• other transportation (e.g., aerial tramway, monorail, or ski lift),
• landmarks,
• military installation or reservation (e.g., base, yard, depot),
• multihousehold or transient quarters (e.g., campground, shelter, trailer court, and
many others),
• custodial facility (e.g., hospital, penitentiary, prison, jail, halfway house,
orphanage, etc.),
• educational/religious institution (e.g., school, university, church,
• synagogue, convent, etc.),
• transportation terminal (e.g., airport, train station, bus terminal, marine terminal,
etc.),
• employment center (e.g., shopping center, industrial park, amusement center,
government center),
tower (e.g., lookout tower),
• open space (e.g., golf course, cemetery, national park or forest, other federal
land),
miscellaneous physical features,
• fences,
• topographic features (e.g., ridge line, mountain peak),
• nonvisible legal or administrative boundary (e.g., zip code boundary, statistical
boundary, etc.),
• hydrography (28 classifications).
Appendix C-9 July 9, 1998
-------
TIGER also contains the following boundary information, but without feature names:
• county boundary,
• .Congressional Districts (101, 103),
• school districts (i.e., elementary, middle, secondary, unified),
• urbanized areas (>50,000 people),
• incorporated city boundaries,
• Indian reservations,
• statistical areas (e.g., block, blockgroup, tract)
At a scale of 1:250,000, Region 9 has obtained the GIRAS land use/land cover
Classification Level II data, documented by Anderson and others (1976). Dates of data
range from late the late 1970s to the early 1980s:
LEVEL I LEVEL II
1 Urban or 11 Residential
Built-up Land 12 Commercial and Services
13 Industrial
14 Transportation, Communications, and Utilities
15 Industrial and Commercial Complexes
16. Mixed Urban or Built-up Land
17 Other Urban or Built-up Land
2 Agricultural Land
21 Cropland and Pasture
22 Orchards, Groves, Vineyards, Nurseries
23 Confined Feeding Operations
24 Other Agricultural Land
3 Rangeland
31 Herbaceous Rangeland
32 Shrub and Brush Rangeland
33 Mixed Rangeland
Appendix C-9 July 9,1998
-------
4 Forest Land
41 Deciduous Forest Land
42 Evergreen Forest Land
43 Mixed Forest Land
5 Water
51 Streams and Canals
52 Lakes
53 Reservoirs
54 Bays and Estuaries
6 Wetland
61 Forested Wetland
62 Nonforested Wetland
7 Barren Land
71 Dry Salt Flats
72 Beaches
73 Sandy Areas Other than Beaches
74 Bare Exposed Rock
75 Strip Mines, Quarries, and Gravel Pits
76 Transitional Areas
77 Mixed Barren Land
8 Tundra
81 Shrub and Brush Tundra
82 Herbaceous Tundra
83 Bare Ground
84 Wet Tundra
85 Mixed Tundra
9 Perennial Snow
91 Perennial Snowfields or Ice
92 Glaciers
Region 9 also uses the US Census Bureau Demographics Summary Tape File
3A (STF3A).
-------
Conserving California Landscapes
• A proposal for integrating US EPA's initiatives with the Packard Foundation's Conservation Program
Through the Interagency Vernal Pool Stewardship Initiative and USEPA's emerging work on
rangeland conservation, USEPA is working with public and private partners to identify and
conserve geographic priority areas to ensure the security of our natural and cultural heritage.
Dusting-off the Antidegradation Provisions of the Clean Water Act
Underlying USEPA's approach to the aforementioned conservation efforts is our belief that we
must increase our focus on preserving natural landforms, hydrology, and ecological settings as a
basic tenet of the Clean Water Act's antidegradation provisions [§131.12]. This arises from the
realization that healthy ecosystems produce clean water and provide an array of "services", e.g.,
production offish and wildlife, and replenishment of groundwater. Elevating antidegradation
provisions onto the same level as our "impairment" provisions [§303(d)J allows us to pursue a
balanced approach of both preventing the insidious decline of near-pristine systems, and
restoring the functions of impaired water bodies. After all, conservation of near pristine systems
represents the highest form of pollution prevention.
Frameworks for Conservation
In response to the RFP released by the Packard Foundation (Foundation), and their visionary
approach to conserving imperiled natural systems; the following section: (1) describes USEPA's
partnership framework with public agencies and NGOs; (2) melds the geographic frameworks
being pursued"by USEPA and the Foundation; and (3) highlights some of the innovative projects
already underway. We hope this sketch of activities reinforces the Foundation's existing
investment strategy, and establishes a new dialogue between USEPA and the Foundation.
1. CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Stewardship Umbrella for the Conservation of Rangelands, Vernal Pools and Farmlands
* Strategic Planning [program]: 7 natural resource committees convened by CARCD
•k Interagency Vernal Pool Stewardship Initiative [program]
>• E. Merced RCD [partner]: outreach to landowners, public awareness,
conservation banks.
>• San Joaquin RCD [partner]: ditto
if Biologically Integrated Orchard/Farming Systems (BIOS/BIFS) [program]
» E. Mefced RCD [partner]
*- Stanislaus/Yolo RCDs [partner]...pending $$$ availability-1999?
>• Madera/San Joaquin/Colusa [partner]...pending $$$ availability-2000?
•Ar Sustainable Ranching [program]
>• Alameda County RCD [partner]: Southern Alameda Creek Watershed (140,000
acres) as a platform for a Diablo Range Ecosystem Initiative (=2 million-acres).
»• California Oak Foundation [partner]: estate planning within the Diablo Range.
> California Cattlemen's Association [partner]: "Beyond the Rangeland
Conflict" seminars involving Dan Dagget, and a book about success stories.
-------
2. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Conservation and Restoration within the Cosumnes River Watershed and Lassen Foothills
* Cosumnes River Watershed
> Acquisition and Conservation of the Flint/Crane Ranch
™» Removing/setting-back levees to restore riverine processes, establish
new riparian forests, and enhance flood control.
-• Establishing a 1,000-acre organic rice farm
-» Enhancing wetlands for migratory birds
> Implementation of the Sacramento County Vernal Pool Protection Strategy
-» Restoring Valensin Ranch: debris removal, prescribed bums, rotational
grazing on the 4,326-acres.
-» Acquiring Howard Ranch: securing an $8 million loan from the State
Revolving Fund through SWRCB/USEPA to help buy 13,000-acres.
*• Lassen Foothills
>• Acquisition and Conservation of the =4,000-acre Vina Plains Preserve
-» Expanding the Preserve through land acquisitions mandated by USEPA
enforcement agreements with Ryan's Landing and the Simpson Timber
Company (the Brown Tract)
-» Expanding the Preserve through Farm Bill conservation easements
>• Scientific Experiments on Prescribed Burning and Rotational Grazing
-• Restoring vernal pool ecosystems and populations of rare and
endangered species.
-» Enhancing rangeland forage for livestock by eliminating noxious weeds
and restoring native grasslands.
3. THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
Land Trust Umbrella for the Conservation of Rangelands, Vernal Pools and Farmlands
* Technical Assistance [program]: Building the capacity of local land trusts.
•A- Interagency Vernal Pool Stewardship Initiative [program]
>• Sacramento Valley Open Space Conservancy [partner]: securing conservation
agreements inside the Urban Services Boundary (USB) designated by the General
Plan for Sacramento County.
>• Solano County Farmlands & Open Space Foundation [partner]: securing
conservation agreements west of the existing Jepson Prairie Preserve.
> Merced County Farmlands-Trust [partner]...pending $$$ availability-1999?
>• Four Creeks Land Trust...Tulare Co.[partner]...pending $$$ availability-1999?
4. AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST
Protecting of Agricultural Lands from Urban Sprawl
* Central Valley Growth Alternatives Project: Striving for consensus in Fresno
County with BIA, the Farm Bureau, and the Chamber of Commerce.
if California Ranchette Study: Evaluating the economic, social, cultural, and
environmental costs of low density/haphazard development in the Central Valley.
O Prepared by Tim Vendlinski—26 June 1998—4IS.744.1989—vendlinski.tim@epamail.epa.gov
-------
APPENDIX C-10
REGIONAL INFORMATION
REGION 10
-------
ECOLOGICAL COMPARATIVE RISK: USING THE PROXIMITY OF
POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL STRESSORS TO RESOURCES AS A TOOL
TO SCREEN GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS FOR MANAGEMENT
DECISIONS
Bruce Duncan, Ecologist, Risk Evaluation Unit
George Abel, Senior Policy Advisor
Bill Bogue, Environmental Protection Specialist, Data Team
With Assistance from:
Michael Watson, Senior Toxicologist, Risk Evaluation Unit
Pat Cirone, Unit Manager, Risk Evaluation Unit
Karen Marasigan, Physical Science Aid, Data Team
Christine Stevenson, Physical Science Aid, Data Team
Sue McCarthy, Environmental Scientist, Data Team
Information was taken from EPA Region 10's GIS database. Each data set
selected was used to generate a map showing the attribute of interest across
Washington State. With each map, we provided an information sheet that describes
how the map was developed, including the origin of the data (source and scale); how
the data were manipulated to generate the desired attribute; and a list of
attribute information. The types of data used in the prototype for ecological
assessment include point-source data (e.g., locations of dams, NPDES
permittees, dairies, and RCRA, CERCLA, and TRI facilities), line data (e.g.,
roads and highways, stream segments where beneficial uses are not being met),
polygon data (e.g., human population data, by census tract), and mixed data
(e.g., the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species
coverage, which includes both points and polygons that describe the locations of
species and habitats).
Our approach to using these data was to prepare both maps and a data table.
Some maps are straightforward, because the points, lines, and polygons can be
mapped and overlain on the 5th-field HUC map. To prepare maps that combine
information (e.g., counting up the number of stream segments or the miles of
stream segments where beneficial uses are not being met) requires preparing an
underlying data table in which the summations are performed for each HUC (this
could also be done for some other desired overlay such as counties or
ecoregions). This is straightforward for point data; they will fall within a
HUC. For line data, lines crossing borders can be apportioned between or
simply assigned fully to both HUCs. For polygons, we chose the simple
-------
approach of assigning the value of "yes" to each .HUC that contains any portion of the
polygon. That approach could clearly inflate estimates of totals, if HUCs are combined
at larger scales, so an alternative in the future would be to apportion the area
of the polygon on the basis of the overlap with the HUCs.
We created an atlas of our maps. Some maps in our atlas (breeding birds
[crow], small mammals [opossum], and amphibians [newt]) were downloaded from the
Internet and are examples of the kinds of geographical information that will
become available from the "GAP analysis" biodiversity project. Transparent
overlays are also part of our atlas. The overlays include: counties (also
showing the extent of human population displayed as the centroid of each
census block containing >10 persons), USGS Hydrologic and Accounting Units
(equivalents of 4th and 3rd-field watersheds; i.e., watersheds at the next
larger scales from 5th-field HUCs), ecoregions (Omernik Level III), and major
federal, state, and Tribal land ownership. A data table was made that
contains, for each of the 1,010 5th-field HUCs, the HUC watershed-identification
number, HUC area (m2), and the coverages.
Several HUCs along the border of the state were dropped from the analysis
because they represented only a small piece of the entire HUC that spanned the border
into other states. In addition, some border HUCs were composed of two physical
pieces and these were combined into a single entry.
The primary conceptual focus of this prototype is on ecosystems and their
functional integrity recognizing that ecosystem functions are probably most threatened
by loss of habitat which removes species, fragments the landscape, and disrupts
wildlife corridors. In our methodology, we determined the locations of ecosystems,
species, and species assemblages (termed resources) of interest in Washington. Next,
we determined possible, likely, or known sources of stress to ecosystems then used the
co-occurrence between stress and resources to help identify the following broad
categories of geographic areas:
(1) areas of very high ecological value that are not threatened (stress=low;
resources=high);
(2) areas of high to moderate ecological value that are threatened (stress=medium;
resources-medium); and
(3) areas of low ecological value associated with high stress (stress=high;
resources=low).
To identify these areas, we first identified what we term resources. Resources
-------
very broadly include ecosystems and species assemblages. At present, we have
identified and, apart from the last item, obtained the following relevant data
coverages relating to resources: areas with high numbers of threatened and
endangered species and priority areas; salmon habitat; wetlands; and areas of
high biodiversity (expected).
Next, we identified areas of potential stress. We have two categories relating to
stress. The first comprises sources and stressors that we presume might affect
ecosystems based on previous experience. The second comprises actual documented
effects or documented decisions strongly indicating that effects have occurred (this
currently is a single dataset: stream segments not meeting designated beneficial uses).
In the future, we hope to document the actual or potential area affected and perhaps
the intensity or reversibility of the stress or effect.
The data coverages were evaluated as follows. The numerical value associated
with each HUC (e.g., the number of dairies) was first divided by HUC area, and then
normalized to a maximum value of five. It was assumed that coverages were
continuous. This assumption is not strictly true for the 303(d) listed stream segment
coverage, nor for the coverage relating to priority species and habitats. For both of
these examples, "no data" cannot be distinguished from a value of zero, at present. It is
very important to distinguish the two categories in the future so that uncertainty about
combining discontinuous data can be appropriately evaluated and that areas where
data gaps exist can be identified. Alternate weighting schemes can be developed. For
example, one might wish to assign equal numbers of HUCs into each of several
categories rather than use the ratio to the maximum. To assist in selecting such
categories or cutoff ranges, the atlas includes histograms showing the
frequencies of the values for each coverage.
Combining was done within three main types of issues-stressors, effects, and
resources-by summing and then normalizing to produce a relative scale from 0 to
5. Stressors and effects were then likewise combined and normalized to a scale
from 0 to 5 to produce a single coverage called "stress." The resulting data are
presented in two summary maps.
We did not combine stress and resources into one index, but rather considered
what the relationship between stress and resources might reasonably be and how
management interpretations could be derived for categories of this relationship. First,
we expected that our crude resource "index" should decrease with an increase in our
stress "index." A possible monotonic decreasing relationship was proposed. For
convenience in demonstrating the potential utility of our approach, we created several
categories of decisions that managers might choose. These decision categories were
assigned to our hypothetical scatterplot as described below.
-------
(1) "Watch" - These are areas where receptors and resources abound and appear to be
away from stress.
(2) "Protect" - These are areas where receptors and resources are ranked medium, are
associated with some stress, and could be viewed as potential locations for
preventing degradation.
(3) "Restore - These are areas of low ecological value associated with high stress.
These may be potentially the most degraded areas.
In addition, to interpret points falling on the "line" representing the relationship
between stress and resources, we added two other categories of interpretation for
points deviating from such a line, namely:
(1) "Get Information - These are areas that are below and away from the line. For
example, areas falling along one axis could mean that information relating to
the other axis is needed to "move" the point back into the. line describing the
relationship; and
(2) "Act Now" - These are areas above the line (i.e., they have more
resources than suggested by the relationship) that need some investigation
particularly to determine if the area is likely to soon lose its "resource"
value or to determine if the resources are indeed poorly associated with
stress.
The final combined information on stress showed that only a few HUCs have no
stress information at all, which is not surprising given that stress includes
human population and roads. In general, as is true for resources as well, the
HUCs with no stress information should be checked to make sure there truly is
a lack of stress (or resources). The final combined information on the two
resources (wetlands and threatened and endangered species sightings including
priority habitat) resulted in a map that is obviously missing regions such as
National Parks where terrestrial biodiversity is expected to be high. We expect
that including the GAP analysis data will fix this omission.
The scatterplot of resources as a function of stress did not appear to be
random; the points occupied a roughly triangular area bounded by the two axes. Based
on our conceptual model of this relationship, we anticipated some type of
inverse response between stress and resource. Deviations from an ideal curve
could be explained in several ways. For instance, it remains for us to
determine whether stress and resources were correctly estimated (for example,
the estimates may not be temporally coincident). Also, there could be several
-------
coexisting curves that differ by ecosystem .or ecoregion. Third, for many data
points there is probably a lack of information. Finally, our weighting
factors could influence the relationship. Following these types of stratification,
analyses, and changes, many of. the points could "move" closer to the ideal
curve.
Most of the HUCs were in the category termed "needing more information." If
obtained, the information might "move" the points toward a tighter curve
describing the relationship between resources and stressors, and this
hypothesis could be tested with additional data. The map based on the major
categories described in detail in the Methods above showed some intuitive
results. For example, the Interstate 5 corridor contained HUCs characterized
as having high stress and low resources. There are some HUCs identified as
"act now" (i.e., high stress and high resources) that require ground-truthing to
explain why such an unlikely relationship is occurring.
The draft report, which will include an uncertainty analysis, has not been
completed yet.
-------
APPENDIX D
DATA SOURCES FOR GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
From: U.S. EPA. 1993. Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water (WH-553), Washington, DC. Report
No. EPA/841/B-93/001.
-------
TABLE 4-1. Relevant EPA Data Systems
Data System
. Description
Primary Function
Targeting-Related Uses
Contact
Waterbody System (WBS)
EPA, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds
(OWOW)
Database of assessment
information drawn from
CWA 305(b) activities
Provides waterbody-specific
information on pollution
causes and sources, use •
impairments, and status of
TMDL development
Major source for waterbody
or watershed ranking
systems and tracking
progress in management
measures
John Clifford, OWOW
(202) 260-3667
Reach File
EPA, OWOW
Hydrologic
georeferencing and
routing system based
on USGS digital line
graph traces
Integrates many databases
having locational
information on water quality
conditions or pollutant
causes
Mapping or other data
retrievals to show major
patterns. Hydrologic
routing for estimating
pollutant loads
John Clifford, OWOW
(202) 260-3667
STORET Water Quality
File
EPA. OWOW
Data analysis tool for
chemical monitoring
data from surface and
groundwater sites.
Also capabilities to
store sediment and fish
tissue data
Major source of raw
ambient data for water
quality assessments
Data analysis to document
water quality problems,
estimate toads, rank
impacts, and track for
management effectiveness
Robert King. OWOW
(202) 260-7028
STORET Biological System
(BIOS)
EPA, OWOW
A special component of
STORET for storing
information on
biological assessments
Simplifies storage and
analysis of biological data or
metrics, with links to other
EPA data files
Useful for assessing direct
measures of biotic integrity
to document ecological and
habitat impairments or
threats
Robert King, OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Ocean Data Evaluation
System (ODES)
EPA. OWOW
Database and analysis
system for marine and
near coastal monitoring
information
Permit tracking system for
NPDES discharges to
oceans and estuaries and
ocean dumping programs
Mapping and graphics
capabilities can assist in
highlighting trends and
spatial relationships
Robert King, OWOW
(202) 260-7028
M
-------
Table 4-1. (continued)
Data System
Description
Primary Function
Targeting-Related Uses
Contact
Current Fish Consumption
Advisories and Bans
EPA, Office of Science
and Technology (OST)
National database of
fish/shellfish
consumption advisories
and bans from
State 305(b| reports.
and other sources
Identifies waterbodies,
species affected by
advisories and bans and the
problem pollutants
Identifies waterbodies,
species affected by
advisories and bans and the
problem pollutants
Alison Greene, OST
(202) 260-7053
Clean Lakes System
EPA. OWOW
Data analysis system
for significant publicly
owned lakes under
CWA Section 314
program
Provides data integration
using number of EPA data
files with mapping
capabilities using the Reach
File
Provides sophisticated
integrated assessments for
lakes. Basic techniques
could be extended for basin
planning and targeting
Susan Ratcliffe, OWOW
(202) 260-5404
Permit Compliance
System (PCS)
EPA, Office of
Wastewater Enforcement
and Compliance (OWEC)
Locations and discharge
characteristics for about
7,100 major and
56,300 minor NPDES
facilities
Compliance status tracking
system for major
dischargers
Estimating point source
loadings and screening for
areas with significant point
source compliance problems
Dela Ng, OWEC
(202) 260-8313
Industrial Facilities
Discharge File (IFD)
EPA, Office of Water
Information for about
120.000 NPDES
dischargers; also
Superfund sites
Locations, flows and
receiving waterbodies, for
industrial discharges and
POTWs
National-level screening for
pollutant loadings
associated with specific
industry categories; some
information outdated
Robert King, OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Complex Effluent Toxicity
Information System
(CETIS)
EPA, OWEC
Data on results of
whole effluent toxicity
Information on biologically
oriented tool to spot toxics
problems, with major uses
in third-round NPOES
permitting.
Combination of STORET
chemical data, BIOS and
CETIS provide a balanced
way to document severity
of ecological impacts
David Eng, OWEC
(202)260-4619
w
-------
Table 4-1. (continued)
Data System
Description
Primary Function
Targeting-Related Uses
Contact
Facility Index Systems
(FINDS)
EPA, Office of Information
Resources Management
Basic information on
over 300,000 facilities
regulated by EPA
Starting point for finding
regulated facilities in a
given area where more
detailed information
available through other data
systems like PCS, TRIS.
AIRS, or RCRA
Useful to assemble multi-
media perspective on
potential pollution sources
with cross-references to
other databases
Joe Anderson
(703) 557-3091
Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory System (TRIS)
EPA, Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances
Database of estimated
and measured releases
by industries of about
300 toxic chemicals to
all environmental media
Inventory of toxic chemical
releases with references to
receiving waters and
methods of waste
treatment
Useful in screening for
possible sources of toxics
and in considering multi-
media issues
Ruby Boyd, OPTS
(202) 260-8387
Drinking Water Supply File
(DWS)
EPA, OWOW
Information on 7,650
public and community
surface water supplies
Data on waterbody, flow,
and locations of mainly
surface water intakes
Can assist in assigning
priorities for water supply
protection purposes
Robert King. OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Federal Reporting Data
System (FRDS)
EPA, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water
(OGWDW)
Information about public
supplies
Detailed data on compliance
with Safe Drinking Water
Act requirements including
monitoring
Detailed data on compliance
with Safe Drinking Water
Act requirements including
monitoring
Larry Weiner, OGWDW
(202) 260-2799
Gage File
EPA, OWOW
Information on some
36,000 stream gage
locations
Summaries of mean annual
and critical low flows and
other data collected. Sites
indexed to Reach File
Useful in identifying stream
reaches where data may be
available for estimating
pollutant loadings
Robert King, OWOW
(202) 260-7028
City and County Files
EPA, OWOW
Location information
and census data for
53,000 municipalities
and all counties
Background data with lists
of streams for each city,
census population,- county
land/water area (coastal
counties)
Useful when ranking
waterbodies that may show
point or nonpoint urban
impacts
Robert King, OWOW
(202) 260-7028
-------
Table 4-1. (continued)
Data System
Description
Primary Function
Targeting-Related Uses
Contact
Dam File
EPA. OWOW
Information on locations
of 68.000 damsites and
associated reservoirs
Information on ownership,
uses of reservoir, size, and
stream reach
Useful, when ranking
reservoirs by size and major
beneficial uses
Robert King, OWOW
(202) 260-7028
USGS Land Use and Data
Analysis (LUDA) Database
EPA. Office of Information
Resources Management
(OIRM)
USGS database of land
use from the 1970s;.
available through GRIDS
onNCC
Contains locations of
approximately 40 land use
types for entire United
States
Useful for screening where
age of database and
resolution are not a problem
Robert Pease, OIRM
(703) 557-3018
Geographic Resources
Information and Data
System (GRIDS)
EPA. OIRM
A repository for major .
GIS data layers along
with a selection of GIS
applications on the EPA
NCC mainframe
Provides access to major
GIS products from the
USGS, Census Bureau and
EPA
Promotes wider use of GIS
data and techniques for
watershed and other
geographic targeting
approaches
Robert Pease. OIRM
(703)551-3018
ui
-------
Table 4-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
Description
Primary Functions
Targeting Uses
Multi-State Fish and Wildlife
Information Systems Project
Rick Bennett
(703)358-1718
DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service
OR
Andy Loftus
(202) 898-0770
Sport Fishing Institute
Database of life history, habitat
needs, and environmental
tolerances for inland and marine
fish and wildlife.
Central database to facilitate
review of permits, regulatory
requirements, and ecological
preservation or restoration
programs.
Useful source of habitat and
other environmental
sensitivities when targeting for
protection of aquatic life.
National Gap Analysis Project
Dr. Ted LaRoe
(703)358-2171
DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service
Application of CIS technology
to prioritize habitat protection
needs for specific fish or
wildlife species and for overall
species protection.
Provides way to identify habitat
protection needs based on
identification of "gaps" when
comparing existing protected
areas with regional habitat
distributions.
A sophisticated tool for
targeting additional habitat
protection needs. Is providing
numerous standard CIS layers
for use by participating States.
Rivers and Trails Conservation
Assistance Program
Samuel Stokes
(202) 343-3779
DOI, National Park Service
Program supports development
and updates to Statewide river
inventories or evaluation of
particular river corridors or
greenways.
Supports Federal and State
scenic river programs and a
variety of greenway and open
space protection initiatives.
Scenic rivers or river-corridor
greenways can be the focus of
a geographically targeted
water quality project.
American Rivers
Susie Wilkins
(202) 547-6900
Outstanding Rivers List
Database on 15,000 river
segments possessing
outstanding scenic, recreational
and ecological attributes.
Assembles information from
National Park Service river
surveys. Northwest Power
Planning Council's Protected
Areas Program, Nature
Conservancy Priority Aquatic
Sites and other major sources.
A source of candidates for
targeting protection or
restoration projects. This
database had been indexed
using the EPA Reach File.
-------
Table 4-2. (continued)
Data. System
Description
Primary Functions
Targeting Uses
Recreation Information
Management System
(202) 205-1706
USOA. Forest Service
Database of recreational
facilities and areas in National
Forest System.
Contains data on types of
recreation, visitor days, and
participation by activity.
Useful when targeting scheme
includes a recreational use
factor.
National Wetlands Inventory
David Dall
(202) 358-2201
DOI. Fish and Wildlife Service
Computerized mapping scheme
for entire United States.
Shows locations of vegetative
community types using a FWS
classification scheme.
Usually the most detailed
source of information on
locations of sensitive or high-
value wetlands.
National Rivers Inventory
Bern Collins
(202) 343-3765
OR
Tracy Miller
(202) 343-3663
National Park Service
List of over 1,500 river
segments (approximately
63,000 miles).
Identifies waters with potential
for National Wild and Scenic
Rivers status.
Identify rivers for special
protection!
Biological and Conservation
Data System
(703) 841-8781
The Nature Conservancy
Listing by States of rare species
and key habitat areas.
For identifying waters important
for rare plant and animal
species protection.
For identifying waters .
important for rare plant and
animal species protection.
Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act Regional
Concept Plans
David Dall
(202) 358-2201
DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service
Descriptions of priority wetland
sites according to value and
function prepared by each of
the 7 FWS regional offices.
Based mainly on State SCORP
reports.
To prioritize Federal and State
efforts related to the
Emergency Wetlands Resources
Act of 1986 to promote
acquisition or other protection
measures for major wetland
tracts.
A useful source of wetland
areas to consider in
geographically targeted
projects focusing on habitat
protection or restoration.
-------
Table 4-2. (continued)
Data System
Description
Primary Functions
Targeting Uses
National Water Quality
Technology Development Staff
(NWQTDS)
Jackie Diggs
(202) 720-0136
USDA, Soil Conservation
Service
Four regional centers provide
database, modeling, and CIS
technology assistance to
promote the President's Water
Quality Initiative, the Farm Bill,
and other programs.
Will provide convenient access
to soil survey data and a variety
of models (e.g., AGNPS) for
use with CIS systems to
support USDA- HUA projects
and similar initiatives.
Where USDA HUA projects are
involved, a variety of technical
support available for detailed
targeting of critical areas
within watersheds.
National Estuarine Inventory
and Strategic Assessment
Program
(301) 443-8487
Department off Commerce,
NOAA
Source of demographic,
economic, and natural resource
information for 102 Estuarine
Drainage Areas.
Provide data to support NOAA
initiatives related to the Sea
Grant and Coastal Zone
Management Programs.
Data on Estuarine and Fluvial
Drainage Areas allows relative
comparisons of pollution
severities for nutrients,
pesticides, and other stressors.
Decennial Census
Charles D. Jones
(301)763-5180
Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census
Major source of information
with county-level resolution
dealing with population,
agriculture, mining, etc.
Available in digitized form and,
in conjunction with USGS, in a
variety of new map forms.
Census of agriculture often
provides best available data on
crop, livestock, and land use
patterns.
Source of screening data at
county level to help rank
impacts from urban and rural
land uses.
CD
-------
APPENDIX E-1
DATA SOURCES FOR INDICATORS OF
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
From: U.S. EPA. 1998. Communicating the Condition of Terrestrial Ecosystems: A
Focused Investigation of Terrestrial Ecosystem Health Indicators. Prepared by ICF
Incorporated, Fairfax VA, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
.Policy, Washington, D.C. July 1998.
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Table 4-2. Overview of Data Sources Identified to Support Indicators of Terrestrial Ecosystem Health
Data Source .
Forest Inventory and Analysis
National Resources Inventory
Global Ecosystem Data
RPA Updates/RPA Database
Land Use Data (or Agroecosystems m the U S
Ecological Site Inventory
Olson's Major World Ecosystem Complexes
Land Use History of North America
Major Uses of Land in the United States
Major Land Resource Areas
North American Landscape Characterization
Conterminous U S Land Cover Characteristics
Land Cover Classification
Northern Hemisphere Bnme Forest Data
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Gnd
GIRAS Landuse/Landcover Spatial Data
Code
D-01S
D-017
D-070
D-045
D-004
D-100
D-058
D-OB4
D-OS6
D-OS9
D-061
D-060
D-071
D-037
D-038
D-039
Geograp
Extent
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
N
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
R
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 •fbtttJIUllaWlcl]
N national
R regional
Potential Ability to Support State Indicators
Landscape/
' Land Use
LU
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CS
•
•
•
•
•
•
LU land use
CS condition/
status
Blotlc
Compononts
CM
•
•
•
•
'
OR
•
CM communities
OR organisms
Abiotic
Components
CL
•
SS
•
•
•
NR
•
•
•
WR
•
•
CL. • climate
SS sod/substrate condition
NR nutnent regimes
VVR water regmes
Ecological
Services
NC
•
ES
•
. •
•
NC- nutrient/element
cycles
ES economic
services
Potential Ability to Support Pressure Indicators
Human Population
Pressure
HA
•
•
•
•
•
RD
•
•
HA habitat alteration/
ufban sprawl
RD. resource
degradation
Chemical/Other
Pollution
CU
•
AP
OR
•
CU chemical use
AP aif pollution/
air deposition
OR other releases
Indirect/
Unknown
DP
•
OT
•
DP disease
parasites
exotics
OT other
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Data Source
National Environmental Research Parks
Natural Heritage Network
Experimental Forest and Rangeland Sites
Global Vegetation Index
Man and the Biosphere Reserves
North American Conservation Assessment
Long-term Resource Monitoring Program
Breeding Bird Census
North American Breeding Bird Survey
Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship
Bird Banding Program
Audubon Christmas Bird Counts
Butterfly Monitoring Project
Migration Monitoring Program
Project Feeder Watch
July Duck Production Survey
North American Raptor Monitoring Strategy
Hawk Migration Monitoring
Code
0-020
D-054
D-049 •
D-088
D-OSO
0-096
D-041
0-078
04)01
D-079
D-OBO
D-OB1
0-082
0-085
D-087
D-OB8
D-097
0-052
Geographic
Extent
1
•
•
•
•
N
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
R
•
•
•
1 ntemalnnal
N national
R regional
Potential Ability to Support State Indicators
Landscape/
Land Use
LU
CS
•
•
•
LU land use
CS condition/
status
Blotlc
Components
CM
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
OR
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CM communities
OR organisms
Abiotic
Components
CL
CL c
SS I
NR. r
WR v
SS
NR
•
WR
•
•
imate
oil/substrate condition
rater regimes
Geological
Services
NC
ES
NC nutrient/element
cycles
ES OCQflOfniC
services
Potential Ability to Support Pressure Indicators
Human Population
Pressure
HA
RD
HA habitat alteration/
urban sprawl
RD resource
degradation
Chemical/Other
Pollution
CU
AP
.
OR
•
•
CU chemical use
AP air pollution/
air deposition
OR other releases
Indirect/
Unknown
DP
•
OT
•
OP disease
parasites
e«olics
OT other
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Data Source
North American Amphibian Monitoring Program
Tree Planting in the United Stales
Forest Service Range Management Info System
Advanced Radiometer Derived Land Climatologies
Distribution of Cloud and Cloud Top Temperatures
National Climatic Data Center
Defense Meteorological Satellite Data
NASA Pathfinder Climate Data
Remote Automatic Weather Stations
STATSGO Soil Maps
National Soil Geographic (NATSGO) Database
National Soil Characterization Data
Global Pattern of Carbon Dioxide from soils
Annual Public Finances Survey
Highways Statistics
US Postal Service Delivery Statistics
Global Population Distribution
Interagency Monitoring of Visual Environments
Code
D-002
D-051
D-05S
D-067
D-106
D-046
D-102
D-069
D-018.
D-098
D-042
D-043
D-03S
D-086
D-047
D-099
D-036
D-076
Geographic
Extent
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
N
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
R
1 international
N national
R regional
• Potential Ability to Support State Indicators
Landscape/
Land Use
LU
•
CS
•
•
•
•
•
•
LU land use
CS condition/
status
BlotlC
Components
CM
•
•
OR
•
CM communities
OR organisms
Abiotic
Components
CL
•
•
•
•
•
•
SS
•
•
•
•
•
•
NR
WR
•
•
•
•
•
CL. climate
SS soil/substrate condition
NR nutrient regimes
WR water regimes
Ecological
Services
NC
•
ES
•
•
NC nutrient/element
cycles
ES economic
services
Potential Ability to Support Pressure Indicators
Human Population
Pressure
HA
•
•
•
RD
•
•
•
•
•
HA- habitat alteration/
urban sprawl
RO resource
degradation
Chemical/Other
Pollution
CU
AP
OR
•
•
•»
•
•
*
CD chemcal use
AP air poDuliOfi/
air deposition
OR other releases
Indirect/
Unknown
OP
OT
OP disease
parasites
eioics
OT other
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Data Source
Global Carbon Isotopic Signature Estimates
Atmospheric Halocarbons and Nitrous Oxide
Atmospheric Carbon Monoxide Mixing Ratios
National Atmospheric Deposition Program and
National Trends Network
Clean Air Status and Trends Network
Air Quality Monitoring Network
National/Slate/Local Air Monitoring Stations
Mercury Deposition Network
Ecological Exposure Research Data
UV-B Monitoring Data
UV-B Radiation Monitoring Program Datasets
Biomonitonng of Environmental Status and Trends
National Agricultural Pest Information System
Exotic Species Database
Noxious/Invasive Database
Code
D-034
0-031
D-032
D-033
D-009
D-008
0-013
0-083
D-077
D-016
D-021
D-103
D-104
0-053
D-07S
D-062
D-063
D-064
Geographic
Extent
1
•
•
•
•
N
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
R
•
•
•
•
•
•
Potential Ability
Landscape/
Land Use
LU
CS
Blotlc
Components
CM
•
OR
Abiotic
Components
CL
•
•
SS
NR
•
WR
•
8
Ecological
Services
NC
•
ES
Potential Ability to Support Pressure Indicators
Human Population
Pressure
HA
.
•
•
RD
•
•
Chemical/Other
Pollution
CU
•
•
AP
•
•
•
•
•
• '
•
•
•
•
•
•
OR
•
•
•
Indirect/
Unknown
DP
•
OT
•
•
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Data Source
Code
Exotic Map Database
Exotic Plants and Species Database
Ecological Incident Information System
Wildlife Health Diagnostics Database
Wildlife Health Epizootiological Database
Forest Insect and Disease Conditions
Global Inventory of Biomass Burning
Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study
D-065
D-066
D-003
D-022
D-023
0-093
D-10S
D-094
Geograp
Extent
1
N
R
li intornslionsl
N national
R regional
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.•
N national
R regional
L local
Potential Ability to Support State Indicators
Landscape/
Land Use
LU
CS
LU land use
CS condition/
status
LU land use
CS condition/
status
Blotlc
Components
CM
OR
CM communities
OR organisms
•
CM1 communities
OR organisms
Abiotic
Compononts
CL
SS
NR
WR
CL climate
SS soVsubslrate condition
NR- nutrient regimes
WR water regimes
CL donate
SS soiVsubstrate condition
NR nutrient regimes
WR water regimes
Ecological
Services
NC
ES
cycles
ES economic
services
•
NC nutrient/element
cycles
ES economic
services
Potential Ability to Support Pressure Indicators
Human Population
Pressure
HA
RD
HA hebitat alteration^
urban sprawl
RO resource
degradation
•
•
HA habitat alteration/
urban sprawl
RD resource
degradation
Chemical/Other
Pollution
CU
AP
OR
CU chemical use
AP. air pollution/
air deposition
OR other releases
•
•
•
CU chemical use
AP. an pollution/
BIT* deposition
OR other releases
Indirect/
Unknown
DP
OT
OP disease
parasites
exotics
OT other
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DP disease
parasites
exotics
OT other
Other Databases of Interest:
National Classification of Ecological Communities will establish FGDC. standard for classifying terrestrial communities (D-101)
Globe Version 0.5 contains elevation information for 60% of the Earth's land surface (D-072)
Terrain Base 1994 contains data on land elevation and ocean depth for the entire Earth (D-073)
Level III Ecoregions of the Conterminous U.S. provide a standard ecoregion reference (D-044)
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Table 5-2. Overview of Indicators Identified
Indicators of Landscape/Land Use
Readiness
Ready
Ready
Promising
Promising
Name and Code
National landscape
indicators (1-050)
Percent acreage by
ecological status
(1-046)
Fragmentation of
forest types (1-01 3)
Degree of biophysical
constraints (I-038)
Description
Set of indicators that
includes land cover indices.
number and proportion of
land cover types, average
patch size, and forest
connectivity index
Degree of similarity of
present vegetation to the
potential natural (climax)
plant community, divided
into four classes
Patch areas and distances
between patches
Set of indicators that
includes farm position in
catchment, subcatchment
position, and catchment
position, relative to
biophysical constraints
Status
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Current
National
National
Regional
Regional
Potential
National
National
National
Regional
National
Data Source(s)
Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometry,
USGS maps of roads, rivers,
and 8-digit watersheds
BLM Public Land Statistics
No national datasets; some
data for Oregon
Remote sensing data.
including Advanced Very
High Resolution Radiometry
Comments
Provides a measure of the
overall composition of the
terrestrial landscape
Primary focus is watersheds
Based on BLM's ecological
site inventories or soil-
vegetation inventory method
Available for BLM lands only
Forest fragmentation
disrupts ecological
processes and reduces
available habitat
Indicates the relative
geographic position of a
farm or subcatchment to the
position of the catchment
Indicators are being used in
the Mid-Atlantic region
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Readiness
Promising
Promising
Promising
U*BM*«fe AMdJ /*«h«4«
Name and Code
Groundwater
indicators (1-040)
Greeness pattern
(1-039)
Land cover
composition and
pattern (1-041)
Description
Set of indicators that
includes albedo change.
topographic concavity
variation, and depth to water
table
Set of indicators that
includes normalized
difference vegetation index
(NDVI) pattern and change,
observed vs. expected NDVI
Set of indicators that
includes land cover
dominance; land cover
connectivity and degree of
fragmentation; land cover
shape and complexity, land
cover patch size; amount of
land cover in protective
status; percent land cover
types at different scales;
percent paddocks on slopes
greater than 5%
.
Status
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
.
Geographic Extent
Current
Regional
Regional
Regional
Potential
Regional
National?
Regional
National?
Regional
National?
Data Source(s)
Landsat and SPOT satellite
imagery, aerial photography.
and data on soils, geology.
topography, and climate
Landsat and SPOT satellite
imagery, aerial photography.
and data on soils, geology.
topography, and climate
Landsat and SPOT satellite
imagery, aerial photography.
and data on soils, geology.
topography, and climate
_
Comments
Estimates the local and
regional impacts of changes
in recharge (i.e.. water
moving beyond the root
zone) on catchment
behavior
Indicators are being used in
the Mid-Atlantic region
Used to estimate losses in
productivity, increases in
erosion, and loss in buffer
capacity along streams
Expected NDVI is based on
soils, topography.
vegetation, and climate
Indicators are being used in
the Mid-Atlantic region
Used to determine
dominance, spatial
distribution, and
juxtaposition of land cover
elements
Indicators are being used in
the Mid-Atlantic region
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Readiness
Promising
Name and Code
Riparian extent and
distribution (1-042)
Description
Set of indicators that
includes percentage of
woody vegetation along
stream/unit stream distance;
connectivity of woody
vegetation along
streams/unit stream
distance, percent woody
vegetation along streams by
width class/unit of stream
distance
Status
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Current
Regional
Potential
Regional
National?
Data Source(s)
Landsat and SPOT satellite
imagery, aerial photography.
and data on soils, geology,
topography, and climate
Comments
Size and amount of riparian
buffer adjacent to streams
and water courses is an
important determinant of soil
loss, sediment movement.
and contaminant movement
at the farm, subcatchment.
and catchment scales
Indicators are being used in
the Mid-Atlantic region
Indicators of Biotic Components
Readiness
Ready
Ready
Name
Forest area by age
class or successional
stage (1-011)
Percent composition
of forests by forest
type(l-012)
Description
Acreage of forest by age
class and successional
stage
Acreage of forest types by
region
Status
Currently
available
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Current
National
National
Potential
National
National
Data Source(s)
Forest Inventory and
Analysis: National
Resources Inventory
Forest Inventory and
Analysis. National
Resources Inventory
Comments
Forest maturation leads to
an increase in diversity of
forest structure but a
decreased diversity of forest
types
Can be used to identify
forest types that are
decreasing in area, which in
turn is a measure of
decreased ecosystem
diversity
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Readiness
Ready
Ready
Ready
Ready
Ready
Name
Status of forest-
dependent
endangered and
threatened species
(1-015)
Number of forest
dependent species in
restricted range (1-016)
Population levels of
forest-dependent bird
species (1-024)
Extent of wildlife
habitat (1-048)
Number of big game
animals on public
lands (1-049)
Description
Number of species by forest
type (deciduous, evergreen,
mixed, wetland)
Number, population size,
and distribution of interacting
populations of species that
occupy a small portion of
their former range
Population levels of
representative avian species
from diverse habitats
monitored across their range
Acres of habitat for big game
and small game on BLM
lands
Estimated number of
pronghom, barbary sheep.
bear, bighorn sheep, buffalo.
and caribou on BLM lands
Status
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Current
National
National
National
National
National
Potential
National
National
National
National
National
Data Source(s)
National Heritage Network;
DOI and EPA threatened
and endangered species
databases
Natural Heritage Network
North American Breeding
Bird Survey
BLM Public Land Statistics
BLM Public Land Statistics
Comments
Considers endangered and
threatened species of plant.
mammal, bird, reptile,
amphibian, fish, snail, clam,
crustacean, and insect at
risk of not maintaining a
viable breeding population;
species can occur in more
than one forest type
Population size and
distribution of interacting
populations are critical
attributes in evaluating
genetic diversity
Representative species are
selected as indicators of
overall levels of genetic
diversity for a larger group of
forest species
Available for BLM lands only
Could be used to assess
status and trends in big
game populations
Available for BLM lands only
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Readiness
Promising
Promising
Promising
Promising
Promising
Promising
Name
Gap analysis (1-001)
Terrestrial salamander
populations (I-002)
Number of forest
dependent species
(1-014)
Rangeland vegetation
structure (1-030)
Rangeland canopy
cover (1-031)
Normalized difference
vegetation index
(1-032)
Description
Vegetation types or species
not adequately represented
in areas managed for long-
term maintenance of natural
systems
Population monitoring data
and ecosystem measures
(e.g.. air/vegetation quality)
will be combined to assess
environmental effects on
population dynamics
Species number
Vegetation height, length.
width and ground cover
Canopy length and width
Changes in vegetation cover
over large geographic areas
Status
Currently
available
Under
develop-
ment
Currently
available
Expected
soon
Expected
soon
Early
develop-
ment
Geographic Extent
Current
Regional
N/A
National
Regional
Regional
Regional
Potential
National
National
National
National
National
National
Data Source(s)
Internal
North American Amphibian
Monitoring Program
Forest Inventory and
Analysis
Project-specific datasets are
available
Project-specific datasets are
available
Very High resolution
radiometer satellite imagery.
project-specific datasets are
available
Comments
Uses vertebrate species and
community alliances
(pnmanly dominant
vegetation types) as'
surrogates for biodiversity.
not intended as a nationwide
inventory of biological
resources
Salamanders used as
indicators of forest health
Species number used as a
measure of species
richness, density, and
evenness
Indicator can be applied to
any rangeland ecosystem;
part of a core series of
indicators of rangeland
ecosystem health
Indicator can be applied to
any rangeland ecosystem.
part of a core series of
indicators of rangeland
ecosystem health
Changes in vegetation used
as an indicator of irreversible
degradation of rangeland
ecosystems
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Readiness
Promising
Other
Name
Percent grass cover,
percent long-lived
grass cover, percent
cover of vegetative
reproducers (1-036)
Reforested lands and
timber stand
improvements (1-047)
Description
Cover of specific grass types
Acres of reforested lands
and timber stand .
improvements on BLM lands
Status
Currently
available
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Current
Regional
National
Potential
Regional
National
Data Sourcefs)
Project-specific datasets are
available
BLM Public Land Statistics
Comments
Indicators of desertification
of perennial grasslands
(early ecosystem
disturbance)
May be used as a measure
of forest ecosystem health.
but may simply indicate
intensity of lumber extraction
Available for BLM lands only
Indicators of Abiotic Components
Readiness
Ready
Ready
Name
Total forest ecosystem
biomass and carbon
pool (1-005)
Contribution of forest
ecosystems to global
carbon budget (1-004)
Description
Total forest ecosystem
biomass and carbon pool by
forest type, age class, and
successions! stage
Total amount of carbon
entering the earth's
atmosphere contributed by
forest ecosystems, including
standing biomass. woody
debris, peat, and soil carbon
Status
Currently
available
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Current
Limited
Limited
Potential
National
National
Data Source(s)
Forest Inventory and
Analysis: National Soil
Geographic Database
Forest Inventory and
Analysis: National Soil
Geographic Database
Comments
Can be used to measure the
regulation of atmospheric
carbon by forest ecosystems
Production rate is a measure
of forest health
Can be used to monitor
status of forest ecosystems
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Readiness
Ready
Promising
Promising
Name
Soil erosion rates
(1-010)
Forest soil compaction
(1-007)
Forest soil with
diminished soil organic
matter or changed
chemical properties
(1-008)
Description
Annual erosion rates by land
use category
Area and percent of forest
land with significant human-
induced soil compaction
Area and percent of forest
land with significantly
diminished soil organic
matter and/or changed
chemical properties
Status
Currently
available
Under
develop-
ment
Under
develop-
ment
Geographic Extent
Current
National
National
National
Potential
National
National
National
Data Source(s)
National Resources
Inventory
Long-term Soil Productivity
Research Initiative data set
Not enough data available at
present
Long-term Soil Productivity
Research Initiative data set
Not enough data available at
present
Comments
Assesses erosion due to all
process (both natural and
man-made)
Also part of USDA indicators
of forest sustainability
Soil erosion is an indicator of
aquatic ecosystem health.
recreational opportunities.
potable water supplies, and
the lifespan of dams.
bridges, and other river
infrastructure
Soil compaction negatively
affects nutrient and water
availability and can reduce
infiltration, increase runoff
and erosion, reduce biomass
production, and impair
watershed function
Decrease in soil organic
matter is an indicator of
ecosystem disturbance
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Readiness
Promising
Promising
Promising
Promising
Promising
Name
Forest land with
diminished ecological
components (1-023)
Rangeland soil
infiltration (1-025)
Rangeland soil
stability (1-026)
Rangeland soil
penetrometer
resistance (1-027)
Rangetand soil depth
(1-028)
Description
Area and percent of forest
land with diminished
components indicative of
changes in fundamental
ecological processes (e g .
soil, nutrient cycling/seed
dispersion, pollination)
and/or functionally important
species (e.g., nematodes,
epiphytes, beetles, fungi,
wasps)
Rate of water movement into
soil
Index based on the rate at
which soil fragments
disintegrate in water
Number of strikes required
to drive penetrometer into
ground to set depths
Depth of soil cover
Status
Under
develop-
ment
Expected
soon
Expected
soon
Expected
soon
Expected
soon
Geographic Extent
Currant
National
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional
Potential
National
National
National
National
National
Data Source(s)
National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program
Not enough data available at
present
Project-specific datasets are
available
Project-specific datasets are
available
Project-specific datasets are
available
Project-specific datasets are
available
Comments
Used to assess whether key
ecological components or
processes, or ecological
continuity, are changing in a
negative way, suggesting a
decline in sustainability
Indicator can be applied to
any rangeland ecosystem;
part of a core series of
indicators of rangeland
ecosystem health
Indicator can be applied to
any rangeland ecosystem.
part of a core series of
indicators of rangeland
ecosystem health
Indicator can be applied to
any rangeland ecosystem;
part of a core series of
indicators of rangeland
ecosystem health
Indicator can be applied to
any rangeland ecosystem.
part of a core series of
indicators of rangeland
ecosystem health
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Readiness
Promising
Promising
Promising
Promising
Name
Rangeland soil
surface
characterization
(1-029)
Slake test for
rangeland soil surface
stability (1-033)
Bare patch index
based on canopy
cover (1-034)
Bare patch index
based on soil surface
measurements (1-035)
Description
Soil cover, including organic
litter, cryptograms, and bare
rock
Extremely sensitive indicator
of soil ecosystem
degradation for rangeland
soils
Index based on bare
patches in relation to canopy
cover
Index based on bare
patches in relation to soil
cover
Status
Expected
soon
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Current
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional
Potential
National
National
Regional
Regional
Data Source(s)
Project-specific datasets are
available
Project-specific datasets are
available
Project-specific datasets are
available
Project-specific datasets are
available
' Comments
Indicator can be applied to
any rangeland ecosystem;
part of a core series of
indicators of rangeland
ecosystem health
Soil stability can be
determined in three strata
bare soil,, grass, and scrubs.
Can be used as an early
warning indicator of
rangeland or grassland
ecosystem degradation.
Indicator of precipitation-
and wind-driven erosion.
part of a core series of
indicators of desertification
of perennial grasslands
(early ecosystem
disturbance)
Indicator of overland water
flow-driven erosion, which is
an early indicator of
desertification; part of a core
series of indicators of
desertification of perennial
grasslands (early ecosystem
disturbance)
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Readiness
Promising
Other
Other
Name
Erosion potential
(1-043)
Contribution of forest
products to global
carbon budget (1-003)
Erosion control
measures (1-050)
Description
Set of indicators that include
percent bare soil; soil loss
distribution; percent farms
on credible soils: distance of
agricultural patches from
streams: percent paddocks
on slopes greater than 5%
Total amount of carbon
entering the earth's
atmosphere contributed by
harvested portions of forest
ecosystems
Acres of brush control.
seeding, soil stabilization,
and weed control on BLM
lands
Status
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Current
Regional
N/A
National
Potential
Regional
National?
National
National
Data Source(s)
Landsat and SPOT satellite
imagery, aerial photography,
and data on soils, geology,
topography, and climate
Forest Inventory and
Analysis, timber product
surveys, special studies
BLM Public Land Statistics
Comments
Indicators integrate land
cover, precipitation.
topography, and soil data to
estimate soil loss potential
using a universal soil loss
model
Indicators are being used in
the Mid-Atlantic region
Can be used to monitor
status of forests being
logged
Measure of efforts to reduce
soil erosion
Available for BLM lands only
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Indicators of Ecological Services
Readiness
Ready
Ready
Ready
Ready
Ready
Ready •
Name
Forest land managed
for protective functions
(1-009)
Forest land available
for timber production
(1-017)
Growing stock of tree
species on forest land
available for timber
production (1-01 8)
Sustainability ofwood
products harvest
(1-019)
Net volume of timber
species growing stock
(1-044)
Sustainability of non-
timber forest products
harvest (1-020)
Description
Area and percent of forest
land managed primarily for
protective functions, '
including watersheds, flood
protection, avalanche
protection, and riparian
zones
Area and percent of forest
land used for timber
production
Total growing stock of
merchantable and non-
merchantable tree species
on forest land available for
timber production
Ratio of annual volume of
wood products removed to
annual volume determined
to be sustainable
Net volume of growing stock
on timberiand by species
group and region
Ratio of annual harvest of
non-timber forest products
(e.g . fur bearing animals,
berries, mushrooms, game
animals) to levels
determined to be sustainable
Status
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Current
National
National
National
National
Regional
Regional
Potential
National
National
National
National
National
National
Data Source(s)
Forest area data on a state-
by-slate basis; no national
data
Forest Inventory and
Analysis. National
Resources Inventory
Forest Inventory and
Analysis
Forest Inventory and
Analysis. National
Resources Inventory
Data sets from US Forest
Service
State-by-state data on non-
timber species (e.g.. game
animals)
Comments
Could be related to human
population growth pressure
Data are available for
timberiand. information for
other forest types is limited
Provides an indicator of
timber supply opportunities.
Some data for non-
commercial species are
available from regional FIA
programs, but no national
data are available
Provides an indicator of the
ability of a forest to support
a sustainable harvest of
wood products
Most complete data sets are
for souther region forest
plantations
Provides an indicator of the
ability of a forest to support
a sustainable harvest of
non-timber species
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Indicators of Chemical Pollution
Readiness
Ready
Potential
Name
Forest land
experiencing
accumulation of
persistent toxic
substances (1-006)
Forest land
experiencing specific
levels of air pollution
(1-022)
Description
Area and percent of forest
lands experiencing
accumulation of persistent
toxic substances
Area and percent of forest
lands subject to levels of
criteria air pollutants and
UV-B that may cause
adverse impacts on
ecosystem health
Status
Under
develop-
ment
Under
develop-
ment
Geographic Extent
Current
National.
National
Potential
National
National
Data Source(s)
EPA database of NPL sites
in forests; EPA Permit
Compliance System and
NPOES data; EPA National
Watershed Assessment
Program
National Atmospheric
Deposition Program; UV-B
Radiation Monitoring
Program; Mercury
Deposition Network;
Aerometnc Monitoring;
Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual
Environments, North
American Maple Project;
Forest Health Monitoring
Datasets; National Acid
Precipitation Assessment
Program
Comments
Can be used as a current
indicator of toxic chemical
stress on forest ecosystems
Can be used as a potential
indicator of long-term
ecosystem health
No data available for non-
NPL sites
Uses lichens as indicators
Used as an indicator of the
effects of human induced
atmospheric pollutants on
forest ecosystems
Not enough data to quantify
at present
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Indicators of Human Population Pressure
Readiness
Ready
Name
Nighttime lights (1-045)
Description
Area illuminated by human-
generated visible-near infrared
radiation (i e.. lights).
Status
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Currant
Inter-
national
Potential
Inter-
national
Data Source(s)
Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program
Operational Unescan
System
Comments
A satellite-based inventory
of human settlements
derived from nighttime
lights data.
Area illuminated is
correlated with gross
domestic product and
electric power
consumption.
Data can be used to define
and update the spatial
distribution of human
settlements, although some
significant outliers exist
Indicators of Indirect/Unknown Stresses
Readiness
Promising
Name
Forests affected by
other natural and
human-induced
pressures (1-021)
Description
Area and percent of forests
affected by native insects and
diseases; exotic insects and
diseases: fire: weather, flood:
land clearance: salinization.
and domestic animal invasion
Status
Currently
available
Geographic Extent
Current
National
Potential
National
Data Source(s)
Forest Inventory and
Analysis; Forest Health
Monitoring Program;
National Interagency Fire
Center; Intermountain Fire
Sciences Lab
Comments
It may be difficult to parse
out the mix of natural and
human-induced pressures
Not enough data available
at present
-------
APPENDIX E-2
CONTACTS FOR INDICATORS OF
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
From: U.S. EPA. 1998. Communicating the Condition of Terrestrial Ecosystems: A
Focused Investigation of Terrestrial Ecosystem Health Indicators. Prepared by ICF
Incorporated, Fairfax VA, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Policy, Washington, D.C. July 1998.
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Accelerate Canopy Chemistry
Program (ACCP)
Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS)
Air Quality Monitoring Network
AIRMon
Annual Surveys of Government
Finances
Audubon Christmas Bird Counts
(CBC)
Bioaccumulation of contaminants
by indicator populations of raptors
Contact
ORNL/DAAC
NASA
Bob Cook
(423)574-7319
KPA/OAQPS
DOI/NPS
Miguel Flores
(303)969-2076
NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory
Jane Rolhert
(217)333-7942
Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census
Henry Wulf
1-800-242-2184
hwulf@census.gov
National Audubon Society
Geoff LeBaron
(212)979-3083
glebaron@audubon.org
Academic
Bill Bowcrman (906) 635-6236
Mark Fuller (208) 385-41 15
Mark Bechard (208) 385-3530
Time Scale of Data/Description
Archived; data no longer being collected. Database is online.
Current Repository for data on national ambient air quality and air
pollution.
Current. 1984-present. Monitoring for priority air pollutants in
National Park Lands.
Current. Uses NADP and CASTNei monitoring networks. Designed to
detect benefits of emissions controls mandated by CAA.
Current. Surveys of state and local government finances on functions
and services such as health, sanitation, natural resources, sewerage,
solid waste management, etc.
Current. An annual bird count survey directed by the National
Audubon Society. The counts have been conducted since the early
1 900's and now cover over 1 500 sites throughout North America
(primarily U.S. and Canada).
Current Research project - probably not useful at this time.
Status
Not currently
pursuing
Not currently
pursuing
In database
In database
In database
In database
Not currently
pursuing
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Contact
Time Scale of Data/Description
Status
Biological Status and Trends
Program
USGS/BRD
300 National Center
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 20192
Mike Ruggiero
(703) 648-4039
Mike Mac
(703) 648-4073
Current. Program provides information on the status and trends of
flora, fauna, and ecosystems. Working in collaboration with the Global
Biodiversity Forum (GBI;). Interpretation of inventory and monitoring
data at the habitat, species, and genetic levels. New report. The status
and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources, coming 2/98.
Meeting held to
discuss current
initiatives
Biomoniloring of Environmental
Status and Trends (BEST)
USGS/BRD
Christine Bunck
Science Office
6006 Schrocdcr Road
Madison, Wl 53711
(608)271-4640
Future; in development stage. Program designed to identify and
understand the effects of environmental contaminants on biological
In database
resources.
Bird Banding Program
USGS
John Tautin
Patuxcnl Wildlife Research Center
Bird Banding Laboratory
12100 Beech Forest Road, Suite 4039
Laurel, MD 20708-4039
(301)497-5790
Current. A program for studying the movement, survival and behavior.
of birds that is administered by the U.S DOI and the Canadian Wildlife
Service. The data are maintained by the Bird Banding Laboratory at the
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
In database
Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere
Study (BOREAS)
ORNL/DAAC
NASA
Bob Cook
(423)574-7319
Current. Data will be available over the next two years.
International;
second Her
priority
Breeding Bird Census (BBC)
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
Jim Lowe
159 Sapsucker Woods Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607)254-2413
jdl6@comell.edu
Current. A bird census program administered by the Cornell
Laboratory of Ornithology (formerly administered by the National
Audubon Society). The data have been used to estimate long-term
trends of species at individual plots or at selected groups of plots;
however, the plots are not necessarily representative of the habitats and
communities in an entire area and, therefore, the results usually cannot
be generalized to larger areas
In database
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Butterfly Monitoring Project
Capacities and Capabilities
(Taxonomists/ Systematise and
Collections)
Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Center (CDIAC)
Clean Air Status and Trends
Network (CASTNet)
CO concentrations in the Tundra
CO indicator plants in the Tundra
Conterminous U.S. Land Cover
Characteristics
Decennial Census of Population
Contact
USGS/BRD
Sam Droegc
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
12100 Beech Forest Road, Suite 4039
Laurel. MD 20708-4039
(301)497-5500
USGS/NBII
Ann Frondorf
(703)648-4205
ORNL
Robert Cushman, Director
cdiac@ornl.gov
EPA
Ralph Baumgardner
(919)541-4625
baumgardner.ralph@epamail epa.gov
OSTI (Office of Science and Technical
Information)
Karen Spence
423-576-1035
OSTI
Karen Spence
423-576-1035
USGS EROS Data Center
Customer Services
(605)594-6151
Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census
Time Scale of Data/Description
Future. A program under development by BRD that will monitor trends
in populations of butterflies.
Current. Available via e-mail. Probably not useful for environmental
health monitoring.
Current. Contains a wide variety of data concerning greenhouse effects
and global climate change. Metadata available on the Web.
Current. Data on criteria pollutants, visibility, fine particulars, toxics,
precipitation and deposition for 55 sites in the US. Metadata available
'through the National Environmental and Monitoring Research Initiative
website.
Archived.
Archived.
Current. Land characterization dalasct that incorporates a collodion of
land surface attributes that define 159 seasonally distinct regions of the
U.S.
Current. Demographic, social, and economic characteristics of the U.S.
population. Trend data available.
Status
In database
Not currently
pursuing
In database with
subentrics for
each daiaset
In database
Not currently
pursuing
Not currently
pursuing
In database
Nut currently
pursuing
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Contact
Time Scale of Data/Description
Status
Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program (DMSP) Data
NOAA/Nalional Geo-Physical Data
Center (NGDC)/Solar Terrestrial
Physics
lid Erwin
eerwin@ngdc.noaa.gov
(303)497-6133
Current. The DM satellite collects meteorological data such as
microwave frequencies, cloud distribution and temperatures, and
atmospheric participates.
In database
Digital Terrain Elevation Data
(DTED)
•USGS/National Imagery and Mapping
Agency (MIMA)
Information Services
I-800-4SS-0899
Current. Toll-free number provided two sites with current info on
digital terrain data IITPP://
164.214.2.59/publicalions/guides/dtf/dtf.hlml for existing products, and
HTPP://l64.2l4.2.59/geospatial/geospatial.html. Metadata available
from sites is incomplete. Datasets arc not publicly available.
Not currently
pursuing
Ecological Exposure Research Data
EPA/National Health and
Environmental EITccts Research lab
Billllogsetl
(541)754-4632
hogsell.williain@epamail.epa.gov
Future. The database will contain data on ecological exposures to UV-
B, ozone, nitrogen deposition, and other atmospheric pollutants.
In database
Ecological Incident Information
System (EIIS)
EPA/Office of Pesticide Programs
James Feldkel
(703)30S-5828
Current. DBASEIII+ software package designed as an application tool
for state and federal agencies to enter and submit incident data relating
to pesticides. Includes information for location of incident, species
affected, magnitude of effect, pesticides and formulation, application
rate and method, and circumstances under which the incident occurred.
In database
Ecological Risk Analysis Tools and
Applications
ORNL
Marilyn Langston
mzl@ornl.gov
Current. Ecological Screening Benchmarks Database; contains ecolox
benchmarks for terrestrial plants and wildlife; widely used in ecological
risk analysis. Web site: www hsrd.ornl.gov/ecorisk/
benchome.html.
Not currently
pursuing
Ecological Site Inventory Data
DOI/BLM
Nedllabich
303-236-0166
Current. Data and maps of habitat types on public rangelands. The
focus is on plant succession and productivity. Over 90 million acres
inventoried.
In database
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
EMAP Agricultural Lands Resource
Group
EMAP Ecological Landscape Level
Characteristics
EMAP Rangeland Ecosystem
Indicators
Endangered Ecosystems
Endangered Species Inventory
Environmental Monitoring and
Research Network
EROS Data Center
Exotic Plants and Species Database
Exotic Map Database
Contact
USDA
Steven Shafcr (919) 5 15-2 142 website
for program is
htlp://www.epa.gov/ernljulte/hlml/
datal/agroland/indcx/html
Multi-Resolution Landscape
Characteristic Consortium
Bruce Jones
702-798-2671
EPA
Wall Whilford
(505)646-8032
U. of Idaho
Reed Noss
USGS/BRD
M.J. Scolt
DOI/Fish and Wildlife Service
Scott Collins
(703)306-1483
uses
DOI/National Park Service
Bill Comming
(202)208-4631
USGS/BRD
Kalhryn Thomas
(520) 556-7466
Time Scale of Data/Description
Current. 300 sites across the mid-Atlantic region. Develops and tests
methods Tor monitoring the status and trends in the health of
agroecosyslems in the US. Metadata available through National
Environmental Monitoring and Research Initiative.
Current. Several ongoing projects with geospatial data.
Current. Not a part of the EMAP program anymore. Contact has a new
manual and data, some which is geospalially referenced.
Scientific Paper. Publication obtained on website regarding
percentages of loss of endangered ecosystems in the US Snap shot
analysis, not based on ongoing monitoring.
Current. Database of endangered and threatened species in the US.
Future. Proposed system to organize independent research projects.
Holder and distributor of many different datasels related to land surface.
See individual datasels.
Current. Contains data about non-indigenous species on National Park
lands.
Current. Specific to the southwest; data is collected on land
administered by USGS.
Status
In database with
subentries for
each dataset
In database wilh
subentries for
each indicator
In database with
subentries for
each indiculor
Not currently
pursuing
Nol currently
pursuing
Nol currently
pursuing
Reviewed web
site for relevant
dalasels
In database
In database
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Exotic Species Database
Federal Interagency Committee Tor
Management of Federal and
Noxious Weeds (FICMNEW)
First International Satellite Land
Surface Climatology (ISLSCP)
Field Experiment Project (FIFE and
FIFE Follow-on)
Forest Ecosystems Database
Forest 1 Icalth Monitoring Program
Forest Insect and Disease
Conditions
Contact
Nature Conservancy
Barry Meyers-Rice
(S30) 7S4-889I
FICMNEW
Gary Johnston
(202) 737-5886
Gary Johnston@nps.gov
USGS/BRD
William Greg
(703) 648-4067
ORNL/DAAC
NASA
Bob Cook
(423)574-7319
EPA
Center for Biological Statistics
Brand Niemann
(202) 260-3726
USDA/Forcst Service
KenStolte(RTP)
(919)549-4022
USDA/Forest Service
Dick Fowler
(202)205-1598
Time Scale of Data/Description
Current. Assesses weed problems on preserves stewarded by TNC and
formulated control strategies.
Current. 15 databases or federal and noxious weeds in the US.
Archived; data no longer being collected. Data available on CD-ROM.
Current. 1952-1992 and will be updated in 1997.
Current. Some indicators are geospatially referenced. Project is
currently being written up. Contains data fora wide variety of
indicators, metadata available for 25 indicators
Current. 1952-presenl. Data on insect and disease conditions on forest
lands (federal, state, and private) Annual reports available in hard
copy.
Status
In database
In database
Not currently
pursuing
See RPA
database
In database with
subentries for
each indicator;
still need to
identify datasels
In database
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Forest Inventory Analysis
Forest Land Distribution Data
Forest Service Experimental Forest
and Rangeland Sites
Forest Service Range Management
Information System (FSRAMIS)
Gap Analysis Program (GAP)
Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring
Network.
Global Change Data Information
System (GCDIS)
Contact
USDA/Forcsl Service
Drad Smith
(202) 205-084 1
Northeastern Experiment Station
5 Radnor Corporate Center, Suite 200
Radnor, PA
(610)975-4017
USDA/Foresl Service
Andy llartzel
(601)324-1611
USDA/Foresl Service
Dick Cline
(202)205-1524
USDA/Forest Service
Jim Zimmerman
(202)205-1412
USGS/BRD - Michael Scott, Michael
Jennings, or Elisabeth Brackncy
National GAP Office
530 S. Asbury St., Suite 1
Moscow, ID 83843
(208)885-3555
DOI/National Park Service
NASA
Lola Olson
Goddard Space Flight Center
webmaslcr@www.gcdis.usgcrp gov
Time Scale of Data/Description
Current; 1 930-prcscnl. Comprehensive inventory and analysis of the
present and prospective conditions of and requirements for the
renewable resources of the forest and rangclands of the U.S. Indicalors
measure the condition of soils, vegetation and the occurrence of fires.
Implemented through five regional research stations. Metadata
available through National Environmental Monitoring and Research
Initiative.
Maps have not been updated since 1993. Published by the US Forest
Service with the 1993 RPA Forest Resources report.
Current. Indicators measure climate water vegetation and wildlife
conditions at 83 experimental forests. Metadata available through
National Environmental Monitoring and Research Initiative.
Current. Collects and analyzes data on grazing in National Forests and
National Grasslands.
Current. Geographic approach for assessing the current protection
status of biological diversity over large geographic areas. The program
is conducted as slate-level projects and is coordinated by BRD.
Current. Monitoring for priority air pollutants in National Park Lands.
Current. Program provides comprehensive global change related data
and information. Additional metadata and data available on the Web.
Status
In database
Not currently
pursuing
In database
In database
In database
See Air Quality
Monitoring
Network
More
information
needed about
individual
dalusets
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Global Ecosystem Data
Global Inventory of Biomass
Burning
Global Vegetation Index
Hawk Migration Monitoring
Highway Statistics
Index of Watershed Indicators
Individual Slate agencies
Integrated Taxonomic Information
System
Inleragency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVF.) Network
Contact
NGDC
John Kincman
(303) 497-6900
NOAA/Nalional Geo-Physical Data
Center (NGDC)
Dave Serke . .
dserke@ngdc noaa.gov
(303)497-6126
NGDC
David Hastings
(303) 497-6729
1 lawk Mountain Sanctuary
Laurie Goodrich
(610)756-6961
DOT/Federal Highway Administration
Mary Teels
(202)366-9211
KPA
Sarah Lchmann
(202) 260-702 1
USGS/NBII
Ann Frondorf
(703)648-4205
DOI/NPS
William Malm
(970)491-8292
Time Scale of Data/Description
Current. Selected data on the global environment, such as ecosystems,
land use, vegetation, climate, topography, and soils.
Current. The dataset contains satellite imagery of wildfire data.
Current. Experimental normalized difference vegetation index based on
advanced very high resolution radiometer ( A VHRR) of NOAA's polar
orbiting environmental satellites.
Current. Each autumn, the sanctuary records counts of migratory
raptors past North lookout in PA.
Current. Collection, analysis, summary, and dissemination of data
related to the physical characteristics of the nation's highway system.
Also includes state and local highway finance.
Current. The Index is a compilation of information on the "health" of
aquatic resources in the U.S. It organizes and presents aquatic resource
information on a watershed basis.
Current. State agencies collect wildlife incident data associated with
pesticide poisoning. Need to research which ones do.
Current. Nomenclature standard. Available via e-mail. Probably not
useful for environmental health monitoring.
Current. 1987-present. Monitoring for fine particulars on National
Park Lands. One of the highest quality air monitoring programs for
forested areas in the US.
Status
In database
In database
In database
In database
In database
Obtained report
and metadata
Not currently
pursuing
Not currently
pursuing
In database
8
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
International Satellite Land Surface
Climatology Project
Land Areas of the National Forest
System
Land Cover Classification
Land Use History or North America
(LUHNA)
Landuse/Landcover (LU/LC)
GIRAS Spatial Data
Large-Scale Biosphere- Atmosphere
(LBA) experiment in Amazonia
Level III Ecoregions of the
Conterminous U.S.
LOCALECO
Ecosystem Protection Place-based
Projects in the US
Contact
ORNL/DAAC
Laura Morris and Marilyn Gentry
423-241-3952
USDA/Forcsi Service
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries
Service
Don Field
(919)728-8764
USGS/BRD
Tom Sisk
(202) 482-3694
NASA
Tony Janelos
(202) 3S8-0278
USEPA
Ed Partington
(202)260-3106
ORNL/DAAC
NASA
Bob Cook
(423)574-7319
USEPA
Office of Information Resources
Management
David Wolf
(202) 260-3075
EPA/NSDI
Time Scale of Data/Description
Archived; data no longer being collected.
Current. Data on the extent and characteristics of forest, range, and
related lands within the National Forest System
Current. Land cover and land use change data for the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Future. Goal is to develop a well-documented history of patterns of
land use and environmental change. Program in development stage.
Current. The datasel contains land use and land cover digital data
interpreted from aerial photographs by NASA and the USGS.
Future. Project has been funded but not started yet. Metadata is
available on the Web.
Current. The datasel provides polygon coverage of level III ecorcgions
of the conterminous U.S. and is stored at EDLS (EPA Spatial Data
Library).
Current; 1995 -present.
Status
Not currently
pursuing
Not currently
pursuing
In database
In database
In database
International;
second tier
priority
In database
Not currently
pursuing
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Contact
Time Scale of Data/Description
Status
Long Term Ecological Monitoring
and Research
Scotl Collins
(703)306-1483
Metadata available through National Environmental Monitoring and
Research Initiative website. See Environmental Monitoring and
Research Network.
Not currently
pursuing
Long Term Ecological Research
(LTER) Network
Bob Waidc
University of New Mexico
(505)272-7316
Current Collection of competitive grants and research programs;
branch of Environmental Monitoring and Research Network. For
example, one project is researching the dynamics or ecosystem stale
change, both the transitions among ecosystem stales and succession
within these states, in the Virginia Reserve. Metadata available through
National Environmental Monitoring and Research Initiative website.
Not currently
pursuing
Long Term Resource Monitoring
Program
uses
Environmental Management Technical
Center
Onalaska, Wl 54650
Norm Ilildrum
(608) 783-7550
Current. 1987-present. Program documents system-wide ecological
trends of the Upper Mississippi River System. A variety of resource
monitoring data are available, including floodplain forest information
In database
Long Term Soil Productivity
(LTSP) Research Initiative
USDA
Forest Service
Dick Cline
(202)205-1323
Current. 1989-present. To evaluate timber management impacts on
long-term soil productivity.
More
information
needed
Major Land Resource Areas
USGS EROS Data Center
Customer Services
(605)594-6151
Current. Land resource units that are geo-arcas by common patterns of
soil, climate, water resources, and land use characteristics.
In database
Major Uses of Land in the United
States
USDA/Economic Research Service
Ken Krupa
(202)219-0853
Current. 1945-1987. Inventory of the major uses of land in the US ai
intervals coinciding with the Census of Agriculture. Database
available.
In database
Man and the Biosphere (MAB)
Reserve Program
I-PA
NASA
Roger Soles
(202)776-8318
Current. Indicators measure conditions ofclimate, precipitation, sqils,
vegetation, water, and wildlife. Metadata available through National
Environmental Monitoring and Research Initiative
In database
10
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Master Environmental Library
(MEL)
Mercury Deposition Network
Migration Monitoring Program
Monitoring Avian Productivity and
Survivorship (MAPS) Program
Multi-Resolution Land
Characteristics Consortium
Multi-Resolution Land
Characteristic Grid
Contact
DoD/Dctensc Modeling and Simulation
Office
John Kent
kent@nrlmry-navy.mil.
(408) 6S6-47U6
Chuck Stein
stein@nrlmry . navy .m il
(408)656-4706
Van Bowersox
NADP Coordinator
(217)333-7873
sox@sun.sws.uiuc.edu
Canadian Wildlife Service
Erica Dunn
(819)994-0182
Institute for Bird Population
Dave DeSanle
(415)663-1436
7552 1 .27 1 @compuserve.com
EPA
Pete Campbell
(919)541-2957
James Vogelmann
(60S) 594-6062
Time Scale of Data/Description
Excellent source of environmental geospatial data sets in the areas of
meteorology, oceanography, bathymetry, topography and climatology.
Contains data from around the world. Includes data from many federal
mapping agencies including NIMA. Metadata description are included.
Current. 1994-present. A subnetwork of NADP gathering information
on weekly concentrations of total mercury in precipitation and the
seasonal and annual flux of total mercury in wet deposition.
Future. A new program to count birds as they migrate north and south
being developed by a group of Canadian and U.S. ornithologists.
Current. A program designed to track the changes and patterns in the
number of young produced and the survivorship of adults and young.
The program is a cooperative effort between public agencies (e.g ,
USFWS, USDA, DOI/NPS, DOI/ULM, EPA, and DoD), private
organizations (e.g.. Institute for Bird Populations), and the bird banders
of North America.
Current. A cooperative effort between USDA/FS, EPA, and USGS to
develop national land cover databases for the U.S. Metadata available
through National Environmental Monitoring and Research Initiative
website. See individual dalasets.
Current. A classified mosaic ofLandset I'M data generated by the
multi-resolution landscape characteristic project. Currently includes
information for PA, MD, and DE with plans to expand.
Status
Need more in for
on specific
databases within
MEL
In database
In database
In database
More
' information
needed on
individual
datasets
In database
11
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
NASA Pathfinder Climate Data
National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP)
National Agricultural Pest
Information System
National Air Monitoring Stations
(NAMS)/State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)
National Atmospheric Deposition
and National Trends Network
(NADP/NTN)
National Classification of Ecologic
Communities
National Climatic Data Center
(NCDC)
National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program
Contact
NOAA/NGDC
Ted 1 labcrmann
(303) 497-6472
NAPAP
Karen King
(301)713-2465x202.
USDAMPIIIS
D. McNcar
(301)734-8247
EPA
David LuU
(919)541-5476
NADP Program Office
Van Bowerso.x
(217)333-7873
sox@sun.sws uiuc.edu
The Nature Conservancy
Denny Grossman, Chief Geologist
(703)841-5305
Mark Bryer
(703)841-4191
Department of Commerce/NOAA
(704)251-8205
DOI/Fish and Wildlife Service-
Time Scale of Data/Description
Current. Data on atmospheric climatology
Current. A 10-year research and assessment program to improve
understanding of the causes, effects, and controls of acidic deposition.
Program does not collect data; uses NADP data.
Current. Survey data for plant pests in the U.S.
Current. Nationwide database of monitoring data for criteria air
pollutants, visibility/line particulars, toxics. Metadata available
through National Environmental Monitoring and Research Initiative.
Current. Database contains information on the exposure of both natural
and managed ecosystems to biologically important chemical deposition
and other stresses resulting from changes in chemical climate.
Metadata available through National Environmental Monitoring and
Research Initiative.
Current. The conservancy has developed and implemented a standard
ecological classification approach to help manage our information and
prioritize work referred to as a physiogonomic/flonstic approach
Current 1 800s-prcsent. Meteorological and climatological data from a
global network of stations.
Archived. Temporal and geographic trends in concentrations of certain
persistent environmental contaminants in fish and wildlife. Being
phased out with the implementation of the BEST Program.
Status
In database
Not currently
pursuing
In database
In database
In database
In database
In database
Not currently
pursuing; see
BEST entry
12
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
National Environmenial Monitoring
and Research Initiative
National Environmental Research
Parks (NERP)
National Geo-physical Data Center
(NGDC)
National Land Use and Land Cover
Mapping Program
National Plant Data Collection
Center
National Report Card on Nation's
Ecosystems
Contact •
EPA
Laura Jackson
(919)541-2698
DOE
Jerry Elwood
(301)903-4583
NOAA/NGDC
Dave Serke
Dala Services Manager
dscrke@ngdc.noaa.gov
(303)497-6126
DOI/USGS
USDA/NRCS
Scott Peterson
(504) 775-6280
Phil llaney
(504) 775-6280
Heinz Center
Heather Blough, Bob Friedman
(202) 737-6307
Time Scale of Data/Description
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Monitoring Inventory has metadata
on all programs collecting ecological data in the US. Detailed
information on ten programs in Ihe mid-Atlantic regions, information
on all other current programs currently in the Mid-Atlantic region will
be available on-line by January; less detailed information about several
national monitoring programs. Future plans are to have detailed
information regarding all programs collecting ecological data in Ihe US
in this database. Web site: www.epa.gov/monitor.
Current. Indicators measure a wide variety of terrestrial ecosystem
conditions at all DOE sites. Metadata available through National
Environmental Monitoring and Research Initiative.
Current. Includes Solar Terrestrial Physics and Defense Meteorological
Satellite Programs, Global Ecosystems Data, Global Vegetation Index,
and Pathfinder climate data.
Current. Land use and land cover maps and digitized data.
Current.
Future. Project not just getting started. Received reference list and
distributed to workgroup. No indicators or databases selected for
project.
Status
All relevant
metadata from
web page in
database
In database
In database with
separate entries
for each dulascl
In database
Not currently
pursuing; •
applicability of
wcbpagc datu
limited
Not currently
pursuing
13
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Contact
Time Scale of Data/Description
Status
National Resources Inventory
USDA/NRCS
JciTGoebcl
(202) 720-9032
Current; 1956-prcsent. NRI is an inventory of land cover and use. soil
erosion, prime farmland, wetlands, and other natural resource
characteristics on non-Federal rural land in the U.S. Inventories are
conducted every five years by NRCS. Data is not geospatial. Several
environmental indicators of the condition of natural resources arc
measured every five years at 800,000 sites in the US and Canada.
Metadata available through the National linvironmental Monitoring
Initiative website.
In database
National Soil Characterization Data
USDA/NRCS
National Soil Survey Center
Steven Baird
(402) 437-5363
Current. Morphological descriptions Tor 15,000 prendons of soil (U.S.
and other countries).
In database
National Watershed Assessment
Project (NWAP)
liPA
Sarah Lehmann
(202)260-7021
Current. Developed from national daiascts to address watershed
condition and vulnerability. Name changed to Index or Watershed
Indicators.
See Index of
Watershed
Indicators
Native Plant Conservation Initiative
(NPCI)
NPCI
Peggy Olwell
(202)219-8933
(301) 681-5562 (home)
Olivia Quang
(202)208-4912
Denny Grossman (703) 841-5305
Do not have a native plant database due to lack of funding; searching
Tor interagency support.
Not currently
pursuing
NATSGO (National Soil
Geographic Database)
USDA/NRCS
National Soil Survey Center
Steven Baird
(402) 437-5363
Current. Estimates of soil carbon on a national basis, possibly in forest
ecosystems only (i.e., not other types of ecosystems).
In database
Natural Heritage Network
Nature Conservancy
Jeff Lerner
(703)841-4240
Current. Contains a variety or conservation information Tor all vascular
plant species, all vertebrate species, selected invertebrate species, and
selected non-vascular species of North America. Information includes
taxonomy, nomenclature, conservation status, distribution, habitat
ecology, and management as well as monitoring, and research needs.
In database
14
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Contact
Time Scale of Data/Description
Status
Net Primary Production
ORNL/DAAC
NASA
Bob Cook
(423)574-7319
Archived; data no longer being collected. Database is online.
Not currently
pursuing
Nighttime Lights
NOAA/National Ceo-Physical Data
Center (NGDC)
Solar Terrestrial Physics Divisions
Chris Elvidge
(303)497-6121
Current. A digital map or the nighttime lights of the US. Corresponds
well to the distribution or population and factors like electric power
consumption.
In database
North American Amphibian
Monitoring Program (NAAMP)
USGS/BRD
Sam Droege
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
12100 Beech Forest Road, Suite 4039
Laurel, MD 20708-4039
(301)497-5500
Future. Terrestrial Salamander Monitoring Program will monitor
changes in populations of terrestrial salamanders (indicator of forest
health). Metadata available through the National Environmental
Monitoring Initiative website.
In database
North American Breeding Bird
Survey (BBS)
USGS/BRD
Bruce Peterjohn
Patuxcnl Wildlife Research Center
11410 American Holly Drive
Laurel, MD 20708
bruce_peterjohn@nbs.gov
Current; 1966-presenl. A large-scale survey of North American birds
administered by BRD. Metadata available through the National
Environmental Monitoring Initiative website.
In database
North American Conservation
Assessment
WWF
(202) 293-4800
Archived; one lime assessment. A comprehensive study undertaken to
chart the biological wealth and distinctivcness of all ccoregions north of
Mexico.
In database
North American Landscape
Characterization (NALC)
USGS EROS Data Center
EDC DAAC User Services
(605)594-6116
Current. Information on corrected and projected and classified satellite
imagery.
In database
15
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Contact
Time Scale of Data/Description
Status
North American Maple Project
(NAMP)
USDA/Foresl Service
Northeastern Experiment Station
Radnor, PA
Gerry llcrtle
(610)975-4125
New Hampshire
Bob Cooke
(603) 868-7705
Current. Monitoring the health or the sugar maple population in the
US
More
information
needed
North American Raptor Monitoring
Strategy
USGS/BRD
Bob Lehman
Snake River Field Station
970 Lusk St.
Boise, ID 83706
(208)331-5205
(also Kirk Bates at (208)331-5215)
Future. A strategy developed by a group or raptor biologists and
statisticians for monitoring raptor populations in North America by
developing current raptor monitoring programs into a continent-wide
population tracking system Tor raptors.
In database
Noxious/Invasive Database
USDA/Forest Service
Rila Beard
(970)498-1715
Current. This is a gcospalially referenced datasct with administrative
reporting, inventory, and biological control information. It also
contains pesticide information.
In database
Oregon Transect Ecosystem
Research (OTTER)
ORNL/DAAC
NASA
Bob Cook
(423)574-7319
Archived; data no longer being collected. Data available on CD-ROM.
Not currently
pursuing
Photochemical Assessment
Monitoring Stations (PAMS)
F.PA
Gerald Nash
(919)541-5652
Gerald Nash@epamail.cpa.gov
Current. Indicators of the effects of ozone pollution. Metadata
available through National Environmental Monitoring and Research
Initiative.
In database
Plant Genome Data and Information
Center (PGDIC)
USDA
Ray Allevogl
(301)504-6613
10301 Baltimore Ave
4lh floor
Delltsville, MD 20705-2351
Current. Plant and animal genome mapping.
Not currently
pursuing
16
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Postal Service Delivery Statistics
Production and Transport of
Organic Solutes: Effects of Natural
Climate Variation (PROTOS)
Project Feeder Watch
Public Lands Statistics
Range Site Inventory
Remote Automated Weather
Stations (RAWS)
Remote Sensing - geography, land
cover
RPA Updates/Database
Contact
USPS
National Customer Support Center
1-800-238-3 ISO
Terrestrial Ecosystem Research
Initiative (TERI), part of the
"Environment and Climate" Research
Programme of the European
Commission Dr. Jan Mulder
Jan Mulder@Nisk.No
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
Margaret Darker
(607)254-2440
DOI/BLM
Eric Luse
(202)452-7743
DOI/BLM
USDA
Kolleen Shelley
(208)476-8362
U of Maryland
Peter Townsend
USDA/Foresl Service
Brad Smith
(202)205-0841
Time Scale of Data/Description
Current. Records of number of addresses within postal zip codes.
Current. Project to collect geospatial data in Europe.
Current. 1987-preseni. A winter survey of birds that visit backyard
feeders in North America.
Current. National summary of key statistics for all of the BLM lands.
Archived. On-the-ground assessment of range-land administered by
BLM. See Ecological Site Inventory.
Current. Database contains national data. Indicators of climate,
precipitation, soils and wind speed. Metadata available through
National Environmental Monitoring and Research Initiative.
(
Current. 1952-1992 and will be updated in 1997. Provides information
about forest land area, limberland area, limber inventories, limber
mortality, timber growth and harvest, and ownership. Information
gathered from FIA.
Status
In database
Not currently
pursuing;
international:
second tier
priority
In database
In database with
separate entries
for each
indicator
Not currently
pursuing
In database
Not currently
pursuing
In database
17
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Contact
Time Scale of Data/Description
Status
Santiago Declaration: Criteria and
Indicators of Temperate and Boreal
Forests
USDA/Foresl Service
Kalhy Malony
(202)205-1235
USFS first approximate report for sustainable forest management.
Many indicators and datasets in this report.
Relevant
indicators and
datasels in
database
Soil Interpretations Record
Database
USDA/NRCS
National Soil Survey Center
Steven Baird
(402)437-5131
More
information
needed
Solar Terrestrial Physics Data
NOAA/Nalional Geo-Physical Data
Center (NGDC)
Dave Serke
dserke@ngdc.noaa.gov
(303)497-6126
Current. Many terrestrial geophysical datasels available including
Global Inventory of Biomass Burning, Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program (DMSP) data, and Nighttime Lights.
Sec individual
entries for these
datasets
Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife
Disease Study (SCWDS)
University of Georgia
College of Veterinary Medicine
John Fischer
(706)542-1741
Current. Database containing information regarding wildlife mortalities
in AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MO, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV)
and Puerto Rico. Information includes clinical history, location and
extent of mortality, species involved most mortem findings in
specimens, and results of tests for toxins and microbes.
In database
Slate Energy Data Reports
DOK/Energy Information
Administration
Current. 1960-present. Estimates of annual energy consumption at the
state and national levels by major economic sector and by principal
energy type.
Not currently
pursuing
STATSGO
USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Division
Craig Palmer
(702)895-1797
palmcrc@nevada.edu
Current. Estimates on soil carbon on a state-by-state basis, possibly in
forest ecosystems only (i.e, not other types of ecosystems).
In database
Superfund National Priority List
Site Boundaries for the US
EPA
website access to NPL US map is:
www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/impm/
producls/nplsiles/usniap/hlm
website for ecologically related info:
www.epa.gov/docs/ord/ccorisk.html
Current; 1992-present. US map of NPL sites, gcospatially and slate
referenced. Metadata on web is limited; does not appear to indicate
terrestrial ecosystems at risk.
Not currently
pursuing
18
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Superior National Forest
TEMS Database (Terrestrial
Ecosystems Monitoring Sites)
Tree Planting in the U.S.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lands
UV-B Monitoring Data
UV-B Radiation Monitoring
Program
Visibility Monitoring Network
Contact
ORNL/DAAC
NASA
Bob Cook
(423)574-7319
United Nations, Global Environmental
Monitoring System Program Activity
Center
Dr. John Innes
German address
USDA/Forest Service
Robert Moulton
(919) 549-4032
DOI/Fish and Wildlife Service
EPA/National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Lab
Bill Hogsett
(541)754-4632
hogsett.william@cpamail.epa.gov
USDA
Dr. James II. Gibson, Program Director
Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory
Colorado Stale University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(970)491-3611
jimg@nrel.colostate.edu
DOI/National Park Service
Time Scale of Data/Description
Archived; data no longer being collected. Data available on CD-ROM.
Current. Metadata for terrestrial ecosystem monitoring sites on a global
scale. Metadata available on the Web.
Current. National summary of tree planting in the US.
Current. 1945-presenl. Inventory of U S Fish and Wildlife Service
lands.
Current. The dataset contains UV-B monitoring data for. 14 rural areas
(located in 14 national parks) and 8 urban areas.
Current. Assessment of the potential for damage that increased UV-B
radiation might have on agricultural crops, forests and natural
ecosystems. Measurement of radiation with broadband UV-B-I
pyranometers began in 1994, recognizing that information derived from
these instruments would be of limited value to both the biological
effects and atmospheric science communities. Plans call for an
expansion of the network to at least 26 sites during the current year.
Data from each site arc posted on the World Wide Web Home Page
each day and specific data flies are made available to the user
community along with instrument calibration information upon request.
Current. Monitoring for fine particulars on National Park Lands.
Status
Not currently
pursuing
International,
second tier
priority
In database
Not currently
pursuing
In database
In database
See IMPROVi:
19
-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
Name of Project
Waterfowl and Gamebird
Monitoring
Wildland Fire Statistics
Wildlife Health Epizootiological
Database EPIZOO
Wildlife Health Diagnostics
Database (DIAGDATA)
Wildlife Incident Investigation
Scheme (WHS)
Contact
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Graham Smith
(301)497-5860
USDA/Foresl Service
NBS/National Wildlife Health Center
(NWHC)
Kathryn Converse
(608)264-5411
NBS/Nalional Wildlife Health Center
(NWIIC)
Kale Clear)'
(608)264-5411
United Kingdom
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food (MAFF)
Mark Fletcher
M.flctcher@csl.gov.uk
Database Maintenance
e.bamelt@csl.gov.uk
Time Scale of Data/Description
Current. Extensive monitoring program, including several breeding and
wintering surveys for waterfowl and gamebirds that range from the
arclic islands down into northern Mexico.
Current. Data on wildland Tires on public and private lands throughout
the US. Includes info from Boise Inlcragcncy Fire Center.
Current; 1975 - present. Metadata available on the Web.
Current; 1975 - present. Metadata available on the Web.
Current; 1964 - present. Agency has been recording incident data
related to vertebrate mortality since 1964. Uncertain whether info is in
the form of a database reporting status and trends.
Status
In database with
subcnlries for
each datascl
More info
needed
In database
In database
Not currently
pursuing
20
-------
APPENDIX F
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
-------
Partnership Opportunities
GAP could not be conducted without the par-
ticipation of the more than 460 cooperating orga-
nizations nationwide,. Tjiese include all state and
federal agencies, cogc'er||wdwj^ rpapping and
land managementnon-profit,aoi4^cademic insti-
tutions, tribes, and businesses.
Partnerships wj^pAP^I^g together many
agencies and interests that previously never
worked togetiierv but should. These cooperators
provide GAP projects with funding or in-kind
support to create better information than any one
institutioncoiildcreate'aldhe/i — '•*•'••'•'
Additionally,-there are countless opportunities
to partner on tne'Crektidn of Prague data sets or
These are not lirhited td^mologTeal tonservation
concerns, but are only limited by the interest and
expertise of the project teams.
-AT WOT NATURAL COMMUNmEJ
AND CUIKINT ZONMO IN IHB
SCAO piANNixo an*
T
Above: The Southern California Association of Govern-
ments contracted with CA-GAP to provide an analysis of
vulnerable plant communities in their planning region and the
potential conflict with allowable land uses in existing general
plans. The above map indicates all "at-risk" plant communi-
ties. Those communities in green are zoned as open space
and those zoned for de-^opment are shaded red.
The GAP Organization
GAP is a program of the Biological Resources
Division of the USGS and is supported through the
Center for Biological Informatics in Denver, CO.
GAP was begun in 1989 as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service research project and is now operational na-
tionwide. It has also received substantial interna-
tional interest. A sister program has begun in Mex-
ico with a cross-border pilot project along the Rio
Grande.
GAP works cooperatively with individual state
projects and their cooperators to set uniform na-
tional 'Standards. To promote scientific advance-
ment however, these standards only provide mini-
mum guidelines that allow states to continuously
develop innovative techniques and tools.
State projects are conducted by a variety of insti-
tutions including Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Re-
search Units, academic departments at universities,
state natural resources agencies, and Natural Her-
itage Programs. Cooperators are an integral part of
the process (see Partnership Opportunities).
Major nationwide cooperators include the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Department of De-
fense, and The Nature Conservancy.
How to get more information:
Virtually all information, status, contacts,
methods, and data can be obtained through The
GAP Home Page which should be your first
stop.
• http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap
or contact GAP at:
• gap@uidaho.edu
* 530 S. Asbury St., Suite 1
Moscow, ID 83843
» 208/885-3555
£ National Cfp Analysts Progri
A GEOGRAPHIC APPROACH TO
PLANNING FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSIFY
The
Gap
Analysis
Program
"keeping common species common
through knowledge-based decision
making "
The U.S. Geological Survey
-------
Land Co\_/
GAP uses Landsat TM satellite imagery at 30 me-
ter ground resolution to create first-ever maps of land
cover for each state. Vegetation is mapped according
to the National Vegetation Classification System's
community alliance level. Maps are then assessed for
accuracy.
Vertebrate Distributions
Predictive modeling is used to map all terrestrial
vertebrate species that breed or use habitat in the state
for important life history functions. To predict their
distributions, species are associated with mapped habi-
tat characteristics using CIS. The distributions are
then assessed through comparison to high confidence
checklists.
Land Stewards bin
GAP identifies the management authority or owner
of all public land tracts and voluntarily provided pri-
vate tracts to help establish relative management re-
sponsibility for each vegetation type and animal
species. Each land tract is then ranked for biodiversity
management intent on a scale of 1 to 4 to aid die gap
analysis process.
Representation Analysis
The analysis for poteritiaPlgap* in the network of
conservation lands or management for individual ele-
ments is accomplished through GIS comparison of die
element distribution =mapsnand the-land stewardship
map. Statistics on the: representation of each element
in each stewardship*category are reported. -
Information Distribution
The products of GAP include digital GIS coverages
of the maps des-cri^ed above, ancillary data used to
construct the maps, and a final report describing meth-
ods and results. The products and their availability for
each state are'available via the GAP home page at
http://www.gap.uidano.edu/gip either through ftp
download or CD-ROMs.
Mission Statement
The mission of the Gap Analysis Program is to
prevent conservation crises by providing conserva-
tion assessments of native vertebrate species and
their habitats and to facilitate the application of this
information to land management activities.
This is accomplished through the following five
objectives:
1) Map the land cover of the United States
2) Map the predicted distributions of vertebra ,cies
in the U.S.
3) Document the representation of vertebrate species
and land cover types in areas managed for the long-
term maintenance of biodiversity.
4) Provide this information to the public and those en-
tities charged with land use research, policy, plan-
ning, and management.
5) Build institutional cooperation in the application of
this information to state and regional management
activities.
Grace's Warbler
No Data
Management Status
| | No Data
NM-GAF Final Report (Thompson, et al. 1996)
An illustration of a gap analysis:
The analysis of potential gaps in biological
conservation can take many forms. This example,
at left, is an analysis for Grace's Warbler
(Dendroica graciae) in New Mexico.
The warbler's predicted distribution is shown
in purple, status 1 management areas (highest man-
agement for biodiversity) in dark blue, and status 2
areas are in green. The analysis shows that 7.3% of
the warbler's habitat occurs in areas that are man-
aged for biodiversity.
This indicates that there is a potential "gap" in
the warbler's management status and it may be vul-
nerable to future endangerment. More detailed
studies should be conducted to determine the
species level of risk and conservation needs.
Applications
The primary application of GAP
data and results is in the conservation
of biodiversity. Many state and fed-
eral land management areas are al-
ready using GAP routinely for this
primary purpose.
The data is also useful for indirect
applications. For example, a county
in Utah used the land cover map to
aid the efficient siting of an aspen
mill. Any application with a need for
the primary GAP data sets would ben-
efit from their use provided the scale,
resolution, and accuracy are appropri-
ate.
GAP Status Fall 1997
completed
m&r completion
organizing
underway
-------
EFLECTIONS ON ACHIEVEMENTS
Clean Lakes
Prograrh
experience helped
form the
foundation of
the Watershed
Protection
Approach.
Many aspects of the
Watershed Protection
Approach were pioneered
by the Clean Lakes
Program. In the formative
years from 1972 through
1979, the program
provided assistance to the
>States primarily for lake
quality research, develop-
ment of restoration
techniques, and evaluation
of lake conditions.
Two key lessons were
learned:
1. The long-term
effectiveness of lake
clean-up efforts hinge
on controlling
pollution within the
watershed.
2. Local support and
involvement arc
critical for success.
Responding to these
lessons, EPA promulgated-
Clean Lakes Program
regulations in 1980 (40
CFR Part 35, Subpart H)
that specifically directed
the incorporation of the
Watershed Protection
Approach within lake
projects and the strength-
ening of local partnerships.
With the passage of the
1987 Amendments to the
Clean Water Act, the
program again expanded
to include Statewide
assessments of lake
conditions and por
implcmentation stu .ucs
that evaluate a proj- ct's
effectiveness. This latter
component is uxd to
better understand cost/
benefits of various restora-
tion techniques
Uses and enjoyment of
lakes in a community are
wide-ranging. They can
provide:
• A source for
drinking water.
• A source for •
hydropower,
irrigation water,
and other domestic,
industrial, and
agricultural uses.
• Natural habitat for
fish, birds, and
other animals.
• Important hydro-
logic benefits such
as flood control and
the maintenance of
downstream flows
during droughts.
• Water-based
recreational oppor-
tunities such as
fishing, duck-
hunting, swimming,
and boating.
• A stimulus for the
local economy
through the sale of
recreational items
such as boats and
fishing tackle, rental
lodging, and other
tourist-driven
businesses.
• An increased tax-
base for local
communities from
higher assessed
values of lakeside
property.
Because of the impor-
tance of lakes in the fabric
of communities, it is not
surprising that local
support of the watershed
protection approach often
begins with grassroots
efforts to protect a favorite
lake. Many States cite cases
where committees and
associations are formed
and thousands of volun-
teer hours are spent
mitigating such problems
as aquatic weed over-
growth, algae blooms, or
sediment buildup. In the
process, people learn that
the problems found within
their lake are caused and
exacerbated by conditions
found in their watershed.
EPA's 1992 National
Water Quality Inventory
Kef on identifies agricul-
ture as the most extensive
source of pollution to the
Nation's lakes, followed by
urban runoff and storm
sewers, hydrologic and
habitat modification,
municipal point sources,
and onsite wastewater
disposal.
More States reported
problems caused by
nutrients than any other
single pollutant. Forty-one
States reported the
impairment of more than
3 million lake acres
primarily by the over-
growth of algae and
aquatic plants stimulated
by nutrient pollution.
For 20 years the Clean
Lakes Program has been a
successful example of the
bottom-up approach to
lake and watershed
------- |