M'AVYBS News Flash Ltlition Indexing Waterbodies Using the EPA Reach File ------- Special Edition RF3 Indexing April 1995 Office of Water EPAWBS News Flash Section 305(b) Waterbody System WBS Data, Mapping Capabilities, and Spatial Analysis The Waterbody System (WBS) database provides a convenient means for storing assessment informa- tion organized around water quality resource units called waterbodies. Once assessment information is entered on beneficial use status or causes and sources of pollution for each waterbody, the WBS program can generate lists and summary tables useful in the preparation of the Section 305(b) reports. From the late 1980s when the current format for the WBS database emerged, there was also a clear intent to provide mechanisms to produce maps and other spatial analysis products using the waterbody-specific information. The Alpha version of the EPA Reach File Version 3.0 (RF3) is now available as a tool for achieving these mapping and geographical analysis objec- tives. With earlier, less detailed versions of the Reach File, manual coding forms were used to carry out an operation called Reach File indexing. The resulting indexing codes indicated which features in the Reach File would be associated with specific waterbodies. With the much larger set of arcs available in RF3, software tools are indispens- able in completing the indexing process, and Geographical Information Systems (GISs) become attractive environments for using the indexed data layers. This special issue of the Waterbody System News Flash presents background information on approaches for geocoding the locations of waterbodies with RF3. Examples are provided on using the resulting GIS coverages to support the Section 305(b) process and for other spatial analy- sis applications. The Reach File provides the hydrologic framework for linking many types of spatial data layers. GIS coverages can be created based on georeferenced monitoring stations, point source discharge outfalls, surface drinking water intakes, and other point attribute information. These data layers cart be combined with coverages dealing with land use, transportation corridors, or the boundaries of cities, counties, and other governmental units. Because RF3 provides a series of traces networked to simulate natural drainage systems, indexed data layers can also be used to construct hydrological routing models for model- ing pollutant fate and transport processes. The focus of this special issue of News Flash is the indexing of waterbodies to assist State monitoring and assessment programs. The essential first step in this process is to translate the pattern a State has adopted in delineating its waterbodies into a digitized format using features contained in the Reach File. In this issue, some typical patterns of waterbody delineation are highlighted and sample GIS maps are provided. Patterns in Waterbody Delineation States have chosen a variety of ways to define their waterbodies. Essentially, a waterbody is a homoge- neous classification that can be assigned to nvers, lakes, estuaries, coastlines, or other water features. Most States find their inland rivers to be the greatest challenge in defining a suitable set of waterbodies, thus the examples provided here stress indexing work on river waterbodies. Linear Reaches Some common patterns appear in the way States delineate waterbodies involving rivers and ------- Special Edition RF3 Indexing April 1995 The Waterbody System Database and Its Role in RF3 Indexing EPA designed the Waterbody System (WBS) as a State and national database for storing and analyzing water quality assessment information. The WBS tracks use support information for water units called waterbodies. States, Territories, American Indian Tribes, and River Basin commissions define their own waterbodies to best serve their management needs. An individual waterbody may consist of a short stretch of stream, an individual lake, or the rivers and streams of an entire watershed. Usually, waterbody bound- aries correspond to significant hydrologic or ecologic features such as watershed boundaries. The WBS recognizes rivers, lakes, estuaries, tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, Great Lakes shorelines, and coastal shorelines as different types of waterbodies. The WBS provides a convenient way for a State to track a wide range of assessment information for its designated waterbodies. Data fields track information on designated use support induding aquatic life support, human health risks related to fish and shellfish consumption, and recreational use support. The WBS provides data fields to document causes and sources of pollution impairing full attainment of State water quality standards in each designated waterbody. Currently, EPA supports a PC-based software program to create the WBS ifies and handle reporting and data retrieval functions. WBS information is also ported to a special SAS library on the EPA National Computer Center (NCC) mainframe. EPA is working with States to identify ways the basic WBS data structure can be implemented on workstation or other computer platforms. Once a State enters the data, it can use the WBS to generate a variety of summary reports and lists that simplify preparation of its 305(b) water quality assessment reports. EPA can also use all WBS data as a tool in preparing the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. For the 1996 305(b) cyde, the PC WBS software will be provided with enhanced reporting capabilities, including the ability to join in-house data sets with the basic WBS files. EPA originally designed the WBS to facilitate analyses of water quality information for entire States or other large geographic areas. The future design for the WBS will emphasize more detailed spatial analyses and mapping capabilities. The key to implementing these new approaches is to index a State’s waterbodies to the EPA Reach File. EPA is offering grants for States interested in getting their waterbodies and related 305(b) information indexed to the Reach File. For further information, call Jack Clifford at EPA Head- quarters, 202-260-3667. streams. One pattern is to employ linear reaches of stream, which is often the way States catalog listed streams with specific designated beneficial uses in their water quality standards. Such a system can often work quite well for that subset of RF3 corresponding to perennial streams. For instance, the State of Ohio has an official nver mile system that divides its perennial stream network into approximately 4,000 stream reaches, with most reaches comprising a run of stream falling between tributary confluence points. Ohio delineated each of these perennial stream reaches as a separate waterbody. This type of waterbody pattern is illustrated in Figure 1 (see pocket at back of this newsletter for oversized figures). A pattern such as that illustrated for Ohio has several attractions. Such a pattern will often correspond very closely with the way beneficial uses have been assigned to stream reaches. This can simplify the data mtegration process involved in relating monitoring, modeling, and inventory information to the assessment values stored in WBS for such items as use attainment or causes and sources of pollution. On the other hand, this pattern of numerous short reaches of stream can become complicated to set up and maintain if a State must delineate large numbers of river waterbodies. If these data management issues are a constraint, other styles of waterbody delineation can be considered. -2- ------- Special Edition RF3 Indexing April 1995 Watershed Patterns An alternate method of delineating waterbodies is to group RF3 traces within small watershed polygons. Several States have used this approach to define a set of primary waterbodies. An example of this pattern is presented in Figure 2 for Virginia. In Virginia, the polygons were adapted from the State’s VirGIS small watersheds. This GIS system is supported through Virginia Tech and has been adopted for the selection of target watershed implementation work in Virginia’s Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conserva- tion Service (SCS)—now the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)—has defined a system of nested watersheds within 8-digit USGS Cataloging Units. The 11-digit or the even smaller 14-digit SCS/NRCS watersheds are good candi- dates to consider for States interested in imple- menting a polygon-based approach to waterbody delineation. For those States for which a digitized set of watershed polygons is available, a watershed- oriented approach can vastly simplify the effort required to create an initial waterbody coverage. Special PC-based software tools are available to facilitate this type of polygon indexing, which can also be accomplished using ARC-INFO proce- dures. Various digital line graph (DLG) and trace- feature codes within RF3 can be used to select either the full set of river-type Reach File traces or a subset such as perennial streams to geocode as waterbodies. Where needed, special traces within a polygon can be defined as separate waterbodies. For instance, river segments with special beneficial use classifications such as drinking water supplies or outstanding resource waters may be distin- guished from other river traces where use assign- ments are made in a more general fashion. If there are a great number of exceptions to the rule of grouping reaches within a watershed into a single waterbody, the polygon method quiddy loses its advantages of simplicity and technical efficiency. Sometimes, however, the way traces are released from a watershed-oriented pattern may have enough regularity to help define another set of indexing techniques. Hybrid Approaches In some States, a hybrid pattern emerges involving a combination of the linear stream reaches and the watershed polygons. A good example is the approach adopted in Kansas, as illustrated in Figure 3. For larger alluvial rivers, waterbody delineation is linear. For tributary watersheds to these large rivers, a watershed approach is employed. Digitized polygons based on the SCS 11-digit framework are valuable tools for indexing these watershed-oriented waterbodies on the tributary systems. Analyzing and Mapping Assessment Information with Indexed Waterbodies Indexing waterbodies to RF3 allows us to organize, display, and analyze data on use support and impairment, as well as the causes and sources of pollution, at the subwaterbody level (the reach segment). Since reach segments are defined “from confluence to confluence,” this allows the identifi- cation of specific portions of the stream associated with the environmental problem. This allows mapping of thematic layers (e.g., use support, causes, and sources) and comparison with data on water quality monitoring or other information linked geographically through RF3 as well as with information that is geocoded but not necessarily linked to RF3 (e.g., land use categories). Currently, waterbody system data are defined geographically only at the waterbody level. For some information, this may be sufficiently high resolution. Howevei assessment mformation can then be displayed only as colors or patterns for entire waterbodies. This constraint leads to clumsy presentation of the assessment data (e.g., “red- colored traces represent waterbodies with some nonsupport of aquatic life use”). This lack of spatial resolution reduces the power of the GIS as an analytical tool. ! / The WBS database includes a large number of files for storing different types of assessment informa- tion. Each of these data tables rncludes special size -3- ------- Special Edition RF3 Indexing April 1995 fields to indicate whether an information attribute applies to the entire extent of the waterbody or only to some portion. For instance, a State may record that, on a river waterbody of 30 miles in total extent, 10 miles have use impairments and the rest of the stream miles show full support. If only the waterbodies are geocoded, then providing appropriate legends for map displays becomes more complicated. Some examples illustrating this point are provided in Figure 4 based on materials from South Carolina. In the first version of a display from a portion of the Edisto River Basin (Figure 4a), all the river traces within the SCS 11- digit basins are assigned uniform color symbols. In the basin marked with an arrow, note that the associated caption for this color theme reads: “Some Degree of Partial or Nonsupport.” The companion map (Figure 4b) shows a modified version of this display reflecting the actual condi- tions reported in South Carolina’s assessment database for the 1994 305(b) cyde. In this version, traces within the small watershed polygons have been given different color codes that represent the different degrees of use attainment documented by the monitoring data. Careful forethought in the initial delineation process can sometimes minimize the frequency of situations where an assessment category applies only to a portion of a waterbody. Still, the large number of size fields provided in the WBS data- base makes it easy for this phenomenon to occur, at least for a few waterbodies. The chance of this happening increases if there is a complex pattern in an area for the designation of different beneficial uses. For instance, a beneficial use such as aquatic life support may apply to virtually all waterbodies, while drinking water supply or outstanding resource waters designations may be in place only for smaller portions of a watershed. The chances also increase where watershed-based polygons form the basis for the waterbody delineations: the larger the polygons, the greater the odds of encountering this phenomenon of spatial indeter- minacy. The route system data model used by EPA in indexing State waterbodies provides two route systems, WBS and SEC. The WBS route system groups all RF3 arcs (segments) that fall within each waterbody. This route system can be used to display information on a waterbody level. It is useful for presenting some types of information, but limits resolution to the waterbody level. The SEG route system is based on the SEC number of each segment in the RF3 database. Since SEG numbers are unique within each Cataloging Unit, starting at 1 and incrementing by 1, a collection of SEGs defines a specific branch of the waterbody’s stream reaches. The assessment attributes can then be developed in event tables that are based on the reach segment (SEG) and the distance along the segment. This makes a wide variety of carto- graphic features available for display and map- ping. The combination of WBS and SEC route systems allows display and mapping of data at the most appropriate level of resolution. The improved precision illustrated in Figure 4b can be achieved through applying a SEC route system to the initial WBS route system in Figure 4a. South Carolina’s Use of GIS Data Integration Approaches Where entire waterbodies seem inappropriate to reflect the sizes associated with such data entries as use attainment, additional geocoding instruc- tions may be needed to achieve the desired results. For instance, once the basic waterbod.ies have been defined, a second round of geocoding could add additional indexing instructions to specify arcs contained within a particular waterbody to match the more precise assessment information. This extra level of indexing allows the types of displays shown in Figure 4b. As with the delineation of waterbodies, the use of computer-based tools provides a manual approach for creating additional RF3 indexing expressions. Computer-assisted data integration techniques are another possibility and these approaches hold promise for automating much of the within- waterbody geocoding procedure. In addition to automating the production of geocoding instruc- tions for waterbody assessments, these techniques can be used in many other types of spatial analysis. -4- ------- Special Edition RF3 Indexing April 1995 South Carolina has been a pioneer in implement- ing these more automated data integration meth- ods. The pattern South Carolina adopted in its WBS database used the SCS 11-digit polygons to delineate river waterbodies. In most cases, all the river-type RF3 traces within a polygon are associ- ated with a single river waterbody. Even at this point in their indexing work, South Carolina was able to create useful maps applying information items on use attainment or causes and sources of pollution to entire waterbodies. In many cases, however, available assessment information allows greater degrees of specificity in assigning sets of RF3 arcs to different degrees of use attainment. With EPA assistance, South Carolina developed a collection of GIS-based ARC-NFO AMLs (these ARC Macro Language statements can be saved as programs for subsequent use or for incorporation into elaborate turnkey systems). A goal was to replicate in the AMLs the same types of data integration operations that had previously been performed in a number of piecemeal steps. For instance, the majority of South Carolina’s moni- tored assessments are based on results from STORET sites. GIS layers were created to show the locations of key monitoring sites at mile positions along RF3 arcs. This coverage also included summary statistics based on STOREr retrievals from the monitoring stations. Information from 622 water quality sites was added to this coverage. Similar coverages have been created for point source discharges and for surface water drinking water intakes. RF3 contains hydrologic routing information, making it very easy to start at a given point within the hydrologic network and then move to other upstream or downstream arcs. South Carolina was able to use RF3’s abilities to navigate upstream and downstream to assign results from its monitoring station coverage to specific sets of arcs within one of its watershed river waterbodies. Where the results of STORET data analyses indicated a significant number of standards violations for one or more parameters, a specific set of RF3 arcs could easily be identified to associate with an assessment condition, such as Aquatic Life Use Partially Supported. A GIS layer with the locations of drinking water intakes can be combined with monitoring station information to automate the assessment process for the drinking water supply beneficial use. A decision rule can be defined on a distance down- stream of monitoring sites showing elevated pathogen indicator levels for which drinking water impairments are deemed likely. A GIS layer with point source discharge data can help in deciding whether standards exceedances documented at monitoring stations can reasonably be attributed to point source discharges. Permit compliance and wasteload allocation data can also be set up in the GIS environment as fate and transport models. Even a simple dilution approach can help clarify such issues as the potential nutrient impacts of point source discharges on outstanding resource waters. The displays in Figure 5 illustrate some of the data layers that South Carolina has developed. Point attribute coverages from monitoring stations, discharging facilities, drinking water intakes, or data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) can be ported into ARC-INFO coverages. A variety of polygon coverages, for instance, dealing with land uses or the information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory, can also be overlaid with the sampling station and facilities layers. The basic RF3 coverage, combined with even a handful of additional layers on locations of waterbodies and key STOREF and point source discharge sites, can help automate a decision process that previously involved many intenne- diate steps and heavy investments in manual labor. The same data layers of value in automating a waterbody assessment process can also help with a number of other tasks, such as: • Design of water quality sampling networks • Permit setting and total maximum daily load (TMDL) calculations • Siting of new drinking water sources • Standards reclassifications for outstanding resource waters. South Carolina is developing a vision statement to define its current uses of RF3 and its goals for -5- ------- Special Edifion RF3 Indexing April 1995 future applications of RF3 in conjunction with other data layers. This vision statement is summa- rized in the highlight on page 7. Tools for Waterbody Indexing Various avenues are available for geocoding waterbodies with RF3: • A State can use the PC Reach File (PCRF) software to create indexing expressions that can then be converted into a GIS layer. • States can mark up maps showing their waterbody locations, arid this information can be converted into a GIS layer using PCRF or ARC-INFO with contractor support. • States may have digitized data that can be converted into a GIS layer with contractor support. The PCRF software is a very cost-effective indexing tool. It runs using very basic PC equipment, requiring only a VGA color monitor, a mouse, and about 10 megabytes of free hard disk storage. The current version of PCRF supports a set of trace filters. These allow the user to focus attention on such subsets of RF3 as rivers only or perennial streams. PCRF makes it possible for all agency staff to take a look at RF3 and make informed contribu- tions on how to select features in RF3 to associate with specific waterbodies. PCRF can also be used as a production tool. ARC-INFO AMLs are avail- able to convert the indexing expressions created with PCRF into GIS coverages. An example is given in Figure 6 showing actual indexing work for the Fox River in Wisconsin. EPA provides technical support for States interested in RF3 indexing with PCRF. Although marking up maps may not seem very sophisticated, this approach can work. EPA technical support can provide special GIS-pro- duced RF3 base maps. These maps can include labels derived from the RF3 CU-SEC-MILE identifiers or names such as those found on USGS printed maps. If a State has digitized small water- shed polygons to help define waterbody locations, these polygons can also be displayed on the base maps. An example is given in Figure 7 showing a representation of an original marked up map and the resulting GIS coverage for the Lower Madd River in northern California. If a State has an in-house hydrographic DLC that contains waterbody locations, the indexing infor- mation can often be transferred to RF3 using a GIS process called conflation. This method of overlay- ing GIS layers also makes it possible to transfer other information attributes from in-house data systems to the RF3-indexed layer with WBS assessment data. For instance, Ohio’s river-mile DLG system provided a convenient way to locate waterbodies in RF3. Indexing work with older versions of the EPA Reach File from Wyoming can also be conflated with RF3. An example is shown in Figure 8 of a coverage based on the old Reach File Version 2 conflated with RF3. Where the necessary GIS coverages exist, conflation tech- niques can substantially speed up the waterbody indexing process. Once a coverage is created, GIS software tools currently provide the major platforms for using the geocoded databases. In addition to ARC-INFO, PC-based desktop mapping systems provide a cost-effective platform for using the RF3 coverages. Although EPA does not endorse any particular desktop mapping software, many States are beginning to make good use of such products as ESRI’s ARCVIEW. For instance, Kansas uses its indexed waterbodies along with coverages of point source discharges and other permitted facilities with PC ARCVrEW. Desktop mapping systems can often be set up on a laptop computer, which makes these programs attractive for demonstrations and for situations when staff from different agency divisions or different district offices need access to geocoded data. A Status Check on RF3 Indexing Work As of late March 1995, 17 States had begun to index their waterbodies with RF3. South Carolina deserves a special note of commendation as the first State to index its waterbodies to RF3. Although indexing is a State effort, certain indi- viduals have made outstanding efforts. For -6- ------- Special Edition RF3 Indexing April 1995 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Bureau of Water Pollution Control Present and Future Applications of RF3 — Proposed Vision Statement — South Carolina’s Bureau of Water Pollution Control has taken a significant step in the development of a GIS-based water quality assessment methodology through the utilization of the River Reach File (RF3). The Reach File provides a digital coverage describing the structure and hydrology of the State’s surface waters based on the 1:100,000 U.S. Geological Survey hydrography layer. All stream reaches have been hydrologi- cally linked and assigned a unique reach identifier. This identifier will allow attributes anchored to the 1:100,000 RF3 fiie to be easily transferred to larger scales when they become available. Utilization of the RF3 coverage addresses this agency’s growing demand for a geographically referenced assessment coverage for the collection, integration, and analysis of water quality information. The hydrog- raphy coverage serves as the foundation for analyzing the interdependence of water-quality-related activities associated with river basin development, inducting: monitoring, problem identification and priontization, modeling, planning, and permitting. The integration of these activities has led to manage- ment plans and implementation strategies on a watershed basis, allowing the SCDHEC Bureau of Water Pollution Control to focus its water quality efforts appropriately. Attributes assigned to the South Carolina RF3 hydrography coverage: • Water Quality Stations • Aquatic Life Use Support • Monitoring Data • Recreational Use Support • Impairment Cause • Overall Use Support • Impairment Source • Classification of Waters • Stream Order • Outstanding Resource Waters • Water Quality Impairments • Modeled Stream Reaches Current and Future Applications 305(b) Report Requirements • Calculation of stream mileage associated with various use support levels • Calculation of stream mileage associated with water quality impairments, causes, and sources River Basin Management — Watershed Water Quality Management Strategy • Presentation of graphic evaluations of water quality trend analysis • Identification of additional/special basin monitoring station locations • Calculation of stream mileage associated with water dassifications Identification of Potential Outstanding Resource Waters • Presentation of quick reviews of water quality conditions within selected areas • Calculation of distance downstream to nearest potable water supply • Examination of land use in relation to stream reach location and order • Examination of probable dilution factors by assessing stream order type Use of Route System Data Model to Organize GIS Attribute Information -7- ------- Special Edition RF3 Indexing April 1995 instance, in South Carolina, Jeannie Eidson clearly deserves recognition for her work. Other pioneers include Virginia (thank you, Alison Sinclair) and New Hampshire (thank you, Don Chesebrough). Perhaps the best way to summarize the progress in RF3 indexing is with a map. Figure 9 shows those States already indexed or where geocoding work is in process. Figure 9. RF3 Indexing Progress During the 1996 305(b) cyde, EPA strongly encour- ages as many States as possible to begin geocoding their waterbodies to the Reach File. At present, the only major hurdles involve the Caribbean and EPA Region 10, where work is still under way to create an EPA RF3 database. In the meantime, some Region 10 States are using available DLGs to create geocoded systems with very strong resemblances to the EPA RF3 product. As discussed below, there is an ongoing process to upgrade the EPA Reach File. As part of this upgrade process, steps are being taken to reconcile EPA’s RF3 with existing data layers in the Pacific Northwest. Therefore, systems being developed in such States as Wash- ington should be transferrable to RF3. Federal Efforts to Make Available Quality Sources of GIS Information On October 19,1990, the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (0MB), revised Circular A-16,”Coordination of Surveying, Mapping, and Related Spatial Data Activities.” The goals of the Circular are to develop a national digital geographic information resource, to reduce duplication, to reduce the expense of developing geographic data, and to increase the benefits of using available data and ensuring coordination of Federal agency geographic data activities. Circular A-16 established the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) to promote the coordinated development, use, sharing, and dissemination of geographic data. The committee oversees and provides policy guidance for agency efforts to coordinate geographic data activities. The FGDC has also been charged with coordinating geospatial data-related activities with other levels of government and other sectors. Agency responsibilities include providing govern- ment-wide leadership in developing data stan- dards, assisting information and data exchange, and coordinating data collection. The FGDC is currently composed of representatives from 14 departments and independent agencies induding: • Department of Agriculture • Department of Commerce • Department of Defense • Department of Energy • Department of Housing and Urban Development • Department of the Interior • Department of State • Department of Transportation • Environmental Protection Agency • Federal Emergency Management Agency Library of Congress • National Archives and Records Administration • National Aeronautics and Space Administration • Tennessee Valley Authority. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Labor; the General Services Administration; the National Capital c States Indexed or in Process -8- ------- Special Edition RF3 Indexing April 1995 Planning Commission; and the Smithsonian Institution also participate on FGDC subcommit- tees and working groups. The FGDC sponsors and participates in confer- ences and other forums concerning issues impor- tant to the development of spatial data products. The committee also publishes the Federal Geo- graphic Data Newsletter, Summary of GIS Use in the Federal Government, annual reports, and other publications of interest to the spatial data commu- nity. For more information about the FGDC or its activities or to be added to the newsletter mailing list, please contact: Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat U.S. Geological Survey 590 National Center Reston, VA 22092 703-648-4533 x 55 ( -f. ‘ The FGDC coordinates development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSD1), which is conceived to be an umbrella of policies, standards, and procedures under which organiza- tions and technologies interact to foster more efficient use, management, and production of geospatial data. The NSDI will facilitate coopera- tion and interaction among various levels of government, the private sector, and academia. A major component of the NSDI currently under development is a basic framework of digital geospatial data to act as a foundation for other data collection activities. This effort is called the National Digital Geospatial Data Framework, often simply called the FRAMEWORK data. The FRAMEWORK is envisioned to indude information from the following basic categories: • Geodetic Control Data • Digital Ortho-imagery • Elevation Data • Transportation • Hydrography Boundaries of Governmental Units • Cadastral Data (e.g., boundaries of public lands, military reservations, and State parks) FRAMEWORK data should be “data you can trust” and should be certified as complying with documented quality control standards. For each major category of information, the FRAMEWORK data should be the best data available for specific types of applications. Although high-resolution data sets are of obvious interest, the collection will also contain useful lower-resolution data to support regional and national applications. FRAMEWORK data will be made available at the cost of dissemination, free from use criteria or constraints, and available in nonproprietary forms. The EPA RF3 approach is being considered as part of the FRAMEWORK data. Upgrades to the EPA Reach File and STORET Modernization As part of its data systems modernization efforts, EPA is implementing significant enhancements to the Reach File and to its STOREr monitoring database. STORET modernization was highlighted at a national workshop held in Dallas in early February 1995. A three-phase prototyping approach is being used, with development work now entering the third phase. The new S1ORET user interface will organize data entry and analysis functions into five major modules called business areas. Prototypes for three of these modules were presented at the Dallas workshop. The new STORET system will emphasize mapping and visualizations as major data summary products. Surface water monitoring stations will be assigned RF3 indexing attributes allowing STORET informa- tion to be transferred to GIS’layers that could be used with indexed waterbodies and 305(b) assess- ment data. For additional information on STORET Modernization, contact the STORET User Assis- tance Group at 800-424-9067. EPA is also in the process of implementing major upgrades to the current RF3-Alpha. The upgraded product is called RF3-Final or RF3-1996, with a target release date of February 1996. EPA is working with the USGS to incorporate digitized information from the latest lOOK DLG-E (for Digital Line Graph Enhanced) hydrography files. A process is being undertaken to match as many names as possible contained in the USGS -9- ------- Special Edition RF3 Indexing April 1995 Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) and transfer them to attributes associated with Reach File arcs. An enhanced set of CU boundary polygons will be used to ensure the correct align- ment of reaches—especially headwater streams— within the 8-digit USGS Cataloguing Units. For lakes and wide rivers, centerlines will be added to the Reach File to simplify edge-matching with other data layers and the use of RF3 in hydrologic routing models. The RF3 update process will seek to add an improved navigation model to avoid confusion in the patterns of hydrologic connectivity for streams with multiple confluence points or lakes with complicated patterns of stream input or outflows. An expanded reach numbering system will be offered to facilitate the addition of new features currently unrepresented in the DLG-E linework. The RF3 upgrades will undergo a quality assur- ance/quality control (QA/QC) step including a battery of visual checks using ARC-INFO to ensure that errors are identified and repaired. RF3-Final should eliminate a range of minor flaws in the current RF3-Alpha and make the enhanced Reach File highly compatible with the spatial analysis capabffities of ARC-INFO Geographical Informa- tion Systems. The EPA WBS News Flash provides a periodic status report on State and EPA activities related to the Section 305(b) Waterbody System (WBS) database and information on indexing waterbodies to the Reach File. Send your comments on this special edition of the WBS News Flash to: Jack Clifford, U.S. EPA (4503F, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, 202-260-3667). EPA technical support is available for users of the WBS database and States interested in RF3 indexing. Questions involving policy issues should be directed to Mr. clifford. Help on routine technical matters is available by calling Bill Cooter at Research Triangle Institute, 919-541-5918. -10- ------- PAGE NOT AVAILABLE DIGITALLY ------- |