United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Corvallis, OR 97333
EPA/600/3-90/066
July 1990
Research and Development
&EPA APPLICATION OF THE SYNOPTIC APPROACH
TO WETLAND DESIGNATION:
A CASE STUDY IN LOUISIANA
-------
APPLICATION OF THE SYNOPTIC APPROACH TO WETLAND DESIGNATION:
A CASE STUDY IN LOUISIANA
FINAL REPORT
Brooke Abbruzzese3
Scott G. Leibowitz2
Richard Sumner2
JNSI Technology Services Corporation
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
2USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Submitted to:
Dianne Fish
Office of Wetlands Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
July 1990
-------
ERRATA
(1) Page 36 (Figure 1.10) - In the key under "Annual Rate" the equation for hunan population growth is
listed as follows:
([Pop80 - Pop70]IPop70l 10)
As written, this equation implies that (Pop80 - Pop70) is divided by Pop70 and by the inverse of 10;
in other words, this implies that (Pop80 - Pop70)/Pop70 is multiplied by 10. Since the quotient
(Pop80 - Pop70)/Pop70 should be divided by 10, the proper formulation of the equation is:
Pop 80 - Pop 70
Pop 70
10
The actual calculations were done correctly, using the proper equations. The error was in how the
equations were represented.
(2) Page 37 (Figure 1.11) - In the key under "Annual Rate" the equation for agricultural growth is listed
as follows:
{[Agr82 - Agr74\IAgr74l%)
This equation should be represented by the following:
Agr 82 - Agr 74
Agr 74
8
-------
DISCLAIMER
The research described in this report has been funded wholly or in part by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract #68-C8-0006 to NSI
Technology Services Corporation. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
The synoptic approach is a rapid assessment method designed to provide a context for
evaluating landscape sensitivity to cumulative wetland loss and to complement the site
specific information used in reviewing permit applications to alter wetlands. The objectives
of this study were to: 1. test the utility of the synoptic approach in prioritizing wetland
"functional uses" for the development of wetland water quality standards; 2. comparatively
rank watersheds based on their wetland functional attributes and sensitivity to change; and
3. implement the transfer of the research products to state wetland managers. Readily
available data were compiled for the State of Louisiana into a set of map overlays. The
overlays were synthesized to produce indices of landscape input and wetland capacity for
hydrologic, water quality and life! support functions, cumulative impacts and future wetland
losses for watersheds within the State. The synoptic approach identifies wetland functions
not included in Louisiana's designated uses of surface waters. The approach may be more
appropriate for a state with a more generalized set of water quality standards than
Louisiana's, since synoptic results are not specific. The products of statewide assessments
may be useful in regional planning and in the development of state wetland conservation
plans.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVES 3
OVERVIEW OF THE SYNOPTIC APPROACH 4
ANALYSIS OF LOUISIANA DATA 6
DATA COLLECTION 6
MAP DEVELOPMENT 6
Hydrologic Input 8
Water Quality Input 12
Life Support Input 12
Wetland Capacity 12
Cumulative Impacts 12
Future Loss 17
Designated Uses of Surface Waters 17
TECHNICAL INFORMATION TRANSFER 17
FINAL PRODUCTS 20
DISCUSSION 21
CONCLUSION 23
LITERATURE CITED 24
iv
-------
APPENDIX I. Maps of overlay components used for deriving synoptic
indices 26
APPENDIX II. Human population1 (1970 and 1980), agricultural acreage2 (1974
and 1982), and rare, threatened and endangered species3
(RTE), by parish 39
APPENDIX III. Hydrologic unit composition of parishes. Total area is given
for each parish, along with the partial area for each component
hydrologic unit (a hydrologic unit need not be entirely contained
within one parish, but may cross several). The percent is the
proportion of total parish area found in that hydrologic unit. 41
APPENDIX IV. Derived index maps 55
APPENDIX V. Rankings of hydrologic units for hydrology, water quality, and
life support cumulative effects 73
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of measures used to estimate landscape indices 10
Table 2. Curve number (percent runoff) for pairwise combinations of hydrologic
soil groups and land uses (adapted from Rawls et al. 1981) 11
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Water Management Unit Index 7
FIGURE 2. Hydrologic Input 9
FIGURE 3. Water Quality Input (non-normalized) 13
FIGURE 4. Life Support Input 14
FIGURE 5. Wetland Capacity 15
FIGURE 6. Cumulative Impacts (non-normalized) 16
FIGURE 7. Future Loss 18
FIGURE 8. Louisiana Designated Uses of Surface Waters 19
vi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was submitted in fulfillment of contract #68-C8-0006 by NSI Technology
Services Corporation under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This report covers a period from March, 1989 to July 1990; work was completed July,
1990. We wish to thank Dr. Eric M. Preston for his support as Wetlands Team Leader.
We acknowledge the cooperation of staff members of the state agencies who provided
data and review of the pilot study. Lori Jensen, Robert Hippie, Daren Moore and Donna
Frostholm assisted in the collection of data. Jeff Irish designed and produced the maps.
Kristina Heike edited the final document. Finally, we wish to thank Dr. Fred Weinman,
Dr. Joan Browder, Dr. K. Koski, Ann Hairston and Lisa Ellingson for their helpful
suggestions and comments in reviewing this document.
vii
-------
INTRODUCTION
Wetland protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act has typically taken
a traditional approach to impact assessment. Under this approach, a permit for placement
of dredged or fill material is issued if determined that significant degradation will not
occur to waters of the United States. When considered together, however, the aggregate
impact of individually permitted activities could cause significant degradation and damage
to the environment.
The quantification of these impacts, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, has been
hampered by a lack in availability of a standardized approach to cumulative impact
assessment. The goal of cumulative impact assessment is to evaluate the cumulative
effects of these individual impacts occurring over the entire landscape and through time
(Bedford and Preston 1988, Gosselink and Lee 1989).
Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act requires cumulative impacts
to be considered. The Wetlands Research Program (WRP) of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has ongoing research to examine the environmental effects of
cumulative wetland loss. As part of this effort, a method is being developed that
assembles generally available data into a scientific framework that ranks watersheds
according to the relative importance of wetland function and wetland loss. This method
provides a landscape perspective and is referred to as the synoptic approach (Abbruzzese
et al. 1990). The approach is being developed as a rapid and inexpensive assessment
technique for use in routine 404 permit requests.
To further development of the synoptic approach, WRP sought opportunities to
conduct statewide pilot applications. Coincident with this, the Office of Wetlands
Protection (OWP) expressed interest in determining whether the synoptic approach could
be used in the development of state wetland water quality standards. The federal Clean
Water Act grants to the states broad authority for developing standards that protect their
water resources. By extending these water quality standards to include wetlands, the states
can exert direct control over projects in or affecting wetlands (U.S. EPA 1989). This
application of state standards requires that specific classes of wetland be assigned
appropriate "designated uses".
A synoptic case study could offer insight on how a landscape perspective may
influence the assignment of designated uses to wetlands. OWP selected Louisiana for this
pilot study because of the State's high percentage of wetlands, relatively high wetland loss
rates and concurrent EPA funded research in the State. Also, EPA presumed that data
generated by the study could be used to help design new regulatory strategies foi
protecting the State's remaining wetlands. A similar case study is being conducted in the
State of Washington.
1
-------
The study described in this document was conducted to determine whether the
synoptic approach could be used in the development of state water quality standards.
Development of the synoptic approach is not complete; an explicit goal of this pilot
project was to improve the method. The results of the synoptic analysis are not meant to
be final or conclusive, and should only be taken to illustrate the utility of this method in
developing state water quality standards. Thus, use of the data or maps presented in this
document is not endorsed for other purposes.
2
-------
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this research was to test the utility of the synoptic approach
in prioritizing wetland "functional uses" at the watershed scale. The second objective was
to demonstrate and improve this method's ability to identify wetland resources that are
ecologically important or sensitive to change. A third objective was to interactively
implement the transfer of the research products to state wetland managers. The specific
approach was to:
1. Evaluate and comparatively rank wetland landscapes (i.e., watersheds) based
on their functional attributes and sensitivity to change;
2. Identify potential wetland functions and values from maps depicting the
ranked wetland landscapes;
3. Compare the potential wetland functions and values with existing adjacent
or contiguous surface water use designations;
4. Identify ecologically important wetlands or those sensitive to change based
on the comparative rankings; and
5. Transfer to appropriate EPA Regional and State natural resource
management staff the ongoing status and technical results of the pilot
project.
3
-------
OVERVIEW OF THE SYNOPTIC APPROACH
The synoptic approach is a rapid, inexpensive method for assessing the cumulative
effects of wetland loss on landscape function. The method was designed for use in routine
wetland evaluation and management work. It should serve to complement existing
management practices, including the assessment of local value and function, by providing
an anticipatory approach to wetland protection.
The approach can be applied to a variety of geographic scales and regulatory issues,
including: 1. the identification of priority areas for research and wetland protection at the
national scale; 2. providing a context for wetland permitting and advance wetland planning
at the regional or state scale; and 3. identification of sites where wetland restoration and
creation efforts could be beneficial at the watershed scale.
The approach uses generally available maps and data to derive relative rankings of
watersheds within a study area using indices of the ecological function wetlands perform
(Preston and Bedford 1988; Leibowitz and Preston, pers. comm.). The functions are
grouped into three general categories, including: 1. hydrology-the ability of wetlands to
attenuate peak hydrologic flow, desynchronize floods, and stabilize shorelines; 2. water
quality--the capability of wetlands to retain, remove, or detoxify pollutants; and 3. life
support--the ability of wetland to supply the required habitat and food chain support of
wetland dependent biota.
The assessment indices were developed as part of a conceptual landscape model
(Leibowitz and Preston, pers. comm.). They provide relative measures of the functions
wetlands contribute to the landscape, the risk of loss of landscape function from wetland
loss or alteration, and the social significance of such loss.
The first four indices (primary indices) are based on data we have collected and
interpreted. Three additional derived indices (secondary indices) are based on the primary
indices and are addressed in a subsequent section of this report. The primary indices are:
1. Landscape Input-materials produced by the landscape which can potentially be
processed or supported by wetlands; thus, an index of the opportunity for wetlands
to contribute to landscape function within a cumulative impact area (watershed).
2. Wetland Capacity-the potential ability of wetlands to promote landscape function
through processing or support of landscape inputs.
3. Cumulative Impacts-wetland losses that have occurred historically.
4. Future Loss-wetland impacts that are likely to occur in the future.
4
-------
Since data are not generally available to summarize the relationships characterized by
these indices, surrogate measures of the indices were chosen. For example, to calculate
landscape input for hydology (i.e., hydrologic input), measures of watershed area,
precipitation, runoff potential, slope and channel length were used. The following
approach summarizes how the relative rankings of watersheds were produced: 1. selection
of the appropriate surrogate measure for each index (Table 1 pg.10); 2. collection of
mapped and tabular data; 3. analysis of the data to derive primary data layers; and 4.
combination of the data layers to produce the index values.
5
-------
ANALYSIS OF LOUISIANA DATA
DATA COLLECTION
One hundred twenty two watersheds were delimited using Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality's (DEQ) "water quality management units" (Figure 1) (Louisiana
DEQ 1988b). Several watersheds that were dominated by greater than 90% water, such
as Lake Ponchartrain and Barataria Bay, were omitted.
Data for calculating the four primary indices for each watershed were collected from
a variety of federal and State agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau
of the Census, DEQ, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and Louisiana
State University. In addition, existing State surface water use designations were mapped
for comparison with synoptic watershed rankings.
Other State agencies were contacted for potential sources of information, including the
Department of Natural Resources, Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism and
the State Planning Office. The quality assurance of the data was assessed
in terms of its: 1. level of general availability (nationwide) and comparability with data
sets for other states; 2. scale of resolution; 3. the degree of replication of techniques
employed in obtaining the data. A 5% quality control check was performed on areal,
linear and elevation measurements taken from maps and data recorded from other
sources. An error level less than 5% was the target. A person, other than the original
data collector, replicated every twentieth measurement to check for accuracy. The result
of the check was that the 5% accuracy criterion was always met.
MAP DEVELOPMENT
To produce a map for a particular index, it was first necessary to produce maps of the
index components (Appendix I). Following is a brief description of the components and
data sources for these maps (maps were produced using the ARC/INFO Geographic
Information System):
6
-------
Water Management Unit Index
-------
Hvdrolop'c Input
The estimate of hydrologic input (peak discharge) has both a spatial and temporal
dimension; it is calculated as the product of precipitation, watershed area, runoff potential,
and stream channel slope divided by channel length (Figure 2).
Mean annual precipitation contours (Lee 1985) were digitized and then pro-rated to
watershed units. An estimate of the volume of water entering the system is obtained by
multiplying precipitation by drainage area for each watershed.
Runoff potential is derived from a modification of the Soil Conservation Service's
(SCS) curve number (Rawls et al. 1981; SCS 1986). The percent runoff for a drainage
unit is calculated as the weighted average of the runoff value for each pairwise
combination of hydrologic soil group (Lytle and Sturgis 1962) and land use (Louisiana
DEQ 1988b). Runoff values for these combinations (Table 2) were adapted from Rawls
et al. (1981); the joint percentage of the soil and land use areas is used as weights. Thus
runoff is given by:
Runofftolai = E £ Runoff^ x Weighty
i j
= IZ Runoffy x Areai/Areatota| x Areaj/Area,otaj
> j
where i is an index for the four soil groups and j is an index for the six land uses. As
an example, assume a drainage unit with half of all soils belonging to group A and the
other half to group C, and with agriculture representing 25% of total land use and the
remaining 75% in forest. Using Table 2 to obtain the pairwise runoff values, percent
runoff for that unit would then be (63 x [0.5 x 0.25]) + (43 x [0.5 x 0.75]) + (77 x [0.5
x 0.25]) + (75 x [0.5 x 0.75]) = 61.75.
The temporal component of hydrologic input was derived by dividing the product of
precipitation, area, runoff and channel slope by channel length (peak discharge for a given
event increases with slope and shorter channel length)^ Slope was calculated by
subtracting the elevation; at 10% of the channel length from elevation at 85% of the
channel length, then dividing the difference by 75%.of the total channel length (Lee 1985).
Length of the main channel was measured using an electronic planimeter.
8
-------
HYDROLOGIC INPUT
Arkansas
Precip. i Area I R u d o f f
x ( 1 + S 1 o p e ) / Length
liter Hal•|ernel t Unit
Gulf
101
_
66
102
-
23
103
-
128
104
-
151
105
224
101
-
4
107
_
72
106
_
246
201
-
151
202
-
216
203
3 8 3
204
-
205
-
1 S 4
206
-
84
207
-
135
208
-
226
209
4 6 2
210
-
21
301
-
159
902
-
49
303
-
77
394
-
297
305
2 71
300
-
12
307
-
172
308
-
278
309
-
72
310
-
264
311
12 4
401
-
1 1
402
-
107
403
-
212
404
-
93
405
-
218
406
5 6 4
407
-
16
400
-
176
409
-
229
411
-
56
412
-
126
413
312
414
-
7
415
_
9
416
-
10
4 17
-
128
416
-
106
419
1 1
420
-
62
421
-
493
501
-
275
502
-
197
593
-
306
504
8 0
505
-
14
5 0 0
.
266
507
_
407
508
_
708
801
-
122
602
2 4 2
603
-
604
_
7
605
-
62
606
-
10
607
-
55
008
14 6
609
-
50
611
-
1596
701
-
25
702
-
66
703
-
15
704
4 22
70S
-
28
801
-
83
802
-
74
603
-
13
804
-
1
805
8 4
806
-
27
807
-
25
806
-
105
809
-
141
610
-
25
611
13
812
-
T
6 1 S
-
43
814
-
201
615
-
276
616
-
460
901
6 7
902
-
0
903
_
84
904
-
60
905
-
145
1001
-
26
1002
8 9
1003
-
12
1004
-
113
1005
-
115
1006
-
223
1 007
-
176
1008
10 5
1009
-
8
I 6 10
-
SO
1011
-
116
1012
-
108
1013
-
131
1014
8 0
1015
-
18
1016
-
189
1101
-
260
1102
-
1 11
1103
-
95
1 104
114
1105
-
15
1106
-
226
1201
-
171
1202
-
400
1203
-
116
1204
310
1205
-
17
1206
-
136
1207
-
1310
[later Management Unit - Value]
Pnpt'*' M ISIM litltidi Iimrit Pr»|ri», 0 3 IP i In»I r tanti t • ] Ituireb Lit, Cirnllli, Ori|ii
9
-------
Table 1. Summary of measures used to estimate landscape indices.
Landscape Index
Function
Measure
Landscape Input
Wetland Capacity
Cumulative Impacts
Future Loss
Hydrologic
Water quality
Life support
All
All
All
Precipitation x area x runoff x slope
Length
"Partially supporting" and
"nonsupporting" stream length
Number of rare, threatened and
endangered wetland dependent species
Wetland area
Percent difference in area of hydric
soils and wetland area
Weighted average of annual
agricultural and population growth
-------
Table 2. Curve number (percent runoff) for pairwise combinations of hydrologic sofl
groups and land uses (adapted from Rawls et al. 1981).
Hvdrologic Soil Group
Land Use A B C D
Agricultural 63 69 77 82
Land
Forest Land 43 64 75 81
Miscellaneous/ 68 78 84 86
Barren Land
Urban or 55 71 83 88
Built-up Land
Water 100 100 100 100
Wetland 45 66 77 83
11
-------
It should be emphasized here that this method provides an estimate. The units of
measurement were arbitrarily chosen. Also, since we do not currently have a method for
calculating water retentionby upstream wetlands, the estimate does not include the import
of water from upstream units.
Water Quality Input
Water quality input (Figure 3), or the degree of point and nonpoint source
pollution, was estimated from State water quality data, since data on pollutant loading rates
are not readily available. Input was calculated as the length of streams inventoried that
were listed as "partially supporting" or "nonsupporting" of State and federal designated uses
(such as "public water supply" or "fish and wildlife propagation") in the State's 3Q5B Report
(La. DEQ 1988a). Miles of polluted streams is the surrogate used; however we do not
know what proportion of all streams this represents, since the intensity of stream sampling
is not known.
rife Support Input
We used the number of rare, threatened or endangered wetland dependent species
present (Appendix II) as a surrogate for life support input (Figure 4). This is based on the
assumption that these: species represent the portion of biota using wetlands that are most
sensitive to habitat destruction. Since these data are reported by parish (Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 3988), the parish data were prorated to the
watershed units using the weighting factors in Appendix III.
Wetland Capacity
Wetland capacity (Figure 5) is a measure of the ability of wetlands to attenuate
peak hydrologic flow, process pollutants and provide habitat. These complex relationships
are difficult to evaluate because of a lack of existing data; therefore, wetland area (La.
DEQ 1988b) is used as a surrogate for wetland capacity.
Cumulative Impacts
Wetland impacts that have occurred in the past were estimated as the amount of
original wetland area lost (Figure 6). Area of hydric soils was used as a surrogate for
historic wetland area, using county soil surveys and the SCS hydric soils list (Hydric Soils
Committee 1987). Current wetland area was obtained as described above. It should be
noted that some areas, especially around lakes and estuaries, show a net wetland gain using
this method. This is probably an error caused by inconsistencies in the classification of
wetlands and open water in county soil surveys and the U.S. Geological Survey land
use/land cover maps (the source of DEQ's land use/land cover data).
12
-------
Gul f
Figure 3
Length of Polluted Streams (km)
815 - Viler Management 0>tt
WATER QUALITY INPUT (N0N-N0 EM AL 1 ZED )
Arkansas
Vj*
&
101
0
102
0
103
0
104 -
0
105
0
107
0
106
0
201
116
202 -
1 1
203
29
205
42
206
24
207
19
20 8 -
(4
209
0
301
0
302
0
303
43
304 -
0
305
0
307
0
306
0
309
19
310 -
32
311
0
402
29
403
154
404
0
4 0 5 -
19
406
0
408
105
409
100
411
0
412 -
13
413
55
4 1 S
6
416
24
417
5
418 -
1 1
419
5 B
421
40
501
136
502
60
50 3 -
105
504
27
506
66
507
64
508
0
601 -
0
602
335
604
64
605
16
606
0
407 -
14
606
130
611
0
701
0
702
0
703 -
0
704
211
601
10
602
0
603
0
804 -
0
805
0
607
0
806
0
809
92
810 -
0
811
0
613
0
814
130
615
103
816 -
13
061
108
903
0
904
0
905
0
1001 -
0
1002
35
1004
126
1005
0
1006
32
1 00 7 -
60
1006
6
1010
0
1011
0
1012
0
1013 -
0
1014
0
1016
0
110 1
0
1102
0
1103 -
0
1 104
0
1106
0
1201
19
1202
163
1 20 3 -
134
1204
95
1206
19
1207
166
106
204
2 10
306
40 1
407
414
420
SOS
603
6 0 0
70S
806
612
902
1003
1009
1015
1105
12 0 S
29
159
0
0
1 9
90
0
0
96
34
23
64
32
0
47
62
0
0
24
122
[later Management Unit - Value]
Prepared by USIP1 letleidi Research Progna, U3EPI In?Ironneiti1 Eeseirch Lab, Ceriallii, Oregon
13
-------
LIFE SUPPORT INPUT
Arkansas
Gu I f
Figure 4
Rare, Threatened it Endangered
Species (n nmb e r)
| 1 0.0- 0.2
| | 0.2- 0.6
[—1 1.5-12.1
815 - filer Management Unit
101
- 0.1
102
- 0 0
103
-
0.0
104
0.4
105
1 .4
101
-
0.2
107
0.4
108
1.7
201
-
2.1
202
2.7
213
4.7
204
-
0.7
205
o!s
206
0.6
2 ft 7
-
0 . 3
208
1.3
209
2.2
2 10
-
0 . 6
SSI
- o.9
3 0 2
0.0
303
-
0.0
304
1.5
305
1.5
306
-
0.6
307
0.6
308
1.7
309
-
0 . 0
310
0.3
311
0 7
401
-
2.3
401
0.7
403
3.9
404
-
1.3
405
1.7
406
3.2
407
-
2.4
406
. JOS
4 0 6
8.5
411
-
0.3
412
0.1
413
t. 6
4 14
-
0.2
415
0 0
416
417
-
0.5
418
0.7
410
0.3
420
-
1 . 8
411
2.1
601
502
-
0.0
503
0.3
504
0.2
505
-
0.8
5 0 6
1 ' j
507
506
.
1 0
801
0.1
602
- 0 4
603
-
0 . 0
604
0.2
605
0.6
606
-
0 . 1
807
0.6
608
1.0
600
-
2.5
611
til
701
0.8
702
-
0 . 7
708
2.0
704
0.8
705
-
2.2
801
0.7
802
I.)
603
.
0.1
804
0.4
805
0 0
806
-
0 8
807
0.1
808
1.2
809
-
2.5
810
0.4
811
0.0
812
-
4. 1
813
0.0
814
615
-
0 . 2
816
1.1
901
902
-
5.6
903
O.g
904
0.2
905
-
2 . 0
1001
0.4
1002
0.1
1003
-
0 . 6
1004
9.1
1606
1.0
1606
•
1.3
1007
0.6
1008
0.4
1000
-
0.0
1010
0.1
1011
1.4
1012
-
0 . 1
1013
0.0
1014
0.0
1015
-
0.2
1016
0.7
1101
- 0 5
1 102
-
0 . 9
1 103
0.7
1104
0.0
1105
-
0 . 4
1106
1.0
1201
- 1 .2
1202
-
4.7
1203
2.1
1204
- 10.2
1205
-
3.0
1206
1 . 3
1207
- 12.1
[later Management Unit - Value]
Prepared by USKPA VeI I aids Research Program, USIPA In?Ironineata 1 Scitirch Lab. Corval 1 is . Oregon
1*
-------
WETLAND CAPACITY
Arkansas
Figure 5
le t I an d Area (h a)
0 - 3375
3375 - 9390
9390 - 29265
29265 - 152500
filer Management Unit
Gu I f
9l4t
4714
5 974
10(11
5 4 0 4
sits
4102
0
8 6 4 8#
5 1853
30
70223
1 9392
89)
89
14
1 2270
33
29705
< 5 02 4
2 2 83 2
1548
103
_
32279
104
-
25060
105
-
144842
106
-
4 0 3 8
42890
201
_
59177
202
-
35136
203
-
63279
204
-
24 1 2
8 8 8 B
207
_
8856
266
-
40869
209
-
9 53 33
210
-
3 4 5 7 1
44 84
303
.
344 4
304
—
40279
305
-
79 35
306
-
6 6 9
36 24
309
-
219
310
-
16130
311
-
1 77 84
401
-
338
1 4 4 2 4
404
.
320 25
405
-
1 2808
406
-
4 70 88
407
-
9 6 2 1
1 0676
411
-
2404
412
-
6321
413
-
604
414
-
7 7 2 2
703
417
.
12311
418
-
962 1
4 19
-
1455
420
-
4 2 4 6 0
J 5 3 • 8
502
-
4229
503
-
43133
504
-
4879
505
-
4 2 4 0
116662
506
.
51013
601
-
3901
602
-
2 96 36
803
-
0
3511
SOI
_
524
667
_
683 6
608
-
8003
8 0 0
-
5 6 8 4 7
1 3675
702
-
242 1 0
703
-
227 1
704
-
395 1 2
705
-
4 0 6 5
4 4 4 6
803
-
425
804
-
233
805
-
4 5 46
806
-
3 3 6 7 3
mi
809
_
72 09
810
-
125
611
-
39
812
-
1 4 4 7 8
1157
815
-
4214
816
-
2658 5
901
-
2099 1
902
-
2 4 5 75
128
905
-
5226
1001
-
11084
1002
-
261 98
1003
-
4 7 0 9
1 6079
1006
_
10181
1007
-
1 5732
1008
-
5 4 4 3
1009
-
562
1 0 64 0
1012
-
529
1013
-
7151
1014
-
13
1015
-
2 2 8 8 1
6389
1102
-
29140
1103
-
4078 2
1104
-
56
120317
1 105
-
1327
204 64
1202
-
101041
1203
-
24972
1204
-
1205
-
2 4 0 6 8
152497
[later Management Unit - Value]
PripiriJ b} US I Pi latlntl limrtk Fr«|lia. D 3 IP 1 SarlroDBtita) Eeieifch Lib, Ctrilllll, Ortjn
15
-------
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (NON-NORHALIZED)
Arkansas
Gulf
Figure 6
H y d r i c Area -
Current Wetland Area (ha)
| 1 - 3 2 3 9 5 - 4 1 4 0
| 1 4 1 4 0 - 1 2 3 0 0
m 12300 - 36770
| 1 3 6 7 7 0 - 2 2 9 8 1 5
815 - Titer Management Unit
101 -
7500
102 • 9884
105
45630
104 -
8 4 377
105
-4121
106 - 1099
107 -
$ 2 6 2
106 - 4720
201
2301 9
282 -
36 3 3
203
21238
204 - 8894
80S -
-1261
206 - 4343
207
-3354
208 -
-565 1
209
90 3 0
210 - 7807
301 -
6 6 732
302 - 6012
303
11544
3 0 4 -
2 35 0 9
305
6 96 1 2
306 - 32531
307 -
46101
308 - 102730
309
6566
310 -
34 0 8 6
311
12132
401 - 14333
402 -
1 7 337
403 - 60124
404
564
4 05 -
4 6 4 0 9
406
4 6 6 3
407 - 31934
400 -
36620
409 ~ 17053
411
-65
412 -
-146
413
11039
4 14 J -609
415 -
258
416 - -63
417
- 2730
418 -
-5153
410
-612
420 - -8608
421 -
- 3 2 3 6 5
501 - 81378
502
61016
50 3 -
74779
504
8677
505 - 26279
501 -
60662
507 - 6606
506
-17370
601 -
23700
602
229613
603 - 167
604 -
1667
605 - 12353
606
7 • 1
60 7 -
11721
608
8 55 8 3
609 - 21374
111 -
- 6 0 8
701 - 53079
702
1 95 78
7 0 3 -
19714
704
22 4 2 5
705 - 25210
aoi -
1 796 0
602 - 32068
603
4 316
6 0 4 -
221
805
6 9 2 6
806 - 34768
8 07 -
3165
606 - 12247
609
122292
610 -
37209
611
715
812 - 136836
813 -
4 4 6 3
814 - 34446
615
56657
616 -
8 73 6 5
601
- 25 3 7
902 - -4953
903 -
5160
904 - 6477
905
3 04 74
1001 -
2 28 2 2
1002
4 73 6 4
1003 - 27884
1004 -
3 554 6
1005 - 21412
1006
6794 5
1 00 7 -
4 62 3 9
1006
2 9 3 2 6
1 0 0 9 - 5 0 4 9
(Oil -
4 23 9
1011 - 36211
1012
6665
1013 -
8 4 4 8 8
1014
392
1015 - 10494
1016 -
9 7 92 9
1101 - 47819
1102
4 03 6 5
1103-
- 308 7
1104
7218
1105 - 18343
1101 -
292 9
1201 - 104636
1202
131757
1 203 -
2 56 1 4
1204
94 74
1205 - 11670
1 206 -
5697
1207 - 77325
[later Management Unit - Value]
FreptreJ bj 0 31P1 litliidt Itmreb FM|rta, OSEPi (¦ 11 rum 111 lattireb Lib, Ctrfbllli. 0r«g«i
16
-------
Future Loss
Agricultural conversion and urban expansion have historically accounted for 85 and
10% of national wetland loss, respectively (Tiner 1984). Thus, risk of future wetland loss
was based on recent trends in agricultural and population growth. We derived a risk
factor by using a weighted average of the annual rate of agricultural growth between 1974
and 1982 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1974, 1982a) and population growth between 1970
and 1980 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972, 1982b) (Appendix II). Parish data were
prorated to watershed units as described under "life support input." The proportions of
wetland loss reported by Tiner (1984) were used as weights. The risk factor was
multiplied by current wetland area to derive future loss (Figure 7).
Designated Uses of Surface Waters
Five use categories were derived from State wetland water quality standards
(Louisiana Office of State Register 1989): 1. fish and wildlife (includes recreation); 2.
public water supply; 3. oyster propagation; 4. agriculture; and 5. outstanding natural
resource waters . Surface waters assigned to the above uses were mapped (Figure 8)
according to their water body code number (Louisiana DEQ 1988a).
TECHNICAL INFORMATION TRANSFER
Information transfer to EPA Region 6 and Louisiana resource agency staff was
accomplished through technical seminars. Fundamental to this strategy was the
participation of EPA and State technical staff in the preparation and review of map
products and narrative reports. Three technical seminars were attended by EPA regional
staff and representatives from Louisiana's DEQ and Department of Natural Resources.
The objectives of these seminars were to: 1. introduce the synoptic approach (April 1989);
2. present preliminary results of the Louisiana analysis (October 1989); and 3. present
final results (May 1990). As a result of discussions at the October 1989 meeting, some
adjustments were made to the study design, in order to accommodate the interests of State
resource agencies.
17
-------
FUTURE LOSS
Arkansas
Figure 7
Risk i Tel] and Area
|—| - 1 3 6 5 - - 1 1 5
815 - Valer Management Unit
Gu I f
101
.
147 10
7
103
_
241
104
-
14
105
_
-959
106
-
-117
107
-
-137 10
- -1235
201
-
-202
202
-
-750
203
-
-1364
204
-
-17
SOS
-
4 20
94
207
-
-112
208
-
-255
209
-
-564
210
-
- 5S
301
-
-350 30
-74
303
-
-67
304
-
197
305
-
-123
306
-
-4
307
-
-42 30
-40
309
-
- 4
310
-
-194
311
-
- 128
401
-
3
402
-
-61 40
106
404
-
300
405
-
106
406
-
-336
407
-
57
406
-
56 40
115
411
-
-85
412
-
-293
413
-
8
414
-
UIDiriMD
416
-
UIDIflRID 41
21
417
_
115
418
-
109
419
-
1 7
420
-
481
421
-
1 39 50
- -159
502
-
-75
503
-
-252
504
-
-35
505
-
-61
506
-
-168 50
- -610
506
-
26
60 1
-
-3
602
-
190
603
-
0
604
-
0 60
- -102
6 0 6
-
-15
607
-
-22
608
-
-69
609
-
-691
611
-
-345 70
128
702
-
-148
703
-
-15
704
-
-63
705
-
-23
601
-
54 6 0
193
6 0 3
-
17
604
-
0
605
-
21
606
-
13
607
-
5 60
10
809
-
-36
810
-
-1
811
-
0
612
-
151
613
-
4 81
-55
815
-
4
616
-
740
901
-
63
902
-
449
903
-
0 90
0
905
-
6
100 1
-
-J
1002
-
483
1003
-
-64
1004
-
13 100
-50
1006
-
-85
1007
-
89
1006
-
17
1009
-
-4
1010
-
0 101
-13
1012
-
0
1013
-
-73
10 14
-
0
1015
-
538
1016
-
722 110
-38
1 102
-
-379
1103
-
321
1 104
-
0
1 105
-
-42
1106
-
-473 120
38
1202
-
-646
1203
-
-208
1204
-
-1056
1205
-
-118
1206
-
-186 120
- -1003
[filer Management Unit - Value]
Prepared by US1PA lellands Research Program, USEPi Environmental Research Lab, Corvallis, Oregon
18
-------
LOUISIANA DESIGNATED USES OF SURFACE WATERS
Figure 8
Fish 4 11Idli fe (Recreot ion)
A9ri cu I ture
Oyster Propagation
Pub I i e Voter Supply
(
#
urn
Ootstondi ng Natural
Resources Vators
19
-------
FINAL PRODUCTS
The final products of this pilot study are the following:
1. Maps, generated with the ARC/INFO Geographic Information System,
depicting rankings of Louisiana's "water quality management units" according
to the synoptic indices and the component data layers for each index,
including:
o Hydrologic input
-mean annual precipitation
-total drainage area
-potential runoff
-stream channel slope
-channel length
o Water quality input
-nonpoint water quality input
o Life support input
o Wetland capacity
o Cumulative impacts
o Future risk
-agricultural growth (1974-1982)
-human population growth (1970-1980)
o Future loss
2. Map of Louisiana's "designated uses" of surface waters
3. Floppy diskette with all data collected for the study
4. ARC/INFO data tapes (for use with a Geographic Information System)
20
-------
DISCUSSION
It is appropriate to introduce the derived (secondary) indices, (mentioned in the
"Overview of the Synoptic Approach" section of this report) in the discussion of wetland
functions and sensitivity to change. The concepts incorporated in the indices are central
to the synoptic approach, although methods to measure the indices are still in the
development stage. The derived indices are defined here and the some of the maps
generated for them (Appendix IV) are used for illustrative purposes:
Landscape Sensitivity—landscape input into wetlands divided by wetland capacity.
This is an index of the potential for landscape inputs to be processed by wetlands.
Cumulative Effects-the likelihood of changes in landscape function caused by
wetland impacts, estimated as the product of sensitivity and cumulative impacts.
Wetland Significance-the significance of wetland loss to potential beneficiaries of
wetland function, calculated by multiplying cumulative effects by some specific use
(i.e., a population of interest or area of some land use).
The identification of relative wetland function can be achieved by comparing landscape
inputs with wetland capacity for a given function. For example, hydrologic inputs in unit
801 (Figure 2) are relatively low compared to inputs in unit 815 in the Ouachita River
Basin. On the other hand, wetland capacity in unit 801 (Figure 5) is relatively high,
compared to wetland capacity in unit 815. This suggests that unit 815 is relatively more
sensitive than unit 801 to the hydrologic effects of wetland loss, as illustrated by the
"hydrologic sensitivity" map (Appendix IV).
The addition of the cumulative impacts component to the indices for wetland
function provides a tool for identifying landscapes that have potentially suffered from
wetland loss. Cumulative impacts for unit 815 (Figure 6) are relatively high compared to
those for unit 801; high sensitivity and high impacts suggests greater loss of landscape
function as illustrated by the map for "hydrologic effects" (Appendix IV). In addition, a
relatively high human population density in unit 815 implies high social significance, as
illustrated by the "hydrologic significance to humans" map (Appendix IV).
The products of the Louisiana statewide assessment can be used to identify functions
(or "uses") and areas sensitive to impacts not captured in existing surface water
designations. The most obvious illustration of this is that the State's "designated uses" do
not include an indicator of the hydrologic function provided by wetlands. Additional
protection for wetlands could be provided by designating watersheds for "hydrologic use"
where the relative sensitivity is high. The same principle could be applied to water quality
and life support functions where existing "use" designations do not appear to provide
21
-------
adequate protection for the wetland functions identified by the synoptic maps. It should
be emphasized that the synoptic approach is not intended to make value judgements, or
management decisions, with respect to which wetland functions are most important to
protect within a geographic area. The index or suite of indices used for designating
wetland "use" or assessing cumulative impacts must be determined by the regulatory
agencies involved.
To designate candidate wetlands and wetland complexes for "Outstanding State
Resource Waters" a protocol could be developed by combining existing surface water
designated uses with synoptic wetland function identification or cumulative effects ranking.
For example, Appendix V summarizes the rankings of watersheds for hydrology, water
quality and life support cumulative effects. Those units with low rankings for a particular
function, e.g. a rank of 1 through 10, are likely to have a high potential for processing
landscape inputs for that function and are likely to be relatively unimpacted. Watersheds
that have low cumulative effects rankings for all functions, i.e., units 207, 417,418, 421, and
902, might be considered to have wetlands of relatively high functional value and therefore
identified for special protection as "Outstanding State Resource Waters." The rankings
could be further refined by weighting the watersheds by wetland patch size or the existence
of state wetland heritage sites.
22
-------
CONCLUSION
The synoptic approach is a framework for assessing the cumulative effects of
wetland loss on landscape function, designed to complement existing management practices.
The approach can be applied to a variety of spatial scales and regulatory issues and can
be modified according to the concerns of a particular regulatory agency. An assessment
can be completed in a matter of months at a relatively low cost.
The synoptic approach does provide a landscape perspective on wetland function
and identifies wetland functions not included in Louisiana's designated uses of surface
waters. Additional protection could be afforded to Louisiana's wetlands by using the
synoptic approach to differentiate functions (uses) performed by wetlands, which may be
quite different from adjacent lakes and streams due to differences in hydrology and biotic
composition. However, the approach may be more appropriate for a state, such as
Washington, with a more generalized set of water quality standards than Louisiana's since
synoptic results are not specific (Louisiana's designated use categories include specific uses
such as "oyster propagation," "public water supply," and "agriculture" while Washington
includes general categories such as "extraordinary," "excellent," and "fair"). A pilot
application of the approach in Washington, which is nearing completion, will test the utility
of the synoptic approach in a state which has no specific wetland designated use classes,
i.e., does not specifically include wetlands in its definition of surface waters of the state.
The most appropriate use of the Louisiana assessment may be in regional planning, the
development of State Wetlands Conservation Plans in accordance with recommendations
of the National Wetlands Policy Forum (National Wetlands Policy Forum 1988), or as a
tool for nonpoint source pollution assessment. Ultimately, the utility of the synoptic
approach in providing information useful to the development of wetland water quality
standards and the strategy for wetland "use designation" in the study area must be decided
by resource management agencies.
In conclusion, the synoptic approach was developed to provide a tool, in addition
to existing management practices, for evaluating the cumulative effects of wetland loss in
regulatory decisions that must be made quickly and with limited resources. The method
is still developmental. For example, hydrologic input does not currently include upstream
imports, and therefore downstream input is underestimated. Future research strategies,
including upstream import, validation of the assumptions, establishment of confidence levels
for the surrogates, and additional data will be incorporated as they are developed. The
final product of the research will be the completion of a Cumulative Impact Assessment
manual in 1991.
23
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Abbruzzese, B., S.G. Leibowitz, F.L. Morris, P.R. Adamus, CB.Johnson, and E.M. Preston.
1990. A synoptic approach to the assessment of cumulative effects of wetland loss
on landscape function. Submitted to Environmental Management.
Bedford, B.I., and E.M. Preston. 1988. Developing the scientific basis for assessing
cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions: Status,
perspectives, and prospects. Environmental Management 12(5): 751-771.
Gosselink, J.G, and L.C. Lee. 1989. Cumulative impact assessment in bottomland
hardwood forests. Wetlands 9: 93-174.
Hydric Soils Committee. 1987. Hydric soils of the United States. USDA Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, D.C.
Lee, F. N. 1985. Floods in Louisiana, magnitude and frequency. Water Resources
Technical Report No. 36, Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Leibowitz, S. G., and E.M. Preston, USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory, personal
communication, 1990.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 1988a. Louisiana water quality
inventory. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Water
Resources. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 1988b. State of Louisiana Water Quality
Management Plan: Volume 6 Part A Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 1988 Louisiana Natural Heritage
Program: Special animals. Unpublished data.
Louisiana Office of State Register. 1989. Louisiana Administrative Code Volume 14
Chapter 11 pp 1-54. Louisiana Office of State Register. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Lytle, SA, and M.B. Sturgis. 1962. General soils areas and associated soil series groups
of Louisiana. Map (scale: one twelfth inch equals one mile). Louisiana State
University. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
24
-------
Preston, E.M., and B.L. Bedford. 1988. Evaluating cumulative effects on wetland
functions: A conceptual overview and generic framework. Environmental
Management 12 (5): 565-583.
National Wetlands Policy Forum. 1988. Protecting America's wetlands: an action agenda.
The Conservation Foundation. Washington, D.C.
Rawls, W.J., A. Shalaby, and R.H. MC Cuen. 1981 Evaluation of methods for
determining urban runoff curve numbers. Transactions of the ASAE 24(6): 1562-
1566.
Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Urban Hydrology for small watersheds. Technical
Release 55, 210-VI-TR-55. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current status and recent trends.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Table 1 pp. 1-5.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1972. Census of population and housing: 1970. Population
and land area of parishes: 1970 and 1960, Louisiana. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. Table 9, pp. 15-16.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1974. Census of agriculture. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1982a. Census of agriculture. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1982b. Census of population and housing: 1980. Part 20,
summary characteristics for governmental units and standard metropolitan statistical
areas, Louisiana. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Table 1,
pp.1-5.
U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands Protection. 1989. Wetlands and 401 certification:
opportunities and guidelines for states and eligible Indian tribes. U.S.
Environmental protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
25
-------
APPENDIX L Maps of overlay components used for deriving synoptic indices.
26
-------
MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
Ar kansas
Figure 1.1
Precipitation (cm
Vilir Mait Unit
Gu I f
9 29 46 60
101
-
155
102 - 143
103
-
144
104
- ] 43
105
- |53
106
-
107
-
165
106 - 164
201
-
162
202
- j j 9
203
- |Q5
204
-
205
-
153
206 - 157
207
-
159
208
- 3 6 8
209
- ISO
2 1 0
-
301
-
145
302 - 140
303
-
140
304
- ]38
305
- 14 2
306
-
307
-
147
306 - 140
309
-
140
310
- 13 8
311
- 140
401
-
402
-
142
403 - 146
404
-
151
405
— 158
408
- 149
407
-
403
-
159
409 - 157
411
-
151
412
- j 4 9
413
- 14 7
414
-
4 1 S
-
149
416 - 150
417
-
154
418
- 154
419
- 15 7
420
-
421
-
160
501 - 149
502
-
144
503
- 15 4
504
- 15 0
505
-
506
-
147
507 - 145
50 S
-
145
801
- 15 0
802
- 14 8
603
-
604
-
152
605 - 156
60S
-
155
607
- 15 0
608
- 14 3
609
-
611
-
153
701 - 133
702
-
141
703
- 15 3
704
- 14 5
705
-
601
-
126
802 - 138
803
-
148
804
- 126
805
- 12 5
806
-
807
-
126
606 - 130
809
-
132
810
— 13 5
811
- 135
612
-
813
-
144
814 - 137
815
-
138
816
- ]46
901
- 15 3
902
-
903
-
155
904 - 155
905
-
157
1001
- 12 4
1002
- 15 3
1003
-
1004
-
122
1005 - 126
1001
-
120
1007
_ ]27
1008
- 131
1009
-
1010
-
130
1011 - 135
1012
-
140
1013
- 14 0
1014
- 14 5
1015
-
1016
-
144
1101 - 127
1102
-
138
1103
- 13 5
1 104
- 13 3
1 103
-
1 101
-
135
1201 - 141
1202
-
160
1203
- 172
1204
- i & b
1205
-
1206
-
166
1207 - 160
[later Management Unit - Value]
Prepared by USEPA Vetlands Research Program, USEPA En *ironme11a 1 Research Lab, Corvallis, Oregon
27
-------
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA
Arkansas
Figure 1.2
Drainage Area (ha)
| 1 2 1 0 - 2 0 8 6 0
|—1 2 0 8 6 0 - 7 4 8 9 0
g|§ 74890 - 143250
r~l 1 4 3 2 5 0 - 4 2 6 8 2 5
815 - filer Management Unit
101 -
34 29 3
102
1 4 03 6
103
108061
104
116503
105
176194
106
5 3 9 9
107 -
1 1538
108
50 03 8
201
8 4 3 6 1
202
5 5 4 0 4
203
10 2013
204
1 1437
2 0 6 -
8 4 7 2
206
2224 6
207
8793
208
5598 1
209
143081
210
6 7 0 54
301 -
239795
302
1 3702
303
1 9796
304
9 3 34 7
305
225173
306
61801
307 -
82 229
306
207987
309
90 56
310
73167
311
5 97 8 0
401
78102
4 02 -
3 2 524
403
268449
404
40055
405
174208
406
6 964 6
407
133426
408 -
113295
409
65 8 1 3
411
3553
412
12415
413
2 22 84
414
14184
415 -
529
416
1793
417
1 89 1 S
418
1 9657
419
3 7 0 8
420
148931
421 -
130508
501
196858
502
143750
503
247339
504
3 07 5 7
505
8 0 9 3 2
5 06 -
177994
507
245581
508
6 5986
801
8 2 98 6
802
426823
603
213
8 0 4 -
3393
605
1 6672
606
1382
607
2 597 0
608
1616 8 3
609
124137
6 11 -
133925
701
76 6 1 0
702
726 74
703
3 832 3
704
9600 1
705
126240
801 -
118040
802
794 3 0
803
64 92
804
1094
805
6 37 35
806
373709
8 07 -
1 1225
808
39 024
809
255049
810
4 8 7 1 1
811
891
812
184583
613 -
7322
814
242238
615
245758
816
302497
911
53183
902
4 6 5 0 1
9 0 3 -
1 8785
904
20 35 3
905
974 25
1001
9 9 7 7 2
1002
119822
1003
116612
1 0 0 4 -
170567
1005
217534
1006
287274
1007
235901
10 0 8
120483
1009
21032
1010 -
1 0 52 8
1011
181279
1012
2 2 3 58
1013
187129
1014
1259
1015
8 0 5 3 8
1016 -
150438
1101
265192
1102
175575
1103
81017
1 104
5 3 6 4 7
1105
122298
1101 -
125044
1201
132521
1202
237961
1203
51160
1204
133785
1205
36143
1208 -
2 8852
1207
232628
[later Management Unit - Value]
Prepared b f USIP1 letlndi Research Program, D3IP1 Id f I r odii i 111 Reiearch Lab, Cartalllt, Or«|ti
Gal f
28
-------
POTENTIAL RUNOFF (CURVE NUMBER)
Arkansas
Runoff (fraction)
Valcr Naoafement Unit
Gul f
101
0.712
10 2 -
0 871
103
0 .826
107
0 . 837
10 8 -
0.818
201
0 80 1
2 OS
0 . 785
2 0 6 -
0 .826
207
0 776
301
0.790
3 0 2 -
0 8 27
303
0 8 4 1
307
0 923
30 6 -
0.814
309
0 8 34
402
0. 752
4 0 3 -
0 .774
404
0 .752
408
0 750
4 01 -
0 8 0 1
411
0 845
415
0 87 1
416 -
0.858
417
0 845
421
0. 832
501 •
0 .777
502
0 .756
506
0. 801
50 7 -
0 6 36
508
0 8 10
604
0. 833
60 5 -
0 8 30
606
0.834
611
0 . 879
7 01 -
0 8 3 2
702
0 620
601
0.813
10 2 -
0 .776
603
0.873
807
0.836
6 0 6 •
0.651
609
0.754
813
0 . 837
814 -
0 . 767
615
0 8 05
903
0 660
9 0 4 -
0 .654
905
0 .735
1004
0. 745
1 0 0 5 -
0 . 766
1006
0.775
1010
0 . 776
1011 -
0.736
1012
0.829
1016
0 826
1101 -
0.821
1102
0.762
1106
0.818
1201 -
0.800
1202
0 .823
1206
0 . 778
1 207 -
0 .848
[later Manage
Prepared bj U3IP1 Itlllldi Itmrek Pro|rim,
104 - 0.601
105 - 0.8
2
106
0 6
202 - 0.627
203 - 0.8
5
204
0 . 7
208 - 0 . 794
209 - 0.6
6
210
0 . 6
304 - 0.676
305 - 0.7
1
306
0. 6
310 - 0.601
311 - 0 8
1
401
0.7
405 - 0.600
406 - 8.8
8
407
0.7
412 - 0.611
413 - 0.8
9
414
0.7
4 18 - 0.605
419 - 0.8
3
420
0. 9
503 - 0.792
504 - 0.8
505
0. 8
601 - 0.651
802 - 0.7
2
603
0.8
807 - 0.651
606 - 0 7
2
609
0. 7
703 - 0.933
704 - 0 9
4
705
0 . 7
804 - 0.624
605 - 0.7
806
0.7
810 - 0.787
811 - 0.8
1
812
0 . 8
816 - 0.747
901 - 0.7
9
902
0 . 8
1001 - 0.722
1002 - 0.7
3
1003
0 . 7
1007 - 0.713
1008 - 0.7
4
1009
0 . 6
1013 - 0.742
1014 - 0.7
0
1015
0 . 8
1103 - 0.833
1104 - 0.7
1
1105
0. 7
1203 - 0.765
1204 - 0.8
0
1205
0.7
t Unit - Value]
k In»Ironneita I Research Lab, Carvallii, Oregon
29
-------
STREAM CHANNEL SLOPE
Arkansas
Figure
i»i
hi
mil
Slope (m/m
0 0 0 E - 5 -
ill
IM
0 OOE-5
~
IM
11}
III*
~
OOE-5
7 . 9 5 E - 5
9 5 E - 5
2 . 7 5 E - 4
Mil
lit
III
llll
7 5 E - 4
3 5 5 E - 3
I" I
mi
mi
11 SI
lilt
filer Management Unit
815
in
I
¦411
Ml
ill
*11
III
l*4fi
121
III
GuIf of
in
20
km
101
_
0. 131-3
102 - 0.0 01+
103
_
0 001+0
104 -
.001+0
105
- 0.51
-4 106
- 0 .
271-
107
.
0 001 + 0
1 08 - 0 00E4
201
-
0 841-4
212 -
. 971-4
203
- 0.00
+ • 204
- 0 .
3 61 —
205
-
0. 251-3
20 6 - 0 5 flf-
207
-
0.511-4
20 8 -
.001+0
200
- 0.00
+ 0 2 10
- 0 .
2 91-
301
-
0 401-3
30 2 - 0 101-
303
-
0.411-4
3 0 4 -
. 111-4
305
- 0.78
-3 3 0 6
- o .
7 81-
307
.
0.171-3
308 - 0.61E-
300
-
0. 141-3
310 -
. 271-4
311
- 0.89
-4 4 0 1
- 0 .
7 91-
4 02
-
0.341-3
403 - 0 391-
404
-
0 921-4
4 0 5 -
.7 81—3
406
- 0.18
-3 407
- 0 .
8 41-
408
-
0. 101-2
401 - 0 5 81-
411
-
0 001+0
412 -
. 141-3
413
- 0.00
+ 0 414
- 0 .
001 +
416
-
0.001+0
416 - 0 0014
417
-
0 .001 + 0
418 -
. 181-4
410
- 0.00
+ 0 4 2 0
- 0 .
001 +
421
-
0.231-4
501 - 0.231-
502
-
0.211-3
5 0 3 -
.30 K- 3
504
- 0.52
-4 5 0 5
- 0 .
131 —
509
_
0 . 131-3
507 - 0.171-
506
-
0 .001 + 0
801 -
. 121-2
602
- 0.16
-3 6 0 3
- 0 .
8 11-
604
_
0 861-4
605 - 0 2 31-
606
-
0 931-4
117 -
. 151-3
608
- 0.75
-4 6 0 9
- 0 .
2 51 —
611
-
0 . 361-4
701 - 0.Sll-
702
-
0.731-4
7 0 3 -
. 271-4
704
- 0.00
+ 6 7 0 5
- 0 .
9 21-
801
_
0 .611-4
OOt - 0 001+
803
-
0 .001 + 0
80 4 -
.111-3
805
- 0.10
-3 8 0 6
- 0 .
4 81-
807
-
0.001+0
806 - 0 9 71-
809
-
0.561-4
610 -
. 501-4
811
- 0.00
+ 0 812
- 0 .
3 61 —
613
-
0 . 001 + 0
814 - 0 3 21-
615
-
0.401-3
818 -
.001+0
901
- 0.42
-3 9 0 2
- 0 .
2 71-!
903
-
0 . 351-2
904 - 0.231-
905
-
0 581-3
1061 -
. 901-4
1002
- 0.14
-3 1003
- 0 .
001 +
1004
-
0. 15 K- 3
1 005 - 0 .1 91-
1006
-
0.171-3
1 007 -
. 501-3
1008
- 0.57
-3 1009
- 0 .
8 61-
1010
-
0.111-2
1011 - 0 001+
1012
-
0.851-3
1013 -
. 4 61-3
1014
- 0.00
+6 1015
- 0 .
001 +
10 18
-
0 001 + 0
110 1 - 0 001+
1102
-
0 .181-3
1103 -
561-5
1 104
- 0.12
-2 1105
- 0 .
121-
1108
-
0.73E-4
1201 - 0.841-
1202
-
0.521-5
1 203 -
. 271-4
1204
- 0.70
-5 1205
- 0 .
i 11 -
1206
-
0.45E-4
1207 - 0 001+
[later Management Unit - Value]
Prepared bj OSlPi Vetliada Rcieireb Program, 031PA lavIronmeitiI Keiaarch Lib, Caritllli, Oregon
30
-------
CHANNEL LENGTH
Arkansas
Figure 1.5
Length (km)
| 1 1 6 0 5 - 3 0 5 7 0
| 1 3 0 5 7 0 - 6 0 1 8 0
fill 6 0 1 8 0 - 9 5 9 4 0
r—| 95940 - 370715
815 - Titer ManeiemeBt Unit
I
Gu I f
81142
102 - 75823
103
_
101650
104
-
8012
105
- 102654
10 6 -
22204
106 - 27353
201
-
7 2 4 0 5
202
-
3828
203
3 7 0 0 7
2 0 4 -
8 S17
206 - 34272
207
-
8 04 5
208
-
250 2
209
4 16 3 4
210 -
17 2 9 6 8
302 - 32180
303
-
3 0 0 6 6
304
-
8133
305
- 8 8 6 S 6
3 0 6 -
5 7 924
306 - 85780
309
-
1 4 6 4 2
310
-
057 1
311
5 4 7 0 6
4 01 -
3 2 S 6 3
403 - 144810
404
-
4 8 5 9 2
405
-
9438
406
2 07 5 6
4 0 7 -
769 1 1
409 - 38203
41 1
-
6 0 4 5
412
-
1907
413
8 6 6 9
4 14 -
7512
416 - 22528
417
-
1 9 3 0 8
418
-
3009
419
- 4 85 9 2
4 2 0 -
3 5 23 7
501 - 82864
502
-
7 9 64 6
503
-
883 2
504
— 4 6 6 6 1
5 0 5 -
7S037
507 - 73210
506
-
1 0 94 1
601
-
0884
602
- 186000
6 0 3 -
814 84
605 - 35398
606
-
1 7 5 3 8
607
-
0820
668
- 118583
6 0 9 -
11213
701 - 345131
702
-
127916
703
-
3
0714
704
3 0 5 7 1
7 0 5 -
146419
802 - 115848
603
-
6 3 7 1 6
804
-
6 54 0
605
6 7 5 7 8
8 0 6 -
4 6 27 9
608 - 31378
609
-
180206
810
-
2
4 34 3
611
- 80 4 5
812 -
20 4 34
814 - 126487
615
-
9 8 6 3 2
816
-
1601
901
9 5 7 3 6
9 0 2 -
2 3 00 9
904 - 34594
905
-
77393
1001
-
3
0 4 6 4
1002
- 149315
1 0 0 3 -
137241
005 - 116853
1906
-
119549
1007
-
1
1158
1008
- 106194
1 0 0 9 -
17199
Oil - 91713
1012
-
2 3 9 7 4
1013
-
4 95 5
1014
16 0 9
1015 -
9 4 4 4 1
101 - 106194
1 102
_
185244
1103
-
2405
1 104
4 0 5 5 7
110 5 -
11142
201 - 87369
1202
-
78 5 1 9
1203
-
9533
1204
5 7 9 2 4
1 2 0 5 -
27353
207 - 24135
- i
[later Management Unit - Value]
b; 0 31P J lilliili Eeieareb Fr«|raa. 0 S IP A In 11 r onmcit11 Research lib. Cariellii, Ore|ea
31
-------
WATER QUALITY INPUT (NORMALIZED)
Arkansas
Figure 1.6
Length of Polluted Streams /
Length of All Streams (km/km)
I—| 0 0 0 - 0 0 0
| 1 0.00 - 0.60
0.60 - 0.99
[—] 0 9 9 - 1 0 0
815 - Viler Management Unit
Gulf
101
1.00
102
0.00
103
1.00
104
- 1.00
105
1.00
106
1.00
107
0 00
101
0 00
201
100
202
- 1 . 00
263
1 .00
2 0 4
1 00
2 0 5
1 . 00
206
1.00
207
1 00
208
-1.00
260
1 .00
219
1 . 00
301
0 00
302
0 .60
303
1 00
304
- o.oo
305
0.09
306
0 . 00
SOT
0 . 00
301
0 00
309
160
310
-0.56
311
0 .00
401
0.19
402
1 .00
403
0 .44
404
6.00
405
0.08
406
1.00
407
0.51
4 0 S
0. 69
409
0.95
411
1 .00
412
- 1.00
413
1 00
414
0 00
4 1
I . 00
416
1 00
417
0 21
418
-0.30
410
1 .00
420
0 . 00
421
0.50
501
1.00
502
1 .00
503
- 0.94
504
1 .00
505
1 . 00
506
1 . 00
507
1 00
501
0 .00
60 1
- 0.00
602
1 . 00
603
1 00
<01
1 . 00
60S
1 00
606
6 00
607
- 1 00
806
0 84
606
0 21
All
0.00
701
0 00
702
0.00
703
- 0 00
704
1.00
705
0.56
601
o. oe
102
0 00
603
0.00
604
- 0.00
805
0 00
806
0 10
807
100
606
0 00
809
0.13
810
- 0.00
811
1 .00
812
0 . 00
813
0.00
614
1.00
115
0.56
616
- I ll
901
0 54
902
0.31
903
0 00
904
0 00
905
0 .00
100 1
-0.00
1002
0 10
1003
0 . 42
1004
0.31
1005
0 00
1006
0.18
1007
- 0.28
1008
0.00
1009
0 . 00
1010
1 .00
1011
0 60
1012
1 00
1013
-0 00
1014
1 .00
1015
0 . 00
1016
0 00
1 101
1 00
1102
0 00
1 103
-0.00
1 104
0 00
1105
0 19
1101
0 . 00
1201
0 08
1202
1 .00
1203
- 1.00
1204
0.89
1205
1 . 00
1201
1 .00
1207
1 .00
[liter Management Unit - Value]
Priparit b j U 31 f i lilliaii Itinrik Pri|na. USIPi lit I ronnii 111 Keseireh lit, Ctmllli. 0ri|ii
32
-------
NON-POINT WATER QUALITY INPUT (N0N-N0RMAL I ZED )
Arkansas
Figure 1.7
Length of Non-Point
Polluted Streams (km)
Gulf
20 40 SB
km
101 -
0
102
107 -
0
101
205 -
42
206
301 -
0
302
307 -
0
301
4 0 2 -
29
403
4 0 0 -
10S
409
415 -
0
411
421 -
0
501
501 -
08
507
6 0 4 -
64
605
111 -
0
701
801 -
0
802
8 07 -
0
808
0 1 3 -
0
814
903 -
0
904
1 0 0 4 -
121
1005
1010 -
0
1011
1010 -
0
1101
1101 -
0
1201
1200 -
¦ 19
1207
103
_
0
104
_
0
105
_
0
106
-
29
201
-
116
202
-
11
203
-
29
204
-
159
207
-
19
208
-
64
209
-
0
210
-
0
303
-
43
304
-
0
306
-
0
306
-
0
309
-
0
• 310
-
32
311
-
0
40 1
-
19
404
-
0
405
-
0
406
-
0
407
-
90
411
-
0
412
-
6
413
-
55
414
-
0
417
-
5
418
-
11
419
-
0
420
-
0
502
_
80
503
-
105
504
-
27
505
-
98
508
_
0
60 1
-
0
602
-
335
603
-
34
606
-
0
607
-
14
6Q8
-
130
609
-
10
702
-
0
703
-
0
704
-
129
705
-
64
603
-
1
604
-
0
805
-
0
806
-
32
809
-
92
610
-
0
811
-
0
812
-
0
615
-
103
616
-
13
901
-
0
902
-
47
905
-
0
1001
-
0
1002
-
35
1003
-
82
1006
-
32
1007
-
60
1008
-
0
1009
-
0
1012
.
0
1013
-
I
1014
-
0
1015
-
0
1102
-
0
1103
-
0
1104
-
0
1105
-
0
1202
-
183
1203
-
134
1204
-
95
1205
-
122
[later Management Unit - Value]
Frifitil by U3IM IttliHi Intirtk Fri|Ma, D 3 IP i Ini I r inn 111 leinrch lit, Ciiiillli. Ori|«i
33
-------
NON-POINT WATER QUALITY INPUT (NORMALIZED)
Ar kansas
liter K>li|cailt Dill
Gulf
Streams
101
-
0 . 00
102
-
0 .00
103
-
0.00
104
-
0 00
105
-
0 00
106
-
.00
107
-
0 . 00
1 OB
-
0 00
201
-
1 00
262
_
1 . 00
203
-
1 . 00
204
-
. 00
206
-
1 . 00
206
-
0 00
207
-
1 00
208
-
1 00
209
-
0 00
210
-
.00
aoi
-
0. 00
302
-
0 . 00
303
-
1 00
304
-
0 00
305
-
0 00
306
-
00
307
-
0 . 00
306
-
0 .00
309
-
0 00
310
-
0 56
3 11
-
0 . 00
401
-
. 1 9
402
-
1.00
403
-
0.44
404
-
0.00
466
-
0.00
406
-
0.00
407
-
.51
408
-
0.8)
409
-
0.95
411
-
0 0 0
412
-
0 50
413
-
1 . 00
414
-
. 00
415
-
0 . 00
416
-
0 .00
417
-
0.21
418
-
0 . 30
419
-
0. 00
420
-
. 00
421
-
0. 00
SOI
-
1 .00
502
-
1 .00
503
-
0 94
504
-
1.00
5Q6
-
.00
soe
-
1 . 00
507
-
1 .00
506
-
0.00
801
-
0 00
602
-
1 . 00
603
-
.00
804
-
1 . 00
605
-
1 .00
606
-
0 00
807
-
1 06
606
-
0 . 64
609
-
09
611
-
0 00
701
-
0 . 00
702
-
0 00
703
-
0 . 06
704
-
0.61
705
-
. 56
00 1
-
0.00
802
-
0 00
603
-
0.00
604
-
0 00
805
-
0 00
806
-
. 10
807
-
0.00
808
-
0 . oo
809
-
0.13
810
-
0 . 00
611
-
0. 00
812
-
. 00
613
-
0 00
814
-
0 .00
815
-
0 56
816
-
0 .06
96 1
-
0 00
902
-
.31
903
-
0 . 00
904
-
0.60
905
-
0 00
1001
-
0 .00
1002
-
0.18
1003
-
. 42
1604
-
0.36
1005
-
0 .60
1006
-
0.18
1007
-
0 .28
1008
-
0 . 00
1009
-
. 00
1016
-
0 00
1611
-
0 .00
1012
-
0 00
1013
-
0 .00
1014
-
0 00
1015
-
00
1016
-
0 00
1101
-
0 .00
1102
-
0 00
1103
-
0 0 0
1 104
-
0 00
1105
-
00
1106
-
0.00
1201
-
0.06
1202
-
1 00
1203
-
1.00
1204
-
0 . 89
1205
-
. 00
1206
-
1 . 00
1207
-
1 . 00
[later II an a g eme d t Unit - Value]
Prepared bj HSXPi lellands Reieireh Progrsm, USIPA En»Ironmenta 1 Research Lab, Corval1 is. Oregon
34
-------
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (NORMALIZED)
Arkansas
"Wetland Loss /
Hydric Area (fraction
Gul f
10
- 0.44
102
0.66
103
0 59 1
4 - 0.77
105 - -0.
3 106
0.2
1 0
- 0 57
106
0.10
201
0 2 8 2
2 - 0.10
2 03 - 0 .
5 204
0.7
29
- -0.28
206
0.33
207
-0.68 2
6 - -0.18
2 09 - 0 .
9 210 -
0. 1
3 0
- 0 . 6$
302
0.57
303
0 77 3
4 - 0.37
3 05 - 0
0 30 6
0.9
30
- 0 9 0
306
0.97
309
0 97 3
0 - 0.66
311 - 0.
1 4 0 1 -
0 . 9
40
- 0.0ft
403
0.85
404
0.02 4
5 - 0.79
401 - 0.
9 40 7
0.7
40
- 0.66
409
- 0.61
411
-0 03 4
2 - -0.02
413 - 6
5 414 -
-0 1
41
- 1 . 00
416
- -0.11
417
- 0 2 8 4
8 - -1.15
419 - -0.
3 42 0 -
-0.2
42
- -0.56
501
0.84
502
0.94 5
3 - 0.63
504 - 0.
4 505
0.8
SO
- 0 54
507
- 0.07
508
-0 52 6
1 - 0.88
6 02 - 0
9 603
1.0
60
- 0 96
605
- 0.78
608
0.80 6
7 - 0.57
608 - 0.
3 <01
0.2
61
- •1
701
- 0 80
702
0 4 5 7
3 - 0 90
704 - 0
6 705
0. 8
80
- 0.46
6 0!
- 0.68
603
0.91 6
4 - 0.49
8 0 5 - 0
0 80 6
0.5
60
- 1.79
806
- 0.86
809
0 94 8
0 - 1.00
811 - 0.
5 812 -
0.9
81
- 0.96
614
- 0. 79
815
0 9 3 6
6 - 0.77
901 - -0.
4 90 2
-0.2
90
- 1.00
904
- 0.98
905
0.85 10
1 - 0.67
1 0 02 - 0 .
4 1003
0.8
100
- 0.74
1005
- 0.54
1006
0.87 10
7 - 0.75
1008 - 1.
4 1009
0.9
101
- 0 99
1011
- 0.77
1012
0.93 10
3 - 0.92
1014 - 0.
7 1015 -
0.3
101
- 0.77
1101
- 0.90
1102
0 5 8 1 1
3 - -0.08
1104 - 0 .
9 1105
0.9
110
- 0.04
1201
- 0.84
1202
0.57 12
8 - 0.51
1204 - 0.
7 1205
0.3
120
- 0.21
1207
- 0.34
[later Management Unit - Value]
Preptred bj USIPi lellndi Imirck Pr»|r
35
-------
Gu I f
( 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 8 0 )
Figure 1.10
Annual Rate
([Pop80-Pop70]/Pop70/I0)
-8 . 65E-3 - 7 . 4 5 E - 3
7 . 4 5 E- 3 - 1 . 40E-2
1 . 40E-2 - 2 . 2 0 E - 2
2 . 2 0 E - 2 - 7 . 4 5 E - 2
¦t Bill
HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH
Arkansas
101
0 861-2 1
2 - 0 701-2
103 -
0 861-2
164 -
0.951-2
105 -
0.141-1 1
6 - 0
58
-2
107
0 581-2 1
I - 0 .811-2
201 -
0. 161-1
202 -
0.271-1
263 -
0.261-1 2
4 - 0
1 9
-1
205
0.351-1 2
1 - 0.231-1
207 -
0.351-1
20 6 -
0 3 31-1
209 -
0.321-1 2
0 - 0
33
-2
301
0 . 771-2 3
2 - 0 . 151-1
30 3 -
0 . 151-1
30 4 -
0. 151-1
3 0 5 -
0 641-2 3
8 - 0
1 8
- l
307
0.131-1 3
8 - 0.161-1
306 -
0. 151-1
310 -
0 151-1
311 -
6.151-1 4
1 - 0
27
- i
40!
0.211-1 4
3 - 0.311-1
404 -
0.311-1
4 0 5 -
0.351-1
4 0 6 -
0.321-1 4
7 - 6
24
- i
401
6.561-1 4
1 - 0.741-1
411-
0 261-1
412 -
0 281-1
413 -
0.731-2 4
4 - -6
80
- 2
4 1 5
-0.801-2 4
1 - -0 801-2
417 -
-0.591-2
418 -
0.151-1
419 -
0 2 01-1 4
0 - 6
13
-1
421
0.161-1 5
1 - 0.831-2
50 2 -
0.781-2
50 3 -
0.511-2
5 0 4 -
0.901-2 5
5 - 6
24
- i
SOI
0.121-1 5
7 - 0.131-1
50 8 -
0. 131-1
681 -
0.131-1
8 0 2 -
0 951-2 1
3-6
24
- i
104
0.181-2 1
5 - 0 581-2
108
0.581-2
817 -
0 141-1
8 0 8 -
0 321-1 1
9-0
1 2
- i
611
6.111-1 7
1 - -0 321-2
702
0.221-1
70 3 -
0.8 81-2
7 0 4 -
0 3 31-2 7
5 - 6
25
- i
801
0.181-1 8
2 - 0.171-2
603
0.341-2
804 -
0 721-2
8 05 -
0 151-1 8
I - 0
1 4
-1
107
0.211-1 1
8 - 0.211-1
609
0.911-2
610 -
-0.141-2
811 -
-0.861-2 8
2 - -0
21
- 2
813
0 441-1 6
4 - 6.611-2
615 -
0 . 121-1
618 -
0.111-1
661 -
0 2 91-1 1
2-6
74
-1
903
0 531-2 9
4 - 0 531-2
905
0 131-1
1001 -
0 141-1
1 0 0 2 -
0 111-1 10
3 - 0
98
- 2
1004
0 251-1 II
5 - 0.121-1
1006
0. 111-1
1 007 -
0.741-2
1 0 08 -
0.751-2 10
9 - 6
12
-1
1010
0.131-1 II
1 - 0.151-1
1012
0 . 151-1
1013 -
0.181-1
1014 -
0.151-1 10
5 - 0
14
- i
1010
0 181-2 11
1 - 0 221-1
1102
0 . 141-1
1103 -
0.141-1
1104 -
0.311-1 11
5 - 6
54
-3
1101
0.161-1 12
1 - 0.951-2
1202
0. 151-1
1 20 3 -
0.211-1
1 204 -
0.221-1 12
5 - 0
24
-1
1200
0.211-1 12
7 - 0.231-1
[later Management Unit - Value]
Fiifini b) HSIM letlndi Research Prt|M>, D S EP A lnltiiiiitil Ititireh Lit, C • r t « 11 i i. Ore(>l
36
-------
Gu I f
Figure 1.11
Annual Kate
([A|r82-Agr74]/Agr74/8)
| 1 -4.10E-2 - - 1 . 10 E-2
| 1 -1 . 10E-2 - -4 . 0 5E- 3
ill - 4 . 0 5 E - 3 - 4 . 2 0 E - 3
| | 4 . 20E-3 - 5.0 0 E- 2
AGRICULTURAL GROWTH ( 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 8 2 )
Arkonsas
815 - Viler Vuifeaeil Oiit
101
0. 111-1
10!
- 0.441-2
103
0.761-2
104
-0.251-3
105
-0 851-2
106
-0
321-1
107
-0.321-1
108
- -0.321-1
201
-0.521-2
202
-0.281-1
203
-0.261-1
204
-0
931-2
206
-0 . 251-2
206
- 0 941-2
207
-0. 161-1
206
-0 981-2
209
-4 941-2
2 1 0
-0
211-2
301
-0 13E-I
302
- -0.191-1
303
-0.291-1
304
9.401-2
365
-0. 1 71- 1
306
-0
841-2
307
-0 971-2
306
- -0 141-1
309
-0.261-1
310
-9.151-1
311
-0.921-2
401
0
711-2
402
-0.241-1
403
- 0.531-2
404
0.731-2
405
0 .591-2
406
-O.lll-l
407
0
431-2
406
0.751-2
409
- 0.131-1
411
-0.411-1
412
-0.411-1
413
0. 141-1
414
UND1F1H1D
415
URBKM I1D
416
- 0.331-1
417
0. 151-1
418
0.111-1
419
0.111-1
420
0
111-1
421
0.788-4
501
- -0.121-1
502
- 0.2 01-1
503
-0.661-2
504
-0.871-2
505
-0
181-1
506
-0 461-2
507
- -0.891-2
508
-0.591-3
601
-0.201-2
602
0.611-2
603
-6
221-2
604
-0 . 731-2
605
- -0 321-1
606
-0.321-1
507
-0 . 401-2
608
-0 . 181-1
609
-0
141-1
611-
-0 641-2
701
- 0 101-1
702
-0 871-2
703
-0 821-2
704
-0.211-2
705
-0
841-2
801
0. 141-2
802
- 0.471-1
803
0 4 SI- 1
804
-0. 131-2
605
0.381-2
806
-0
901-3
807
0.301-2
806
- 0.371-2
609
-0.651-2
810
-0.961-2
811
-0.771-2
812
0
121-1
813
0 SOI- 1
814
- -0 731-2
815
-0.111-3
616
0.291-1
901
0. 171-2
902
0
131-1
903
-0 351-3
904
- -0 351-3
905
0.381-3
1001
-0 . 181-2
1002
0.191-1
1003
-0
161-1
1004
-0.111-2
1005
- -0.411-2
1006
-0. 161-1
1007
0 .551-2
1008
0.281-2
1009
-6
9 81-2
1010
-0 291-2
1011
- -0.271-2
1012
-0. 171-2
1013
-0 131-1
1014
-0. 171-2
1015
0
241-1
1016
0.261-1
1101
- -0 971-2
1102
-0. 151-1
1 103
0.731-2
1104
-0.181-2
1 105
-0
351-1
1 106
-0 931-2
1201
- 0.121-2
1202
-0 841-2
1203
-0.111-1
1204
-0.121-1
1205
-0
761-2
1206
-0. 111-1
1207
- -0 931-2
[later Management Unit - Value]
Pripiril bj D 31P1 Itlluli Itttirek Progrta, U 3 IP A liilnniiitil Keieircb Lib, Cortillii. Ori|ii
37
-------
FUTURE RISK
Arkansas
Weighted Growth
(Agr *87/95 4 P o p » 8 / 9 5)
1 -3 . 5 5 E- 2 - -8
Gul f
101
0. 151-1
102
0.461-2
103
0.751-2
104 - 0.
61-3 105
-0.661-2
106
-0 291-1
107
-0.291-1
106
-0 291-1
201
-0 341-2
202 - -0.
11-1 203
-0.221-1
204
-0 611-2
205
0 651-3
206
0 1 II-1
207
-0. 141-1
268 - -0 .
21-2 209
-0 591-2
2 1 0
-0 161-2
30 1
- 0. 111-1
302
-0. 171-1
303
-0. 171-1
364 - 0.
91-2 305
-0. 151-1
306
-0 621-2
307
-0.781-2
308
-0.111-1
309
-0. 171-1
310 - -0.
21-1 311
-0.721-2
401
0 861-2
402
-0. 101-1
403
9.741-2
404
0.941-2
400 - 0 .
31-2 406
-0.711-2
407
0.591-2
408
0.122-1
409
0.181-1
411
-0. 351-1
412 - -0.
51-1 413
0. 141-1
414
UNDIMMD
41ft
UIDir KID
4 16
0 301-1
417
0. 131-1
418 - 0.
11-1 419
0. 121-1
420
0 111-1
421
0.161-2
501
-0.101-1
502
-0. 181-1
503 - -0.
61-2 504
-0.731-2
505
-0.141-1
506
-0 . 32E-2
507
-0 521-2
508
0 551-3
601 - -0.
91-3 602
0.641-2
603
0 331-5
604
-0.591-2
605
-0.291-1
606
- 0.291-1
607 - -0
51-2 608
-0. 121-1
609
-0 121-1
611
-0.401-2
701
0 931-2
702
-0 611-2
703 - -0 .
61-2 704
-0. 161-2
705
-0.561-2
<01
0.201-2
602
0 4 31-1
603
0 4 01-1
604 - -0 .
41-3 605
0 . 471-2
806
0 391-3
807
0.531-2
806
0.521-2
609
-0.521-2
810 - -0
91-2 811
-0. 771-2
812
0. 101-1
613
0.401-1
814
-0 601-8
615
0 941-3
816 - 0
61-1 901
0.401-2
902
0.181-1
903
0.121-3
904
0. 121-3
905
0. 151-2
1001 - -0.
91-3 1002
0. 181-1
1003
-0 141-1
1004
0. 101-2
1005
-0.281-2
1006
-0.841-2
1007 - 0.
71-2 1008
0.321-2
1 0 0 9
-0.791-2
1010
-0. 151-2
10 11
-0. 121-2
1012
-0.321-3
1013 - -0
01-1 1014
- 0 . 3 2 E - 3
1015
0 241-1
1016
0 241-1
1101
-0 701-2
1 102
-0 131-1
1103 - 0
91-2 1104
0.111-2
1105
-0 3 21-1
1106
-0.731-2
1201
0.191-2
1202
-0.641-2
1 20 3 - -0 .
31-2 1204
-0.881-2
1205
-0 491-2
1206
-0 821-2
1207
-0 661-2
[later HanagemeDt Uoit - Value]
Pr«pired I; U31Pi lelliidi Ititirck fr>|iia, 0SIP1 InlrtDiiiliI Seinrch lit, Coritllis. Ori|ti
38
-------
APPENDIX n. Human population1 (1970 and 1980), agricultural acreage2 (1974 and
1982), and rare, threatened and endangered species3 (RTE), by parish.
Parish
Population
Agricultural
Acreage
RTE
1970
1980
1974
1982
Acadia
52109
56427
335658
275069
0
Allen
20794
21390
149060
132440
1
Ascension
37086
50068
56446
61025
1
Assumption
19654
22084
76634
73255
3
Avoyelles
37751
41393
261261
305128
0
Beauregard
22888
29692
159518
154349
4
Bienville
16024
16387
60979
68209
0
Bossier
64519
80721
130397
129471
0
Caddo
230184
252358
251413
219616
1
Calcasieu
145415
167223
408088
344320
0
Caldwell
9354
10761
60419
68427
0
Cameron
8194
9336
245323
260012
8
Catahoula
11769
12287
206581
288700
1
Claiborne
17024
17095
90191
87429
1
Concordia
22578
22981
219190
264548
1
Desoto
22764
25727
187547
166066
1
E. Baton Rouge
285167
366191
123485
89330
3
E. Carroll
12884
11772
228719
214717
0
E. Feliciana
17657
19015
155047
190789
4
Evangeline
31932
33343
206803
203792
0
Franklin
23946
24141
304928
262300
0
Grant
13671
16703
55498
48285
0
Iberia
57397
63752
110391
111002
1
Iberville
30746
32159
110719
97554
0
Jackson
15963
17321
38449
27299
0
Jefferson
337568
454592
7606
8591
3
Jefferson Davis
29554
32168
328212
315138
0
Lafayette
109716
150017
111550
86948
0
Lafourche
68941
82483
203876
185126
6
La Salle
13295
17004
17382
23128
1
Lincoln
33800
39763
65011
65091
0
Livingston
36511
58806
43336
43888
3
Madison
15065
15975
238239
252847
4
Morehouse
32463
34803
280722
277903
2
Natchitoches
35219
39863
251628
245788
3
Orleans
593471
557927
0
13
1
39
-------
APPENDIX H (cont.)
Parish Population Agricultural Acreage RTE
1970
1980
1974
1982
Ouachita
115387
139241
90754
93827
1
Plaquemines
25225
26049
38169
37543
3
Pointe Coupee
22002
24045
196567
199190
1
Rapides
118078
135282
213628
210741
1
Red River
9226
10433
119984
128964
0
Richland
21774
22187
274107
264340
1
Sabine
18638
25280
64414
65071
0
St. Bernard
51185
64097
7488
8155
4
St. Charles
29550
37259
57073
38412
7
St. Helena
9937
9827
68008
72927
0
St. James
19733
21495
46997
48560
1
St. John
23813
31924
26881
20879
4
St. Landry
80364
84128
309073
320063
0
St. Martin
32453
40214
91458
89853
1
St. Mary
60752
64253
117530
87262
6
St. Tammany
63585
110869
64969
71787
28
Tangipahoa
65875
80698
149800
154448
3
Tensas
9732
8525
228876
275288
1
Terrebonne
76049
94393
60392
56743
29
Union
18447
21167
76064
78373
0
Vermilion
43071
48458
374523
342652
6
Vernon
53794
53475
91337
63198
1
Washington
41987
44207
125926
125569
2
Webster
39939
43631
82648
77874
1
W. Baton Rouge
16864
19086
37498
42970
1
W. Carroll
13028
12922
184493
169227-
0
W. Feliciana
11376
12186
125109
108155
1
Winn
16369
17253
29165
29163
0
Data Sources:
^.S. Bureau of the Census 1972, 1982b.
2U.S. Bureau of the Census 1974, 1982a.
3Louisiana Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries 1988.
40
-------
APPENDIX HI. Hydrologic unit composition of parishes. Total area is given for each
parish, along with the partial area for each component hydrologic unit
(a hydrologic unit need not be entirely contained within one parish, but
may cross several). The percent is the proportion of total parish area
found in that hydrologic unit
Parish/Unit
&ea
Percent
Acadia
1705.1
100.00
501
454.0
26.63
502
859.3
50.40
503
68.8
4.03
504
66.7
3.91
505
255.7
14.99
608
0.6
0.03
Allen
1970.0
100.00
301
815.9
41.42
305
348.5
17:69
306
203.0
10.30
307
16.2
0.82
503
574.7
29.17
601
11.7
0.59
Ascension
803.5
100.00
201
20.9
2.60
204
9.1
1.14
402
79.6
9.90
403
57.4
7.15
404
486.2
60.51
406
0.1
0.01
703
76.1
9.47
1202
74.1
9.22
Assumption
970.6
100.00
105
0.0
0.00
201
219.7
22.63
204
66.7
6.87
1202
655.3
67.52
1204
28.8
2.97
41
-------
Parish/Unit
Area
Percent
Avoyelles
101
102
103
602
803
1002
1015
1016
Beauregard
301
305
306
308
1102
1105
Bienville
806
814
1005
1007
1008
Bossier
1001
1004
1005
Caddo
1001
1003
1006
1101
2247.4
226.1
12.6
162.8
753.4
0.6
873.0
215.1
3.8
3023.8
4.9
705.5
410.9
1252.7
607.1
42.7
2120.0
8.7
447.2
152.8
974.4
536.9
2257.9
272.6
1625.4
359.9
2404.0
210.3
1398.2
733.6
61.9
100.00
10.06
0.56
7.24
33.52
0.03
38.84
9.57
0.17
100.00
0.16
23.33
13.59
41.43
20.08
1.41
100.00
0.41
21.10
7.21
45.96
25.32
100.00
12.07
71.99
15.94
100.00
8.75
58.16
30.51
2.58
42
-------
Parish/Unit
Area
Percent
Calcasieu
2825.3
100.00
301
0:4
0.01
302
128.7
4.56
303
201.6
7.13
304
48.5
1.72
306
16.5
0.58
307
292.3
10.34
308
754.0
26.69
309
84.8
3.00
310
289.6
10.25
311
228.1
8.07
506
204.5
7.24
1102
237.0
8,39
1103
1.0
0.03
1106
338.3
11.97
Caldwell
1403.3
100.00
801
68.5
4.88
802
154.8
11.03
809
448.7
31.98
815
731.3
52.11
Cameron
4124.7
100.00
304
797.5
19.33
310
159.7
3.87
311
341.9
8.29
504
88.4
2.14
505
22.8
0.55
506
686.2
16.64
507
791.9
19.20
508
378.1
9.17
1103
3581.0
8.68
1106
500.2
ill3
43
-------
Parish /Unit
Area
Percent
Catahoula
802
803
809
810
812
813
816
1002
1015
1016
Gaiborne
806
1005
1007
Concordia
101
701
702
802
803
812
1002
1016
Desoto
1006
1101
E. Baton
401
402
403
702
703
705
1953.3
641.9
92.8
73.3
10.4
160.1
82.8
654.1
31.4
173.5
32.9
1992.0
1367.3
312.4
312.2
1915.8
47.7
318.0
27.4
0.0
32.3
50.5
77.7
1362.3
2323.3
1208.6
1114.7
100.00
32.86
4.75
3.75
0.53
8,20
4.24
33.49
1.61
8.88
1.68
100.00
68.64
15.69
15.67
100.00
2.49
16.60
1.43
0.00
1.68
2.64
4.06
71.11
100.00
52.02
47.98
100.00
25.39
18.78
28.05
6.08
2.09
19.61
Rouge 1201.5
305.1
225.6
337.0
73.0
25.2
235.6
44
-------
Parish/Unit Area
Percent
E. Carroll
1128.7
100.00
701
301.9
26.75
810
364.7
32.31
811
57J
5.10
812
404.6
35.84
E. Feliciana
1175.5
100.00
401
457.5
38.92
403
435.1
37.02
702
5.0
0.42
705
277.9
23.64
Evangeline
1730.2
100.00
501
428.2
24.75
503
724.4
41.87
601
116.7
6.74
602
460.9
26.64
Franklin
1652.3
100.00
809
1043.3
63.14
810
423.6
25.64
812
185.3
11.22
Grant
1715.2
100.00
814
7.1
0.41
815
0.0
0.00
816
826.4
48.18
1001
53.5
3.12
1009
76.0
4.43
1013
752.1
43.85
Iberia
1660.3
100.00
105
292.8
17.63
604
88.3
5.32
607
317.6
19.13
608
2.9
0.18
609
562.5
33.88
611
3819
23.06
1202
13.4
0.80
45
-------
Parish/Unit Area
Percent
Iberville
1675.2
100.00
104
143.3
8.55
105
347.0
20.72
402
107.5
6.42
703
116.3
6.94
1201
520.8
31.09
1202
440.3
26.28
Jackson
1495.4
100.00
801
1.9
0.13
806
126.2
8.44
808
10.0
0.67
814
623.4
41.69
815
733,9
49.08
Jefferson
802.4
100.00
203
20.2
2.52
205
68.5
8.53
206
128.8
16.05
207
63.9
7.96
208
132.2
16.47
209
214.6
26.74
412
0.2
0.02
413
106.9
13.32
703
67.3
8.38
Jefferson Davis 1703.7 100.00
301 65.3 3.83
302 0.4 0.02
306 25.1 1.48
307 462.9 27.17
503 239.7 14.07
504 139.1 8.17
506 771.1 45.26
Lafayette
505
602
603
608
609
681.7
98.2
1.0
0.0
554.4
28.1
100.00
14.40
0.14
0.00
81.33
4.13
46
-------
Parish/Unit
Area
Percen
Lafourche
3055.5
100.00
201
442.5
14.48
202
115.5
3.78
203
457.1
14.96
204
221.1
7.24
208
348.5
11.41
209
557.9
18.26
1202
108.5
3.55
1203
335.4
10.98
1206
175.5
5.74
1207
293.5
9.61
La Salle
1703.0
100.00
802
1.2
0.07
814
0.1
0.01
815
366.9
21.54
816
1187.9
69.75
1015
146.9
8.62
Lincoln
1220.7
100.00
806
1016.2
83.25
814
204.1
16.72
1008
0.4
0.03
Livingston
1763.2
100.00
403
866.5
49.14
404
133.5
7.57
405
667.9
37.88
406
95.3
5.40
Madison
1618.9
100.00
701
192.2
11.87
810
152.4
9.41
812
1274.3
78.71
Morehouse
2079.0
100.00
801
426.5
20.52
804
392.9
18.90
807
3.3
0.16
809
1256.3
60.43
47
-------
Parish/Unit Area
Percent
Natchitoches 3361.2
100.00
301
96.1
2.86
1001
276.9
8.24
1006
549.6
16.35
1007
414.6
12.33
1008
414.4
12.33
1010
107.8
3.21
1011
1501.0
44.66
1012
0.2
0.01
1013
0.6
0.02
Orleans
522.5
100.00
206
18.3
3.51
413
81.5
15.60
414
116.6
22.31
415
13.8
2.64
416
35.3
6.76
417
178.2
34.11
418
3.6
0.69
419
0.7
0.14
420
12.3
2.35
703
62.1
11.89
Ouachita
1641.5
100.00
801
452.2
27.54
804
0.1
0.00
805
0.4
0.02
806
182.2
11.10
807
143.4
8.74
808
379.1
23.10
809
481.2
29.32
815
3.0
0.18
48
-------
Parish/Unit
Area
Percent
Plaquemines
2899.7
100.00
206
54.9
1.89
208
69.4
2.39
209
261.7
9.02
210
581.4
20.05
418
1.4
0.05
421
875.0
30.18
703
311.5
10.74
704
744;6
25.68
Pointe Coupee 1544.4
100.00
101
28.9
1.87
102
63.5
4.11
104
587.2
38.02
702
173.1
11.21
12 01
691.7
44.79
Rapides
3522.5
100.00
301
620.0
17.60
305
44.3
1.26
601
485.9
13.79
602
1177.3
33.42
816
212:2
6.02
1001
87.5
2.48
1002
280.0
7.95
1011
54.3
1.54
1012
221.7
6.30
1013
72.0
2.04
1014
12.2
0.35
1015
255.0
7.24
Red River
1046.0
100.00
1001
281.9
26.95
1004
03
0.03
1005
43.2
4.13
1006
221.9
21.21
1007
498.8
47.69
Richland
1457.3
100.00
809
13873
95.19
810
70.0
4.81
49
-------
Parish/Unit
Area
Percent
Sabine
2630.1
100.00
1006
165.2
6.28
1011
216.3
8.22
1101
1712.8
65.12
1104
498.6
18.96
1105
37.3
1.42
St Bernard
1047.7
100.00
416
0.7
0.07
417
2.5
0.24
418
171.7
16.39
419
85.8
8.19
420
469.2
44.78
421
309.8
29.57
703
8.0
0.76
St. Charles
947.6
100.00
202
191.2
20.17
203
499.5
52.71
205
5.2
0.55
206
0.0
0.00
207
15.0
1.59
208
0.0
0.00
406
9.4
1.00
411
34.2
3.61
412
116.6
12.30
413
0.6
0.07
703
75.8
8.00
St Helena
1057.0
100.00
403
358.1
33.88
405
629.4
59.55
407
69.5
6.57
St James
643.5
100.00
201
272.3
42.32
202
35.5
5.52
404
246.0
38.23
406
0.2
0.03
703
89.5
13.90
50
-------
Parish/Unit
Percent
St John
780.8
100.00
201
18.2
234
202
¦189:1
24.21
404
15.9
104
406
497.5
63.71
703
60.1
7.70
St Landry
2396.4
100.00
102
71.7
2.99
103
532.5
22.22
104
0.3
0.01
105
0.1
0.00
501
209.3
8.73
502
130.0
5.42
602
1191.3
49.71
608
261.3
10.90
St Martin
2100.9
100.00
102
11.2
0.53
103
95.1
4.53
104
63.6
3.03
105
1034.9
49.26
602
133.0
6.33
603
70.7
3.37
604
1,4
0.06
607
313.8
14.94
608
220.0
10.47
609
36.7
1.75
1202
120.5
5.74
St Mary
1708.0
100.00
105
197.0
11.54
106
58.2
3.41
107
101.5
5.94
108
444.1
26.00
604
27.7
1.62
605
164.1
9.61
606
28.4
1.66
607
63.7
3.73
609
502.3
29.41
611
4.0
0.23
51
-------
Parish/Unit Area
Percent
St. Mary's (cont)
1202 48.1 2.82
1204 68.9 4.03
St Tammany 2260.7 100.00
407 51.6 2.28
408 802.0 35.47
409 688.2 30.44
417 8.1 0.36
901 174.3 7.71
902 455.0 20.13
905 81.6 3.61
Tangipahoa 2058.7 100.00
405 393.0 19.09
406 264.4 12.84
407 1239.5 60.21
408 110.6 5.37
905 51.3 2.49
Tensas 1684.4 100.00
701 311.8 18.51
812 1369.1 81.28
1016 3.5 0.21
Terrebonne 3496.7 100.00
108 14.3 0.41
1202 262.4 7.50
1203 176.2 5.04
1204 1185.1 33.89
1205 363.8 10.40
1206 110.5 3.16
1207 1384.5 39.59
Union 2323.8 100.00
801 498.0 21.43
805 637.0 27.41
806 1188.8 51.16
52
-------
Parish/Unit
Area
Percent
Vermilion
3358.2
100.00
504
23.0
0.68
505
437.5
13.03
507
1612.8
48.02
5.08.
161.9
4.82
608
523.7
15.59
609
229.4
6.83
611
369.9
11.02
Vernon
3512.0
100.00
301
854.4
24.33
305
1160.1
33.03
1011
7.2
0.20
1102
379.9
10.82
1104
36.8
1.05
1105
1073.7
30.57
Washington
1786.4
100.00
408
177.7
9.95
901
402.7
22.54
903
185.6
10.39
904
193.6
10.84
905
826.8
46.28
Webster
1598.6
100.00
1004
71.4
4.47
1005
1393.9
87.20
1007
133.2
8.33
W. Baton Rouge 515.4
100.00
702
63.1
1125
703
45.5
8.84
1201
406.7
78.91
W. CaiToD
947.0
100.00
809
665.2
70.24
810
281.8
29.76
53
-------
Parish/Unit
Area
Percent
W. Feliciana
1097.7
100.00
101
36.9
3.36
702
312.8
28.49
705
748.0
68.14
Winn
2473.1
100.00
814
1143.1
46.22
815
606.5
24.52
816
63.1
2.55
1001
17.7
0.72
1008
257.5
10.41
1009
138.3
5.59
1013
247.0
9.99
54
-------
APPENDIX IV. Derived index maps.
-------
HYDROLOGIC SENSITIVITY
101
_
0.601-2 102
- 0.151-1
103
-
0.391-2
104
_
601-2
105
- 0.151-2
106
_
0. 121-1
107
-
0. 1 SB- 1 100
- 0.571-2
201
-
0 .251-2
202
-
62E-2
203
- 0 811-2
204
-
0.371-2
206
-
0.261-1 206
- 0 951-2
207
-
0. 161-1
208
-
55E-2
209
- 0.481-2
210
-
0.611-2
301
-
0.521-2 302
303
-
0 221-1
304
-
.741-2
305
- 0.341-1
306
-
0. 1914 0
307
-
0.321-1 306
- 0 .762-1
309
-
0.331+0
310
-
.161-1
311
- 0.701-2
40 1
-
0.331+0
40t
-
0.341-1 403
— o . 1 5 1 - 1
404
-
0.291-2
405
-
. 17E-1
406
- 0. 121-1
407
-
0. 18E-I
406
-
0.361-1 409
- 0.211-1
411
-
0.231-1
412
-
.151-1
413
- 0.521+0
414
-
0 961-2
416
_
UHDiriRID 416
- 0.151-1
417
-
0 101- 1
418
-
.111-1
4 19
- 6.731-2
420
-
0. 151-1
421
-
0.561-2 501
- 0 . 16 B — 1
502
-
0.47E-1
503
-
.711-2
504
- 0 . 161-1
505
-
0.331-1
506
-
0.521-2 507
- 0.351-2
506
-
0. 14 E- 1
60 1
-
.311-1
602
- 0.621-2
603
-
UNDIP IRID
604
-
0 2SI + 0 605
- 0.181-1
606
-
0 191-1
60 T
-
621-2
608
- 0 251-1
609
-
0 . 8 91-2
611
-
0 231-1 701
- 0.181-2
702
-
0.27E-2
703
-
651-2
704
- 0 . 111-1
705
-
0.711-1
601
-
0.431-2 602
- 0.171-1
603
-
0 . 31E-I
604
-
.511-2
005
- 0.181-1
606
-
0 8 11-2
607
-
0 261-1 606
- 0 . 5 4 E — 1
609
-
0 20E-1
610
-
.20110
811
- 0.331+0
812
-
0.491-2
813
-
0.401+0 114
- 0 . 2 2 E - 1
615
-
0 66E-1
816
-
.171-1
901
- 0.321-2
902
-
0.39E-2
903
-
0.611+1 904
- 0.47E+ 0
905
-
0 28E-1
1001
-
2 41-2
1002
- 0 .341-2
1003
-
0 271-1
1004
-
0.921-2 1005
- 0 .1 0 E - 1
1006
-
0.221-1
1007
-
.111-1
1008
- 0. 191-1
1009
-
0. 111 + 0
1010
-
0 181+1 1011
- 0.181-1
1012
-
0 . 20E + 0
1013
-
.181-1
10 14
- 0 5 21+1
1015
-
0 .821-2
1011
-
0.64E-2 1101
- o 52E-i
1102
-
0 . 381-2
1103
-
.231-2
1 104
- 0.201+1
1105
-
0. 121 + 0
1106
-
0.351-2 1201
- 0.841-2
1202
-
0.40E-2
1203
-
.471-2
1204
- 0.261-2
1205
-
0.731-2
1201 - 0.801-2 1207 - 0.561-2
[later Management Unit - Value]
Prepared by U58PA letlinds Research Program, US1P1 En?Ironmebta 1 Reseirch Lab. Corvallis, Oregon
Arkansas
6 2 5 E + 0
Gul f
56
-------
Figure I V . 2
Input / Capacity
| 1 0 . 0 0 E - 4 - 0 . 0 0 E - 4
| 1 0 . OOE-4 - 1.95E-3
ill 1 . 9 5 E - 3 - 9 . 9 0 E - 3
[~~~| 9 . 9 0 E - 3 - 2.15E + 0
WATER QUALITY SENSITIVITY (NON-NORUAL I ZED )
Arkansas
•13 - liter Hiii|eaeit Halt
6u,f
101
0 . OOt+ 0
102 -
0 0 01+0
103
0 OOK+O
104
0 601+0
105
0 001+0
106 -
0.721-2
107
0 0 01+0
101 -
0 001+0
201
0 . 20K-2
202
0.321-3
203
0.461-3
20 4 -
0.661-1
205
0 701-2
2 0 6 -
0 .271-2
207
0 231-2
208
0.161-2
209
0 OOI+O
210 -
0 OOI+O
301
9 QOE+O
3 0 2 -
0 OOK+O
303
0 131-1
304
0 OOI+O
305
0 OOI+O
306 -
0 . OOI + O
507
0 001+6
301 -
0.001+0
309
0 881-1
310
0 . 201-2
311
0.001+0
401 -
0 . 571-1
402
0 921-2
403 -
0.111-1
404
0.OOK+O
405
6. 151-2
406
0.001+0
4 07 -
0.941-2
408
0.211-1
4 0 9 -
0.931-2
411
0 OOK+O
412
6.151-2
413
0.911-1
414 -
0 001+0
4 1 5
umrim
4 11 -
0 .341-1
417
0 39K-3
418
6. 121-2
419
0 4 01-1
421 -
0.001+0
421
0.451-3
501 -
0 901-2
502
0. 191-1
503
0.241-2
504
0.561-2
505 -
0.231-1
506
0. 131-2
5 0 T -
0 .551-3
501
0.OOK+O
601
0 OOK+O
602
0.111-1
• 19 -
ONDIPIRID
SO 4
3.211+1
605 -
0 .461-2
606
0.OOK+O
607
0 . 161-2
808
0 221-1
60 9 -
0 401-3
611
0 .001 + 6
701 -
0 OOK+O
702
0 OOK+O
703
0.001+0
704
0 531-2
716 -
0. 161-1
601
0 501-3
6 0 2 -
0 001+0
803
0 OOK+O
804
0 . OOI + O
60S
0 OOI+O
80 6 -
0.961-3
607
0 .001 + 0
101 -
0 .001+0
609
0. 13K-1
610
0 . OOI + O
111
0.0 01+0
812 -
0 . OOI + O
613
0.001+0
114 -
0.141-1
615
0.241-1
618
0.461-3
901
0 511-2
102 -
0. 191-2
903
0 OOI+O
9 04 -
0.OOK+O
905
0.OOK+O
1001
0 . OOI + O
1002
0 141-2
1 003 -
0. 171-1
1004
9 . 1 01- 1
1 0 0 5 -
0.OOK+O
1006
0 321-2
1007
0 .381-2
1008
0. 121-2
1 009 -
0 . OOI + O
1010
0 .001 + 0
1011 -
0 OOK+O
1012
0.OOK+O
1013
0 OOI+O
1014
0 OOI+O
1015 -
0 . 001 + 0
1016
0.001+0
1101 -
0 OOK+O
1102
0 . OOK + O
1103
0.001+0
1164
0 .001 + 0
1105 -
0 181-1
1106
0 .001 + 0
1201 -
0.94K-3
1202
0.18 K-2
1203
0.531-2
1204
0.791-3
1 205 -
0.511-2
1206
0 8 51-3
1207 -
0.1 IK-2
[later Management Unit - Value]
Prepared by U3IPA lelliadi Research Program, USKPA In?ironmeata 1 ieieireh Lab, Carvallli, Oregon
57
-------
WATER QUALITY SENSITIVITY (NORMALIZED)
Arkansas
Gul f
101
0. 101-3
102
- 0. 001 + 0
103
0 311-4
164
0 401-4
105
- 0 681-5 1
06 - 0.251-3
107
o.ooi+o
106
- 0 001+0
201
0 . 171-4
262
0 281-4
203
- 0 161-4 2
04 - 0.4 12-3
IBS
0. 171-3
206
- 0.111-3
207
0 . 121-3
206
0 241-4
209
- 0 101-4 2
10-0 2 9 2-4
301
0.001+0
302
- 0.001+0
303
0 .291-3
364
0 001+0
305
- 0 001+0 3
0 6 - 0 0 0 2+0
307
0.001+0
306
- 0 . 001 + 6
309
0 . 4 61-2
310
0 341-4
311
- 0 001+0 4
0 1 - 0 . 5 5 2-3
402
0.321-3
403
- 0.311-4
404
0.002+0
405
0 591-5
406
- 0.211-4 4
07 - 0.532-4
400
0.14K-3
409
- 0.692-4
411
0 .422-3
412
0 121-3
413
- 0. 171-2 4
14-0.002+0
415
UN OS PI HID
416
- 0.141-2
417
0.171-4
410
0 3 21-4
4 19
- 0 601-3 4
2 0 - 0 . 0 0 2 + 0
421
0.571-5
501
- 0 651-4
502
0.242-3
503
0 221-4
604
- 0.201-3 5
05 - 0.242-3
SOI
0.191-4
507
- 0 662-5
506
0 002+0
Oil
0 001+0
602
- 0 341-4 6
03 - UND2F1 RID
604
0.3 31-1
605
- 0 282-3
606
0 002+0
607
0 111-3
608
- 0. 141-3 6
01 - 0 372-5
611
0.001+0
701
- 0.002+0
702
0 001+0
703
0 001+0
704
- 0.251-4 7
0 5 - 0. 14 2 -3
801
0.291-5
602
- 0.0 0 2+0
603
0 002+0
804
0 001+0
805
- 0 001+0 8
06 - 0.302-5
607
0.111-2
606
- 0.002+0
609
0 . 161-4
810
0 .0 0 2 + 0
611
- 0.212-1 6
12 - 0.002+0
6 1 3
0.001+0
114
- 0.112-3
115
0 . 141-3
816
0 212-5
901
- 1211-4 0
0 2 - 0 . 1 32 -4
103
0 001+0
904
- 0.002+6
905
0 002+0
1011
0.002+0
1002
- 0.871-5 10
03 - 0.892-4
1004
0.301-4
1005
- 0.002+6
1006
0 . 162-4
1007
0.161-4
1008
- 0. 111-4 10
0 9 - 0 . 00 2 + 0
1 0 1 0
0 301-1
1011
- 0.002+0
1012
0 1 OX-2
1013
0 .001 + 0
10 14
- 0 771-1 10
15-0 0 0 2+0
1616
0.001+6
1101
- 0.112-3
1102
0 002+0
1103
0.002+0
1104
- 0 001+0 11
0 5 - 0 . 1 4 2 -3
1 106
0.001+0
1201
- 0.412-5
1202
0.992-5
120 3
0.401-4
1204
- 0 741-5 12
05 - 0.422-4
1206
0.441-4
1207
- 0 662-5
[later Management Unit - Value]
Frtptrtd kj UIFi Itlludi tciurck Pr*|raa, ISIPi liiUiiinlil Itmril lib. tinillii, Or«|oi
58
-------
NON-POINT WATER QUALITY SENSITIVITY (NON-NORMA LI ZED)
Arkansas
::::::::::::
2 . 1 5E + 0
Gul f
1 •
0 001+1 10
- 0 001+0
103
- 9 6 01+0
104 - 0.
001+9 195 -
0 001+9
101
0. 721-2
107
0.0 01+0 10
- 0.001+0
201
- 9.201-2
212 - 1.
321-3 293 -
0 4 61-3
204
9 661-1
205
0.761-2 20
- O.OOI+O
207
- 6 . 231-2
20 6 - 0
161-2 269 -
0 001+0
210
0.001+6
301
0.001*0 30
- 0 001+9
303
- 6.131-1
304 - 0
001+6 365 -
6.001+6
306
0.061+6
301
0.001+0 30
- 1 001+0
309
- 6.601+0
310 - 0.
201-2 311 -
0 0 01+0
401
6 571-1
402
0 981-2 40
- O.lll-l
404
- 9 601+0
405 - 0.
001+0 401 -
0.001+9
407
0.941-2
4 o a
0.211-1 40
- 0.931-2
411
- 9 601+0
412 - 0.
771-3 413 -
0 911-1
414
0 . 601 + 9
4 16
UIDirillD 41
- 0 001+0
417
- 6.391-3
416 - 0.
121-2 411 -
0 001+9
420
9 . 601 + 0
41 ]
0.001+0 so
- 0.901-2
502
- 6.191-1
503 - 0.
241-2 594 -
0 561-2
505
0.231-1
3 06
0.131-2 SO
- 0.551-3
508
- 6 601+0
601 - 6.
001+0 602 -
0 III-I
603
OlDirillD
6 0 4
0.211+1 60
- 0 461-2
606
- 6 601+0
607 - 0.
161-2 601 -
0 221-1
609
0. 171-3
611
0.001+0 70
- 0 001+9
702
- 6 6 01+0
793 - 9.
001+6 704 -
0 3 31-2
705
6 101- 1
601
0.001+0 10
- 0 001+0
603
- 6 001+0
694 - 1.
001+0 905 -
0 001+9
101
0 911-3
307
0.001+0 10
- 0 001+0
109
- 6.131-1
610 - 0.
001+0 111 -
0.001+9
112
1.901+9
613
0.001+0 61
- 0 001+0
115
- 6 .241-1
616 - 6
401-3 961 -
0 001+9
902
0 191-2
303
0.001+0 90
- 0 001+0
905
- 6 601+0
1011 - 6
001+9 1002 -
0 141-2
1003
9. 171-1
1004
O.IOI-I 100
- O.OOI+O
1006
- 9.321-2
1007 - 9.
391-2 1001 -
0.091+0
1009
9 . 001 + 0
1016
O.OOI+O 101
- oooi+o
1112
- 9.901+6
1913 - a.
001+9 1014 -
0 001+0
1015
0 6 01+0
1016
0.001+0 110
- 0 001+0
1102
- 0 . 601 + 0
1103 - 0.
001+9 1104 -
0 001+0
1105
9 001+0
1104
0.001+0 120
- 0 941-3
1202
- 0 111-2
1203 - 0.
531-2 1204 -
0 791-3
1205
9.511-2
12 0 6
0.651-3 120
- 0.111-2
[liter Vang cme n t
Unit
Value]
Prepared by OSIPA Vellaidi Reieareh Progrn, USKPA EntiionmeiI a 1 Reiaarch Lab. Corvallii. Oregoa
59
-------
NON-POINT WATER QUALITY SENSITIVITY (NORMALIZED)
Arkansas
Gu I f
101 ¦
- 0.OOE+O
107 •
- 0.001+0
201 -
• 0. 171-3
301 -
- 0.OOE+O
307 ¦
- 0 0 01+0
402 -
- 0.321-3
408
- 0 141-3
415 ¦
- URDirillD
421 -
- 0.001+0
506
- 0. 191-4
604
• 0.331-1
611
- 0 0 01+0
aoi •
- 0.0 01+0
607
- 0.OOE+O
613
- 0.OOE+O
9 03 ¦
- 0.001 + 0
1004
- 0.301-4
1010
- 0 0 01+0
1016 -
- 0.001+0
1106
- 0.001+0
1206
¦ 0 441-4
ICS
201
207
SOS
sot
404
411
417
5 0 2
SOI
• 01
702
>03
a o»
¦ is
90S
1001
1012
1102
1202
104
0
001 + 0
105 - 0.001+0
106
0.25E-3
202
0
281-4
2 0 3 - 0.1 6K-4
204
0 . 4 11-3
206
0
241-4
200 - 0 . OOE + O
210
0 OOE+O
304
0
001+0
3 0 5 - 0 . 0 01 + 0
306
0 OOE+O
310
0
341-4
311 - 0.001+0
401
0.55E-3
405
0
001 + 0
406 - 0.001+0
407
0.53E-4
412
0
601-4
413-0 171-2
414
0.OOE + O
416
0
321-4
4 10 - 0 001+0
420
0 .OOE + O
SOS
0
221-4
504-0.201-3
505
0 . 24E-3
601
0
OOE + O
602 - 0 341-4
603
UNDEFINED
607
0
111-3
6 0 8 - 0. 1 4 1 -3
609
0. 16E-5
703
0
001 + 0
704 - 0 ISI-4
705
0 14E-3
804
0
001 + 0
605 - 0 001+0
806
0.30E-5
810
0
001 + 0
611 - 0.001+0
812
0.OOE+O
816
0
211-5
901 - 0 OOE+O
902
0.13E-4
1001
0
001 + 0
1002 - 0 671-5
1003
0 891-4
1007
0
181-4
1008 - 0.OOE+O
1009
0.OOE+O
1013
o
001 + 0
1014 - 0.OOE+O
1015
0 OOE+O
1103
0
001 + 0
1 104 - 0 OOE + O
1105
0 OOE+O
1203
0
4 01-4
1 2 0 4 - 0.7 4 E- 5
1205
0 4 2 E - 4
[later Management Unit - Value]
Pr«para4 by D 31P A VellaiJs Innrek Pr«jrta, U3EPA lavlroiaiatil leattreb Lab, Carvallla, Oregon
60
-------
LIFE SUPPORT SENSITIVITY
Arkansas
• l»\ It)
Figure
in
Input / C a p a c i
0 . 0 0 E - 5 -
4 0 E - 5
~
lit -
114
. 90E-5
~
4 0 E - 5
. 80E-4
9 0 E - 5
nt
III
8 0 E - 4
. 55E-2
n
III!
IIS
(tier In ¦ feme a t Hilt
nil
hi
in
lit
411
III
ill
(II
SOI
III
ISO
l*r
Xtl
III
in
I2«l
til
2*
k.
101
0.801-5
lit
0 301-4
103 -
0.141-5
104 -
0.181-4
115 -
941-5
108 -
0.511-4
107
0.711-4
111
0 311-4
toi -
0 351-4
20 2 -
O 781-4
III -
741-4
20 4 -
0.271-3
10S
0 411-4
toi
0 151-4
207 -
0 121-4
20 8 -
0.811-4
III -
.231-4
210 -
0. 1 TI-4
901
0 301-4
318
0 00140
303 -
0 00140
314 -
0 381-4
III -
111-3
308 -
0.971-3
3 0 7
0.1II-I
301
0 411-3
301 -
0 901*0
310 -
0.191-4
31 1 -
.371-4
401 -
0.091-2
4 01
0.211-3
403
1.271-3
4 04 -
0 401-4
4 0 5 -
0 131-3
401 -
871-4
407 -
0.251-3
401
0.211-2
401
(101-3
411 -
O.tlt-3
412 -
1.101-3
413 -
931-3
414 -
0.291-4
411
uioiriim
411
a.101-3
417 -
0.3 71-4
418 -
O.191-4
410
.231-3
42 0 -
0.4 31-4
4! 1
0.241-4
501
0.001*0
502 -
0.001*0
5 03 -
0 011-5
50 4 -
441-4
505 -
0 191-3
SOI
0.211-4
507
0.381-4
501 -
1.201-4
101 -
0.371-4
8 02 -
131-4
803 -
ONDirI RID
104
0 501-2
• 05
0 111-3
IOI -
0 191-S
0 0 7 -
1.141-4
001 -
.171-3
00 9 -
0.4 51-4
( 1 1
0. 181-4
701
0 101-4
702 -
0 . 3 01-4
70 3 -
0 171-3
70 4 -
.191-4
705 -
0 541-3
101
0 351-4
lit
0 741-4
80S -
0.151-3
8 04 -
1.111-2
80 5 -
.481-7
801 -
0 241-4
107
0.101-9
III
0.121-3
III -
0.351-3
810 -
0.341-2
811 -
.00140
812 -
0.201-3
III
0.481-3
114
0 131-1
815 -
0 521-4
818 -
0.411-4
III -
.121-3
112 -
0.231-1
SOS
0 151-1
904
0.171-2
90S -
0 381-1
1001 -
0.321-4
1 00 2 -
.621-5
1 003 -
0.121-3
1004
0.381-5
1005
0.871-4
1001 -
0.131-1
1 00 7 -
0.311-4
1 00 8 -
881-4
1 009 -
0.001*0
1010
0.211-2
1011
0.131-3
1012 -
0 121-3
1013 -
0 291-5
1014 -
.271-3
1015 -
0.111-4
1 0 1«
0.251-4
1101
0 141-4
not -
0 3 11-4
1103 -
O.I71-4
1104 -
1 91-3
110 5 -
0.271-3
1111
0.151-4
ItOI
0.101-4
1202 -
0.471-4
1 20 3 -
0.851-4
1 20 4 -
841-4
1 20 5 -
0. 131-3
1201
0 511-4
1207
0 . 711-4
[later Management Unit - Value]
Pri)ir*4 l| OSlPi Telltadi leietrek Pri|r», US1P1 InlMiiillll lateireb lib. C • r * • I 11 •. Ort|«»
61
-------
:
Sul f
HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS (NON-NORUALIZED)
Arkansas
925 - 31355
BIS - filer Maai|emeit Doit
Figure I V . 7
101
52 10
140
103
178
104 -
510
105
-6
106
13
107
95 10
27
201
59
2 0 2 -
24
203
129
204
33
205
-32 20
4 1
207
-54
20 6 -
-31
209
44
210
47
301
345 3 0
61
303
259
36 4 -
173
305
236 1
306
- 62 78
307
1415 30
- 7814
309
- 2167
310 -
557
311
84
461
- 4 7 82
402
565 40
- 1177
404
2
405 -
625
406
56
407
562
406
1313 40
366
411
-2
412 -
-2
413
5712
4 14
-6
415
uiftirmiD 4i
-1
417
-28
418 -
-57
410
-4
420
- -127
421
-161 50
- 1453
502
- 2860
50 3 -
531
504
142
505
939
506
314 50
30
506
- -240
601 -
740
602
1674
603
- UNDEFINED
604
360 6 0
218
606
1 5
6 0 7 -
72
608
2112
609
180
611
-11 76
96
702
53
703 -
128
764
239
705
- 1783
601
77 80
531
803
134
6 0 4 -
]
805
128
606
283
807
88 8 0
659
609
- 2 3 9 3
810 -
7 49 1
811
234
812
668
6 i 3
2144 81
755
815
- 3 7 3 0
616 -
1513
901
-8
902
-10
903
31352 90
- 25 5 0
905
846
1001 -
54
1002
161
1 0 0 3
765
10 04
328 100
219
1006
- 1490
1 00 7 -
517
1008
563
1009
551
1010
7650 101
667
1012
- 1381
1013 -
1547
1014
2 4 3 4
10 15
86
1016
123 110
- 24 7 4
1 102
154
1103 -
-7
110 4 -
1 4720
1105
- 2146
1106
10 120
• 70
1202
522
1 20 3 -
119
1264
24
1205
85
1206
35 120
666
| Vat
e r Modsg emco i
Ud i t
- Value]
Prepirtd by USIPi Villains Ktttareb Pri|ria, U3IP4 Kb?Ironaeata 1 Research Lab, Carvallia. Orejei
62
-------
oi Sensitivity i Cumulative Impacts
Gulf
WATER QUALITY EFFECTS (N0N-NORMALIZED)
Arkansas
101
0.71 10
- 0.00
103
1.41
104 -
3.37 105
- -0.03
106
0.27
107
0 0 0 1 0
0 . 00
201
0 39
20 2 -
0.11 203
0 . 34
204
3.01
205
-0.21 20
0 40
207
- -0 41
20 8 - -
0 14 200
0. 00
210
0 .23
301
0.00 30
0 .00
303
3 30
30 4 -
0 00 305
0 . 00
306
0 00
307
0 0 0 30
0 00
300
- 30 05
310 -
1.17 311
0 . 00
401
7 .94
402
5.41 40
2.47
404
0.00
405 -
0.20 400
0.10
407
1.60
408
5.17 40
1 .52
411
- -0.03
412 - -
0.02 413
- 18.28
414
0 .00
415
OIDIMIID 41
- -0 10
417
- -0 05
410 - -
0 16 419
- -0.42
420
0 00
421
-0.11 50
5.29
502
- 14.14
5 0 3 -
1.18 504
1 .78
505
0.07
506
1.17 50
• 07
508
• 00
101 -
0 00 602
7. 75
603
- UNDEFINED
6 0 4
55 II 10
3 .52
101
0 00
6 0 7 -
1.33 108
- 12.03
609
0 08
611
0 0 0 7 0
0 00
702
• 00
7 0 3 -
0.00 704
0 . 57
705
3 40
601
0.05 80
0 .00
803
0 00
80 4 -
0 0 0 8 0 5
0 .00
806
0.11
807
3.54 80
0.00
601
2.25
810 -
0 . 0 0 8 1 1
- 10.41
612
0 .00
613
0 00 6 1
J.70
815
- 7.71
010 -
0 18 901
- -0.07
902
- -0 0 6
903
0.00 90
0 .00
905
0.00
1001 -
0 0 0 1 C02
0 . 32
1003
2 48
1004
1.05 100
0 .00
1100
1.10
1 0 0 7 -
0.82 1008
0 . 32
1009
0 .00
1010
127.73 101
0 00
1012
- 12 59
1013 -
0.00 1014
- 30 2 8
1015
0 00
1011
0 0 0 1 1 0
8 84
1102
0 90
1103 -
0 00 1104
0. 00
1105
2 .56
1101
0.00 120
1.4)
1202
1 30
1 20 3 -
1.03 1204
0.07
1205
0.46
1201
0.21 120
0 51
[later Man ag emen
t Uni t
Value]
Prepared by B8IP1 letlands Research Program, USEPA Edtironmebta 1 Research Lab. Cftrvallii, Oregon
63
-------
NON-POINT WATER QUALITY EFFECTS (NON-N0RUALIZED)
Arkansas
Figure I V . 9
Sensitivity i Cumulative Impacts
-0.5- 0.0
1 . 0
3 . 5
3.5 - 56.0
815 - liter Mill|eaeit Unit
Gu I f
101
102
_
0.0
103
-
0.0
104 - 0
105 - 0.0
106 - 0.3
107
106
-
0.0
201
-
0.4
20 2 - 0.
20 8 - 0.3
204 - 3.7
205
201
-
0 0
207
-
-0.4
2 0 8 - - 0.
2 0 9 - 0.0
210 - 0.0
301
3 0 2
-
0 . 0
303
-
3.4
3 0 4 - 0.
3 0 5 ~ 0 0
306 - 0.0
307
301
-
0.0
309
-
0.0
'310 - 1
311 - 9.0
401 - 7.9
402
403
-
2.5
404
-
0.0
4 0 5 — 0
4 0 6 - 0.0
407 - 1.7
406
409
-
1 .5
411
-
0.0
412 - 0.
413 - 16.3
414 - • . 6
415
11D 416
-
0.0
417
-
0 . 0
4 18 - - 0
419 - 0.0
420 - 0.0
421
501
-
5.3
502
-
14.6
5 0 3 - 1.
5 0 4 - 1.8
505 - 6.7
601
507
-
0.1
506
-
0.0
6 01 — 0
80 2 - 7 8
6 0 3 - UNDKF 1 RID
604
605
-
3.5
606
-
0.0
6 0 7 - 1.
608 - 12 0
609 - 0.0
611
701
-
0 0
702
-
0 0
7 0 3 - 0
7 0 4 - 0.3
705 - 3.5
801
802
-
0.0
603
-
0.0
6 0 4 ~ 0
80 5 ¦ 0.0
80 6 - 0. 1
607
806
-
0.0
609
-
2.2
810 - 0.
811 - 0.0
812 - 0.6
613
814
-
0 0
615
-
7 . 6
816 — 0
9 01 - 0.0
9 02 - -0 . I
903
904
-
0 . 0
905
-
0 . 0
1001 - 0.
100 2 • 0.3
1003 - 2.5
1004
1005
-
0.0
1006
-
1.2
1 0 0 7 - 0 .
10 0 8 - 0.0
1009 - 0.0
1010
1011
-
0.0
1612
-
0 . 0
1013 - 0
1014 - 0.0
1015 - 0.0
1016
1101
-
0 0
1102
-
0 . 0
1103 - 0.
1 1 0 4 - 0 0
1105 - 0.0
1106
1201
-
0 . 4
1202
-
1 . 3
1 20 3 - 1 .
1204 - 0.1
1205 - 0.5
1206
1207
-
0.5
[later Management Unit - Value]
Prepared bj QSIPl Wetlands Research Program, USEPA So11roninesta 1 Research Lib, Corvallls, Oregon
64
-------
LIFE SUPPORT EFFECTS (NON-NORMALIZED)
Arkansas
Figure IV.10
Sensitivity I Cumulative Impacts
| 1 -1.5- 0.0
lit
m
CI]
III!
Ill
111
127.5
I I
.9 t
lilir Duiieaeat Dill
lit*
lit
III ,
.111
1411;
419 ~*'
III
til
Sit
Itll
lit
411
ill
111
Mi
421
'•If
tit
III
Gulf of
20
2«
111
0.1
102 - 0.3
103
-
0 1
1 04 - 1
.4 105
-
0.0
108 - 0.1
117
0 . s
10 8 - 1.2
201
-
0 . 8
2 0 2 - 0
. 3 2 0 3
-
I . 6
204 - 2.4
2 S S
— -0.1
206 - 0 3
207
-
-0 . 1
2 0 8 - - 0
. 2 2 0 0
-
0 2
210 - 0.1
301
2.0
302 - 0 0
303
-
0 0
3 0 4 - 0
. 9 3 0 5
-
12.7
306 - 3 1.5
307
oil
301 - 47 0
309
_
0 0
310- 0
.7 311
-
0 5
401 - 11.2
402
3.1
403 - 21.5
404
-
0 . 0
4 0 5 - 6
.5 4 0 6
-
0.3
407 - 8.1
401
T1 9
409 - 13.6
4 1 1
-
0.0
412- 0
. 0 413
-
10.2
414 - 0.0
415
- UHDIFIIID
411 -
417
-
-0 1
4 18 - - 0
.4 419
-
-0.1
421 - -0.4
421
- -0.8
5 01 - 0.0
502
-
0 0
5 0 3 - 0
. 5 5 0 4
-
0.4
505 - 5.S
SOI
- 1.5
507 - 0.3
500
-
-0 3
8 0 1 - 0
9 6 0 2
-
3 1
6 03 - QNDIF1 DID
104
8.4
60S - 2.0
601
-
0 2
6 0 7 - 0
. 7 6 0 8
-
14.9
609 - 10
111
0.0
701 - 3 2
702
-
0 6
703 - 17
.2 7 0 4
-
0 4
70$ - 13.7
111
0.6
102 - 2.4
803
-
0.7
6 0 4 - 0
.4 8 0 5
-
0.0
806 - 0.8
117
0.3
808 - 1.4
809
-
42.3
810 - 127
.5 811
-
0.0
812 - 38 5
111
2.1
114 - 0 0
815
-
2.9
8 1 6 - 3
.6 9 0 1
-
-0.3
902 - -1.1
193
779
904 - 1.3
905
-
11.7
1001 - 0
.7 1002
-
0.2
1003 - 3.4
1094
o; i
905 - 1.2
1006
-
8 •
1007 - 1
.8 1008
-
2.0
1001 - 0 0
1011
01 1 - 4 6
1012
-
0 8
1013 - 0
.2 1014
-
0 1
1015 - 0.1
10 11
2 4
101 - 4.5
1102
-
1.3
1103 - -0
. 1 1104
-
1 4
1105 - 5 0
1101
i!i
201 - 1.3
1202
-
6 2
1203 - 2
.2 1204
-
0 . 8
1205 - 1.5
1201
0 . s
207 - 6.1
[later Management Unit - Value]
Prep«r«4 by USIF1 lellindi Research Program. USKPi Kb?ironoeiti1 Research Lib, Corvtllii, Oregon
65
-------
HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS (NORMALIZED)
Gul f
Arkansas
Figure I V . 11
Sensitivity I Cumulative Impacts
| 1 - 1 . 30E-2 - 1 . 3 0 E - 3
| 1 1.30E-3 - 5 . 65E-3
ill 5.6 5 E- 3 - 2 .3 5 E - 2
| 1 2 . 3 5 E - 2 - 6 . 1 0 E + 0
SIS - liter liaafeBeal Halt
101
0.301-3
102 - 0.131-1
183
0.231-2
104
0.471-2
185
-0.451-4
108
0.281-2
107
0.871-2
108 - 0 571-3
201
0.711-3
202
0.811-3
283
0.151-2
294
0.211-2
2 05
-0.181-2
208 - 0.311-2
207
-0.111-1
208
-0.181-3
209
0 421-3
210
0.111-2
301
0.351-2
302 - 0.831-2
303
0.171-1
304
0.271-2
305
0.311-1
301
0 . 101 + 0
307
0.201-1
308 - 0.731-1
309
0.321+0
310
0 . 1 11- 1
311
0.281-2
401
0.321+0
403
1.301-1
4 03 - 0. 1 28-1
404
0.521-4
485
0.131-1
408
8.111-2
407
0.141-1
4 08
0.321-1
409 - 0.131-1
411
-0.851-3
412
-0.281-3
413
0 .491 + 0
414
-0. 111-2
415
moirimo
411 - -0.141-2
417
-0.301-2
418
-8.131-1
419
-0 . 5 31-2
420
-0.371-2
431
-0.321-2
501 - 0. 151-1
502
0 441-1
583
0.451-2
504
O.lll-I
505
0.211-1
SOI
0 281-2
507 - 0 241-3
508
-0.711-2
881
0 271-1
802
0.721-2
103
D ND17181D
104
e.23(+e
8 0 5 - 0. 1 4 1 -1
tot
0.121-1
807
0 351-1
808
0.231-1
109
0.241-2
til
-0.171-!
701 - 0.141-2
102
0.121-2
703
0.581-2
704
0 391-2
705
O.tll-l
• 01
0.211-2
802 - 0.151-1
103
0.281-1
804
0 . 251-2
805
0.111-1
801
0.411-2
107
0.221-1
801 - 0 441-1
109
0.181-1
810
0 201+0
811
0.311+0
812
0.448-2
113
0 . 4 81 + 0
814 - 0 171-1
115
0 811-1
Sit
0.131-1
901
-0.441-3
902
-0.911-3
903
1 liltt
904 - 0 4 51+0
505
0.241-1
1001
0.181-2
1002
0.222-2
1 00 3 -
0.231-1
1004
0.881-2 1
005 - 0.551-2
1008
0.191-1
1007
0.831-2
1001
0.181-1
1009
0.981-1
1010
0.181+1 1
Oil - 0 141-1
1012
0.191+0
1013
0. 171-1
1014
O.tOI+1
1015
0.211-2
1011
0.491-2 1
101 - 0 471-1
1102
0.221-2
1103
-0 . 191-3
1104-
0.202+1
1 105
0.118+0
not
t.151-3 1
211 - 0.701-8
1202
0.221-2
1203
0.241-2
1204
0.191-3
1205
0.241-2
1201
0.121-2 1
207 - 0 291-2
(later Management Doit - Value]
Prepare! by OSIM letlaida Itiiarik Prtgrta, U 3 CP i Ko ? 11 oobi i 111 autarch Lab, Camilla, Oregoa
66
-------
WATER QUALITY EFFECTS (NORMALIZED)
Gulf
Arkansas
Figure I V . 12
% Sensitivity i Cumulative Impacts
| 1 -5 . 00E-4 - 0 . 00E-6
| 1 0 . 00E-6 - 1 . OOE-5
ill 1 .OOE-5 - 1 . 25E-4
r—| 1 . 2 5 E - 4 - 7 . 5 0 E - 2
115 - filer Management Unit
-
0.451-4 10
- 0.001+0
103
0.181-4
104
0.311-4
105
-0.
01-6
106
0.531-4
O.OOI+O 10
- O.OOI+O
201
0 471-5
202
0.28K-5
203
0
01-5
204
0 . 331-3
-4.441-4 tO
- 0 371-4
207
-0 . 831-4
208
-0.391-5
209
0 .
11 — 6
210
0 .531-5
0.001+0 30
- 0.00140
303
0.221-3
304
O.OQE+O
305
0 .
0 K + 0
308
0.001+0
O.OOI+O 30
- 0 0 01 + 0
309
0 441-2
310
0.231-4
311
0 .
0 I + 0
401
0.541-3
0.271-3 40
- 0.261-4
404
0 . 001 + 0
405
0 481-5
406
0 .
91-5
407
0.411-4
0.121-3 40
- 0.551-4
411
-0.121-4
412
-0.221-5
413
0.
8 K - 2
414
0 . 001 + 0
URDIF I RID 41
- - 0.141 - 3
417
-0.501-5
418
-0.361-4
419
-0 .
01-3
420
0 . 001 + 0
-0.33E-5 50
- 0.551-4
502
0.221-3
503
0 . 141-4
504
0 .
31-3
505
0.211-3
0.101-4 50
- 0.591-8
508
0 001+0
801
0 .001+0
802
0 .
01-4
603
UND1F1HID
0.331-1 10
- • 221-3
• 08
0.001+0
807
0.651-4
608
0 .
31 — 3
609
0.101-5
O.OOIfO 70
- 0 0 01+0
702
0.001+0
703
0.001+0
704
0.
21-5
705
0.121-3
0.141-5 80
- 0.001+0
803
0.001+0
804
0.001+0
805
0 .
01 + 0
806
0. 151-5
0.871-3 80
- 0.001+0
809
0 .171-4
810
0 . OOI + O
811
0 .
41-1
812
0.001+0
0.001+0 81
- 0 6 61-4
815
0. 131-3
818
0. 161-5
901
- 0
51-5
002
-0.321-5
0.001+0 90
- 0 001+0
905
0 . 001 + 0
1001
0.001+0
1002
0 .
31-5
1003
0 . 761-4
0.221-4 100
- O.OOI+O
1008
0.1&I-4
1007
0.131-4
1008
0 .
11-5
1009
0 .001 + 0
0 30 8-1 101
- 0 001+0
1012
0. 18E-2
1013
0 .001+0
1014
0 .
51-1
1015
0 . 00 8 + 0
0 . 0014-0 110
- 0.171-3
110 2 -
0 . 001 + 0
110 3 -
O.OOI+O
1104
0 .
01 + 0
1105-
0 . 131-3
0.001+0 120
- 0 341-5
1202
0.581-5
1203
0 . 201-4
1204
0 .
41-6
1205
0 . 141-4
0.911-5 120
- 0 221-5
[Titer Management Unit - Value]
Prip«rt( by D31PA Ictlaidi Iiinrek Pr«|raa, D3IP 1 In•Ironnt1111 Ititireh Lit, Camilla, Or«|oi
67
-------
NON-POINT WATER QUALITY EFFECTS (NORMALIZED)
Arkansas
T— ¦ \ ^
Figure I V . 13
Sensitivity i Cumulati?e Impacts
| 1 -8 . 30E-5 - 0 0 0 E-5
0 . 00E-5 - 1 . 0 0 E - 5
1 0 0 E - 5 - 9 2 5 E - 5
9 . 2 5 E - 5 - 3 . 3 0 E - 2
liter Dill
Gu I f
171-1
121-1
101-4
131- 1
o.ooi+o
221-4
-
- 0.JII-5
0.001*0
201-4
5 5 g - 4
551-4
512-6
222-3
0.341-5
0 221-5
0 . 001 + 0
104
_
0 .001+0
105
-
0 . 001 + 0
106
- 0
531-4
0.471-5
202
-
0 .281-5
203
-
0 .401-5
204
- •.
331-3
0.831-4
2 0 9
-
-0.301-5
209
-
0 008+0
210
0 .
OOI + O
0.221-3
304
-
0 OOE+O
305
-
0.001+0
306
0 .
001 + 0
0.001 + 0
310
-
0 2 31-4
311
-
0 .001 + 0
401
0 .
541-3
0.001 + 0
4 0 5
-
0 OOE+O
406
-
0 .001 + 0
407
1 .
411-4
0.00E+0
412
-
-0.111-5
413
-
0 .181-2
414
0 .
001 + 0
0.501-5
4 IS
-
-0 .381-4
4 19
-
0 . OOE + O
420
0 .
001 + 0
0.221-3
503
-
0. 141-4
504
-
0. 13E-3
505
0.
211-3
0.001+0
801
-
0 .001 + 0
802
-
0.30E-4
603
- UND
IMIIID
0.001+0
007
.
0 4 51-4
608
.
0. 131-3
609
|.
431-6
0.00K+O
703
-
0.OOI+O
704
-
0.5SE-5
705
|.
121-3
0.001+0
004
-
0 OOI+O
805
-
0 OOE+O
606
o.
151-5
0. 171-4
S10
.
0.001+0
811
-
0.OOE + O
812
o.
001 + 0
0. 131-3
SIB
-
0. 181-5
901
-
0.OOE+O
902
- -1.
321-5
0.001+0
1001
-
0 .001+0
1002
-
0.431-5
1003
0 .
761-4
0. 151-4
1007
-
0. 131-4
1008
-
0.OOE + O
1009
9.
00140
0 . OOE + O
1013
-
0 . 001+0
1014
-
0 OOE+O
1015
i.
001 + 0
0 . 0 0E + 0
1103
-
0 .001 + 0
1104
-
0 OOE+O
1105
0
001 + 0
0.56E-5
1203
-
0.201-4
1204
-
0.541-8
1205
- 0.
141-4
[111 er Management Unit - Value]
Prepared bj QSIFi Vellaida Research Program, USIPi In?Irosbiita 1 Research Lab. Carvallia, Oregon
68
-------
I
-------
HYDROLOGIC SIGNIFICANCE TO HUMANS
Arkansas
7 2 4 2 5
88
SB
924
40
37
724 2 5
-32
56
813
3219
28
13
166
[Water Management Unit - Value]
Prepared by 031Pi Vellndi Research Program, U3IP1 In?Irocmea111 Research Lab, Coriallis. Oregon
70
-------
WATER QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE TO HUMANS
Arkansas
¦
: ' •
Titer Management Unit
Gulf
101
0.3 10
0 . 0
103
_
0 4
104
0
105
-
0.0
106
-
0. 1
107
_
0.0 10
0.0
201
-
0 . 1
202
o.
203
-
0.2
204
-
2 6
2 0 5
-
-1.7 20
3 . 4
207
-
-3 . 0
208
- 0 .
200
-
O . 1
2 10
-
0 0
301
-
0 0 30
0 0
303
-
2.7
304
o.
305
-
0.0
306
-
0.0
307
-
0.0 30
0 . •
309
-
22 . 2
310
0 .
311
-
O. 0
401
-
54 3
402
-
20.3 40
3.8
404
-
0 0
405
0.
406
-
0. 1
407
-
2.1
408
-
6.0 40
1 . 9
411
-
0.0
412
0 .
413
-
231 8
4 14
-
0.0
4 1 5
-
UHDIHIID 41
- -5 . 3
417
-
-0 . 9
418
- 0 .
4 19
-
-3. 0
420
-
0.0
421
-
-0.1 50
1.7
502
-
7.3
503
0.
504
-
0.7
505
-
7.5
506
-
0.3 30
0 . 0
306
-
0 . 0
601
0 .
602
-
3.4
603
-
DNDKF 1HID
104
-
146.2 60
1 . 4
606
-
0 . 0
807
1 ,
868
-
18.8
609
-
0.1
611
-
0.0 70
0.0
702
-
0.0
703
0 .
704
-
0. 1
705
-
10.1
601
-
0.1 80
0 . 0
80S
-
0 . 0
804
0 .
805
-
0. 0
806
-
0 . 1
807
-
10.6 80
0.0
609
-
1.9
810
- o
611
-
14.6
812
-
0.0
613
-
0.0 81
2.2
615
-
2 . 6
816
0 .
901
-
-0. 1
902
-
-0 . 1
903
-
0.0 10
0.0
905
-
0 0
1001
0 .
1002
-
O. 1
1003
-
11.1
1004
-
1.3 100
0 . 0
1006
-
1 . 5
1007
0 .
1008
-
0. 1
1009
-
0.0
1010
-
38.2 101
0.0
1012
-
14 9
1013
0 .
1014
-
34.9
1015
-
0.0
1016
_
0.0 110
5.9
1102
-
0 0
1103
0 .
1104
-
0.0
1105
-
2.2
1 106
-
0.0 120
0 . 1
1202
-
0 2
1203
— 0 .
1204
-
0.0
1205
-
0. 1
1206
-
0.1 120
0.1
[later Management Unit - Value]
Prepared by U38PA Wetlands Research Program, USKPi En?Ironmeata1 Research Lab, Cortallla, Oregon
71
-------
LIFE SUPPORT SIGNIFICANCE TO HUMANS
Arkansas
tin
Gu I f
101 -
0 . 0
102 -
0.1
10
0.0
104 -
.2 10 5
0.0
06 - 0.0
10 7 -
0 . 2
101 -
0 . 1
20
0.3
202 -
. 1 2 0 3 -
0 . fl
04 - 17
20 5 -
-0 . 5
20 6 -
2 . 0
20
-11
2 0 8 -
.4 2 0 9 -
0 3
1 0 - 0 0
301 -
1.0
30 2 -
0.0
30
0.0
3 0 4 -
. 1 3 0 5 -
4 9
06 - 7.3
307 -
0 . 0
30 6 -
25 . 1
30
0.0
310 -
.2 311-
0 . 2
01 - 672 0
40 2 -
13.4
403 -
33. 1
40
0.0
4 0 5 —
.6 4 0 6
0 . 2
07 - 10.1
401 -
It.ft
400 -
16.6
41
0.0
412 -
. 0 413 -
120 9
14 - -0.4
415 -
ONDirI MID
416 -
-fl . 4
41
-2.0
418 - —
. 1 419 -
-1.0
20 - -0.5
421 -
-0 . 4
501 -
0 . 0
50
- 0.0
50 3 —
.1 504 -
0 . 1
05 - 8.2
50 6 -
0 . 4
507 -
0 . 1
50
0.0
6 0 1 -
.7 6 0 2 -
1 . 3
03 - undkmhd
604 -
22 . 1
605 -
0 . 8
60
0.1
6 0 7 -
.7 6 0 8 -
29 . 2
00 - 0. fl
611 -
0.0
701 -
0.5
70
0.4
703 - 10
.4 7 0 4 -
0 . 0
05 - 39.7
601 -
0 . 9
60 2 -
0 . 3
80
0 |
80 4
.2 8 0 5 -
0.0
06 - 0.9
607 -
1.0
80 6 -
3.3
80
- 36.3
810 - 5
.3 811 -
0.0
12 - 7.1
613 -
0.2
814 -
0 . 0
81
1.1
816 -
.0 90 1-
-0 3
02 - -1.3
903 -
69 2
004 -
7 . 0
90
8 7
001 -
.9 1002
0.1 1
03 - 15.5
1 004 -
0.2
1 005 -
1.7
100
- 11.3
00 7 -
.7 1008
0.8 1
09 - 0.0
1010 -
3.7
1011 -
2.2
101
0.1
013 -
0 1014 -
0 1 1
15 - 0 1
1016 -
0 . 3
1101 -
3 . 0
no
0 5
103 -
. 0 110 4 -
1.0 1
05 - 4.4
1106 -
0.0
1201 -
1.6
120
1 . 1
203 -
.8 1 2 0 4 -
0.2 1
05 - 0.4
1 206 -
0.1
1 207 -
1.2
[
later
M a q a geme oi
Unit -
Value]
Prtpirtd bp 03IP1 V•11•1dI Bemreb Progrim, DSIPi In 11riobcit•1 Heieireh Lib, Ctriillli, Oregoi
72
-------
APPENDIX V. Rankings of hydrologic units for hydrology, water quality, and life
support cumulative effects.
Rank Hydrology
Unit
Value
1
508
-240.467
2
421
-180.604
3
420
-126.921
4
418
-56.735
5
207
-54.897
6
205
-32.305
7
208
-31.230
8
417
-28.289
9
902
-19.178
10
611
-11.541
11
901
-8.130
12
414
-7.738
13
1103
-7.109
14
105
-6.356
15
419
-4.449
16
.412
-2.251
17
411
-1.519
18
416
-0.915
19
804
1.136
20
404
1.704
21
1106
10.158
22
106
13.225
23
606
15.395
24
202
23.593
25
1204
24.422
26
108
27.056
27
507
30.065
28
204
32.505
29
1206
35.460
30
206
41.172
31
209
43.793
32
210
47.395
33
101
51.533
34
702
53.057
35
1001
54.314
36
406
56.079
37
201
58.689
Quality Life Support
Value
Unit
Value
-0.421
902
-1.136
-0.406
421
-0.765
-0.209
420
-0.368
-0.183
418
-0.356
-0.163
508
-0.348
-0.138
901
-0.315
-0.089
208
-0.172
-0.065
207
-0.142
-0.063
419
-0.138
-0.048
417
-0.100
-0.028
205
-0.062
-0.027
1103
-0.052
-0.018
105
-0.039
0.000
414
-0.023
0.000
412
-0.015
0.000
411
-0.007
0.000
611
-0.007
0.000
416
-0.006
0.000
302
0.000
0.000
303
0.000
0.000
309
0.000
0.000
501
0.000
0.000
502
0.000
0.000
811
0.000
0.000
1009
0.000
0.000
814
0.000
0.000
805
0.000
0.000
404
0.024
0.000
1106
0.044
0.000
106
0.056
0.000
101
0.060
0.000
103
0.064
0.000
307
0.071
0.000
1014
0.105
0.000
1015
0.113
0.000
1004
0.129
0.000
210
0.136
Water
Unit
419
207
205
421
418
208
416
901
902
417
105
411
412
102
107
108
301
302
304
305
306
307
308
311
404
414
420
508
601
606
611
701
702
703
802
803
804
73
-------
APPENDIX V. Continued.
Rank Hydrology
Unit Value
38
302
66.159
39
607
72.339
40
801
76.586
41
311
84.460
42
1205
84.659
43
1015
85.895
44
807
88.008
45
107
95.240
46
701
95.643
47
1203
119.180
48
805
127.668
49
703
127.754
50
203
128.696
51
803
133.769
52
504
142.454
53
102
149.050
54
1102
154.297
55
1002
160.846
56
304
173.061
57
103
178.396
58
609
189.274
59
605
217.837
60
1005
218.541
61
811
233.612
62
704
239.293
63
303
259.117
64
806
282.735
65
506
314.064
66
1004
328.281
67
301
344.771
68
409
366.346
69
604
389.400
70
104
509.511
71
1007
516.813
72
1202
522.037
73
503
531.012
74
802
531.053
Quality Life Support
Value Unit Value
0.000
606
0.151
0.000
108
0.185
0.000
209
0.205
0.000
1002
0.246
0.000
1013
0.248
0.000
206
0.280
0.000
202
0.290
0.000
102
0.296
0.000
406
0.315
0.000
807
0.321
0.000
507
0.326
0.000
1206
0.329
0.000
804
0.359
0.000
504
0.378
0.000
704
0.437
0.000
311
0.452
0.000
107
0.473
0.000
503
0.506
0.000
702
0.593
0.051
801
0.635
0.070
310
0.654
0.074
803
0.654
0.079
1001
0.742
0.095
607
0.748
0.099
1012
0.795
0.106
1204
0.800
0.109
201
0.813
0.183
806
0.823
0.226
601
0.874
0.261
304
0.903
0.272
609
0.952
0.283
1005
1.219
0.317
1102
1.262
0.318
1104
1.353
0.336
104
1.382
0.389
808
1.450
0.429
1205
1.463
Water
Unit
805
808
810
812
813
903
904
905
1001
1005
1009
1011
1013
1015
1016
1102
1103
1104
1106
801
1204
507
609
209
406
806
202
816
210
1206
106
405
1008
1002
203
201
1201
74
-------
APPENDIX V. Continued.
Rank Hydrology
Unit Value
75
1009
551.340
76
310
557.140
77
407
561.887
78
1008
563.094
79
402
584.877
80
1016
623.238
81
808
659.496
82
1207
666.058
83
1011
667.106
84
812
668.121
85
601
740.486
86
814
754.841
87
1003
765.464
88
405
825.474
89
905
846.195
90
1201
876.197
91
505
938.620
92
403
1176.578
93
408
1313.342
94
1012
1360.994
95
501
1453.033
96
307
1484.728
97
1006
1489.570
98
816
1512.565
99
1013
1546.531
100
705
1782.650
101
602
1873.800
102
608
2111.788
103
813
2143.520
104
1105
2146.070
105
309
2167.095
106
305
2381.461
107
809
2393.229
108
1014
2434.454
109
1101
2473.665
110
904
2549.987
111
502
2880.099
Quality life Support
Value
Unit
Value
0.485
506
1.558
0.489
203
1.565
0.508
1007
1.793
0.568
1008
1.993
0.778
301
2.013
0.824
605
2.028
1.026
813
2.105
1.051
1203
2.175
1.170
802
2.376
1.173
204
2.403
1.192
1016
2.407
1.304
815
2.931
1.326
602
3.083
1.414
701
3.206
1.524
1003
3.444
1.633
816
3.591
1.690
402
3.630
1.779
1101
4.467
2.249
1011
4.619
2.469
1105
5.007
2.475
505
5.508
2.560
1207
6.130
3.352
1202
6.182
3.367
12 01
6.325
3.494
405
6.460
3.519
407
8.116
3.543
604
8.410
3.687
1006
8.781
3.762
904
9.255
5.166
413
10.243
5.285
905
11.724
5.481
1010
12.295
6.670
305
12.747
7.754
409
13.615
7.780
705
13.738
7.943
608
14.858
8.836
703
17.154
Water
Unit
1205
206
1207
704
101
1007
1203
1004
506
310
1006
1202
607
103
409
503
407
504
809
403
1003
1105
303
104
705
605
807
204
814
408
501
402
505
602
815
401
1101
75
-------
APPENDIX V. Continued.
Rank
Hydrology
Water Quality
Life Support
Unit
Value
Unit
Value
Unit
Value
112
815
3730.020
608
12.030
403
21.487
113
401
4762.078
1012
12.592
306
31.464
114
413
5711.713
502
14.641
812
38.464
115
306
6278.359
413
18.282
809
42.257
116
810
7490.685
811
18.406
308
46.966
117
1010
7650.105
309
30.054
408
76.897
118
308
7814.110
1014
30.281
903
77.925
119
1104
14720.110
604
55.662
401
98.221
120
903
31352.400
1010
127.732
810
127.521
121
415
UNDEFINED
415
UNDEFINED
415
UNDEFINED
122
603
UNDEFINED
603
UNDEFINED
603
UNDEFINED
76
------- |