vyEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation
PM-222A
21P-3001
April 1991
The Oregon Clean
Water Strategy
Geographic Targeting To Set
Priorities For Cleaning Up
Oregon's Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries
Oregon's 30 Highest Priority Waterbodies
(See page 11 for a more detailed version of this map)
Coos Bay

Portland
Pendleton
Eugene ^
Medford
Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
The Oregon Clean Water Strategy
Geographic Targeting To Set Priorities For
Cleaning Up Oregon's Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
April 1991

-------
Acknowledgements
The Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch of the Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation would like to acknowledge and thank
all of the people who participated in the development of the Oregon
Clean Water Strategy. Neil Mullane, Andy Schaedel, John Jackson,
Nancy Lillquist, Doug Terra, and Jim Goen managed and conducted
the project on behalf of the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. Kristina Groome, Tom Born, Paul Campanella, and Kim
Devonald were the principal contributors to the project within the
Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch. This report was written
by Tom Born.
Ed Partington, Bob Pease, and Joe Sierra of EPA's Office of Information
Resources Management, and Ray Peterson of the Environmental
Services Division at EPA's Region 10 office in Seattle, Washington
performed technical work on the project.
Jeff Vangorder, Gary Krauss, and David Selden of American
Management Systems (AMS) provided DEQ and EPA with technical
assistance on the project. Brian Jaskula and Carmie Rogers of AMS
contributed to the production of graphics for this report.
Important contributions to the project were also made by Tom Pansky
of the Bonneville Power Administration, Scott Smith of the Oregon
Department of Energy, Betsy LaRoe of EPA's Office of Water, and
Denis White, Sharon Clarke, Bob Hughes, Spence Peterson, and Jim
Omernik of EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in
Corvallis, Oregon.

-------
Contents
Page 1
3
4
4
4
6
7
8
10
14
14
17
18
20
20
20
24
24
24
24
27
27
27
29
29
29
Introduction
Benefits of the Strategy
Setting Priorities To Clean Up Oregon's Rivers, Lakes,
and Estuaries
Integrating Water Quality and Beneficial Use Information to Rank
Waterbodies
Severity Criteria
Value Criteria
Ranking Equation
Special Ranking Considerations
The Results of the Oregon Clean Water Strategy RankingProcess:
Oregon's High Priority Waterbodies
The Oregon Clean Water Strategy Geographic Information
System: Technical Aspects
Software and Hardware
Data Entry
Capabilities of the GIS System
Using the Strategy to Set Oregon's Water Quality Agenda
Water Quality Limited Waterbodies
Nonpoint Sources
Points Sources
Estuaries
Lakes
Toxic Chemicals in Rivers and Lakes
Modifying the Strategy to Meet Future Needs
Quality Assurance
Database Expansion
New Information
Conclusion
Basic Requirements for Other States to prepare a Similar Strategy

-------
1
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
17
18
19
19
22
25
Figures
Figure 1: Elements of the Oregon Clean Water Strategy
Figure 2: Severity and Value Criteria Weights are Determined for
Each Waterbody
Figure 3: Ranking Equation: A Score for Each Waterbody is
Calculated by Multiplying Together Its Severity and Value
Criteria Weights
Figure 4: The Strategy Uses Existing Data to Rank Waterbodies
Figure 5: Additional Sources of Information
Figure 6: Criteria Weights of the 10 Highest Ranked Waterbodies
Figure 7: The Location of Oregon's 30 Highest Priority Rivers, Lakes,
and Estuaries
Figure 8: Oregon's 30 Highest Priority Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries
Figure 9: Examples of the Types of Information Linked to Lines,
Points, and Polygons in the Oregon Clean Water Strategy
GIS
Figure 10 The Oregon GIS Combines Several Existing Digital Base
Maps to Display Information
Figure 11a: Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS Interface:
Main Menu
Figure 11b: Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS Interface:
Draw Menu
Figure 11c: Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS Interface:
EPA/CWS Menu
Figure 12: Water Management Activities to Clean Up Oregon's 30
Highest Priority Waterbodies
Figure 13: Monitoring Needs on Oregon's 30 Highest Priority
Waterbodies

-------
Highlights
Page 2 The Strategy Establishes Interagency Concensus On Criteria For
Ranking Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries
16 The Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS is based on ARC/INFO Software
21 Oregon Is Setting Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) On
12 Waterbodies
28 Ecoregions Analysis Is An Important Tool For Geographic Targeting
30 EPA's New Toxics Release Inventory Could Be Used to Enhance the
Oregon Clean Water Strategy

-------
Related Documents and Additional
Information
The following documents contain more specific information about the
development and use of the Oregon Clean Water Strategy.
The Oregon Clean Water Strategy (Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Planning and Monitoring
Section, July 1989) explains the development and implementation of
the strategy in detail.
The Oregon Clean Water Strategy Technical Report (EPA, Office of
Information Resources Management and Office of Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation, Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch, July
1989) describes the sources of information, the integration of data to
create the GIS data base, and the ARC/INFO programming
procedures used to priority rank and map waterbodies.
The Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS Users Guide (EPA, Office of
Information Resources Management and Office of Policy Planning, and
Evaluation, Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch, July 1989)
explains the operation of the ARC/INFO application to calculate scores
and map waterbodies.
The 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water
Pollution (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality
Division, Planning and Monitoring Section) contains information about
water quality conditions on 27,700 miles of streams in Oregon.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has also produced a
video tape summaring the Oregon Clean Water Strategy. Copies can
be ordered from DEQ's Community Relations Division in Portland,
Oregon (503-229-6883).
For copies of this report and additional information on the strategy,
please contact EPA's Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch in
Washington, D.C. (202-382-4900).

-------
Preface
Over the past several decades, Oregon has set a national example for
strong environmental protection through innovative approaches to
land-use planning, pollution control, and the preservation of coastal
areas and scenic waterways. But in spite of these efforts, some of
Oregon's rivers, lakes, and estuaries do not meet state water quality
standards.
The Coquille River for example, meanders slowly for about 50 miles
between the Coast Range and the town of Bandon of the southern
Oregon coast. During the summer when there is little rainfall and the
rate of flushing is low, sewage treatment plant effluent and runoff from
dairy farms degrade water quality. Clearly, point and nonpoint sources
of pollution should be better controlled on the Coquille. But how bad is
the Coquille compared with other rivers? Perhaps resources would be
better spent on those rivers (or lakes or estuaries) with more serious
problems.
Faced with the question of how to get the greatest environmental
benefits from their limited resources, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) developed a geographically focussed
strategic plan to set priorities for cleaning up the state's surface waters,
known as the Oregon Clean Water Strategy.
In addition to summarizing the development and uses of the Oregon
Clean Water Strategy, this report emphasizes the advantages of using
geographic information system (GIS) technology to store, analyze, and
display information to support environmental planning.
EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, which helped the DEQ
prepare the strategy, hopes that other states may benefit by adopting
similar approaches to water quality planning.

-------
1
Introduction
Where are the most critical water quality problems and in what order
should they be addressed? The Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), like environmental protection agencies in most other
states, must frequently decide to spend time and money on one
waterbody or problem rather than on another. The process of making
these decisions has been informal and often criticized because it was
difficult to tell whether the waterbodies selected for restoration projects
were the best choice.
The DEQ resolved this problem by developing a strategic planning
process, known as the Oregon Clean Water Strategy, for targeting
resources to get the greatest environmental benefits. The strategy
identifies the highest priority waterbodies in terms of water quality and
resource value. The strategy is based on a geographic assessment
Figure 1
Elements of the Oregon Clean Water Strategy
4
4
Information on
Water Quality
and
Resource
Values
Criteria and
Ranking
Equation
Statewide
Public
Workshops
and
Questionnaires
Waterbody
Scores
Lists and
Maps of
Priority
Waterbodies
Programs to
Clean Up Rivers,
Lakes, and Esturaies
Interagency Review
of Criteria, Ranking Equation,
and Draft Lists and Maps Through
the Strategic Water Management
Group
Public meetings, conferences, newsletter articles, and public information video

-------
2
The Strategy Establishes Interagency Concensus On
Criteria For Ranking Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries
One of most important benefits of the Oregon Clean Water Strategy is the
public consensus it establishes on water quality criteria. The ranking of
waterbodies is based on a common set of criteria that reflect public concern
about the quality of the state's rivers, lakes, and estuaries. State and federal
agencies are using the priority ranking of waterbodies to help determine their
agendas and coordinate programs and projects with the DEQ.
Citizens attending public meetings across the state were given the opportunity
to discuss water quality values in a workshop setting. Through questionnaires,
participants were asked to select possible criteria that could be used to rank
waterbodies, such as the effects of pollution on human health, aquatic habitat,
recreation, the causes and types of pollution, and the amount of time needed
for restoration.
Maps produced by the Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS played an important
role in building consensus on water management priorities by providing a
common basis for discussion. Moreover, citizens were invited to review the
maps and comment on data problems at public meetings.
DEQ also coordinated the review of Oregon Clean Water Strategy with other
agencies through the Strategic Water Management Group. This legislatively
mandated committee consists of the directors of all state agencies interested in
water management and policy. The committee is chaired by the Governor's
assistant for natural resources. Participating Oregon state agencies include:
Department of Energy, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries,
Department of Agriculture, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Water Resources
Department, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of State Lands,
Health Division, State Parks and Recreation Division, and Economic
Development Department. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service
and the Soil Conservation Service, also participated in the priority setting
process.
and priority ranking of river segments, lakes, and estuaries using ARC/
INFO geographic information system (GIS) software.
The concept of a State Clean Water Strategy was proposed by EPA in
1987 as a flexible process that states could voluntarily develop to
better set priorities and geographically target their resources. States
were encouraged to prepare Clean Water Strategies to help integrate
existing programs established by the 1972 Clean Water Act with the
new responsibilities given to states by the Water Quality Act of 1987.
Building on the general concept proposed by EPA, the DEQ developed
a detailed strategy through a three step process of priority ranking of

-------
3
One of the most important
benefits of the Oregon
Clean Water Strategy is
that it establishes
statewide consensus
on criteria for determining
water quality priorities.
rivers, lakes, and estuaries, targeting available resources across
programs to focus on high priority waterbodies, and implementing
programs to improve water quality.
Benefits of the Strategy
One of the most important benefits of the Oregon Clean Water Strategy
is that it establishes state-wide consensus on criteria for determining
water quality priorities. The public and a number of state and federal
agencies involved in water quality management participated in
developing criteria to rank river segments, lakes, and estuaries. These
criteria are being used to set common priorities and coordinate a
variety of water quality programs between agencies. Consensus on
priorities is a critical first step toward interagency cooperation to
protect and improve water quality in Oregon.
In addition to building consensus, DEQ is using the strategy to
determine where to initiate projects to clean up high priority river
waterbodies, set priorities for additional monitoring, allocate staff time
and funding, and serve as the basis for negotiating grants and
allocations with EPA.

-------
4
Setting Priorities To Clean Up Oregon's
Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries
The Oregon Clean Water Strategy is based on two key elements. First,
ranking criteria, supported by a variety of existing environmental
information are used to priority rank waterbodies in terms of both water
quality and resource value, regardless of pollution sources. Second,
the ARC/INFO GIS system calculates waterbody scores based on
ranking criteria and displays the ranked waterbodies along with other
types of relevant environmental information, such as the location of
Superfund Sites. On Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS contains
information on approximately 1, 700 river segments (as well as selected
lakes and estuaries) covering 27,000 miles of the 110,000 miles of
streams in the state.
The integration of diverse
types of existing
environmental information
is a major strength of the
waterbody ranking
process.
The integration of diverse types of existing environmental information is
a major strength of the waterbody ranking process. Much of the
information used to develop the strategy was collected to fulfill the new
requirements of the Water Quality Act of 1987, such as the Section 319
Nonpoint Source Assessment and the Section 304(1) surface water
Toxics Assessment Report. Information was also used from the
biennial Section 305(b) Water Quality Status Assessment Report.
Unfortunately, ground water was not included in the strategy because
of the lack of adequate information. Oregon hopes to rank aquifers in
future revisions of the strategy as ground water quality information
improves.
Integrating Water Quality and Resource Value
Information to Rank Waterbodies
Ranking scores for rivers, lakes, and estuaries are determined by
asking two questions about each waterbody: how well does it support
certain beneficial uses and to what extent are its beneficial uses
affected by impaired water quality conditions? Measures of water
quality conditions, called severity criteria, and ratings of beneficial use
support, called value criteria, are summarized in Figure 2.
Severity Criteria
Water quality severity criteria identify waterbodies with the worst
problems as characterized by a set of specific parameters, such as

-------
Figure 2
Severity and Value Criteria Weights are Determined
for Each Waterbody
Drinking Water Supply (Rivers and Lakes Only)
Severity: Water Quality Conditions
Affecting Drinking Water
Salt
Pesticides
Toxics
Radioisotopes
¦ Turbidity
Each parameter is given one
of the following weights:
0	= No problem or no data
1	= Moderate effect
3 = Severe effect
Value as Drinking Water Source
1	= Potential Supply
2	= Public Supply Serving under 200 People
3	= Public Supply Serving 200 to 2,000 People
4	= Public Supply Serving more than 2,000
Add 1 = Sole Surface Drinking Water Source
Shellfish (Estuaries Only)
Severity: Water Quality Conditions
Affecting Shellfish
Bacteria
Oil/Scum
Each parameter is given one
of the following weights:
0	= No problem or no data
1	= Moderate effect
3 = Severe effect
Value for Supporting Shellfish
1	= Capable of Supporting Shellfish
Commercial Growing Area Size in 1987:
2	= Less than 100 pounds or gallons
3	= 100 to 5,000 pounds or gallons
4	= 5,000 to 20,000 pounds or gallons
5	= over 20,000 pounds or gallons
Recreation (Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries)
Severity: Water Quality Conditions
Affecting Recreation
> Nutrients
¦ Bacteria
•	Oil/Scum
•	Excessive Plant
Growth
Each parameter is given one
of the following weights:
0	= No problem or no data
1	= Moderate effect
3 = Severe effect
Value as a Source of Recreation
1	= Resource poor, unknown, or not present
2	= Fair
3	= Good
4	= Excellent
Add 1 = Wild or Scenic River
Aquatic Life (Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries)
Severity: Water Quality Conditions
Affecting Aquatic Life
¦	Turbidity
¦	Pesticides
¦	Toxics
> Low DO
¦	Temperature
1 Dissolved
Gasses
Each parameter is given one
of the following weights:
0	= No problem or no data
1	= Moderate effect
3 = Severe effect
Value for Supporting Aquatic Life
1	= Resource poor, unknown, or not present
2	= Fair
3	= Good
4	= Excellent
Add 1 = Anadromous Fish Present

-------
6
Water quality
severity criteria
identify waterbodies with
the worst problems as
characterized by a set of
specific parameters, such
as bacteria, temperature,
and turbidity.
Resource
value criteria are
considered in the ranking
process to ensure that
priority is given to the
highest quality
waterbodies.
bacteria, temperature, and turbidity. Each water quality parameter is
given a numeric weight reflecting its effect on drinking water,
shellfish, recreation, and aquatic life beneficial uses. The total severity
rating for each beneficial use category is determined by the water
quality parameter with the highest weight. For example, if turbidity was
rated as having a severe effect on aquatic life and temperature was
rated as having only a moderate impact, then the stream would receive
a severe rating for aquatic life.
Information about the severity of the water quality conditions is taken
primarily from the 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint
Sources of Water Pollution, which was compiled to meet the
requirements of Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of 1987. The
nonpoint source information includes a rating of severe or moderate for
eighteen water quality and habitat parameters. Monitored data on
ambient conditions was obtained from STORET (EPA's national
database on ambient water quality). Additional information was
received through a survey of several hundred resource professionals in
the Fall of 1987. Data sources are outlined in Figures 4 and 5.
Value Criteria
Resource value criteria are considered in the ranking process to
ensure that priority is given to the highest quality waterbodies. For
instance, a stream that supports cold water species such as trout, is
given a higher weight than a river that doesn't naturally support trout.
Information about resource use values was obtained from several
sources. Recreation and aquatic life value information was taken from
the Pacific Northwest River Study, conducted by the Bonneville Power
Administration. The study identifies high quality waters in Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, and Montana that might be affected by hydropower
development. The Pacific Northwest River Study is an important
source of environmental planning information for the Northwest and
helps greatly to support the well-informed decision making that is the
basis of the Oregon Clean Water Strategy.
Unfortunately, the Pacific Northwest River Study did not rate lakes,
reservoirs, and estuaries. Consequently, these waterbodies are
undervalued in the first draft of the strategy. In the absence of
appropriate value ratings, a default weight of "3" (good), was used as
the recreational value. The default weight of "1" (Resource, poor,
unknown, or not present) was used for fisheries values. Value ratings
for lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries will have to be improved to increase
the usefulness of the strategy in the future.

-------
7
Drinking water supply information was taken from EPA's Water
Supply database, which includes information on drinking water facilities
with surface water intakes. Shellfish harvest information was used as
an indicator of the value of estuaries. Shellfish values were derived
from the production harvest areas as measured in pounds of mussels
Figure 3
Ranking Equation: A Score for Each Waterbody is Calculated by
Multiplying Together its Severity and Value Criteria Weights
Beneficial Uses	Criteria
Human Health
Drinking Water Supply	Severity (3) x Value (5) = 15 x 2 (constant) =-,
(Rivers & Lakes Only)
Shellfish	Severity (3) x Value (5) = 15 x 2 (constant) =-
(Estuaries Only)
Recreation	Severity (3) x Value (5) = 15 x 2 (constant) = 30
Aquatic Life	Severity (3) x Value (5) = 15 x 2 (constant) = 30
Total Possible Water Quality Score	90
Aquatic Habitat	Severity (3) x Value (5) = 15 x 2/3 (constant) = 10
Total Possible Water Quality Score
With Habitat Weight	100
and clams, and in gallons of oysters. Shellfish data is taken from the
Oregon 1988 305(b) Water Quality Status Assessment Report.
Ranking Equation
Figure 3 summarizes the equation used to rank waterbodies. Weights
are assigned to severity and value criteria for beneficial use categories
for each waterbody. Drinking water, shellfish, recreation, and aquatic
life categories are currently weighted equally. But weights can be
easily changed, and scores automatically recalculated, to emphasize
certain parameters or criteria.

-------
a
Aquatic habitat weights were used to help break ties when waterbodies
received the same scores. Aquatic habitat was given a lower weight
than the other beneficial use categories because it only indirectly
relates to DEQ's mission to protect water quality. Habitat quality,
however, is often an important indicator of water quality conditions.
Special Ranking Considerations
"Special Waters" (waterbodies already identified as requiring special
management activities or having high resource value) are identified in
the priority list. "Special Waters" designations were used to help
decide ranks when waterbodies received the same score.
Section 303 (d) (1) Designation: Special consideration is given to
waterbodies where Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) must be
established. A TMDL is the total pollutant load that a waterbody can
recieve and still meet standards. DEQ is legally obligated to set
TMDLs on waters it designates as "Water Quality Limited" under
section 303 (d) (1) of the Water Quality Act of 1987. These waters
exceed water quality standards even though "Best Practicable
Technology" has been used to control pollution. There are currently
twelve waterbodies listed as 303 (d) (1) which must receive DEQ's
Figure 4
The Strategy Uses Existing Data To Rank Waterbodies
Severity Criteria
Value Criteria
Data Storage
and Format
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
1988 Oregon Statewide
Assessment of Nonpoint
Sources of WaterPollution
305(b) Report Listing Size GIS
of Shellfish Harvest Area	(ARC/INFO)
Oregon Department of
Energy, Geographic
Information Services
Pacific North West Rivers GIS
Study: Values for Recreation (ARC/INFO)
and Aquatic Life
Environmental Protection
Agency, National Data
Sources
Drinking Water Facilities with
Surface Water Intakes; EPA
Water Supply Data Base
STORET*
'STORET is EPA's mainframe "storage and retreival" system for water data

-------
9
Figure 5
attention first, even before waterbodies with higher scores.
Section 303 (d) (3): Waterbodies designated as "Water Quality
Limited" under Section 303 (d) (3) are known to exceed water quality
standards, but "Best Practicable Technology" has not been applied.
These waterbodies may require estimated TMDLs (informal guidelines,
rather than formal rules), management plans, or additional assessment
to further define the sources of pollution and the appropriate control
measures.
Additional Sources of Information
Maps, Reports, and Data Bases
Data Storage
and Format
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Oregon 304(1) List: Waterbodies Impacted by	LOTUS
Tocic Priority Pollutants
Oregon 305(b) Report; Biennial State Water	Paper
Quality Summary:
-	Waterbodies of Concern [303(d)(1), 303(d)(3)]
-	Commercial Shellfish Closures
NPDES Permit Violations Quarter Reports,	Paper
1985-87
Priority List of Facilities and Areas of Concern	LOTUS
to Groundwater Problems
Maps of Estuaries Showing Areas Closed to	Paper
Shellfishing
USGS Water Resources
Division, Portland, OR
Drinking Water Facilities with Surface Water
Intakes
Drinking Water Facilities with Wells
GIS
(ARC/INFO)
GIS
(ARC/INFO)
Environmental Protection
Agency, National Data
Sources
Facility Index System - FINDS
STORET Water Quality Monitoring Data
FINDS
STORET
Section 304 (I) Designation: Section 304 (I) of the Water Quality
Act requires states to identify waterbodies in violation of water quality
standards due to any of the 126 toxic "priority pollutants" listed by EPA.
Individual Control Strategies must be developed for facilities are noted.

-------
10
Natural Sources: In some instances, natural sources of pollution
may contribute to water quality problems. For example, turbidity in the
White River originates at its source from glaciers. Even though this
turbidity may limit the uses of the White River, the DEQ will not try to
control it..
Nonpoint Source Classification: Waterbodies were given the
following classifications in the 1988 "Nonpoint Source Assessment."
A1 = There is consensus that one or more beneficial use is severiy
impaired.
A2 = There is disagreement about water quality conditions.
Since the severity rating of A2 waterbodies are uncertain,
their Oregon Clean Water Strategy score is also uncertain.
B = Moderate impairment of one or more beneficial uses was
reported.
The Results of Applying the Clean Water Strategy Ranking
Process: Oregon's High Priority Waterbodies
Figure 7 shows that the nature of water quality problems differs from
region to region. In the semi-arid eastern two-thirds of Oregon, non-
point sources of pollution become a problem during the summer when
there is less rainfall. In the high rainfall area of the lower Willamette
Figure 6
Criteria Scores of the 5 Highest Priority Waterbodies
Bank
Water Body
Basin
Human
Health
Recreation
Aquatic
Life
Water
Quality
Total
Water
Quality
Flmh
Habitat
Total
Water
Quality
and
Habitat
Permit
Violation*
Occur
Attainable
Water
Quality
1
S Umpqua R
Umpqua
6
24
30
60
10
70

Medium
2
Willamette Harbor
Willamette
2
24
30
56
10
66

Medium
3
Klamath R
Klamath
8
24
24
56
8
64
Some
Medium
4
Umatilla R
Umatilla
8
24
24
56
8
64

Low
5
Trout Cr
Deschutes
6
24
24
54
8
62

Low

-------
Oregons's 30 Highest Priority Rivers, Lakes, and Esturaies
Columbia Slough
(High Priority TMDL Lake)
Willamette Harbor (2)
Tualatin River
Basin <7)
Breitenbush River (15)
Little Deschutes River (18)
Hood River (17)
Nehalem Bay
and River (12)
Tillamook Bay
and River (11)
Yamhill River and
Panther Creek (10)
Pudding River (14)
Yaquina Bay (20)
Willamette River,
Coast Fork (19)
Elk Creek (29)
Umpqua and
South Umpqua
River (1)
Coos Bay (30)
and
GarrisonLake
(High Priority
TMDL Lake)
Coquille River (13)
Rogue River (9)
Umatilla River (4)
Grande Ronde River (28)
	 Wallowa River (27)
, i ' W/
r
£








-

V W/
Powder River (24)
Burnt River (26)
Malheur River (25)
Bear Creek (23) 	
Klamath River (3)
	 Crooked River (22)
Sprague River (8)

High Priority
W*"
Segment

High Priority
SSrX*
Segment were

a TMDL has

been set or is

planned
(1)
The waterbody

rank is in

parentheses

-------
12
Valley, where Oregon's population density is highest, point sources are
a more significant part of the water quality problem. In the Tualitin
Basin, for instance, point source discharges from publically owned
sewage treatment plants, combined with agricultural runoff, has
lowered water quality below standards.
Oregon's priority list of the 30 highest ranked waterbodies is organized
by TMDL and nonpoint source management activities as shown in
Figure 8. Waterbodies requiring a Section 304(1) Individual Control
Strategy or a management plan for toxics under Section 303(d)(1) are
also identified.
Figure 8
Oregon's 30 Highest Priority Rivers, Lakes, and Esturaries
,,
Rank

Management Categories


Rank 303(d)(1) -
TMDL
303(d)(3) - NPS/A 1 -
Management Investigation
NPS/A2 -
Severity Uncertain
1
South Umpqua R. (66, 370) #
Umpqua R. (371)


2

Willamette Harbor
(452, 522) #

3
Klamath R. (3, 4, 5, 516)


4
Umatilla R. (262, 263,
261, 260)


5


Trout Cr. (Deschutes 58)
6

Fifteenmile Cr.
(Hood 19)

7
Tualatin R. (Basin)**


8

Sprague R.(Klamath
27, 26, 25, 24)

9

Rogue R. (368)

10
Yamhill R. (362)**:
Panther Cr. (371)


1 1

Tillamook Bay (276)
(Lower Basin):
Trask R. (279)
Tillamook R. (277)
Kilchis R. (287)
Wilson R. (281)
E. Beaver Cr. (269)

12

Nehalem Bay & R.
(297, 309, 298)

13
Coquille R. (163, 164)


l 14
Pudding R. (58)


15


Breitenbush R. & N. Fk.
(90)
16

John Day R. (126, 125,
447, 446, 124, 127):
S. Fk. (134)
N. Fk. (129, 128)

17

Hood R. & E. Fk. (9)

18


Little Deschutes R. (30)
19
Willamette R., Coast Fk. (164)

-------
13
Figure 8 (Continued)
Rank

Management Categories


Rank 303(d)(1) -TMDL
303(d)(3) • Management NPS/A1 • Investigation
NPS/A2 - Severity Uncertain
20

Yaquina Bay (459)

21


White R. (39)
22


Crooked R. (66)
23
Bear Cr. (Rogue 273,
367)" #


24

Powder R. (343, 342)

25

Malheur R. (237, 238, 239) #

26

Burnt R. N. Fk„ (393)

27

Wallowa R. (297, 296, 295)

28
Grande Ronde R.
(276, 275)


29

Elk Creek (272, 273)

30

Coos Bay (138)

High
Priority
Lakes
Columbia Slough (451)


Garrison Lake (375)**


EXPLANATIONS:
303(d)(1) - TMDL:
Water quality standards violations occur; Total Maximum Daily Loads must be established and waste load
allocations placed in NPDES permits.
303(d)(3) - Management:
Water quality standards violations occur; more data must be collected or a pollution control strategy developed.
NPS/A1 - Investigation:
Water quality problems reported; more information must be collected or a pollution control strategy developed if
appropriate.
NPS/A2 - Severity Uncertain:
Conflicting water quality conditions reported making SCWS ranking uncertain; verification of condition needed.
#304(L)-Toxics:
Individual control strategy or management plan must be developed or more data needed.
** Formal TMDL adopted.	() DEQ segment numbers in parentheses.

-------
14
The Oregon Clean Water Strategy
Geographic Information System (GIS):
Technical Aspects
The GIS interface is a
custom programed ARC/
INFO macro application
that generates pull-down
menus to analyze and
map the environmental
information in the
database.
While it is possible to determine state-wide water quality priorities
without using computer technology, a geographic information system
(GIS) greatly increases the ability of planners to use environmental
information to analyze water quality problems and sources of pollution.
This section breifly overviews the technical characteristics of the
Oregon Clean Water GIS. More detailed information is available in the
Oregon Clean Water Strategy Technical Report.
The Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS is comprised of three major
components: the database, the GIS interface, and the priority ranking
software. The database is a set of INFO database management
system files containing either locational or attribute information.
Locational information files (such as a file containing latitude and
longitude coordinates) allow features to be plotted on a map. Attribute
files contain information that describes features. Location and attribute
files are linked by a common ID number. For example, the location of a
drinking water facility, determined by its latitude and longitude
coordinates, and information on the number of people it serves, are
linked by the facility's ID number.
Base map information includes features such as place names, state,
county, and river basin boundaries, and the digital line traces for river
segments, lakes, and estuaries. Waterbody line traces, based on
EPA's River Reach File, are a key element in the database.
The GIS interface is a custom programed ARC/INFO macro application
that generates pull-down menus to analyze and map the environmental
information in the database. The ranking equation is an algorithm
operated through the interface for calculating scores and mapping
waterbodies.
Software and Hardware
The automated ranking and mapping of some 1,700 waterbodies would
not be possible without the use of GIS technology. ARC/INFO is a set

-------
Figure 9
13
Not*: This map was produced with Macintosh graphics applications to illustrate the types of information that can be displyed by the
Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS. The GIS can also display county boundaries & river basin boundaries, but they are not shown on
this map. This map is not to scale.
ESTUARIES
1 Segment #
' Oregon NPS
Assessment
' Shellfish
Closures
' Ranking
Score
Tillamook
Bay
Wilson R.
Tillamook
Netarts
Bay y
PQLYQQN INFORMATION
ECOREGIONS
Coastal
Lowlands
Examples of the Types of Information Linked to Lines, Points,
and Polygons in the Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS

RIVERS
Segment #
Oregon NPS
Assessment
Toxics 304(1)
Pacific North West
River Study
Wild & Scenic Rivers
STORET 305(b)
TMDLs Sc Other
Special Designations
Ranking Score
LAKES & RESERVOIRS
•	Segment #
•	Lakes 314 List
•	Oregon NPS
Assessment
« Ranking Score
NPDES FACILITIES
• Permit Number
CoaBt Range
Mountains
; J SUPERFUND & RCRA SITES ]
*, (none in this area)
DRINKING WATER FACILITIES
•	ID Number
•	Size of Population Served

-------
16
The Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS Is Based On
ARC/INFO Software
ARC/INFO geographic information system (GIS) software is one of EPA's
most effective tools for integrating and geographically analyzing
environmental data. EPA uses ARC/INFO to examine environmental
problems ranging from health risks posed by ground water contamination to
the study of acid rain. Each of EPA's ten regional offices and Washington,
D.C. headquarters office have ARC/INFO installed on Prime minicomputers.
ARC/INFO is also widely used by other federal agencies responsible for
natural resource management and environmental protection, such as the
U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
ARC/INFO is a set of interrelated software packages. INFO is a database
management system for organizing and storing locational and attribute data.
ARC is a group of software modules for digitizing locational data, retrieving
data from INFO, overlying data sets and displaying them as maps on a
computer screen, and printing hardcopy maps. ARC/INFO also has a
number of sophisticated spatial analysis capabilities such as buffer zone
analysis, point in polygon analysis, network modeling, and three dimensional
terrain analysis. ARC/INFO's macro programming language makes it
possible to create pull-down menus for custom applications like the Oregon
Clean Water Strategy. ARC/INFO runs on prime and vax minicomputers,
IBM compatible PCs, and on graphic workstations that use the UNIX
operating system, like the Sun Sparcstation.
ARC/INFO is one of many commercial and public domain GIS software
packages. Each has certain strengths and weaknesses. ARC/INFO, for
example, can manipulate large data sets, but is it difficult to learn and time
consuming to use. Other popular GIS software packages include
Intergraph's "TIGRIS," SPANS, GRASS, and Atlas Graphics. A few GIS
software applications have recently been released for the Apple Macintosh,
such as MapGraphix.
of interrelated software packages for handling data entry, data
integration, spatial analysis, and mapping. DEQ uses PC ARC/INFO
running on a Compaq 386 microcomputer for day-to-day analysis and
mapping. The main database resides on a 2755 Prime minicomputer
at EPA Region 10's office in Seattle, Washington. DEQ has direct
access to EPA's Prime through a dedicated phone line.

-------
17
Data Entry
Interface tools, such as the ARC/INFO Gateway, were used to transfer
environmental data to DEQ's ARC/INFO system from EPA's IBM 3090
mainframe computer at the National Computer Center in Research
Trangle Park, North Carolina. The interface contains a set of user
friendly menus for selecting and downloading mainframe data into an
ARC/INFO file format. The ARC/INFO Gateway was used primarily to
download ambient water quality data from EPA's STORET (storage and
retrieval) database.
Other data were transferred into the Clean Water Strategy GIS from
LOTUS spreadsheets and DBase files. Information from paper
documents were typed into the GIS. Since existing data was used as
much as possible, very little digitizing was required.
Figure 10
The Oregon GIS Combines Several Existing Digital
Base Maps to Display Information
Base Map and Scale
Data Storage
and Format
Oregon Department of
Energy, Geographic
Information Services
Pacific NW Rivers Study GIS 1:250,000
Oregon River Basins, 1:250,000
Oregon Counties, 1:250,000
GIS
(ARC/INFO)
GIS
(ARC/INFO)
GIS
(ARC/INFO)
EPA Environmental
Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Corvailis, OR
Oregon Ecoregion Boundaries, 1:250,000
GIS
(ARC/INFO)
USGS Water Resources
Division, Portland
Oregon Cities from Geographic Names
Information System, 1:24,000
GIS
(ARC/INFO)
Environmental Protection
Agency, National Data
Sources
1982 River Reach File
Oregon Hydrologic Catalog Units, 1:250,000
STORET
STORET

-------
18
Capabilities of the GIS System
The system interface allows DEQ to run the ranking equation to
calculate waterbody scores from the criteria weights assigned to each
waterbody. Weights can be easily changed to model their effect on
ranking scores. Through pull-down menus, illustrated in Figure 11, the
ranking results can be displayed as a table or map on the screen.
ARC/INFO supports several types of pen and electrostatic plotters for
producing maps. The system also produces tabular reports of the
waterbody ranking.
In addition to pull-down menu options, the ARC/INFO database can be
queried by clicking on features on the screen with a mouse. For
example, clicking on a river segment will create a information table
which includes the segment ID number, its ranking score, and the
criteria weights used to calculate its score. Clicking on a RCRA
hazardous waste facility will create a table containing information about
the facility such as its ID number and operating status.
Figure 11a
Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS Interface: Main Menu
Select Terminal Type
Select Pointing Device
MAIN MENU
Calculate Scores
Subset
Classify
Draw
Show
Report
Exit
Check
Weights
Enter
Weights
Calculate
Statewide
Ranking
By Geographic Area
I
By State, basin
or ecoregion
By Waterbody Type
X
Rivers, Lakes,
and Estuaries
By Programmatic
Item
Select one or all
programatic items.
DRAW MENU
_ State Statistics
L- Subset Statistics
1
Print
EPA/CWS
MENU
- Stay in ARC
Quit ARC
Hard copy of data
records included in the
View Area.

-------
19
Figure 11b
Boundaries
Points
Query
Window
Show
Text
Ad hoc
Exit
Zoom and Pan
Functions, Refresh,
Legend
State, County, River
Basin, Ecoregion
Show Valid
EPA
Reaches
Enter ARC PLOT
— Factor Scores
— All Database Items
DRAW MENU
— Waterbody Identification
MAIN MENU
Annotate
Waterbodies,
Boundaries. Legend
Drinking Water Facilities,
NCPDI NPDES. Superfund,
RCRA
Drinking Water Supply,
Shellfish, Recreation
Fish & Aquatic Habitat
and Total
Drinking Water
Facilities
NCPDI Sites
NPDES Sites
Superfund Sites
RCRA Sites
Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS Interface: Draw Menu
Figure 11c
EPA
CWS
Points
Boundaries
Text
Window
Exit
Ad hoc
Enter ARC PLOT
MAIN MENU
EPA/CWS
MENU
Draw, Annotate,
and Query River
Reaches
State, County,
River Basin,
Ecoregion
Draw, Annotate,
and Query CWS
River Segments
Zoom and
Pan
Functions,
Refresh.
Legend
Annotate
Waterbodies,
Boundaries, Legend
Draw and Query
Drinking Water Facilities,
NCPDI, NPDES,
Superfund, RCRA
Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS Interface: EPA/CWS Menu

-------
20
Using the Strategy to Set Oregon's
Water Quality Agenda
DEQ is using the
strategy to decide the
order in which
water bodies should be
cleaned up and how to
best distrubute staff time
and funding. DEQ is also
using the strategy to
support negotiations on
grants and allocations with
EPA, and to coordinate
nonpoint source control
projects with other
agencies.
By establishing state-wide consensus on high priority waterbodies, the
Oregon Clean Strategy provides a foundation for setting Oregon's
water quality agenda. DEQ is using the strategy to decide the order in
which waterbodies should be cleaned up and how to best distribute
staff time and funding. DEQ is also using the strategy to support
negotiations on grants and allocations with EPA, and to coordinate
nonpoint source control projects with other agencies.
The list of waterbody scores is an important decision making tool, but
other factors may be considered when planning DEQ activities. The
strategy is flexible enough to take advantage of the timing of scheduled
permit renewals or projects undertaken by other agencies that are
outside the control of DEQ.
Priority waterbodies have been evaluated to determine whether they
require TMDLs, the development of a management strategy, or
additional data collection. The strategy will be used to help guide
activities in the following water quality management areas.
Water Quality Limited Waterbodies
DEQ is responsible for issuing permits to control point sources of
pollution and establishing TMDLs to provide the technical basis for
cleaning up water quality limited waterbodies. Permits are modified as
needed to comply with TMDL Waste Load Allocations.
Nonpoint Sources
Where run-off from agriculture, forestry, or urban activities contribute to
a water quality problem, DEQ coordinates with other agencies, known
formally as Designated Management Agencies (DMAs), that manage
nonpoint source programs. Agreements between DEQ and DMAs
specify priority waterbodies on which the agencies will investigate or
begin corrective actions. Action plans will list the responsibilities of
each agency, indicate where Load Allocations will be established, and
identify where Section 319 Nonpoint Source funding will be spent.
Projects that require both point and nonpoint source corrective actions
will be coordinated to maximize pollution control efforts. Actions plans

-------
Oregon Is Setting Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
On 12 Waterbodies
The Clean Water Act requires states to set water quality standards which specify
conditions that must be met to support beneficial uses of a waterbody, such as
drinking water, recreation, and aquatic life. For each beneficial use, the standard
sets a numerical criterion (e.g. copper concentration of 5.6 micrograms/liter) that,
if not exceeded, will protect that use. The state then samples waters to see if they
meet standards. If they don't, they are classified as "Water Quality Limited" and
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) must be calculated. A TMDL is the total
pollutant load that a waterbody can receive and still be expected to meet
standards. A "waste load allocation" is the portion of the TMDL that determines
maximum allowable point source discharges. A "load allocation" is the portion of
the TMDL that a waterbody may receive from nonpoint sources and natural
background sources of pollution.
States must develop implementation plans to determine how the TMDL will be
apportioned between pollution sources. Point sources of pollution are controlled
through permits and compliance schedules. Nonpoint sources are controlled
through "best management practices," like the practice of leaving natural
vegetation along stream banks to help filter out sediments and nutrients. Another
example of best management practices is the use of agricultural techniques,
such as low-till farming, that decrease run-off of soil and farm chemicals to water
ways.
Although TMDLs are required under federal law, EPA over the past two decades
has concentrated more on point sources of pollution through controls on
municipal and industrial facilities. Although this approach has been successful in
many areas, it doesn't address nonpoint source problems. Nonpoint source
pollution is ifrequently the main reason waterbodies don't meet standards. In
1986 a lawsuit compelled EPA and the State of Oregon to begin setting TMDLs,
which help to define the complete set of nonpoint and point source controls
needed to bring a waterbody up to its water quality standards.
DEQ has identified 73 water quality limited waterbodies in the state. Under the
terms of a consent decree, the DEQ initiated the development of TMDLs on 11
waterbodies. Eventually, DEQ will set TMDLs for 40 of the remaining 62 water
quality limited waterbodies. Because of technical difficulties in establishing load
allocations for nonpoint sources on the remaining 22 waterbodies, DEQ plans to
develop area-wide control strategies.
Although waters that require TMDLs must receive a large share of available
resources regardless of their Clean Water Strategy score, most of the 11 initial
river segments were rated high (in the top 10 percent). This means TMDL work
will be consistent with the priorities set by the strategy. Moreover, the strategy is
being used to decide the order in which work will proceed on remaining water
quality limited waterbodies.

-------
22
Figure 12
Water Quality Management Activities to Clean Up
Oregon's 30 Highest Priority Waterbodies
Rank
Priority
Waterbody
Category
Status
1
South Umpqua and
Umpqua River
303(D)(1) TMDL
TMDL proposed 1988; Intensive assessment
1991; Final TMDL to be adopted 1992
2
Willamette Harbor
303(D)(3) Management
304(L) Toxics
Toxics study 1988 -1989; Modeling 1990
3
Klamath River
303(D)(1) TMDL
304(L) Toxics
TMDL proposed 1988; Intensive assessment 1990;
Final TMDL to be adopted 1991
4
Umatilla River
303(D)(1) TMDL
TMDL proposed 1988; Intensive assessment 1992;
Final TMDL to be adopted 1993
5
Trout Creek (Deschutes)
NPS/A2 Severity Uncertain
Determine Severity;
Re-rank or seek funding for project
6
Fifteenmile Creek (Hood)
NPS/A1 Investigation
Seek funding
7
Tualatin Basin
McKay Creek
Beaverton Creek
Rock Creek
Fanno Creek
303(D)(1) TMDL
304(L) Toxics
Final TMDL adopted 1988; Point source plan 1989;
Nonpoint source plans 1990; TMDL to be achieved
1993
8
Sprague River (Klamath)
NPS/A1 Investigation
Seek funding
9
Rogue River
303(D)(3) Management
Seek funding
10
Yamhill River
303(D)(1) TMDL
Final TMDL adopted 1989; Point source plans 1990;
TMDL to be achieved 1994
11
Tillamook Bay
Trask River
Tillamook River
Kilchis River
Wilson River
East Beaver Creek
303(D)(3) Management
Shellfish Management Plan
Rural Clean Water Project 1980 - Present
Evaluation Monitoring 1985 - Present
12
Nehalem Bay & River
303(D)(3) Management
Shellfish Management Plan
Seek funding
13
Coquille River
303(D)(1) TMDL
Near-Coastal Water Quality Pilot Project 1988 -
1990; TMDL proposed 1988; Final TMDL in1991
14
Pudding River
303(D)(1) TMDL
TMDL proposed 1988; Intensive assessment 1989;
Final TMDL to be adopted 1990
15
Breitenbush R. & N. Fk.
NPS/A2 Severity Uncertain
Determine Severity;
Re-rank or seek funding for project
16
John Day River
South Fork
North Fork
303(D)(3) Management
Wild and Scenic
Support Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board
and Bonneville Power Administration
17
Hood River
East Fork Hood River
303(D)(3) Management
Seek funding
18
Little Deschutes River
NPS/A2 Severity Uncertain
Determine Severity, re-rank
19
Coast Fork Willamette R.
303(D)(1) TMDL
TMDL proposed 1989; Intensive assessment 1990;
Final TMDL to be adopted 1991

-------
23
Figure 12 (Continued)
Rank
Priority
Waterbody
Category
Status
20
Yaquina Bay
303(D)(3) Management
Shellfish Management Plan
Seek funding for follow-up
21
White River
NPS/A2 Severity Uncertain
Determine Severity;
Natural causes - no management
22
Crooked River
303(D)(3) Management
NPS/A2 Severity Uncertain
Determine Severity
23
Bear Creek(Rogue)
303(D)(1) TMDL
Final TMDL adopted 1989; Point source plan
due 1990; Nonpoint source plans due 1991;
TMDL to be achieved by 1994
24
Powder River
303(D)(3) Management
Seek funding
25
Malheur River
303(D)(3) Management
304(1) Toxics
Begin surface water assessment to compliment
groundwater project
26
Burnt River North Fork
303(D)(3) Management
304(1) Toxics
Seek funding
27
Wallowa River
303(D)(3) Management
Seek funding
28
Grande Ronde River
303(D)(1) TMDL
TMDL proposed 1988; Intensive assessment
1991; Final TMDL to be adopted 1992
29
Elk Creek (Umpqua)
303(D)(3) Management
Seek funding
30
Coos Bay
303(D)(3) Management
Shellfish Management Plan
Seek funding for follow-up
High
Priority
Columbia Slough
303(D)(1) TMDL
TMDL proposed 1989 - 1990;
Intensive assessment 1989 - 1990;
Final TMDL to be adopted 1990
Lakes
Garrison Lake
303(D)(1) TMDL
Final TMDL adopted 1988
EXPLANATIONS:


303(D)(1) -TMDL:
Water quality standards violations occur; Total Maximum Daily Loads must be established and waste load
allocations placed in NPDES permits.
303(D)(3) - Management:
Water quality standards violations occur; more data must be collected or a pollution control strategy developed.
NPS/A1 - Investigation:
Water quality problems reported; more information must be collected or a pollution control strategy developed if
appropriate.
NPS/A2 - Severity Uncertain:
Conflicting water quality conditions reported making SCWS ranking uncertain; verification of condition needed.
304(1) - Toxics:
Individual control strategy or management plan must be developed or more data needed.

-------
24
have already been negotiated with the Oregon Department of
Agriculture, the Oregon State Department of Forestry, the U.S. Forest
Service, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the U.S. Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, and the U.S Bureau of Land
Management. Agreements with other agencies such as the Oregon
State Extension Service, Oregon Department of Transportation, and
other local or regional agencies are anticipated.
Point Sources
Permit reviews and
compliance reviews will
receive additional
attention if a facility
discharges is to a high
priority waterbody.
Permit reviews and compliance reviews will receive additional attention
if a facility discharges is to a high priority waterbody. If necessary,
existing permits will be modified to reflect instream water quality needs
or Waste Load Allocations. New permits may contain additional
provisions to meet instream water quality standards. Additional
monitoring and evaluation of monitoring results may be necessary.
Estuaries
The estuaries priority list will guide several of DEQ's on-going estuary
and near coastal waters activities, such as the review of discharge
permits and land use practices in the coastal areas, and the
development of Shellfish Management Plans. DEQ is also examining
how offshore oil and gas leasing may affect near shore water quality
and habitat.
Lakes
Oregon relies on federal Clean Lakes (Section 314) funding to support
major lake assessment and restoration projects. The strategy identifies
priority lakes that are eligible for funding. If no local sponsor is found,
or if Clean Lakes funding is not available, on-going point and nonpoint
source control activities will be used to clean up and protect lakes.
A TMDL has been established and a Phase I study is underway on
Garrison Lake (Curry County). Phase II studies are underway on Devils
Lake (Lincoln County) and Sturgeon Lake (Multnomah County). A
Lakes Water Quality Assessment Project was initiated in 1988 that
features a Citizens Lake Watch program using volunteers to collect
basic lake water quality data. The project will also provide detailed
lake drainage basin information for the GIS system.
Toxic Chemicals in Rivers and Lakes
To comply with the requirements of Section 304 (I) of the Water Quality

-------
25
Act of 1987, DEQ has prepared a list of waterbodies suspected or
known to be impaired by one or more of the 126 toxic chemicals. DEQ
will establish TMDLs for waterbodies that do not meet standards due to
point source discharges of toxic chemicals. Individual Control
Strategies are being developed to limit toxic discharges from point
sources. Where toxic pollution is due mostly or entirely to nonpoint
sources, watershed management plans are being developed with
assistance from other agencies. Enforcement actions will be taken
against illegal discharges.
Figure 13
Monitoring Needs on Oregon's 30 Highest Priority Waterbodies
Rank Priority Waterbody
South Umpqua River
Umpqua River
Willamette Harbor
Klamath River
Umatilla River
303(d)(1)
303(d)(3)/NPS A1
intensive	Compliance Determine Develop Follow-Up
Assessment Allocation	if WQL	Mgt. Plan Evaluation
1990
1991-1993
1990
1992
NPS A2
Verification
Process
Toxics
1988-89
Toxics
Needed
5	Trout Creek (Deschutes)
6	Fifteenmile Creek (Hood)
Tualatin Basin
McKay Creek
7	Beaverton Creek
Rock Creek
Fanno Creek
8	Sprague River (Klamath)
9	Rogue River
10	Yamhill River
Tillamook Bay
Trask River
Tillamook River
11	Kilchis River
Wilson River
East Beaver Creek
12	Nehalem Bay & River
13	Coquille River
14	Pudding River
15	Breitenbush R. & N. Fk.
John Day River
16	South Fork
North Fork
17	Hood River
East Fork Hood River
18	Little Deschutes River
Yes
Completed
First TMDL
Established
Final
TMDLs Set
1989/1990
1989
Need by
1993
Needed
Toxics
Toxics
Toxics
Toxics
Needed
Ongoing
Need by
1994
Needed
Bacteria
Plan in
Place
Needed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Needed
Needed
Needed
Needed
Needed
Yes
19
Coast Fork Willamette R.
1989

-------
26
Figure 13 (Continued)

303(d)(1)
303(d)(3)/NPS A1
Rank Priority Waterbody
Intensive Compliance Determine
Assessment Allocation if WQL
NPSA2
Develop Follow-Up Verification
Mgt. Plan Evaluation process
20 Yaquina Bay
Toxics
^c,eriaDI Needed
Plan in Place
21 White River

Yes
22 Crooked River

Yes
23 Bear Creek (Rogue)
Completed
Final TMDLs By 1994

24 Powder River

Needed
25 Malheur River
Toxics
Needed
26 Burnt River North Fork
Toxics

27 Wallowa River
ph
Needed
28 Grande Ronde River
1991
Bacteria
Plan in Place
29 Elk Creek (Umpqua)

Needed
30 Coos Bay
High Columbia Slough
Ongoing
(City of Portland)

Priority
Lakes Garrison Lake
Needed

EXPLANATIONS:


303(d)(1):
Intensive Assessment - A detailed water quality study is needed including at least one season of intensive sampling in
order to establish final Total Maximum Daily Load and then Waste Load and Load Allocations.
Allocation Compliance - Monitoring is needed to determine compliance with Waste Load and Load Allocations, and to
verify that the TMDL has been achieved. This kind of monitoring is usually done by the sources and reported to DEQ.
303(d)(3)/NPS A1:
Determine if Water Quality Limited - Additional monitoring is needed to determine is the segment is Water Quality
Limited. This may require simply collecting enough samples to obtain a statistically valid decision, or it may require a
more complex study to determine to what degree the source is natural (as for ph on the Wallowa River). In the case of
toxics, a Waterbody Problem Assessment will be done to review existing information on the waters suspected of being
water quality limited due to priority pollutants. A monitoring plan for toxics, which may include biomonitoring or mixing
zone studies, will be designed and implemented if additional information is required.
Develop Management Plan - Additional data is needed to refine knowledge regarding the source of the water quality
problem and to develop a management plan.
Follow-up Evaluation - Monitoring is needed to determine if the management solution was successful in achieving water
quality standards.
NPS A2:
Verification Process - The status and ranking of waterbodies in the A2 category of the Nonpoint Source Assessment are
uncertain due to conflicting reports about the severity of the water quality conditions. A process has been developed to
resolve the status of the condition that involves refining the definitions of "severe" and "moderate" impairment for each of
the beneficial uses affected, collecting and evaluating existing information or data, and if necessary, collecting and
analyzing additional data.

-------
27
Modifying the Strategy to Meet
Future Needs
DEQ will evaluate the
strategy over the next few
years and make
improvements to the
ranking methodology and
implementation process.
DEQ will evaluate the strategy over the next few years and make
improvements to the ranking methodology and implementation
process. The criteria and ranking equation will be evaluated before
re-calculating the waterbody scores every two years, and new sources
of information will be considered for use in the strategy. Periodic
updates are needed to add new information and reflect changes in
water quality conditions. Minor updates will be done yearly and used to
support grant allocation discussions will EPA. The following areas for
improvement have already been identified.
Quality Assurance
Although considerable attention was given to data quality, there are still
areas for improvement. For example, more accurate locational data for
public drinking water intakes is needed. Better consistency is needed
between EPA's river reach system and Oregon's river system
definitions.
Database Expansion
Some data sets in the Oregon Clean Water Strategy GIS lacked
consistent coverage of information. For example, recreation value and
fish value was generally not rated for lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, or
many small streams in the Pacific Northwest River Study. The Drinking
Water Supply database does not include a number of water supply
systems that serve small populations. These and other databases
should be expanded to ensure a more comprehensive analysis of
water quality problems and equitable assignment of water
management priorities.
New Information
Several new data sets may be added to the Oregon Clean Water
Strategy GIS over the next few years, including information from EPA's
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and information on lake basins and
ground water. These data will contribute to a fuller understanding of
the relationship between pollutants and environment resources.
Recent work by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances has examined the
impact of carcinogenic chemicals on Oregon surface waters used for
public drinking water. Oregon is considering how these new data
sources should be factored into its clean water priority ranking scheme.

-------
Ecoregions Analysis Is An Important Tool For
Geographic Targeting
Ecoregions are areas of relatively homogeneous ecological systems, characterized
by common vegetation, land forms, soils, and land uses. Rivers and lakes within an
ecoregion have common naturally occuring characteristics, such as water chemistry
and the types of fish and aquatic insects they support. Streams in the high
Cascades, for instance, are often naturally oligotrophy, whereas the natural
condition of rivers in the semi-arid eastern foothills of the Cascades verge on
eutrophic during the summer. Rivers in these two ecoregions have different
attainable levels of water quality. For example, eutrophic conditions in rivers and
lakes in areas like the Cascades where non-eutrophic (oligotrophic) conditions can
be naturally obtained are of most concern.
By rating water quality attainability, ecoregion analysis can support geographic
targeting activities such as the Oregon Clean Water Strategy. Clean up and
protection programs could focus on water quality problems that are unique to each
ecoregion. Although ecoregions were not used to calculate ranking scores in the
first year of Strategy, the GIS system contains a relatively detailed ecoregion map
that can be overlayed on a map of high priority waterbodies to provide a more
refined portrait of the geographic context of water quality problems and priorities.
DEQ plans to incorporate ecoregions more fully into the strategy in the future.
EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon has
mapped 76 ecoregions at the national level. They have also delineated and mapped
23 Oregon ecoregions. The nine major ecoregions are labelled below.
Willamette Valley	Western Cascades
High Cascades
Columbia Plateau
Blue Mountains
Coast Range
High Desert
Klamath
Mountains
Eastern
Cascades

-------
29
Conclusion
DEQ believes that the
Oregon Clean Water
Strategy will prove to be
an essential water quality
planning tool throughout
the 1990s and into the
next century.
DEQ believes that the Oregon Clean Water Strategy will prove to be an
essential water quality planning tool throughout the 1990s and into the
next century. The results of the ranking analysis have been very
encouraging. The list of highest ranked waterbodies largely confirmed
DEQ's informal estimation of the waters most in need of attention. The
ability to target resources and direct staff activities to address the most
important problems will help DEQ to more effectively clean up and
protect Oregon's surface waters.
An important benefit of the strategy is that it identifies problem
waterbodies where DEQ has little or no monitored data. These
waterbodies can now be targeted for data collection, and possible
clean up and prevention.
This report summarizes the first steps of an ongoing process to collect
data, assess progress, and reevaluate priorities. Many opportunities
exist for incorporating new data and existing databases to the Strategy,
making it an even more powerful decision making tool.
Basic Requirements for Other States
to Prepare a Similar Strategy
The ease with which other states could develop surface water
targeting strategies similar to Oregon's depends on their level of
GIS expertise, access to appropriate hardware and software,
and availability of existing computerized data. Over a two year
period, Oregon committed approximately 1 staff work year for
GIS programming, data manipulation, and map production, and
another .5 staff work year to develop criteria, coordinate with the
public and state and federal agencies, and to draft the strategy
document.
Basic hardware requirements included mini computers, digitizing
tablets, and a color electrostatic plotter. Although ARC/INFO is used by
EPA and Oregon, several other commercially available software
packages could be used. Combined hardware and software costs
could range from $50,000 to $75,000. Oregon reduced this cost
substantially by buying the PC version of ARC/INFO and by using EPA
Region 10's PRIME computer and plotter. States are encouraged to
take advantage of similar arrangements with other EPA regional offices.

-------
EPA's Toxics Release Inventory Could Be Used to
Enhance the Oregon Clean Water Strategy
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a new source of information for environmental
managers on the storage, use, and release of toxic and hazardous substances to air,
water, and land. DEQ plans to use TRI information to improve the priority ranking of
waterbodies by identifying areas where water quality may be impaired by toxics.
TRI data reporting is required by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to
Know Act, which is Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act.
Congress passed the Act in 1986 in response to growing concern about chemical
accidents, such as the accidental release of methyl isocyanate from a pesticide
factory that killed 2,800 people in Bhopal, India. The Act requires facilities storing,
using, or releasing toxic chemicals to report their presence and amounts to state and
local planning organizations and to EPA. TRI includes information on over 300
chemicals used or produced by 20 major industries nation-wide, including chemical
manufacturing and petroleum refining.
EPA's Office of Toxic Substances recently prepared a TRI profile for Oregon focusing
on direct releases to surface water and transfers to publicly owned treatment works. A
future phase of this project will be to model the diffusion of toxic chemical
concentrations near drinking water intakes in Oregon.
Lincoln County
12,000 lbs.
Lane County
7,235 lbs.
Formaldehyde: According to TRI two counties in Oregon reported that a total of 19,235 pounds
of formaldehyde, a carcinogen, were released directly to surface water in 1988.

-------