8-digit huc watershed prioritization in arkansas - risk assessment matrix approach

8-Digit HUC Watershed Prioritizationin Arkansas

- Risk Assessment Matrix Approach

2010 Updates

Dharmendra Saraswat & Tom Riley

ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

http://www.oregon.sierraclub.org/groups/rogue/photos/IllinoisRiver_G.%20Lyford.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.farmersguardian.com/Pictures/web/d/x/t/poultry.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=38&storycode=19553&usg=__12e-63tY8XFhcYZAqAQkzc02R7w=&h=348&w=370&sz=80&hl=en&start=69&sig2=sN9xiwPoyIktBeafyJPvcw&um=1&tbnid=ncnx6vRcYwf6eM:&tbnh=115&tbnw=122&prev=/images?q=poultry&ndsp=20&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&sa=N&start=60&um=1&ei=3hBMSp65K4_GlAfsxqHLDQ

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.farmersguardian.com/Pictures/web/d/x/t/poultry.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=38&storycode=19553&usg=__12e-63tY8XFhcYZAqAQkzc02R7w=&h=348&w=370&sz=80&hl=en&start=69&sig2=sN9xiwPoyIktBeafyJPvcw&um=1&tbnid=ncnx6vRcYwf6eM:&tbnh=115&tbnw=122&prev=/images?q=poultry&ndsp=20&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&sa=N&start=60&um=1&ei=3hBMSp65K4_GlAfsxqHLDQ


Arkansas Approach

Arkansas embarked on developing a proactive stakeholder process

A comparative risk assessment based collaborative process that integrate scientific analysis and

stakeholder deliberation


Goal

• Select a few watersheds for priority implementation

• Priority watersheds eligible for 319(h) incremental funding

• Target known water quality impairments• Effectively allocate resources


Process

1. Water Body Impairment

2. Designated Use Impact

3. Biotic Impacts

4. Potential Human Exposure

5. Urban and Suburban Population

6. Impervious Surface

7. Economic Activity

8. Cropland

9. Livestock and Pasture

10. Unpaved Roads

11. Forestry

12. Priority of Neighboring State

Sl# Approved category

1 Water Body impairment

2 Human Health Impact

3 Biotic Impacts

4 Potential Human Exposure

5 Construction

6 Rural Roads

7 Non-row Crop Agriculture

8 Row Crop Agriculture

9 Urban

10 Forestry

11 Priority of a Bordering State

2005-2009 Plan 2008 Revision

1. Water Body ImpairmentCategory 5 2008 Definition Category 5 2010 Definition5a Truly impaired; develop a TMDL or other corrective

action(s) for the listed parameterHigh Truly impaired; develop a TMDL or other

correction action(s) for the listed parameter(s).

5b Waters currently not attaining standards, but may be de-listed with future revisions to Regulation No. 2, the state water quality standards;

Medium Waters currently not attaining standards, but may be de-listed with future revisions to Regulation No. 2, the state water quality standards; orWaters which are impaired by point source discharges and future permit restrictions are expected to correct the problem(s).

5c Waters in which the data is questionable because of QA/QC procedures and which require confirmation before a TMDL is scheduled;

5d Waters which need data verification to confirm use impairment (additional sampling, biological assessment) before a TMDL is scheduled;

Low Waters currently not attaining one or more water quality standards, but all designated uses are determined to be supported; orThere is insufficient data to make a scientifically defensible decision concerning designated use attainment; orWaters ADEQ assessed as unimpaired, but were added to the list by EPA.

5e Waters which are impaired by point source discharges and future permits restrictions are expected to correct the problem;

5f These are waters that are not currently meeting a water quality standard. However, “the basis for not meeting an applicable water quality standard is not caused by a pollutant, but is attributed to other types of pollution” (EPA, 2005).

5g Water bodies added to ADEQ’s list of Impaired Water bodies by EPA.2009


2008

2. Designated Use Impact - implementation

Working Definition Score

Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4a & 5a* not supporting aquatic life

10

Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4a & 5a* not supporting primary and secondary contact

9

Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4a & 5a* not supporting drinking

8

Watersheds with at least one ESW, available on geostor 5

Watersheds with at least one ERW, available on geostor 4

Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4a & 5a* not supporting agricultural/industrial use

2

*Ignore those with source “MP”


3. Biotic Impact - implementation

Working Definition ScoreWatersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4a & 5a not supporting aquatic life*

10

Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4a & 5a with siltation (SI) listed as the cause*

10

Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4a & 5a with dissolved oxygen (DO) listed as the cause*

9

Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4a & 5a with nutrients (NU), nitrate (NO3), or phosphorous (P) listed as the cause*

8

Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4a & 5a with ammonia (AM) listed as the cause*

4


4. Potential Human Exposure

Proposed Criteria Score

Tributary to a public surface water supply 10

Tributary to or part of a recreational lake 8

Natural & scenic river or urban stream 8

All other waters 2


5. Urban/Suburban Population

• Percentile rank of population density of urban and suburban area

• Score = Percentile rank x 10



• 2006 Land Use/Land Cover

• Estimate percentage of pervious

surface

• Calculate percentile rank

• Score = percentile rank x 10



Proposed Criteria ScoreChange in construction activity 1999-2006 5Shale development- with atleast one active natural gas permit

4

Other economic activity- atleast one mining activity pemit

2

Change to 1


8. Cropland - implementation

• Acreage of harvested area for each county from 2007 USDA agriculture census*

• Watershed acreage based on area weighting

• Calculate percentile of watershed harvested cropland density

• Score = percentile x10

*http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/


9. Livestock & Pasture

• Percentile rank of density of animal units x 5

• Percentile rank of density of pasture x 5

• Score = Livestock + Pasture


10. Unpaved Roads - implementation

• Calculate length of un-paved roads for each watershed using the AHTD Roads GIS layer*

• Calculate percentile rank of density of unpaved roads for each watershed

• Score = Percentile rank x 10* Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department/GeoStor


11. Forestry• Density of public, state, and private

forest land in each watershed in 2006*

• Calculate percentile rank for public and private forests

• Score = State Forest x 2 + Public Forest x 3 + Private Forest x 5

*CAST/GeoStor

2009 recommendation


12. Priority of Neighboring State


3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

0 10 0 10

10 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

12. Neighbor’s Priority

11. Forestry

8. Cropland

10. Unpaved Roads

9. Livestock & Pasture


5. Urban/Suburban Population


2. Use Impact

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

1. Water Impairment

3 4 8 10

2 6 8 6

3 10 5 1

3 7 9 10

2. Use Impact

0 10 0 10

10 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 10

12. Neighboring State Priority

1. Water Impairment

4. Human Exposure

3. Biotic Impact

Assign Score for Each Category Final Score =

X(

)

Overlay

Arkansas Approach – Steps Used in 2010 Matrix


Priority Map


Priority Watersheds


Subwatershed Name HUC (8-digit) Drainage Area (km2)

Majority Land Use Final Risk Matrix Percentile

Beaver Reservoir 11010001 5625.71 Forest (64%) 100

Poteau 11110105 1442.52 Forest (61%) 98

Bayou Bartholomew 08040205 3976.38 Forest (59%) 97

Illinois 11110103 1962.51 Pasture (45%) 95

Ouachita Headwaters 08040101 4007.36 Forest (77%) 93

Lake Conway-Point Remove 11110203 2961.08 Forest (54%) 91

Upper Ouachita 08040102 4542.74 Forest (79%) 90

Upper Saline 08040203 4442.43 Forest (78%) 88

L Anguille 08020205 2473.54 Crops (71%) 85

Cache 08020302 5067.21 Crops (67%) 85

Strawberry 11010012 1971.50 Forest (58%) 83

Lower Ouachita-Smackover 08040201 4662.94 Forest (82%) 81

Risk Matrix Summary


Watershed HUC 8 digit C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 Total

Beaver Reservoir 1101000110 10 10 10 8.28 5.69 7.93 4.14 8.79 2.76 6.31 10 838.97

Poteau 1111010510 0 10 10 8.62 8.62 9.22 2.41 4.31 5.86 3.45 10 725.00

Bayou Bartholomew 804020510 10 10 8 4.14 3.62 2.47 6.72 4.05 4.31 7.41 10 707.24

Illinois 111101038 5 0 10 9.31 9.66 9.91 5.34 8.10 8.45 5.52 10 650.34

Ouachita Headwaters 804010110 5 10 10 7.24 8.28 5.14 0.86 3.19 8.79 5.57 0 640.69

Lake Conway-Point Remove 111102038 10 10 10 7.93 9.14 9.48 5.17 6.55 3.62 5.69 0 620.69

Upper Ouachita 804010210 10 10 10 3.97 6.03 4.53 0.69 1.72 7.93 6.78 0 616.55

Upper Saline 80402038 10 10 10 8.10 8.45 5.31 1.72 1.90 9.31 5.97 0 566.07

Cache 802030210 4 10 2 5.86 3.79 6.90 8.97 2.16 7.59 5.17 0 564.31

L Anguille 802020510 10 10 2 4.83 5.00 3.07 9.14 1.38 7.41 3.60 0 564.31

Strawberry 1101001210 10 10 2 3.28 5.17 3.45 5.00 3.45 8.28 4.91 0 555.34

Lower Ouachita-Smackover 804020110 10 10 8 2.07 3.28 6.29 0.34 1.90 5.69 7.12 0 546.90

*C1 = Water body impairment, C2 = Designated usage, C3 = Biotic impact, C4 = Potential human impact, C5 = Urban suburban population, C6 = Impervious surface, C7 = Economic activity, C8 = Cropland, C9 = Livestock and pasture, C10 = Unpaved roads, C11 = Forestry, C12 = Adjacent state priority

Selected Priority Watersheds


Name HUC 8 Digit

Name of impaired streams/segments

Causes for impairment* Source

Ouachita Headwaters 8040101 Marzam Creek pH NO T SPECIFIED

Little Marzam Creek pH UN

Prairie Creek DO, Cu, Tb SE

Upper Ouachita 8040102 Cove Creek pH, SO4, TDS RE, UN

Chamberlain Creek pH, SO4, TDS, Cu, Zn, Cd RE

Lucinda Creek pH, SO4, Zn RE

D.C. Creek Zn RE

Caddo River Tb, Zn RE

Ouachita River Zn UN

Deceiper Creek pH UN

Freeo Creek pH UN

White Oak Creek pH UN

Tulip Creek pH UN

Cypress Creek pH UN

S. Fork Caddo Cu, Zn RE

Selected Priority Watersheds


Name HUC 8 Digit

Name of impaired streams/segments

Causes for impairment* Source

Cache 8020302 Cache River TDS, Pb, Tb AG

Frierson Lake Sl, Cu UN

Old Town NU UN

Bayou DeView Cl, TDS, Pb IP, MP, AG

Lost Creek Ditch Cl UN

Strawberry 11010012 Strawberry River Tb, PA SE

Lower Ouachita-Smackover

8040201 Moro Creek Cu, Pb, Tb, Hg UN, SE

Ouachita River Cu, Zn, Hg UN

L. Champagnolle Cr. Hg UN

Champagnolle Hg UN

Elcc Tributary Cu, Zn, NO3, Cl, SO4, TDS, AM

IP

Flat Creek Cu, Zn, Cl, SO4, TDS RE, IP

Salt Creek pH, Cu, Cl, TDS RE, IP

Prairie Creek Tb SE

Smackover Creek DO, Zn UN

Jug Creek Cu MP

Questions/Discussions


8-digit huc watershed prioritization in arkansas - risk assessment matrix approach

Documents

water body impairment

future revisions

designated use impact3

d list category

listed parameters

listed parameterhightruly

designated uses

processwater body impairment2