United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (WH-556F) EPA840-S-93-001 January 1993 vvEPA The Watershed Protection Approach Annual Report 1992 WATERSHED An Integrated, Holistic Approach ------- ------- WATERSHED PROTECTION An Integrated, Holistic Approach Introduction 1 What is the watershed protection approach (WPA)? Why is a watershed protection approach needed? Who can benefit and why? What is EPA's role? What does the rest of this document describe? EPA's Strategy 3 What is EPA's strategy for adopting watershed management? Try it out Advertise it Align programs Develop tools Measure success Activities in the Field. 9 How are EPA's Regions adopting watershed management? How is the watershed approach being implemented at the local level? What has been learned? Individual Watershed Projects 15 Appendix: Watershed Protection Funding Sources 55 A list of EPA's Regional Watershed Coordinators is found on the inside back cover. IS s I I ------- The Watershed Protection Approach: Annual Report ------- Introduction What is the watershed protection approach (WPA)? The watershed protection approach is an integrated, holistic strategy for more effectively restoring and protecting aquatic ecosystems and protecting human health (e.g., drinking water supplies and fish consumption). This approach is a renewed effort by the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) to focus on hydrologically defined drainage basins - watersheds - rather than on areas arbitrarily defined by political boundaries. Thus, for a given watershed, the approach encompasses not only the water resource, such as a stream, river, lake, estuary, or aquifer, but all the land from which water drains to that resource. To protect water resources, it is increasingly important to address the condition of land areas within the watershed because as water drains off the land it carries with it the effects of human activities throughout the watershed. By concentrating on natural resources and sys- tems, it is possible to detect and take remedial action for such problems as declines in living resources and habitat loss. The watershed protection approach has three major cornerstones: 1) Problem Identification - Identify the primary threats to human and ecosystem health within the watershed.' 2) Stakeholder Involvement - Involve the people most likely to be concerned or most able to take action. 3) Integrated Actions - Take corrective actions in a comprehensive, integrated manner once solutions are determined. Evaluate success and refine actions, as necessary. This approach places greater emphasis on all aspects of water quality, including chem- ical water quality (toxics and conventional pol- lutants, e.g., fecal coliform and total phospho- rus), physical water quality (e.g., temperature, flow, and circulation), habitat quality (e.g., channel morphology, composition, and health of biotic communities), and biodiversity (e.g., species number and range). The approach encompasses all waters - surface and ground, inland and coastal. This approach is not a new centralized program that competes with or replaces existing programs; rather it provides a framework and new focus for effective integra- tion of ongoing programs. In taking this expanded approach, EPA must work closely with other stakeholders who have responsibili- ties in this area. Why is a watershed protection approach needed? Although significant strides have been made in reducing the impacts of discrete pollu- tant sources and billions of dollars have been spent to build wastewater treatment plants, the Nation's aquatic resources remain at risk. Today's challenges include resolving the sig- nificant pollution problems that come from lit- erally millions of diffuse or nonpoint sources, maintaining safe drinking water supplies, and restoring and protecting aquatic habitats. These challenges require innovative solutions and, in a time of dwindling public resources, cooperation among many parties. The water- shed protection approach provides the neces- sary framework for meeting these challenges. The approach emphasizes the involvement of all affected stakeholders and stresses the need for teamwork at the Federal, State, and local level to achieve the greatest improvements with the resources available. A wide variety of sectors are expressing interest in watershed protection, including all levels of government, private businesses, academics, environmental groups, and individual citizens. The watershed protection approach provides comprehensive methods for identifying, tailoring, and imple- menting the solutions needed to protect and restore the Nation's aquatic resources. Who can benefit and why? Everyone - individual citizens, the public sector, and the private sector - can benefit from a watershed protection approach. Individual citizens benefit because watershed protection improves the environment. The public sector 'This cornerstone has been slightly modified from that found in EPA's The Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview (December 1991). The name has been changed from "Risk-Based Geographic Targeting" to "Problem Identification," and the definition focuses on primary threats within a watershed rather than highest-risk watersheds. This modification has been made to better reflect the holistic nature of watershed protection and its applicability to all watersheds. ------- benefits because agencies can accomplish more through cooperation with all stakeholders than they can on their own with limited resources. Participation by local entities ensures that those who are likely to be most familiar with a watershed, its problems, and possible solutions play a major part, often a leadership role. Users of the water resources (for example, industry, agriculture, and recreation) benefit because one of the intents of the approach is to distribute the burden of water resource protection more evenly among all stakeholders. In communities across the United States, effective watershed management can lead to more environmentally sensitive and sustainable economic growth and development. Because watershed management brings all parties to the table, the potential exists for greater considera- tion to be given to protecting and restoring vital natural resources during planning for new development. What is EPA's rale? EPA's overall goal for the watershed pro- tection approach is: to maintain and improve the health and integrity of aquatic ecosystems using com- prehensive approaches that focus resources on the major problems facing these systems within the watershed context. To meet this end, EPA has identified the following objectives: Align EPA programs to support risk-based watershed planning and management Promote the use of the approach by its partners in other Federal, State, and local agencies Address the primary threats to ground and surface waters Promote stewardship and a broad understanding of and participation in the approach by the public * Effectively measure progress toward restoring, maintaining, and protecting our Nation s water-bodies and aquatic habitats. In pursuing its overall goal and related objectives, EPA encourages and advances watershed protection, at all levels of govern- ment and is actively involved in watershed partnerships when appropriate. EPA's Office of Water develops technical tools to assist com- munities in adopting watershed protection approaches, promotes the watershed protection approach concept through various outreach activities, and works inside and outside of EPA to align its programs to better complement the approach. What does the rest of this document describe? The remainder of this publication sum- marizes the progress EPA has made in promot- ing a watershed protection approach over the last year. The next section reviews EPA's strat- egy for adopting this approach and the steps that have been taken in EPA Headquarters to implement the strategy. The following section summarizes watershed activities in the field, beginning with a report on how EPA Regions have supported watershed protection and con- cluding with brief descriptions of individual watershed projects. As an aid for new water- shed activities, the appendix references perti- nent EPA funding sources that could support watershed protection efforts. ------- EPA's Strategy What is EPA's strategy for adopting watershed management? EPA is pursuing a five-pronged strategy for adopting watershed management. Simply put, the components of the strategy are: Try it out Develop tools Advertise it Measure success. Align programs An EPA Headquarters support team with representatives from the four parts of the Office of Water (Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; Office of Science and Tech- nology; Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance; and Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds) has been convened to serve the Regions and States, as well as local and nongovernmental entities, in pursuing water- shed protection approaches. In addition, a sub- group has been formed to oversee each compo- nent of the strategy. Try it out In October 1991, all four Office Direc- tors in the Office of Water signed a watershed protection framework document. This docu- ment lays the groundwork to implement regional watershed projects and institutional changes in EPA. The purpose of the regional watershed projects is to devise methods and tools, develop credible case studies, and lead by example. In addition, the document com- mits EPA to make institutional changes that will result in integrated, focused, holistic water quality programs. Advertise it To promote a broad understanding of the watershed protection concept, EPA is working to open, improve, and maintain communication with potential stakeholders, including other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and nongovernmental organizations. Selected efforts to advertise watershed protection are identified below. Federal Interagency Workgroup: EPA has established an interagency workgroup that includes representatives from the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration, the Department of Transportation, the Office of Management and Budget, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This group meets on an as needed basis to share informa- tion on their agencies' watershed activities and jointly plan and carry out activities. Watershed Events: The Office of Wet- lands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) pub- lishes this quarterly newsletter to inform its readers about recent activities related to water- shed protection. The newsletter circulates to nearly 1,500 readers. The Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview: OWOW produced a document that explains the watershed protection approach and provides several examples. To date, OWOW has distributed more than 10,000 copies. WPA Exhibit and Sessions at Confer- ences: Office of Water personnel at all levels have given presentations and staffed exhibits on watershed protection at conferences throughout the United States and abroad, including the following: Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies 1992 Summer Technical Conference Coastal Society 13th Annual International Conference Earth Summit Meeting - ECOBRASIL '92 Lower Colorado River Authority Watershed Management Partners in Policy Forum Natural Areas Conference Water Environment Federation Conference Watershed Management Council Watershed Conference. Watershed Users Group on Nonpoint Source Bulletin Board: In October 1992, the Watershed Restoration Network became fully operational on the Nonpoint Source Electronic ------- Bulletin Board System (BBS). The network is one of the Special Interest Group (SIG) Forums available on the BBS. This SIG will feature watershed approaches to water quality and resource management, as well as water- shed restoration. WATERSHED '93: EPA is lead sponsor with 12 other Federal agencies, five local spon- sors, and numerous nongovernmental groups for WATERSHED '93, a national conference on watershed management. This conference, to be held in March 1993, will highlight proven and emerging techniques for watershed man- agement. WATERSHED '93 will give atten- dees the opportunity to exchange information on watershed approaches, clarify their roles in watershed protection, and build new alliances. Align programs EPA is striving to modify its programs to better incorporate watershed protection. Opportunities are being pursued to eliminate barriers and identify actions to be taken to pro- mote and support watershed programs within EPA and State and interstate agencies. The fol- lowing paragraphs identify several of these efforts. Planning, Priority Setting, and Reporting Requirements EPA is committed to identifying and pur- suing opportunities to modify its operations to facilitate watershed activities! Some examples include: Alignment Opportunities List: EPA's Office of Water has begun to examine ways to administratively realign programs to enhance watershed-based resource management. The Office is focusing on several areas including integration of programs, planning, priority set- ting, reporting requirements, and grants. EPA/State Watershed Initiative: Many States are making their programs more com- patible with watershed management. In August 1992, EPA worked with the Associa- tion of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators and several state repre- sentatives to initiate this project. The project, which is designed to examine watershed man- agement hypotheses more carefully, has two primary goals: Identify changes needed in program policy and administration to improve the States' capacity to reorient water quality programs on a watershed basis Enhance the State/EPA partnership so that the statutory responsibilities identified in the Clean Water Act are carried out in the most comprehensive, effective manner possible. Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Pro- gram Implementation Grants: Watershed pro- jects designed to directly protect or restore spe- cific surface or ground waters are seen as essential to the success of the national nonpoint source program. Likewise, watershed projects are expected to provide a means for improving wetlands protection. Recently issued guidance from both the nonpoint source and wetlands programs promotes the use of comprehensive watershed projects. The nonpoint source guid- ance emphasizes that watershed projects should be given a central role in State program implementation efforts. This guidance also stipulates that funded watershed protection activities should form part of a comprehensive approach designed to control all of the major nonpoint sources affecting water quality throughout the watersheds or ground water areas being protected. NPDES Permit Issuance: In cases where States are targeting watersheds for com- prehensive protection efforts, EPA is offering flexibility in permit reissuance. This flexibility allows States and EPA Regions to align NPDES permits within targeted watersheds on a 5-year cycle. Geographically Targeted Programs EPA has several programs that promote a geographically targeted, comprehensive approach. EPA is working to better coordinate those programs and promote them as models of the watershed approach. These include, for example: ------- Near Coastal Waters (NCW) Program: Within the framework of watershed protection, the goals of the NCW Program are: To direct and focus EPA's coastal activities within priority geographic areas To promote linkages among programs To encourage a comprehensive approach to problem assessment and management To maximize environmental results. These goals are achieved chiefly through regional NCW strategies and are carried out through activities described in annual work plans. National Estuary Program (NEP): The NEP exemplifies watershed protection for estu- arine waters and serves as an excellent model for the watershed protection approach. The NEP identifies nationally significant estuaries threatened by pollution, development, or overuse, and requires the preparation of Com- prehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) to ensure ecological integrity. The program's goals are protection and improvement of water quality and enhance- ment of living resources. The NEP's approach is to convene a Management Conference con- sisting of a variety of stakeholders to character- ize the estuary, define the estuary's problems, and then develop a CCMP to be implemented by participating parties. The NEP promotes long-term involvement of all stakeholders including elected and appointed policy-making officials from all government levels; environ- mental managers from Federal, State, and local agencies; representatives from local scientific and academic communities; and private citi- zens and representatives from public and user interest groups - businesses, industries, and community and environmental organizations. Great Water Bodies: Like the NEPs, the Great Lakes Program, the Chesapeake Bay program, and the Gulf of Mexico Program take a comprehensive, geographically targeted approach. All are promoting smaller scale watershed projects as an important part of their overall efforts to restore and protect the Nation's Great Water Bodies. Clean Lakes Program: This program is another established model for watershed pro- tection efforts. National guidance issued in 1987 emphasized that "Clean Lakes projects need to be developed and implemented on a watershed basis... This watershed approach should greatly facilitate the leveraging of their informational/data, technical, financial, and programmatic resources for water quality pur- poses.... The Clean Lakes Program is particu- larly conducive to a highly integrated and uni- fied approach to water restoration and protec- tion." Integrated Resource Planning by Municipalities: Over the last five years, many major municipalities have developed programs for ensuring reliable and safe drinking water supplies through integrated resource planning methods. This approach requires coordination among all the entities in the watershed, leading to agreements and controls that ensure a safe water supply. Although targeted to water sup- ply objectives, this local planning effort pro- duces benefits that in the future could extend to greater protection of the watershed. Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR): To avoid this rule's requirement to install filtra- tion treatment of drinking water supplies, pub- lic water supplies were allowed to demonstrate that they effectively protect the watershed and meet other criteria. EPA and the States made decisions on who must filter in December 1991, and a number of municipalities (such as Seattle, Portland, New York City, and Lake Tahoe) were exempted provided that they con- tinue to maintain effective watershed control programs. The SWTR has proven to be a major incentive for continued watershed pro- tection in these areas. Drinking Water Vulnerability Assess- ments: Starting in January 1993 public water systems are required to monitor for 65 chemi- cal contaminants, most for the first time. By regulation, EPA has allowed reduced monitor- ing if the water system can demonstrate that the water source is not vulnerable to degrada- tion by specific contaminants. This vulnerabil- ity assessment is providing a major incentive for water systems to establish wellhead protec- tion programs and other watershed protection measures. ------- Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Approach: In 1991, EPA released its new Ground Water Protection Strategy. This strategy relies on Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs to protect the Nation's ground water resources. This new approach is similar to the watershed protection approach in that it represents an effort to have EPA and other Federal, State and local agen- cies better integrate and refocus their pollution control programs on threatened geographic areas. EPA is examining ways to better inte- grate the planning aspects of the CSGWPP with a more comprehensive watershed approach. Develop tools EPA recognizes the need to provide tech- nical information to support watershed protec- tion. As the examples below indicate, the Agency is working to develop tools and train- ing for Regions, States, and other interested organizations. Watershed Costing Study: EPA under- took a study to determine the cost implications of the watershed planning process. A survey instrument was developed and tested in North and South Carolina. There were several pre- liminary conclusions. First, water quality man- agers believe that even though little costing data is currently available making it difficult to determine actual dollar savings at this time, savings will occur and efforts to gauge the ben- efits of watershed protection should continue. Secondly, program benefits are already occur- ring and more are expected. Finally, environ- mental benefits will take awhile to observe but the watershed approach will improve and/or accelerate environmental benefits. Efforts con- tinue to develop a means to collect data and measure cost impacts of the watershed plan- ning process. Watershed Planning Approach Docu- ment: This document, currently in draft form, describes a logical process for watershed-based water quality planning and management. The document discusses the broad issues associated with a watershed approach and presents exam- ples of specific steps that can be undertaken to define the problem(s) that a watershed may face, establish realistic goals for the watershed, gain public support for activities, implement appropriate controls, and measure the success of these control measures. The document draws on several examples of ongoing water- shed projects (e.g., Anacostia River Restora- tion Program, Klamath River Basin Restora- tion Program, and Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed) to illustrate some of the technical and programmatic issues that may arise. Regional Implementation of National Monitoring Schemes: The Interagency Task Force on Monitoring (ITFM), which EPA chairs and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) serves as vice chair, was established in 1992 to develop an institutional framework for nation- wide integrated monitoring. The primary objective is to provide better information on water resources and to mobilize water resource monitoring activities more efficiently. The ITFM consists of 16 members: from eight Fed- eral agencies and eight State agencies. Four task groups address the following problems: the nationwide institutional framework, envi- ronmental indicators, data collection methods, and data management and information sharing. More than 80 Federal and State staff members sit on the four task groups. The ITFM is a 3- year effort; it will disband in favor of full implementation activities in December 1995. The ITFM recommendations will be car- ried out by a national entity that will set guide- lines and establish comparable methods and procedures. Monitoring will be carried out on a regional basis. A pilot project in Wisconsin, which is organized into river basins, is the first test of the ITFM recommendations. Environmental Indicators for WPA Projects: During this past year, the Office of Water Strategic Planning Steering Committee and the Environmental Indicators Workgroup developed an indicators framework, which links indicators to the strategic goals they mea- sure. The framework consists of three pro- grammatic areas: Human Health Protection, Ecological Protection, and Ambient Condi- tions/Reduction of Loadings. ------- The indicators framework is especially effective in evaluating watershed protection strategies because it is designed to measure the effectiveness of both program-specific activity, such as a point load reduction, and the cumula- tive impact of all management actions, includ- ing the improvement of ecological conditions. For instance, indicators make it possible to: Evaluate both nonpoint source and point source reduction strategies and comprehensive programs to protect wetlands and sensitive ground water areas Assess ecological conditions, including those affecting fish assemblages, benthic organisms, and natural habitats found in rivers, estuaries, lakes, and wetlands. Among other efforts, the Environmental Indicators workgroup has produced products of use to watersheds, including a fact sheet on selection criteria for indicators and a matrix of physical, chemical, and biological indicators that would best measure the attainment of des- ignated uses. Geographic Targeting: Selected State Approaches: This document provides general information on geographic targeting for mid- level water quality professionals. In addition, the publication presents several approaches to geographic targeting, discussing the advan- tages and disadvantages of each, and provides examples of where and how these approaches are being used. The document also describes the concepts and issues involved in geographic targeting, such as ranking criteria, the incorpo- ration of ground water concerns and riparian values, the degree of public involvement, insti- tutional capability, and the involvement of Fed- eral, State, and local agencies. Geographic Information System (GIS) Demonstration Projects: EPA is conducting a pilot study to map State-defined waterbodies and individual stream segments to provide an integrated picture of watershed water quality and the attainment of State-designated uses. During the first phase, which is being conduct- ed in South Carolina, Reach File 3 (a hydrolog- ic mapping tool) will be used to index water- bodies and then GIS will be used to add water quality assessment information from the National Water Quality Inventory Reports (305(b) Reports) and other water quality and land use data. The second phase of the project will add other types of spatial data, including land use/land cover information and additional water quality data, such as those found in STORET. This project is a cooperative effort by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Water Pollu- tion Control, the South Carolina Water Resources Commission, EPA's Office of Water, and EPA's Office of Research and .Develop- ment - Las Vegas Laboratory. Methods to Delineate Areas of Ground Water/Surface Water Interaction: This tech- nical assistance document will describe various methods to delineate zones of interaction between ground water and surface water at dif- ferent hydrogeological settings. It will be used by States to protect ground water connected to surface water so that human health is better protected and the environmental integrity of associated ecosystems is maintained. Total Maximum Daily Load Case Stud- ies: Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act established the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process to provide for more stringent water quality-based controls when technology- based controls are inadequate to achieve State water quality standards. The objective of a TMDL is to allocate allowable loads among different pollutant sources so that the appropri- ate control actions can be taken, water quality standards achieved, and human health and aquatic resources protected. As of January 1993, seven TMDL case studies have been published (see box, next page) and work is continuing on the develop- ment of others. ------- TTVttNL Case Study Denver Metto/Sputh Platte River, CO South Fork Salmon River, ID IsWest Fork Clear Creek, CO Nomini Creek, VA Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary, NC Lower Minnesota River, MN Sycamore Creek, Ml Primary pollution problem Ammonia, toxics, metals (point and nonpoint sources) Sediment (nonpoint source) Toxics, metals (point and nonpoint sources) Nutrients, sediment (nonpoint source) Nitrogen, phosphorus (point and nonpoint sources) Carbonaceous biological oxygen demand, ammonia (point and nonpoint sources). Sediment (nonpoint source). Compendium of Watershed-scale Mod- els for TMDL Development: This compendi- um identifies and summarizes the most widely used watershed-scale models that can facilitate the TMDL process. It is intended to help water quality managers and other potential users decide which model best suits their needs and available resources. The document describes simple methods, mid-range models, and detailed models. Measure success As the watershed approach becomes an integral part of the water program, both pro- grammatic and environmental successes will be measured. Programmatic measures of success will focus on changes made within Headquarters and the Regions to incorporate watershed pro- tection into everyday business. Potential indi- cators of success in this area include: Shifts in reporting from a State basis to a watershed basis Implementation of various planning processes in a coordinated manner and on a watershed basis Issuance of permits on a watershed basis Application of funds to support watershed projects. An indicator of success in the Regions will be the degree to which they use a water- shed-based approach to meet their responsibili- ties for implementing EPA's water programs. Beyond EPA, shifts toward a program based on a watershed protection approach at the State level will be a further indicator of programmat- ic success. Environmental measures of success will focus on improvements within the watershed in water quality and habitat. Potential indicators of success in this area include the degree to which environmental results are obtained as a consequence of watershed planning and man- agement. Indicators of environmental results might include, for example, acres of wetlands protected/restored, reductions in pollutant lev- els, improved best management practices, increases in fish populations, and reductions in sedimentation. Obtaining accurate measures in this area will be aided by the products of the Interagency Task Force on Monitoring. 8 ------- Activities in the Field How are EPA's Regions adopting watershed management? This section highlights various methods being used by Regional offices to foster water- shed protection. These Regional activities are largely experimental and provide valuable lessons. Throughout the text, several examples of watershed projects are listed in boldface type. Greater detail and additional examples of watershed projects can be found in the next section, which describes 34 individual water- shed projects in which EPA is involved. In addition to these projects, many others are being organized by local communities; Federal, State, and local governments; and private citi- zen groups. Regional Strategies: Several Regions have developed Regional strategies or action plans that outline their Region's approach for adopting watershed protection and define a process and criteria through which priority watersheds are identified and targeted for spe- cial attention. The foundation of Region IPs strategy is to target ecosystems that continue to experience use impairments and other adverse impacts. Region IV uses eight criteria, includ- ing the following, for identifying the highest priority watersheds: the magnitude of risks to human and ecological health, the possibility of additional environmental degradation if no action is taken, and the likelihood of achieving demonstrable results. Region IX focuses its efforts on addressing cross-cutting water quali- ty issues in priority watersheds or geographic areas, such as California's Central Valley, San Francisco Bay, the Truckee River, and Santa Margarita Watershed. Regional Watershed Coordinators: One of the first steps taken by EPA to support the concept of watershed protection was to desig- nate a Regional watershed coordinator in each Region. The coordinator is responsible for promoting watershed protection, communicat- ing ideas, and disseminating information between EPA Headquarters (the Office of Water) and other Regional staff involved in watershed activities. Besides a Region-wide coordinator, some Regions have designated coordinators for individual watershed projects. Involvement in Specific Watershed Activities: In most Regions, there are no clear- ly defined guidelines for EPA involvement in specific watershed activities. EPA can adopt either a leadership or supportive role. The decision regarding EPA involvement often depends on staffing levels, budgets, and the project's needs. Region IPs approach, for example, is to assume the lead for all geo- graphic targeting efforts in interstate and inter- national waters and for congressionally man- dated projects. The Region will also consider leading efforts where State or local commit- ment is not adequate to solve the problem. For other projects, the Region will look to the States to adopt a similar leadership role in State-targeted waters. Regional Action Teams: Many Regions (Regions I, IV, VII, VIII, IX, and X) have established a Region-wide team for each pro- ject. The teams coordinate communications, provide technical review, and work with State and local stakeholders to target problem-solv- ing on a watershed basis. Many Regional teams (such as the one for the Casco Bay NEP) are comprised of representatives from all water programs. Some invite representatives from programs outside the water arena, such as Superfund, pollution prevention, and emer- gency preparedness, to act as participants (such as Merrimack River) or serve as the lead (Clear Creek, which is being led by a Super- fund staff person). In addition to individual Regional action teams, Region IX created a Board of Directors consisting of Branch Chiefs from affected pro- grams to oversee the numerous individual watershed action teams in the Region. Region Vm established a small workgroup, called the Watershed Eight, to assess the potential for adopting a Region-wide watershed approach. ------- 'Ecorcgions arc areas (regions) of relative homogeneity in ecological systems that arc delineated according to the spatial distributions of environmental factors, such as soil type, vegetation, climate, geology, and physiography. This workgroup includes staff 'from many pro- grams, such as Superfund, ground water, min- ing wastes, nonpoint source, and geographic information programs. Their task is to system- atically evaluate the watershed approach and prepare a draft action plan outlining how the Region will more formally implement the approach. At present, the workgroup does not anticipate the need for any organizational changes other than the addition of a permanent Watershed Protection Coordinator for the Region. RegionalState Watershed Agree- ments: Regions II and IX are planning to negotiate agreements with each State in their jurisdictions regarding how the Region and State will invest resources to support watershed protection. Region n is willing to reallocate resources from multiple program areas to sup- port watershed projects with the understanding that trade-offs in base program commitments will be requked. The Region recently complet- ed this strategic planning process with the State of New York, and the process succeeded in both parties moving toward a geographically oriented, multi-programmatic approach to solv- ing problems. In the future, the Region plans to initiate discussions with its other State and territoriesNew Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Region DC also plans to work with its States, especially California and Hawaii, to explore ways of incorporating the approach into their State programs. Interagency Partnerships: Several Regions are working on building partnerships with other Federal agencies with similar water resource programs. For example, Region VIII has supported a number of watershed projects that are also part of the USGS's National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). Although the principal focus of this USGS pro- gram is an intensive evaluation of water resource conditions and trends, the number of agencies and groups participating in the NAWQA effort provide a natural organization- al nucleus for developing an integrated water- shed protection approach. In the case of Waquoit Bay, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Estuar- ine Research Reserve in the area provides a natural setting for fostering watershed protec- tion, because the Reserve supports conserva- tion, research, and public outreach activities. In Coos Bay/Coquille Bay and the Middle Snake River, project personnel are working with the Department of Agriculture's Coordi- nated Resource Management Program, which uses a similar holistic management approach in targeted geographic areas, to integrate the con- cept of watershed protection into their planning efforts. Watershed Inventory: Region VIII is one of the first EPA Regions to conduct a Regional watershed inventory. To support this effort, the Region is collecting and organizing information along watershed and ecoregion2, rather than political, boundaries. This invento- ry will present information that describes (1) the physical characteristics of the watersheds; (2) human uses, past and present, of the area; (3) the principal activities affecting the quality of the watersheds' resources; (4) the current condition of the habitat and water quality; and (5) the current value and condition of the ecosystem. In addition to information about areas of high water quality and damaged water resources, the inventory will include informa- tion on areas of particular ecological impor- tance, such as blue ribbon trout fisheries, desig- nated and candidate wild and scenic rivers, conservation sites from, the Nature Conservan- cy's heritage data base, and the presence of threatened and endangered species. For pur- poses of this inventor>', the watershed bound- aries are defined by the USGS hydrologic sub- regions. In addition, (lie information will be organized along EPA ecoregion boundaries. The concurrent use of ecoregions as the other primary unit of organization is intended to pro- vide an appropriate scale for arranging the information within the watersheds and to reflect the effects of environmental characteris- tics, such as climate and geology, the principal factors that shape the natural character of rivers. The inventory cataloging unit is the point(s) at which a river(s) in a specific USGS sub-region intersects an ecoregion boundary. Tracking System: To coordinate the timing of activities in different programs, Region DC is planning to develop a computer- ------- ized system to track activities that assist in watershed management. The system will track such items as the timing of monitoring, water quality standards revisions, TMDL develop- ment, and permit issuances in individual watersheds. How is the watershed approach being imple- mented at the local level? EPA's role in watershed activities ranges from modest support to very active, primary leadership. The role varies among watersheds and often among different segments of a water- shed. As explained earlier, the purpose of Regional demonstration projects is to test ele- ments of the watershed protection approach by trying them out. The following discussion highlights the success of various watershed projects in terms of: Organizing Gaining stakeholder support and involvement Obtaining funding Effecting change. Organizing Often, as a first step in organizing a watershed project, some type of mechanism, such as a committee or task force, helps to bring stakeholders together who live, work, plan for, and effect changes within the same watershed. Organizational arrangements range from formal to informal, large to small, depending on the political and physical nature of the watershed. In Canaan Valley, for exam- ple, a single entity, the Canaan Valley Task Force, develops plans and manages actions. In many watershed projects, especially those associated with the NEP, such as New York- New Jersey Harbor, Santa Monica Bay, and Long Island Sound, a hierarchical committee structure is used to funnel input from techni- cal/scientific and citizen committees into a sin- gle decisionmaking body. Watershed projects create these organiza- tional structures at different times in their plan- ning process. In Merrimack River and Hills- dale Reservoir, committees were established to attract funding. In Delaware Bay and Lake Roosevelt, committees were created after lead- ing stakeholders had organized the project and secured funding. These committees serve as a mechanism for gaining technical and public input and sustaining political and public sup- port for the project. Gaining Stakeholder Support and Involvement One of the primary cornerstones of the watershed protection approach is stakeholder involvement. Stakeholders include all institu- tions and people who affect or are affected by the watershedsuch as Federal, State, and local government agencies; businesses; envi- ronmental organizations; educational institu- tions; civic groups; elected officials; and indi- vidual citizens. Each project is developing its own tools for gaining stakeholder involvement. One of the greatest success stories is the Canaan Val- ley Task Force, consisting of Federal, State, and local private and public representatives. This task force was charged with resolving issues and ensuring long-term environmental protection, as well as economic growth. The National Environmental Awards Council of Renew America recognized the task force's efforts as a model watershed effort that orga- nized community support to successfully meet current environmental challenges. As the Canaan Valley effort demonstrates, gaining multi-agency consensus on a future direction for watershed protection is important. Another example is the Truckee River where two States (California and Nevada), EPA, the Pyra- mid Lake Paiute Tribe, and local and regional government agencies developed a multi- agency plan, the Truckee River Strategy, to address watershed problems. Although the strategy is currently being implemented, it has been difficult to measure any changes due to a long term drought. Even though a project may wish to include all stakeholders in the earliest planning stages, this decision can bring difficulties. For example, in Malibu Creek, the project has encountered problems in gaining consensus ------- among local stakeholders regarding a lead organizing entity and a facilitator. Although the project has been extremely successful in obtaining and leveraging funding, some feel that the debate over leadership may impede the success of this effort. Likewise, Oak Creek Watershed and Lake Roosevelt have found it difficult to convene all of the stakeholders and agree on project phasing. Projects vary in terms of when they seek the input of all stakeholders. In the early stages of the Platte River Eposystem Man- agement Initiative, participants learned that seeking the input of all stakeholders without having a defined project scope or plan of action was counterproductive. Therefore, the water quality agencies decided to delay involving many other stakeholders until they had com- pleted initial water quality assessments and had drafted preliminary goals, objectives, and oper- ational plans to focus their own activities. Many projects, especially those associat- ed with the NEP, develop a public outreach strategy for the entire effort that discusses what public outreach tools will be used and how often. For example, the Casco Bay strategy includes such public outreach tools as a bian- nual public forum, a newsletter, slide show, boat tours, and fact sheets. Many projects, such as Santa Monica, Long Island Sound, and Casco Bay, integrate volunteer monitoring into their activities as another vehicle for pub- lic involvement. To organize local stakehold- ers, Flint Creek created a Citizens Committee, an Education and Outreach Committee, and a Farm Operations Committee, and Hillsdale Reservoir established an Information and Edu- cation Subcommittee. In one of the watersheds that has a large research component, Waquoit Bay, the National Estuarine Research Reserve employs a "research translator" to communi- cate technical information to the general public and local officials through written bulletins, user manuals, and training courses. Some pro- jects also sponsor events for technical input and training. For example, the Tensas Water- shed has held 3 wetland field days, targeting environmental resource workers in the basin. A project that gains political support often succeeds in attracting funding and turn- ing plans into actions. Lake Champlain, for example, had a long history of political sup- port, dating back to the late 1940s. In 1988, the States of New York and Vermont and the Province of Quebec signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the management of the Lake, which subsequently led to the initia- tion and funding (at a level of $2 million per year) of the Lake Charnplain Basin Program by Congress. Although it is often easier to gain political support for such large, multi-agency efforts, the Regions have found larger projects to be more challenging because they require greater time for communication, assessment, and the development of options. Obtaining Funding Unlike most new activities, the Water- shed Protection Approach has been an experi- ment using no new funding. Therefore, the achievements listed in this report are especially noteworthy. These projects also demonstrate how Federal environmental programs and funding can be applied in a geographically tar- geted area to support watershed protection. Many Regions have been successful in using existing funding sources to finance watershed projects. They have found funding from a variety of Office of Water programs (Merrimack River, Platte River Basin, Casco Bay) as well as from other EPA pro- gram offices (Upper Arkansas River). For more information on EPA funding sources that could be applied to watershed projects, see the appendix. Funding for watershed projects has also been obtained from a variety of other Fed- eral agencies including U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Malibu Creek, Rio Grande River, Hillsdale Reservoir). ------- Effecting Change Very few projects have proceeded to the point of full implementation. Yet several pro- jects have already taken steps that led to envi- ronmental improvements. In the Tangipahoa River Watershed, fecal coliform levels are beginning to decline with the construction of dairy lagoons. In Lake Roosevelt, growing public concerns about metals being discharged from a Canadian firm, Comino Metals, led Environment Canada to conduct bioassays on the slag. Environment Canada found high lev- els of toxicity. Both Environment Canada and the company responded quickly to accelerate their schedule for on-land disposal of the slag. Later the Lake Roosevelt Council was asked to review the company's recent water discharge permit, and many of the Council's comments were incorporated into the final permit. This increased level of communication demon- strates how new partnerships can bring changes. In the Long Island Sound Study, the States of New York and Connecticut have agreed to modify NPDES permits for publicly owned treatment works on or in close proximi- ty to the Sound to "freeze" and in some cases reduce the levels of nitrogen in plant effluent. What has been learned? With any new activity, it is worthwhile to periodically assess what lessons have been learned. Many Regions were successful in finding methods for supporting watershed pro- tection efforts within their current framework of programs. Several Regions were able to shift existing staff responsibilities to create watershed coordinator positions. Most Regions found that the job of coordinating a watershed project generally requires full-time involvement and financial resources. In terms of conducting assessments, Region VIII has learned, through its experience with the watershed inventory and work on watershed initiatives underway, that finding and bringing together information on a specific watershed is a difficult but necessary step in the process of selecting appropriate manage- ment actions. The Region has also discovered that a great deal of good information is avail- able but that it is difficult to locate and acquire. At present, the Region has no standardized way of collecting or organizing information along watershed boundaries. Their intent is to have the inventory format provide that frame- work. If the inventory format is successful, a long-term goal would be to compile this infor- mation into a centralized data base or geo- graphic information system that would provide a link between mapped information in the watershed and aquatic resource assessment and management approaches. For individual watersheds, historical and contemporary infor- mation would be organized using the water- shed as the principal landscape feature and GIS as the storage and integrative management tool. The Interagency Task Force on Monitor- ing, discussed previously in the EPA's Strategy section, is also working on improving the availability and usefulness of watershed related data. Some projects have encountered difficul- ties in linking and preventing overlaps in exist- ing program activities. For example, the Santa Margarita Watershed is trying to forge a cre- ative linkage between the permitting, TMDL, and standards activities and the advance wet- lands identification process to show the impor- tance of wetlands protection and enhancement, as well as the pollutant assimilative capacity. In the case of Malibu Creek, EPA, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, and the Soil Conservation Service are examining the link- age of available hydrologic data and nonpoint source screening models with data from a geo- graphic information system to develop a water- shed model. The Platte River Ecosystem Manage- ment Initiative learned several lessons regard- ing project scope. Because several agencies were involved in controversial litigation per- taining to water flow in the river, the Region and the Nebraska Department of Environmen- tal Quality decided to concentrate on water quality issues that could be addressed using a comprehensive ecosystem approach and not to ------- become embroiled in the quantity controversy. When the effort was initiated, existing respon- sibilities prevented project staff from devoting the time requked for development and coordi- nation of a project of this magnitude. The staff also lacked the resources and skills for data management and analysis using such tools as Geographic Information Systems. These prob- lems were addressed by reprogramming posi- tions to support the project, providing cooper- ating and training across projects, learning from pilot efforts, arid phasing the project. Also, the participants decided to partition the basin into smaller, more manageable segments, rather than addressing the entire river basin as a whole, to achieve real environmental results. ------- Watershed Projects This section describes a selection of EPA watershed projects in alphabetical order. The map below provides approximate locations of the projects discussed. Several of the watershed projects encompass more than one EPA Region. EPA is also involved in many other watershed protection projects that are not discussed here. The watershed of these projects encompasses both Regions 1 and 2. 1. Coos Bay/CoquiUe River 2. Lake Roosevelt 3. Coeur d'Alene Basin 4. Middle Snake River 5. Truckee River Watershed 6. Morro Bay 7. Malibu Creek 8. Santa Margarita Watershed 9. San Luis Rey River 10. West Maui Watershed 11. Oak Creek Watershed 12. Bear River 13. Clear Creek Watershed 14. Upper Arkansas River 15. Platte River 16. Hillsdale Reservoir 17. Upper Tensas River 18. Lower Mississippi Delta 19. Tangipahoa River Watershed 20. Grand Calumet River 21. Savannah River 22. Flint Creek 23. Upper Tennessee River 24. Pequea and Mill Creeks 25. Canaan Valley 26. Pocono Watershed 27. NY-NJ Harbor 28. Lake Champlain* 29. Long Island Sound* 30. Onondaga Lake 31. Blackstone River 32. Waquoit Bay 33. Merrimack River 34. Casco Bay ------- Bear Creek Watershed Initiative Stakeholders Bear Lake Regional Commission Bear River Resource Conservation and Development Council Idaho Division of Environmental Quality Idaho Fish and Game Department Local citizen groups Utah Department of Environmental Quality Utah Division of Water Resources Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Utah Power and Light U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Soil Conservation Service Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Wyoming Game and Fish Department The Bear River is the longest river in the United States, whose flow does not eventually empty into an ocean. It originates in the high Uinta mountains of northeastern Utah. From there, the river follows a rather torturous path flowing first north into southwestern Wyoming, back into Utah, again into Wyoming, and then into Idaho. In Idaho the river is diverted into Bear Lake, and then the water flows or is pumped back into the natural channel north of the Lake through a series of canals. After passing Bear Lake, the river turns south and again flows into Utah where it finally empties into the Great Salt Lake approximately 500 river miles from its head- waters. The 7,600 square mile Bear River basin includes a wide range of physiographic settings, containing portions of four different ecoregions: the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, the Wyoming Basin, the Middle Rockies, and finally the Northern Basin and Range. Environmental Threats The principal environmental stressors in the Bear River Basin are related to agricultural practices. A combination of favorable physio- graphic and climatic conditions in the basin yields productive irrigated and dry farm crop- lands, grazing lands, and lands suitable for feedlots and dairy operations. These operations can contribute to both excessive soil erosion, increasing sediment loadings to the river, and high nutrient loadings, principally associated with animal feeding operations and dairies. In the Wyoming portion of the basin, riparian vegetation removal, stream channelization, stream bank modification, and petroleum activ- ities all have an impact on the water resources. Other basin land use practices which affect the river system include logging, oil and gas opera- tions, urbanization, and recreation, especially near the popular Bear Lake area. Actions The first stage of the watershed effort was to target the most severe problems based on monitoring information. Using this infor- mation, the Little Bear River, one of the major tributaries in the basin was targeted for the ini- tial implementation effort. The State of Utah, the EPA, and the Soil Conservation Service ini- tiated a watershed Hydrological Unit project on the Little Bear, using funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and EPA, to restore a section of the Little Bear River. The project includes stream channel and riparian habitat restoration, land management, and animal waste treatment remediation actions. Several additional nonpoint source projects are now underway in Wyoming that are aimed at restor- ing tributary streams mat have been impacted by channelization, stream bank modification, and riparian habitat loss. The unique feature of these projects is that some of the restoration work funded by Wyoming is in Utah, and some of the monitoring effort funded by Utah extends into Wyoming. Here the States have given priority to the watershed boundary and restoration of the resource over strict attention to State boundaries. These "on-the-ground" demonstration projects are helping to generate enthusiasm for more cooperative efforts. Recently, an interest in increasing the use of the river as a drinking water source for the growing urban population in the lower basin and along the Wasatch Front prompted the Utah Legislature to enact the Bear River Development Act and fund a Bear River water development and management plan. The effort is to address both water devel- opment and water quality issues, with a water quality plan that includes a broad-reaching analysis of pollutant loadings to the River as well as chemical, biological, and physical habi- tat assessments. Building on these efforts and with the support of the three basin States and EPA, the Bear River Resource Conservation and Development Council and the Bear Lake Regional Commission are planning a Bear River Water Quality Symposium in the spring of 1993. The intent is to bring together all of the stakeholders, including governors and con- gressional delegations, with an interest in the river to seek their input in analyzing the prob- lems and creating solutions. ------- Blackstone River Initiative IT The Blackstone River flows from Worcester, Massachusetts, to the Seekonk River in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. The Blackstone extends 48 miles and drains an area of 540 square miles. The river, which is the second largest freshwater tributary to the Narragansett Bay, is an important natural, recreational, and cultural resource to both the States of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In 1986, the United States Congress established the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor along portions of the river in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Environmental Threats The Blackstone River has had a long his- tory of pollution problems associated with both industrial and municipal discharges. In addi- tion, problems with water withdrawals and heavily contaminated sediments have been identified. The river is considered a significant source of pollutants to the Narragansett Bay. Actions Both Massachusetts and Rhode Island have adopted numeric and whole effluent water quality criteria and anti-degradation provisions in their State water quality standards. Strict water quality-based permits have been issued to major wastewater dischargers, and combined sewer overflow strategies are being implement- ed. The States are conducting a historic analy- sis of existing water quality data. They are also collecting dry and wet weather data to determine annual weather loads to Narragansett Bay as well as intermediate loca- tions along the river and to identify water qual- ity hot spots to target land use-based best man- agement practices. This information and other data will be used to calibrate a dissolved oxy- gen model to include impacts from phosphorus and nitrogen and a trace metals model for the development of a Total Maximum Discharge Load and Waste Load Allocation. In addition, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs has initiated a technical assistance program that is providing pollution prevention assistance to industries to assist them in reducing the use of toxic materi- als. The assistance, given by a nonregulatory State office, consists of activities including multimedia evaluations, economic evaluations, the provision of educational materials, the pre- sentation of seminars and workshops, and the identification of alternative chemicals and process technologies. Stakeholders Commonwealth of Massachusetts Environmental, recreation, cultural, and watershed organizations Local governments Local industries and utilities New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission State of Rhode Island U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency * U.S. Geological Survey University of Rhode Island ------- Canaan Valley Watershed The 35,000-acre Canaan Valley in West Virginia, designated as a National Natural Landmark in 1975, encompasses fragile wet- lands areas containing a unique and irreplace- able boreal ecosystem. The Blackwater River, originating in the valley's southern end, is an important source of drinking water and the largest stream network in the State with a self- sustaining brown trout population. Problems The valley and its resources attract a wide spectrum of interests. For example, a power company proposes flooding 7,000 acres of the valley; real estate developers plan to increase the number of vacation homes, golf courses, ski slopes, and condominiums; a major off-road vehicle race, called the Blackwater 100, is held in the valley annually; and natural resource conservationists strive to protect rare plants, and wildlife habitat, includ- ing wetlands. Actions In 1990, the partners, listed below, formed the Canaan Valley Task Force to resolve a variety of issues, ensuring long-term envi- ronmental protection while allow- ing reasonable, sustainable econom- ic growth. Early accomplishments include a study of the impacts of off-road vehicles; a study of economic impacts of the proposed Canaan Valley National Wildlife Rufuge; suspension of certain nationwide gen- eral permits for discharges of dredged or fill material in wetlands in the valley, advance identification of wetlands, and establishment of a wetlands surveillance program; and imple- mentation of a public outreach program. The residents considered the establishment of an open, effective, and regular dialogue among all levels of government, special interest organiza- tions, and the public to be a key achievement. Stakeholders Development interest organizations Environmental organizations Landowner associations Recreational interest groups Tucker County Chamber of Commerce Tucker County Development Resources Authority Tucker County Planning Commission U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Soil Conservation Service West Virginia Division of Natural Resources ------- Casco Bay Initiative Casco Bay lies within the Gulf of Maine, bounded by Cape Elizabeth on the west and Small Point on the east. Currently the most heavily developed bay in northern New England, Casco Bay attracts both business and tourism. Strategically important for commerce since colonial times because of its deep water and protection from open ocean, Casco Bay is still Maine's most important cargo port and fishing center. The bay's rich habitat provides 20 percent of all lobster caught in Maine and supports an abundance of other living resources, including endangered and threatened species. In 1988 alone, estimated tourist sales totaled $236 million. Environmental Threats Until the early 1980's, people believed that Casco Bay was pristine. Studies conduct- ed in 1983, however, showed that sediments in Casco Bay were laden with various pollutants, including heavy metals, PCBs, and PAHs. Since then, contamination by pathogens and nutrients has become increasingly evident. Although Casco Bay has not experienced pol- lution problems to the same degree as other coastal areas of the country, without concerted attention the problems will only grow as con- tinued development in the area adds to pollu- tant loads. Actions When the Casco Bay Initiative began in 1989, one of the State's first actions was to nominate this coastal area to the National Estuary Program, into which it was accepted in 1990. The Initiative is continuing as a separate effort in parallel with the Estuary Program, with the Initiative focusing largely on point source discharges and other areas where EPA's base programs are active. Since 1989, the State and EPA have identified priority actions each will take under the Initiative over the next few years to address immediate problems. Many of the actions focus on increased enforcement of existing point source control programs by giving spe- cial attention to discharge permits, stepping up inspections, and taking aggressive enforcement actions. In addition, the State and municipali- ties have begun programs for assessing the role of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and non- point sources and for implementing techniques to control the contributions from the most sig- nificant sources identified. As a result, EPA issued permits for the 10 Casco Bay oil terminals on December 24, 1991, with more stringent discharge limits and other requirements. The communities (Portland, South Portland, and Westbrook) in Casco Bay with CSO systems have been put under CSO abatement implementation sched- ules by EPA and Maine's Department of Environmen-tal Protection (ME DEP). In addition, ME DEP has initiated a major pro- gram to address problems associated with groundwater contamination at Casco Bay oil terminals. EPA continues to review discharge mon- itoring data from all 49 direct dischargers (9 major and 40 minor), using procedures devel- oped for the monthly retrieval and review of effluent data to allow more rapid identification and response to violations. Enforcement actions are being taken and will continue to be initiated as necessary both by EPA and ME DEP. Stakeholders Casco Bay National Estuary Program League of Women Voters of Maine Maine's Department of Environmental Protection Town ofFreeport U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ------- Clear Creek Watershed Initiative I The headwaters of Clear Creek originate in the high mountains near Colorado's Continental Divide. From there, Clear Creek flows eastward through a spectacular canyon on its way to the South Platte River several thousand feet below. The 400 square mile watershed has considerable topographic relief, and Clear Creek is a swiftly flowing river. It is also a river with considerable annual flow vari- ation. Annual runoff from snow melt occurs during the late spring and early summer, with a peak runoff flow swelling the river to 20 times its normal base flow. Clear Creek flows through portions of two ecoregions: the Southern Rockies and the Western High Plains. Environmental Threats The principal environmental stressors in the Clear Creek watershed are associated with past mining practices. Severe water quality problems in the upper reaches of Clear Creek are attributable to the impacts of resource extraction and processing. This region is part of Colorado's mineral belt, and contains rich deposits of ores, including gold, silver, lead, molybdenum, and zinc. The primary sources of surface water quality degradation in this area are acid mine drainage and runoff from tailings and waste-rock piles. Loadings of metals, including zinc, copper, and manganese, from active and abandoned mining sites in the basin contribute to the chronic toxicity problems lim- iting the river's fishery. Some tributaries to the mainstem of Clear Creek are altogether void of fish populations as a result of acid mine drainage and mining impacts on habitat. Effects are especially significant in and around the Central City mining district. Clear Creek also serves as a drinking water source for val- ley residents and a significant number of citi- zens along Colorado's Front Range. As a result, the water quality problems in the upper watershed are of considerable interest and con- cern to downstream water users. Occasionally, one of the mine tunnels will produce a blow-out, releasing large quanti- ties of water and sludge in a short period of time. A blow-out from the Argo Tunnel in 1980 focused the EPA's attention on Clear Creek, and it was a significant factor when, three years later, EPA included the Clear Creek/Central City site on the Superfund National Priorities List. Actions The Superfund site designations brought a significant EPA presence to the watershed, and the planned Supeifund remedial actions will play an important role in the restoration of the river. In addition to Superfund, various regional water programs have been active in the basin for some time; however, there was only limited coordination of program activities. Recognizing the need for a more integrated effort on this important watershed, EPA's Regional office formed the Clear Creek Watershed Initiative Team in late 1991. The Team, which includes representatives from a broad range of EPA programs and the Colorado Health Department, has been meet- ing with and identifying a whole range of stakeholders throughout the valley. In particu- lar the Team is working closely with Coors Brewing Company, AMAX Mining Company, and Solution Gold Limited, which have emerged as important and active stakeholders in the valley. The Team has established an action plan with short- and long-term goals for watershed restoration. The Clear Creek Land Conservancy, another important and active stakeholder, in cooperation with a major land holder in the middle basin area, has begun efforts to develop a vision document for the river. Bike trails, foot paths, habitat restoration, and set-aside open space are all components of this vision. In another part of the watershed, two nonpoint ------- source projects are getting underway; both are being coordinated by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology and involve the recla- mation of disturbed mining areas. Also, a number of local municipalities are funding a nutrient monitoring program in the watershed. With funding from EPA, the Colorado Department of Health recently hired a Clear Creek watershed coordinator. The coordinator, who is also a member of the Watershed Initiative Team, will attempt to bring together all stakeholders with an interest in the river to seek their input in analyzing the problems and creating solutions. At present, the coordinator is meeting informally with stakeholders and soliciting ideas on the formation of a watershed council. The purpose of the council would be to foster cooperation, ensure coordination, and implement jointly planned and sponsored river restoration projects. Stakeholders Adams County AMAX Canyon Defense Coalition Center for Resource Management City of Brighton City of Empire City of Golden City ofThorton City of Westminster Clear Creek County Clear Creek Metal Mining Association Clear Creek Land Conservancy Colorado Department of Health Colorado Department of Natural Resources Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado School of Mines ' Coors Denver Regional Council of Governments Jefferson County ' National Park Service ' Protect Apex Valley Environment ' Sierra Club 1 Solution Gold Limited ' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ' U.S. Forest Service 22 ------- Coeur D'Alene Basin Restoration Project Stakeholders Agricultural interests Benewah County Coeur d'Alene Basin Interagency Croup Coeur d'Alene Tribe Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Idaho Department of Land Management Idaho Department of Water Resources Idaho Fish and Came Kootenai County Kootenai Environmental Alliance * Local citizens Mining interest * Panhandle Health District Shoshonc County Three soil conservation districts Timber interests U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Soil Conservation Service University of Idaho The Coeur d'Alene Basin (3,700 square miles) includes Coeur d'Alene Lake, the Coeur d'Alene River and its North and South Forks, the St. Joe River, the St. Maries River, the Spokane River, and the Spokane-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, which underlies Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. It has been estimated that one-third of the Spokane- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer (a regional sole source aquifer to an estimated population of 400,000) is recharged by Coeur d'Alene Lake and the Spokane River, which originates from the lake. Environmental Threats As a result of more than 100 years of metals production, the Coeur d'Alene River and Lake system has been adversely affected by heavy metals contamination. The South Fork Coeur d'Alene River is currently listed as water quality limited as a result of metal point and nonpoint source loadings. The South Fork Coeur d'Alene River is the most contaminated stretch of river in EPA's Region X. It includes the Bunker Hill Superfund Site, as well as a Federal facility Superfund docket site. In addi- tion to metal loadings, the lake suffers signifi- cantly from nutrient enrichment (eutrophica- tion) that potentially threatens the quality of the drinking water from the aquifer. Actions Since the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River was identified as a water quality limited segment, the State of Idaho must devel- op a Total Maximum Daily Load for both the point sources and nonpoint sources in the basin. Another factor that led to action is the Bunker Hill Superfund Site that sits astride a 7- mile stretch of the South Fork Coeur d'Alene River and is one of the major contributors to the river's problems. Contamination at the Bunker Hill Site is being addressed through the Superfund remedial action process. The reme- dial actions implemented and resulting moni- toring data will provide information that can help evaluate cleanup strategies and supple- ment the Total Maximum Daily Load. Further information will also be gathered because another potential National Priority List site, a Federal facility owned by the Bureau of Land Management, is located on the Lower Coeur d'Alene River downstream from Bunker Hill. Since the solution to the basin's vast environ- mental problems does not lie within the juris- diction of any one agency, the Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration Project was developed to coordinate all basin restoration activities. To effect the long-term restoration of the basin, a reorganization of the pre-existing Basin Restoration Project has occurred. This reorganization combines the efforts of the three sovereign governments (Federal, State, and Tribal) in an attempt to cooperatively direct the activities of the Restoration Project. The reor- ganization of the Project currently includes a new Steering Committee whose primary roles are the oversight of the basin restoration and the development of policies regarding basin restoration activities; a Management Advisory Committee, the Coeur D'Alene Basin Interagency Group, a Citizens Advisory Committee, and a Coeur D'Alene Project Office. The complexity of this problem has required the development of a long-term, basin-wide, multimedia strategy. The goals for the Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration project are the following: Metals containment through nutrient management (Water Quality Management Plan) to control eutrophication of Coeur d'Alene Lake Metals source 'reduction through the Total Maximum Daily Load process to control point and nonpoint sources of water pollution Superfund program long-term activities (remediations) Superfund program short-term actions (removals) Management of other environmental and human health problems affecting the streams, lakes, rivers, and ground water of the Coeur d'Alene Basin (Coeur d'Alene Basin Management Program). ------- Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins The Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins are adjacent to the southern part of the Oregon coast. These watersheds drain the coast moun- tain range, which drops from about 4,000 feet in elevation to sea level over a distance of about 45 miles. The annual average precipita- tion ranges from 60 to 100 inches. The upper watersheds are steep, and land use here is dom- inated by commercial forest activities (85 per- cent of the upper watersheds). The valley floodplains are flat, long, and narrow. The land use here is dominated by agriculture, predomi- nantly dairy cattle. The relatively short rivers and streams are highly valued as salmon and trout habitat. The estuaries provide highly pro- ductive shellfish beds. Environmental Threats Forestry practices have filled salmonid spawning gravel areas with sediment. Cattle management practices have allowed cattle to overgraze/strip the riparian corridors, causing widespread bank erosion and severely elevated water temperatures. Increased water tempera- tures can significantly reduce the survival of juvenile salmon. Cattle management practices have also contributed extremely high bacteria loadings to the streams. These loadings have either resulted in or threaten closure of com- mercial shellfish beds. Extensive diking and water management structures prevent young salmon from access- ing wetland habitats. These fringing wetlands would normally allow juvenile salmon to avoid the high river flows during winter months. Without these off-channel habitats, juvenile salmon are prematurely flushed out of the river and stream channels, resulting in high mortalities. Limited toxics data in the estuary indi- cated some potentially serious toxics problems that had not been adequately characterized or incorporated into agency work plans. Actions State and local interests have recognized the problems described above for some time. In many instances, individual actions had already been planned or initiated, but the level of effort and necessary teamwork was not near- ly adequate to address the magnitude of the problem. EPA's Near Coastal Waters program approached the lead State agencies to attempt a more integrated watershed approach in a coastal area where it was thought a difference could be made and some new working relation- ships could be tested. Stakeholders County Department of Economic Development Local drainage district Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Forestry Soil Conservation District U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ------- Flint Creek Project Stakeholders Alabama Cooperative Extension Service Alalwma Department of Agriculture and Industries Alabama Department of Environmental Management Alabama Department of Public Health Alabama Forestry Contm. Alabama Geological Sun'ey Alabama Soil and Water Consen-ation Committee Morgan County Sheriff Department (Litter Control Officer) Morgan, Lawrence, and Collman County Soil and Water Conservation District Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Resource Consen-ation and Development Board U.S. Depart, of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen'ice U.S. Geological Survey j The headwaters of Flint Creek begin in the Sand Mountain Plateau and flow in a northerly direction across Morgan County, Alabama, to the confluence with the Tennessee River and Wheeler Reservoir. The lower portion of the creek is rather sluggish and meanders through tree-lined riparian areas, ranches, and other agricultural lands. The watershed encompasses approximately 300,000 acres, and the Tennessee Valley Authority owns much of the stream side land in the lower reach. Cotton production was a major crop from the turn of the century until the 1960's; this activity brought erosion and fish kills from pesticides. Now much of the area is used for pasture and hay production. Environmental Threats A 10-mile section of Flint Creek, near Hartselle, has an Alabama stream classifica- tion for Agricultural and Industrial Use (A&I). This classification carries a minimum dis- solved oxygen concentration of 3.0 mg/1, which is not adequate to support fish and wildlife. The City of Hartselle plans to connect to the Decatur water sys- tem within the next 2 years; hpwever, Flint Creek is certainly questionable as a safe source since it is immediately down- stream of the A&I classified reach and is also downstream of the Hartselle wastewater treat- ment plant discharge. Bacterial levels in the em-bayment exceed State water quality stan- dards after rainfall events. The status of the fishery in the embayment has not been deter- mined, but dissolved oxygen levels in portions of Flint Creek are well below those needed to maintain a good fishery. These water quality problems also affect the Point Mallard recre- ational area located on the Flint Creek embay- ment, which is heavily used for onshore activi- ties as well as water contact sports. Actions The major objective of the project is to improve water quality so that the stream classi- fication can be raised. EPA was interested in working on embayment modeling and approached the Alabama Department of Moulton Environmental Management and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to seek their interest in this project. Several successful cooperative projects had been completed in this area in the past few years so there were very good working relationships with Federal, State, and local organizations. Also, the water- shed was relatively small and had identifiable water quality problems that could be corrected. An organizational meeting was held in April 1992 with many of the interested Federal and State agencies to set up a structure for the project. The group estalished a Steering Commit-tee, with representatives from several of the key agencies and organizations to pro- vide overall guidance for the project, and four other committees to perform specific func- tions: the Technical Committee, Citizens Committee, Education and Outreach Committee, and Farm and Forestry Operations Committee. EPA provided a full-time project coor- dinator. Flint Creek Watershed The approach is to identify all activities in the watershed that produce water quality problems and to implement corrective actions. TVA is providing aerial photography with interpretation for the whole watershed. They have also developed a base map for the project. EPA and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management are monitoring water quality. The Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service have contributed tours and reports. The U.S. Geological Survey has reactivated two stream gauging stations and is providing data. Other agencies and organiza- tions have contributed considerable staff time. ------- Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Ship Canal In the northwest corner of Indiana, efforts are underway to reduce the enormous amounts of toxic and conventional pollutants entering southern Lake Michigan. Southern Lake Michigan serves as the primary drinking water supply for over 6 million people. Environmental Threats The principle source of pollutants to southern Lake Michigan is the Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Ship Canal (Grand Cal). The river and canal are less than 20 miles long, yet sends over 1 billion gallons a day of treated wastewater to Lake Michigan. In addition, the small watershed of Grand Cal has a population of approximately 300,000. It contains over 25 percent of the total steel making capacity of the country, supports one of the largest oil refining facilities in the U.S., has an estimated 50 mil- lion gallons of petroleum distillate floating on top of the ground water, and sends an estimated 150,000 cubic yards of grossly contaminated sediments into Lake Michigan annually. Actions Developed in September 1990, the Northwest Indiana Action Plan currently guides EPA and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Its objectives are: 1) Ensure the dredging of Federal Channel in the Indiana Harbor Canal, and where possible, other sediments in the Grand Calumet River 2) Achieve a high level of compliance (90 percent or greater) with all Federal environmental statutes 3) Assess and initiate remediation of millions of gallons of petroleum distillate currently floating on top of the ground water 4) Launch a broad pollution prevention initiative with local industries and municipalities as a supplement to Federal enforcement 5) Meet the requirements of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United States and Canada by preparing a Remedial Action Plan for the Grand Cal, and by developing a Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Michigan 6) Integrate an aggressive environmental communications component into each aspect of the Plan. Enforcement actions to date include: United States Steel-Gary Works, $34.2 million settlement for violations of the Clean Water Act includes $7.5 million in sediment characterization and remediation of the Grand Calumet River City of Gary Sanitary District, multi-million dollar settlement for Clean Water and Toxic Substances Control Act violations includes $1.7 million for sediment remediation and the containment of'60,000pounds ofPCBs. In addition, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers developed a Memorandum of Agreement to enable them to safely dredge and dispose of 1.2 million cubic yards of contami- nated sediments from the Federal navigation channel of the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal. Pollution prevention elements are being includ- ed in all consent decrees and settlements obtained in Northwest Indiana. EPA and Indiana hosted workshops on sediments, the new Clean Air Act, and the Action Plan as well as a pollution prevention symposium for the iron and steel industry. And, they completed a nonpoint source assessment and plan for the area, including the development of a digitized land use mapping system. 25 Stakeholders Indiana Department of Environmental Management Indiana Department of Natural Resources Indiana Office of the Attorney General £7.5. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Department of Justice * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Soil Conservation Service ------- Hillsdale Reservoir Watershed Project \ The Hillsdale Reservoir is located in Northern Miami County, Kansas. Land uses for this area, which comprises gently rolling hills, include pasture, row crops, woodland, and pockets of urban development (Kansas City). Land prices have increased to a point where farming is no longer profitable for new operators, and the average farm size is shrink- ing. The State of Kansas owns the marketing rights to water in the reservoir and wants to protect the future quality of that resource. Many local citizens wish to preserve the water quality of the reservoir for the enhancement of their community. Environmental Threats The primary threat to the reservoir is phosphorus loading. Studies indicate that the current loading rate will eventually push the water body into a hyper-eutrophic state. Both point sources and confined livestock operations have been identified as the chief sources of phosphorus loading. Actions The catalyst that led to the awareness of the watershed's problems and to action being undertaken was a study initiated by the Johnson County sewer authority to assess the impact of a controversial point source. The Hillsdale Reservoir Watershed Project began in 1992, and a strategy for improving water quality is still being devel- oped. Activities for the immediate future include continuing to develop the necessary agreements to manage the project and continu- ing to develop the watershed committee and its sub-committees, to evaluate the sources of phosphorus in the watershed, to develop a suc- cessful source reduction management system, and to initiate a 5-year nonpoint source demon- stration project. Stakeholders Hillsdale Reservoir Watershed Committee Johnson County Kansas Conservation Commission Kansas Department of Health and Environment Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Kansas Water Office Miami County, Public interest groups U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Spring Hill Hillsdale Watershed Hillsdale Reservoir ------- Lake Champlain Basin Initiative 27 Lake Champlain is 120 miles long, is 12 miles at its widest point, and has a mean depth of 64 feet, although some areas exceed 400 feet. The watershed comprises 8,234 square miles that lie in Vermont, New York, and the Province of Quebec. More than 50,000 acres of wetlands adjacent to the lake and its tribu- taries depend on the lake's water level. Much of the landscape consists of agriculture and forested land. Environmental Threats Eutrophication, resulting from both point and nonpoint sources, is a threat to water quali- ty, resulting in increased plant growth and algae blooms in many of the lake's bays. The phosphorous levels in several parts of the lake meet or exceed the highest levels found in the Great Lakes in the 1970's. Ten years of exten- sive monitoring associated with agricultural best management practice implementation in two watersheds has not shown a significant reduction in phosphorus loads to the lake. The presence of toxic substances is also a concern. Preliminary data finds localized presence of toxic substances, particularly in the more developed areas of Burlington and Plattsburgh, as well as a more wide presence of other pollu- tants. It is possible that these substances may originate from an airborne source. Nuisance aquatic flora and fauna threaten the integrity of the ecosystem. Actions There has been a long history of lake protection and planning efforts. The first for- mal interstate initiative was in 1949, and since then there have been numerous efforts to bring the States and the Province of Quebec together to focus on lake management issues. The most recent was the Level B Study sponsored by the New England River Basin Commission in 1979. This was followed by the 1988 signing of a Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperative Environmental Management of Lake Champlain among New York, Vermont, and Quebec. It was renewed in 1992. This memorandum created Citizen Advisory Committees to advise each of the three govern- ments on issues of importance to the public. The Lake Champlain Basin Program was initiated in 1991 in response to the passage of the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990 by Congress. The program brings together 31 individuals representing a wide range of interests in both New York and Vermont to develop a Pollution Prevention, Control and Restoration Plan. Although fund- ing is authorized for 5 years, the plan must be completed within 3 years. Funds are being used for research and characterization, demon- strations, monitoring, planning, and public edu- cation. Examples include research on toxic substances in sediment, nutrient loading from nonpoint sources with a special focus on agri- culture, as well as demonstration projects to prevent the introduction of non-native species, to control water chestnuts, and to implement agricultural best management practices. Stakeholders Academics Agricultural representatives - Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Farm Bureau, farmers Business Interests Educators Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative Lake Champlain Committee Lake Champlain Maritime Museum Lake Champlain Research Consortium Local governments Local residents National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service New York State agencies River associations State elected officials U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Soil Conservation Service Vermont and New York Citizen Advisory Committees Vermont State agencies ------- Lake Roosevelt Initiative I Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (Lake Roosevelt), the reservoir behind Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River in north-central Washington, is the largest reservoir in Washington. Lake Roosevelt extends over 151 miles, almost reaching the Canadian border, and has a surface area of about 80,000 acres (125 square miles). Besides the main-stem Columbia, five other rivers flow into the lake: the Sanpoil River, the Spokane River, the Colville River, the Kettle River, and the Pend Oreille River. Upstream flow on the main stem is regulated by nine major reservoirs and numerous smaller reservoirs and power plants. Outflow is through Grand Coulee Dam or is pumped from the lake into a feeder canal for irrigation storage in Banks Lake. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation controls the lake eleva- tion for power generation, irrigation, fisheries, flood control, and other uses. Lake Roosevelt provides extensive recre- ational opportunities and associated economic benefits to residents of and visitors to the inland Northwest. It is included in the Coulee Dam National Recreation Area, administered by the National Park Service' which attracts more than 1 million visitors to its many camp- grounds, picnic areas, and boat launches each year. Many more use the privately operated resort and access facilities. Lake Roosevelt also provides the Colville and Spokane Indian Tribes with significant economic opportunities. The tribes (whose reservations also border a portion of the shoreline) operate houseboat rentals, marinas, and resorts. Environmental Threats Whole fish near the Grand Coulee Dam were analyzed for zinc, copper, lead, arsenic, selenium, cadmium, and mercury as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cadmium and lead exceeded the 85th per- centile for two collections during 1978-81; cadmium concentrations were the highest of 112 stations sampled nationwide. Similar stud- ies conducted by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in 1986 also showed concentrations of metals (zinc, copper, and lead) in fish tissues and sediments increas- ing as samples were taken upstream toward the U.S.-Canadian border. In that same year, Ecology also reported metals contamination of lake sediments. Sediments in the upper reach- es of the lake were found to contain larger con- centrations of iron, manganese, copper, zinc, and arsenic than most tributaries to the lake or to Lower Arrow Lake in Canada. Elevated concentrations of lead, cadmium, and mercury occurred in the lower reaches of the lake in association with finer-grained sediment. Contamination is not limited to metals. In recent years, concerns have been raised about the existence of chlorinated dioxin and furan compounds that have been found in fish tissue by Ecology. In some cases, a health advisory for limiting the consumption of fish has been issued. Contamination by metals, chlorinated organic compounds, and phosphorus is sus- pected to originate from point source dis- charges from a complex of Canadian industries situated along the Columbia River in the province of British Columbia just north of the U.S. border. Phosphorus is also discharged to the river in British Columbia by a fertilizer plant operation. Nuisance algal mats in Lake Roosevelt may be related to large phosphorus loads to the lake. Actions The findings of metals and dioxin conta- mination in sediment and fish, followed by the fish consumption advisories, led local U.S. citi- zens to press Congress to appropriate $500,000 to EPA to develop a water quality management plan for the lake. Along with citizens' con- cerns were related scientific concerns. Although studies have been conducted in the past, there has been no comprehensive or inte- grated assessment of the extent and signifi- cance of toxic chemical or nutrient contamina- tion of Lake Roosevelt on which to base sound water quality management decisions. ------- In August 1991, the EPA office in Seattle and Ecology brought together interested groups and agencies in the Lake Roosevelt community to create the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council. The Council is guiding a study that is assessing the water quality of the lake and should lead to recommended strategies for improved protection. The final product will be a comprehensive water quality management plan for Lake Roosevelt. The Council comprises a Management Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee. Since October 1992, the following organizations, as well as several private citi- zens, have been represented on the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council. Stakeholders Boise Cascade, Kettle Falls British Columbia Ministry of the Environment Citizens for a Clean Columbia Colville Confederated Tribes Douglas County Commission Environment Canada Ferry County Commission Grant County Commission Lake Roosevelt Coordinating Committee Lake Roosevelt Forum Lake Roosevelt Property Owners Association Lincoln County Commission National Park Service Okanogan County Commission Pend Oreille County Commission Spokane Tribe Stevens County Commission Stevens County Grange ' Tri-County Health Department ' Upper Columbia River Counties > Upper Columbia United Tribes ' U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 U.S. Geological Survey WA Association of Wheat Growers WA Department of Community Development WA Department of Ecology WA Department of Health WA Department of Wildlife WA Rural Organizing Project WA Water Research Center ------- Long Island Sound Study Long Island Sound, bordered on the north by Connecticut and on the south by Long Island, New York, lies within the most densely populated region of the United States. The Sound, 110 miles long, stretches westward from the Race to the East River. Characterized by the nearly unbroken chain of urban centers, including the country's largest city, New York City, the region's central economic and popula- tion focus lies adjacent to the Sound. More than 14.5 million people live in counties direct- ly bordering the Sound. The Long Island Sound watershed drains an area of more than 16,000 square miles. It encompasses virtually the entire State of Connecticut, portions of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, a small area in Canada at the source of the Connecticut River, portions of New York City, and Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties in New York State. With such an extensive drainage basin, management attention must begin in those areas most directly impacting water quality in the Sound. As a result, the specific area included in the Long Island Sound Study is smaller than the total drainage basin, focusing on the watershed within the States of Connecticut and New York. Environmental Threats Hypoxia, or low levels of dissolved oxy- gen in the water, is the primary concern in Long Island Sound. Nitrogen emanating from sewage treatment plants, stormwater runoff, and atmospheric deposition has been identified as the major cause of hypoxia in the Sound. Other concerns include floatable debris; toxic and pathogen contamination of sediment, shell- fish, and fish; habitat loss and degradation; stormwater runoff; and atmospheric deposition. Actions The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) began in 1985 when Congress asked EPA, in cooperation with the States of Connecticut and New York, to sponsor a study of the estuary. LISS officially became part of the National Estuary Program in 1987. The goal of the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) is to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation and Manage- ment Plan (CCMP) for the cleanup of Long Island Sound. The plan to clean up the Sound is being developed under the auspices of the LISS Management Conference, a group repre- senting Federal, State, local, public and private interests in the Sound. To control nutrients, the conference is completing a water quality- hydrodynamic mathematical model, modifying municipal sewage treatment plant permits to "freeze" or reduce nitrogen loadings from plant effluent, developing specific nonpoint source control actions to freeze nitrogen loadings, identifying cost-effective in-Sound nitrogen reduction actions, and developing additional actions to meet the ecological goal throughout the continued planning process. Measures to control toxic metals in the western Sound and in selected harbors will be developed as appro- priate, and specific commitments to reduce or eliminate pathogens and floatables will also be developed. As part of their long-range plan- ning efforts, the Conference will prepare a site- specific habitat management strategy, a description of critical coastal habitats for map- ping on a Geographic Information System, and a report on land use and overall watershed development containing recommendations on nonpoint and habitat initiatives. Although these plans are being devel- oped by the LISS Management Conference, implementation will involve the targeted use of existing water quality programs, within the geographic confines of the Sound. For exam- ple, through implementation of the NPDES program, municipal permits for plants on Long Island Sound are in the process of being modi- fied to freeze and, in some cases, reduce the nitrogen loadings to the Sound. An additional reduction may be warranted when the final nutrient model runs are completed. EPA is studying the feasibility of point/nonpoint source "bubbles" to control nitrogen discharges in the Connecticut and New York State por- tions of the Sound's watershed. A statewide antidegradation policy, focusing on persistent bioaccumulative chemicals of concern, will be developed and implemented in New York. EPA will work to develop and implement, ------- Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative The Delta area covers 219 counties in seven states (Arizona, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Tennessee). The Mississippi River remains one of the most significant transportation arter- ies in the world. Environmental Threats Nonpoint source pollution, wetlands loss, industrial/municipal contamination, and toxic substances are major environmental threats of concern in the Delta Region. Over the last century, the Delta has undergone exten- sive hydrological modifications to accommo- date agricultural activities on this area's rich soil. These modifications and other human uses of the area resulted in a decrease in bot- tomland hardwoods (21 million acres to 4.5 million acres fragmented throughout the Delta), as well as habitat for countless species of waterfowl, neotropical birds, game and non- game animals (including the endangered Louisiana black bear). The area once served as a rich commercial/recreational fishery. Actions Government officials joined forces with agricultural community to conduct reforesta- tion activities. Reforestation will replace wildlife habitat, increase forest production, and reduce nonpoint water quality problems. The project wih1 have an important role in address- ing regional economic diversity and environ- mental equity issues. Stakeholders Academic organizations Agricenter International Agricultural industry/organizations All interests related to water/habitat quality within Gulf of Mexico Conservation organizations Cultural heritage organizations Delta Center Farm Bureau Fish producers/fishermen Forest industry Local, State and Federal Agencies Municipalities Navigation interests Other industry Public: Farm and non-farm Recreational/tourism industry U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lower Mississippi Delta Alluvial Plain Long Island, continued through permit modifications and enforcement actions, a com- prehensive abatement program for combined sewer overflow systems in New York City. EPA and the States will develop enforceable instruments to regulate stormwater along tribu- taries of the Sound, and develop nonpoint source best management practices to incorpo- rate into these stormwater controls. The beach closure/shellfish bed action plan will continue to be implemented. Finally, EPA will develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- istration, the State environmental agencies, and the coastal zone management agencies to effec- tively implement Section 6217. of the Coastal Zone Act. Stakeholders Citizen groups Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Interstate Sanitation Commission Local governments National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York City Department of Environmental Protection Scientific and academic community U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey ------- Malibu Creek Watershed Protection Project The Malibu Creek Watershed spans approximately 150 square miles near Los Angeles, California. The watershed features a perennial coastal creek that flows to a valuable ocean lagoon. The watershed supports a natur- al steel head run and habitat for several endan- gered species of birds. Primary land use is cur- rently rangeland, although the upper watershed and the area surrounding the lagoon are under- going rapid suburban development. Environmental Threats The water quality and habitat within the watershed are threatened by sediments, nutri- ents, and toxics loadings; urban runoff both in the upper parts of the watershed and in. the Malibu Lagoon coastal area; agricultural runoff from livestock facilities; and a wastewater dis- charge. Actions Efforts to protect this watershed began when the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, the local National Estuary Program, identified the watershed as a key contributor to pollution of the Bay from sediments. These efforts were augmented by the local Resource Conservation District, which requested and received watershed planning assistance through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Small Watershed Program, and by the State, which targeted the lagoon for early action in developing Total Maximum Daily Loads and Waste Load Allocations, because the lagoon is not meeting State water quality standards. EPA provides a Near Coastal Waters grant for restoration activities and communication among several of the participants listed below. The Agency also provides technical support in selecting an appropriate watershed model and in developing a watershed monitoring plan. In the future, EPA will work with State and local stakeholders to identify funds for implement- ing controls necessary for protecting the water- shed. Stakeholders California Regional Water Quality Control Board Coastal Conservancy Local dischargers and developers Local Resource Conservation District Municipal governments Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Surfriders Foundation U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ventura and Los Angeles Counties 32 ------- Merrimack River Initiative The Merrimack River watershed extends from the White Mountains in northern New Hampshire through Massachusetts and into the Atlantic Ocean. Although the river is only 118 miles long, its watershed covers 5,010 square miles, of which the last 22 miles are tidal. The river provides drinking water for more than 300,000 people, water for industrial and agri- cultural uses, and hydropower. Many people use the river and its shores for relaxation and recreation. Environmental Threats The primary threats to the environment are combined sewer overflows (bacteria), toxic contaminants, nonpoint source pollution (pri- marily urban runoff), unregulated water with- drawals, land development, and wetlands loss. Actions The Merrimack River Initiative resulted from interstate water pollution concerns of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. An inter- state working group was formed that obtained funding from EPA and organized efforts to develop a draft management plan by 1993. A Management Committee and four issue-orient- ed subcommittees were created to set priorities and make funding decisions. Meanwhile, pro- jects are underway to protect the most valuable areas by providing information on the extent and condition of wetlands; to establish an emergency response network; to provide deci- sionmakers with information about the poten- tial contamination of water supplies; to focus regulatory activities (such as inspections and permitting); and to assist industrial pollu- tion prevention. A Merrimack / Massachusetts watershed management con- ference is planned in June of 1993. Stakeholders Agricultural, environmental, recreational, and watershed organizations Commonwealth of Massachusetts Local governments, industries, and utilities New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission Regional planning agencies State of New Hampshire U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Universities ------- Middle Snake River 34 The Middle Snake River watershed is dominated by semiarid land on the Snake River Plain in south-central Idaho, characterized by a mosaic of irrigated croplands and open shrub/grasslands. The major feature of the watershed is the basalt canyon containing the Snake River and the extensive spring system discharging approximately 6,000 cubic feet of ground water per second to the river. Environmental Threats The major environmental threats to the area are water quality and aquatic ecosystem degradation due to upstream water with- drawals, return flows from approximately 930,000 acres of irrigated agriculture, runoff from dairies and feedlots, effluent from 110 fish hatcheries, hydroelectric development, dis- charges from sewage treatment plants, and riparian/wetland habitat degradation. The water quality parameters of concern include nutrients, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and ammonia. The biological resources of concern include five species of mollusks listed as endangered or threatened species, wintering populations of bald eagles, resident trout and sturgeon populations, populations of herons and other wading birds, wintering waterfowl, and riparian habitat. The recreational resources of concern include Whitewater boating, fishing, and unique aesthetic values. Actions Obvious violations of water quality stan- dards, as evidenced by excessive weed growth in the river, along with the continued threats to the river led various agencies and the public to take action. By 1988 EPA became concerned about cumulative impacts to the Middle Snake River from existing and proposed hydroelectric projects. EPA did not believe that the regulato- ry agencies responsible for licensing and per- mitting these facilities were adequately evalu- ating cumulative impacts. As a result, EPA ini- tiated an ecological risk analysis of this reach of the Snake River. This analysis is utilizing both measurements and models to estimate the likelihood of deleterious changes in the river- ine systems. The effort will form the scientific basis for assessing the ecological risk to the aquatic ecosystem from, various development and management options in the Middle Snake River. During this same lime, the State of Idaho determined that a portion of the Middle Snake was not currently meeting water quality stan- dards despite the presence of water pollution control measures. Consequently, in 1990 the State designated portions of the Middle Snake River as water quality- limited, a designation which requires the establishment of a Total Maximum Daily Load. In response to the list- ing of portions of the Middle Snake River as water quality-limited, the State began develop- ment of a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP). Representatives from industry, hydropower, nonpoint sources (agriculture and irrigation companies), environmental groups, and local government are participating in this effort through membership on technical and execu- tive advisory committees. Through this work, the State will identify actions needed to restore water quality in the river. The NMP could suf- fice for a Total Maximum Daily Load (or pol- lutant management plan) if the plan clearly defines a pollutant load limit that will achieve water quality standards and specifies a clearly enforceable allocation of allowable pollutant loadings among the various dischargers. Development of the NMP will be based in large part on the ecological risk analysis cur- rently being conducted by EPA. Citizens and local officials also became aware of the water quality problems in the Middle Snake River during the time EPA and the State were beginning their efforts. Local officials believed that local government could have an important role in working to restore the river ecosystem and formed the Middle Snake River Study Group (MSRSG). The MSRSG is a joint effort among the Counties of Lincoln, Jerome, Twin Falls and Gooding to address water quality problems within the four- county area and ultimately enhance the water quality in the Middle Snake River. This group has completed a draft Coordinated Water Resource Management Plan for the Middle Snake River. The stakeholders in the Middle Snake River participated in the development of the plan. Many of the strategies proposed by the MSRSG rely on the findings of the EPA ------- Morro Bay Watershed Project Morro Bay is located on the California coast, approximately 150 miles north of Los Angeles. The Morro Bay watershed is approx- imately 100 square miles and is bounded by the California Coast Range and a chain of vol- canic craters that reach out to the sea called the Seven Sisters. Two streams, Los Osos Creek and Charro Creek, drain the watershed into Morro Bay. Primarily agricultural land sur- rounds the bay and estuary area, which pro- vides a habitat for several endangered species. The watershed is relatively undisturbed by human activity, but the surrounding population, presently at 35,000 people, has tripled in size since 1960. Environmental Threats The Morro Bay watershed problem is simply sediment. At the present rate of sedi- mentation, sediment would fill in Morro Bay within an estimated 100 years. Actions To protect this endangered area, EPA supports the Morro Bay Watershed Project with both funding and technical guidance on nonpoint source monitoring and implementa- tion of nonpoint source controls. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board has devel- oped a proposal for including the project in the National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program to measure the effectiveness of agricultural and silvicultural best management practices in terms of sedimentation. Stakeholders Cal Poly San Luis Obispo California Regional Water Quality Control Board Local interest groups and landowners Resource Conservation District U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Middle Snake River continued analyses and the State's development of the NMP. At this time, each of the four counties is seeking county adop- tion of the plan. It is anticipated that the MSRSG could have an important function in implementing measures at a local level to assist in restoring water quality in the river. The integration of these three efforts (NMP, ecological risk analysis, and MSRSG plan) is pro- viding a coordinated approach to addressing water quality problems in the Middle Snake. This coor- dinated approach can provide valuable assistance to other planning efforts on the Middle Snake, including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's resource management plan, the Northwest Power Planning Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, the Idaho Water .Resources Board's Comprehensive State Water Plan, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game's Fisheries Management Plan. Recovery plans by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Federally listed threatened and endangered mollusks will utilize the information now being developed. In addition, pilot projects are being initiated in economic sus- tainability and point/nonpoint source trading. Stakeholders B&C Energy, Inc. City of Twin Falls Clear Springs Trout Company Cogeneration, Inc. Dairy andfeedlot owners and operators Hagerman Valley Citizens Alert, Inc. Idaho Aquaculture Company Idaho Cattle Association Idaho Conservation League Idaho Dairymen's Association Idaho Department of Fish and Game Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Idaho Division of Environmental Quality Idaho Power Company Idaho Rivers United Idaho Whitewater Association L.B. Industries Middle Snake River Study Group (elected officials and citizens from four counties) North Side Canal Company Rangen, Inc. Twin Falls Canal Company Twin Falls County Parks Department U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ------- New YorkNew Jersey Harbor The New YorkNew Jersey Harbor Complex consists of the New York Bight Apex north of the Sandy HookRockaway Transect. The watershed includes tidal por- tions of the Hackensack, Passaic, Raritan, Navesink, Shrewsburg, Kill Van Kull, and Arthur Kill Rivers in New Jersey and the Hudson and East Rivers in New York. The estuary serves as a recreational resource avail- able to over 16 million residents and 17.4 mil- lion visitors to the New YorkNew Jersey metropolitan -area. The port plays a major role in the regional economy, generating several billion dollars per year and several hundred thousand jobs. Among the area's attractions are beautiful beaches, abundant wildlife (par- ticularly in the Hackensack Meadowlands), the Manhattan skyline, Battery Park, and the Statue of Liberty. Although this urban area is densely inhabited, there are also many resident populations of birds and mammals including whales, harbor seals, osprey, bald eagles, and snowy egrets. Environmental Threats The major threat to the New YorkNew Jersey Harbor Estuary is its increasing popula- tion density. Each day, municipal sewage treat- ment plants in New York and New Jersey dis- charge more than 2.6 billion gallons of waste- water into the estuary; some of these plants do not yet provide secondary treataient. Periodic malfunctions or overloads of the sewer system result in discharges of untreated sewage, a pri- mary source of toxic metals, organic chemi- cals, pathogens, nutrients, and floatable debris in the Harbor area. Effects of pollution and contamination can be seen everywhere. New Jersey has lost 75 percent of its wetlands since 1925. Construction practices, such as deepening channels, building bulkheads against erosion, and filling water areas to expand development, have led to the filling and draining of these wetlands. Public beaches have been closed in both states because of bacterial contamination or floatable debris. New York and New Jersey have issued advisories limiting consumption of bluefish, striped bass, and American eel because concentrations of toxic chemicals in the fish are often above Food and Drug Administration limits. Actions This watershed effort provides a frame- work for coordinating activities in two ongoing related programs, the New YorkNew Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, formally begun in 1989, and the New York Bight Restoration Program begun in 1987. The goals of the Harbor/Bight programs are to prepare (1) a final plan for the cleanup and restoration of the New York Bight in 1993 and (2) a comprehen- sive management plan for New York/New Jersey Harbor by August 1994. The plans to clean up the Harbor and Bight are being developed under the auspices of the Harbor Management Conference, a group, representing Federal, State, and local, private, and public interests in the Harbor Complex, created under the National Estuary program. To control nutrients, the Conference is considering the development of a sys- temwide eutrophication model encompassing the Harbor/Bight/Long Island Sound System. The Management Conference is also defining conditions that cause nuisance algal blooms and hypoxia, investigating ecosystem indica- tors for hypoxia, and describing the effects of low dissolved oxygen on the fish community. Ongoing characterization studies for toxics will serve to verify or refute exceedances in criteria, and identify sources causing exceedances or biological impairments. The New York City water quality model will be used to prioritize repairs to combined sewer overflow (CSO) systems in the Harbor/Bight, and the Conference will seek commitments from regu- latory agencies to implement a long-term float- ables plan. The Conference will also develop recommendations to improve regulatory pro- grams for habitat protection, identify signifi- cant habitats that may warrant extra protection, determine if existing regulations protect signif- icant habitats, and develop a system-wide pro- gram to assess habitat loss due to hypoxia. The ------- Oak Creek Watershed Project Oak Creek is a perennial desert stream in the scenic Sedona, Arizona, area. Oak Creek is a tributary of the Verde River and is located southeast of the city of Flagstaff at an altitude of approximately 3000 feet. The watershed encompasses an area of 427 square miles. Oak Creek attracts many tourists, because it is noted for its scenic Red Rock geologic formations and the city of Sedona. Environmental Threats Bacteria levels at Slippery Rock State Park, a popular swimming hole, high nutrient levels and sedimentation from forestry and agricultural practices threaten the water quality of Oak Creek. Furthermore, the City of Sedona is expecting a population explosion from its present size of 8000 individuals to 20,000 by the year 2010. Actions Arizona Department of Environmental Quality initiated the Oak Creek project to pro- vide an analytical, planning, and implementa- tion framework to address water quality prob- lems associated with point and nonpoint pollu- tant discharges. Stakeholders Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Transportation Local county government Local environmental groups and landowners Northern Arizona Council of Governments U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NY-NJ Harbor continued development of a comprehensive Total Maximum Daily Load based on a site-specific water quality standard for copper is a significant effort undertaken by EPA, the States, and participants of the Management Conference. Although these plans are being devel- oped by the Harbor Management Conference, implementation will involve the targeted use of existing water quality programs, within the geographic confines of the Harbor/Bight. For example, through implementation of the NPDES program, cost effective controls for toxic metals will be identified and permits will be modified to include water quality-based lim- its for toxic metals as necessary. In New York, an antidegradation policy, focused initially on persistent bioaccumulative substances found in the Great Lakes, will be developed and imple- mented statewide, including the Harbor/Bight waters. An analogous antidegradation plan for New Jersey's waters within the Harbor/Bight is being pursued. EPA will work to develop and implement, through permit modifications and enforcement actions, a comprehensive CSO abatement program for New York City, Yonkers, and New Jersey discharges to the Harbor. The beach closure/shellfish bed action plan will continue to be implemented by EPA. The Army Corp of Engineers and EPA will develop a dredged material management plan that includes a Mud Dump Site Management Plan and a plan for selecting new disposal sites. Stakeholders Citizen groups Interstate Sanitation Commission Local governments National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy New York State Department of Environmental Conservation « New York City Department of Environmental Protection Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Scientific and academic community U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ------- Onondaga Lake Stakeholders City of Syracuse New York Department of Law New York State Department of Environmental Conscivation Onondaga County U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Onondaga Lake is located along the northern end of the City of Syracuse in Onondaga County, New York, and is primarily surrounded by urban development. The lake is approximately one mile wide and 4.6 miles long and has a mean depth of 35 feet and a maximum depth of 63 feet. The watershed comprises 248 square miles located almost entirely within Onondaga County. Environmental Threats Nutrient loadings, mainly from point sources, have resulted in eutrophic conditions and the violation of State water quality stan- dards for Onondaga Lake. A ban was placed on public fishing from the lake in 1970 due to high concentrations of mercury in several species of fish. The lake was reopened to fish- ing in 1986 on a catch and release basis only. Petroleum products are entering the lake from contaminated ground water and contaminating lake sediment. Chlorinated hydrocarbons have also contaminated the water and sediments of Onondaga Lake through surface water runoff and ground water flow from past manufactur- ing practices near the lake. Mudboils, which discharge ground water that is extremely tur- bid, are impacting the water quality and aquatic habitats of Onondaga Creek and Onondaga Lake. Actions In 1989 Congress appropriated funds for EPA to convene a management conference for Onondaga Lake. Subsequently, the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 called for the establishment of a management conference for the restoration, conservation, and manage- ment of Onondaga Lake, and called for the development of a comprehensive restoration, conservation, and management plan for Onondaga Lake that recommends priority cor- rective action and compliance schedules for the cleanup of the lake. The Management Conference consists of all Federal, State, local, public and private interests in the Lake. To address nutrients and toxics, the Conference is developing a eutrophication model for the Seneca River, a lake productivity model, and a hydrodynamic model for the lake outlet. The conference is also franding studies on the release of nutrients and toxic substances from lake sediments under changing dissolved oxy- gen levels and establishing a long-term base- line water quality program. In addition to char- acterizing the nonpoint source pollution prob- lem, the Conference will draft a rural nonpoint source pollution plan, an urban/suburban non- point source pollution plan, and a fish and wildlife management plan. Forthcoming activ- ities are: the evaluation, and update on a regu- lar basis, of the contamination status of lake organisms; the development, with implementa- tion, of a biological monitoring program; and the development of a public education plan. Pilot projects to implement flow modification and sediment load reduction in the mudboil depression area will be implemented in 1992- 1993 and a mudboil remediation plan will be issued in March ,1994. Finally, the Conference will begin a large scale macrophyte planting project, a pilot project: in wetland and nonvege- tative cover restoration and enhancement, and a study of the role of vegetation in mercury cycling. Implementation of the plan will involve the targeted use of existing regulatory pro- grams within the geographic confines of Onondaga Lake. For example, a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study is being performed pursuant to a consent decree with New York State. The Study will investigate the nature and extent of contamination in the Lake. A court order directs Onondaga County to bring County sewage treatment plans and overflow discharges in compliance with legal requirements. EPA, in conjunction with the State, will work with the Onondaga County Department of Drainage and Sanitation in eval- uating various engineering alternatives for upgrading and/or diverting the Syracuse Metropolitan Treatment Plant discharge, and treating and/or diverting the combined sewer overflows based on the effectiveness in clean- ing Onondaga Lake and its tributaries. ------- Pequea and Mill Creeks Watershed Project 39 Located in the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch county, the Pequea and Mill Creeks watershed covers 135,000 acres in southeastern Pennsylvania. Large dolomite and limestone aquifers yield a significant quantity of ground water, but are also particularly vulnerable to contamination. While ground water is the pri- mary source of drinking and livestock water, people in the area also depend upon the creeks for drinking water, irrigation, boating, fishing, water sports, wildlife habitat, and industry. Environmental Threats Agriculture is the predominant land use in the watershed: 63 percent of the land is devoted to cropland and 13 percent to pasture. The watershed has 55,000 dairy cattle, 5,500,000 poultry, and 122,000 swine. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 58.5 stream miles within the watershed have been degraded by agricultural storm runoff. Cropland is eroding at an alarmingly high rate; high concentrations of nitrates, nitrate-nitrogen, and ammonia nitrogen in surface and ground water are sus- pected of causing high abortion rates and low- ered milk production in local dairy herds; and pesticide contamination of the water has been documented. Human health, especially the health of infants under 6 months, and livestock health are at risk. Actions The participants identified below are aiming to significantly reduce nutrients, bacte- ria, and pesticide contamination to surface and ground waters and control sedimentation from runoff and erosion. Geographic Information Systems will identify those areas of high risk for contamination of drinking water, and ground water management plans will be devel- oped. The watershed has been designated as a high priority nonpoint source watershed in Pennsylvania and as a national U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hydro- logic Unit project. The watershed initiative is receiving accelerated financial and technical assistance under the USDA Water Quality Initiative, as well as funding and support from EPA's nonpoint source management program under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 and the ground water program under CWA Section 106, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Stakeholders Environmental advocacy groups Lancaster County Conservation District Lancaster County Planning Commission * Local consulting firms Local farmers Pennsylvania Agronomic Products Association Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Pennsylvania Fish Commission Pennsylvania Game Commission Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Soil Conservation Service ------- Platte River Ecosystem Management Initiative (PREMI\ Entering Nebraska via the South Platte from Colorado and the North Platte from Wyoming, the Platte River traverses 625 miles through Nebraska before joining the Missouri River at Nebraska's eastern border. With its major tributaries, the Elkhorn and Loup Rivers, the Platte constitutes the primary drainage sys- tem in Nebraska, and supports a unique ecosystem of national importance. It is a vital link in the Central Flyway, the major continen- tal migration route for millions of waterfowl and shorebirds, providing habitat for over 300 species of migratory birds, including six feder- ally endangered or threatened species. The Platte River also supports aquatic life, recre- ation, irrigation, hydropower generation, and ground water recharge. Its alluvial aquifer sup- plies drinking water to more than one-third of Nebraska's citizens. Environmental Threats Sediment and nutrient loading, pesti- cides, and hydrologic and habitat modification are the primary environmental threats to water quality and ecological integrity in the Platte River Basin in Nebraska. Actions The EPA, in conjunction with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ), evaluated the analyses emerging from its Comparative Risk Project and concluded that several of the areas of con- cern (risk reduction from pesticides, nitrates, and toxics, and ecosystem assessment and pro- tection) could be addressed in a comprehensive ecosystem approach to the Platte River system. The Platte River Ecosystem Management Initiative (PREMI) thus evolved from a EPA Regional enforcement pilot project in 1991 to a watershed protection approach project, involv- ing ecosystem assessment and implementation of strategies to address identified problems, with emphasis on NPS pollution control, water quality and habitat protection/enhancement, outreach/education, and cooperative efforts. The PREMI project has two stages. The first focuses ongoing activities basinwide. The second involves longer term actions, such as developing more detailed water quality assess- ments, identifying problems, and developing and implementing strategies to address identi- fied problems. :This stage is most logically accomplished in phases, the first of which fea- tures the Lower Platte River Basin. Succeeding phases will address the Elkhorn Basin, the Middle, North, and South Platte Basins, and the Loup Basin. The assessments will feed into NDEQ's newly adopted basinwide water quality planning approach and will be used for targeting of future actions. Initially EPA, NDEQ, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have been the pri- mary participants in the PREMI as it has con- centrated on coordinating water quality/ envi- ronmental assessment activities to define the problems. As the project evolves, other stake- holders will participate in developing goals and approaches for addressing watershed problems, defining specific actions to be taken, and deter- mining how they will be coordinated and eval- uated. Accomplishments to date include: Focusing EPA's ongoing program activities, including assessments, inspections, enforce- ment, and implementation activities of all program areas, on the Platte River Basin Preparation of a bibliography of existing research studies and investigations in coop- eration with USGS Coordination'of water quality monitoring efforts with USGS's National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, NDEQ monitoring programs, and the Tri-State Nonpoint Source Assessment project Funding for investigations and implementa- tion activities in the Lower Platte River Basin, including: $50,000 for assessment of critical areas in priority watersheds $94,500for riparian environmental indicators investigation "30 ------- Platte River Basin - $506,000 for Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program surface and groundwater protection projects - $360,000 for Section 314 Clean Lakes Program Lake Water Quality Assessment, Phase I diagnostic/ feasibility study, and Phase II implementation awards. Compilation and assessment of water quali- ty data for the Lower Platte River Basin for entry into a Geographic Information System. Support for coordinator positions within EPAandNDEQ. % The PREMI is also included in a larger ecosystem management project - the Great Plains Initiative sponsored by the Western Governor's Association, the U.S. Department of Interior, EPA, and others. Stakeholders « Environmental, agricultural and recreational organizations Federal agricultural and natural resource agencies Industries and utilities Local agricultural and natural resource agencies Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Regional and local governments State agricultural and natural resource agencies University of Nebraska-Lincoln U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Geological Survey ------- Pocono Partnership for Better Environmental Planning Stakeholders County conservation districts Economic Development Council of NE PA Pocono Chamber of Commerce (Pocono Plan) Pocono NE Resource Conservation and Development Board Three county planning commissions U.S. Environmental Protection Agency This watershed project encompasses two smaller watersheds, the Tobyhanna and the McMichael's watersheds in Pike and Monroe Counties, respectively, of Pennsylvania, an area covering approximately 250 square miles. Natural features include the glaciated Pocono plateau, as well as the other glaciated (and unglaciated) portions of the Pocono region. The watershed includes mixed hardwood forests, peat bogs, other freshwater wetlands, lakes, free-flowing streams, and unique plant communities, such as shrub-oak and pitch-pine barrens. Environmental Threats The major threat facing the watershed is rapid and uncontrolled urban development and the various threats associated with such factors as wastewater treatment, sewage treatment, highway construction, nonpoint source pollution, and habitat degradation and fragmentation. Actions The Nature Conservancy has identified portions of the unglaciated plateau area as har- boring the largest number of globally rare or endangered species and, thus, has identified this area in its bioreseirve program and a shrub- oak/pitch-pine forest found in the watershed as its highest priority in Pennsylvania. This recognition led stakeholders to establish an executive committee to initiate plans to protect the watershed. To date, a project proposal has been developed. To gain support of the town- ships and municipalities associated with the watershed, the committee is publicizing its efforts and is creating a study group, which will open the process to more people. Major components of the planning process include creating a vision statement, setting goals, con- ducting resource inventory and risk assess- ment, analyzing alternatives, and implementing recommendations. Other activities directed to the watershed include gap analysis (in cooperation with the New York Cooperative Research Unit at Cornell) and a biodiversity project with EPA's research laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. San Luis Rey River Watershed Protection Project The San Luis Rey, located in Southern California, is a coastal river that supports valu- able wetlands resources. Environmental Threats The river and its wetlands face degrada- tion from sand and gravel mining and from the recent development of orchards, ranches, golf courses, and resorts. Actions To support protection of the San Luis Rey wetlands and watershed, EPA assists in coordination of planning, enforcement, and restoration activities within the watershed. EPA provides funding for watershed resources management planning and implementation efforts and will pursue additional funding for implementation activities. EPA will also con- tinue to develop additional wetlands protection activities and will participate in Section 404, Clean Water Act enforcement activities. Stakeholders Coastal Conservancy Local landowners, sand and gravel mining operations, and environmental organizations Rincon Band of Mission Indians San Diego County U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ------- Santa Margarita Watershed Protection Project The Santa Margarita Watershed, in San Diego and Riverside counties, comprises an area of about 740 square miles and is one of the larger river basins in the southern California coastal plain. A perennial river and lagoon are dominant features in this coastal watershed, which supports unique aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational resources. The vernal pools and riparian com- munities provide high quality habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species, includ- ing 70 special status species. The total bird densities and diversities observed in this water- shed are among the highest reported for south- ern California in similar habitats. The River provides a breeding habitat for one of the two premier populations of the least Bell's vireo bird remaining in California. The coastal wet- lands support around 200 bird species, includ- ing several Federal and State endangered/ threatened species. Environmental Threats The primary environmental problems threatening this watershed include rapid urban development in the upper watershed, increased point source and nonpoint source runoff from urban areas, and wetlands destruction. Much of the upper watershed is privately owned and is subject to intense development pressure. The area within commuting distance of Riverside and San Diego is projected to under- go a threefold increase in population in the next twenty years. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 38 dredge and fill permits have been issued since 1987, affecting 179 acres of waters of the United States. Thus far, the permit review process has been unable to address the cumulative impacts of these activities; however, it is being raised as an issue of concern as part of a proposed project by the Riverside County Flood Control District to channel the lower 11 miles of Murrieta Creek, a major tributary of the Santa Margarita River. Many measures of surface water quality, such as dissolved oxygen, nutrients, total dis- solved solids and minerals (boron, manganese, and iron), exceed or appear likely to exceed recommended concentrations in the River. The State lists the Santa Margarita Estuary as an impaired water body due to nutrient load- ings. Likely pollutant sources include agricul- tural operations, septic systems, and waste- water treatment facilities. Ground water quali- ty is also a concern in the upper part of the watershed and on Camp Pendleton. Murrieta Water District relies exclusively on ground water for its water supply. Camp Pendleton also depends on the River for its drinking water, although the Camp has a Federal Superfund site within the floodplain of the River. Definitive information about potential contamination from this site will not be avail- able until the Remedial Investigation reports are completed. Actions To protect the watershed from environ- mental threats, EPA will augment Riverside and San Diego Counties' efforts to develop a comprehensive watershed management plan. Specifically, EPA will evaluate the assimilative capacity of the watershed's wetlands and help implement necessary actions to protect these wetlands. To support this effort, EPA will uti- lize two ongoing activities, the water permit- ting program and the wetlands advance identi- fication process. As part of the watershed pro- tection approach, EPA will evaluate the rela- tionship between surface water quality and the quality of ground water used down stream as a source of drinking water. EPA will provide funding for nonpoint source control and water- shed planning efforts and will give oversight to local watershed planning efforts to ensure that documented water quality problems will be addressed. Stakeholders California Department of Fish and Game California Regional Water Quality Control Board Camp Pendleton Marine Base County and municipal governments Local conservation and environmental groups and local residents National Park Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ------- Savannah River The Savannah River is one of the major river systems of the southeastern United States, encompassing a total area greater than 10,000 square miles and including portions of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The Savannah River is formed at Hartwell Reservoir by the confluence of the Seneca and Tugaloo Rivers and flows southeast to the Atlantic Ocean at the port city of Savannah, Georgia. For this watershed project, the study area is defined as that portion of the watershed from the Strom Thurmond Dam to the Atlantic Ocean. This area lies within the boundaries of Georgia and South Carolina only and includes 150 miles of river and 30 miles of estuary. Greenville Columbia South Carolinia Charleston Savannah River Watershed 44 Basin ecosystem types include forests, agricul- tural systems, bottomland hardwoods, tidal freshwater and marine marshes, free-flowing streams, and the near-coastal waters of the Carolinian province. Although the study area is predominantly rural, the watershed includes the expanding urban centers of Augusta and Savannah, Georgia, a Department of Energy nuclear production facility, the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge, and the Strom Thurmond Dam, a hydroelectric power plant facility. Environmental Threats Many water quality-related studies of the Savannah River have been conducted, begin- ning in the 1950's when Strom Thurmond Dam was built (then known as Clark's Hill Dam). In recent years, Georgia and South Carolina water quality agencies and EPA have invested con- siderable resources into monitoring, modeling, and evaluating the watershed problems. Other State and Federal agencies have contributed through direct participation in and technical transfers to these activities. A review of these studies and discus- sions with key personnel in several agencies yielded the following preliminary list of envi- ronmental issues in the Savannah River water- shed: Dam -water release impacts e.g., fish kills, cold water releases, water containing low dissolved oxygen Dredging modifications/physical changes in the estuary e.g., Tide Gate opening, New Cut closure, harbor deepening, agitation dredging Fishery impacts due to poor water quality e.g., striped bass, endangered short-nose sturgeon Low dissolved oxygen in river and estuary Habitat alteration/destruction nonpoint source (NFS) impacts from forestry, agriculture, and urban development activities in the Augusta and Savannah areas Point source discharge impacts. Actions EPA established the Savannah River watershed project because of the importance of the watershed as a natural resource, the many known environmental impacts on the water- shed, the susceptibility of the watershed to additional degradation, the opportunity for a high degree of involvement and coordination with many Federal, State, and local agencies, and the likelihood of success because of a high level of interest in protecting this river system. Other factors include the economic importance of the resource to the southeastern United ------- 45 States and high-visibility issues associated with endangered species, coastal water quality stan- dards, and interstate water allocations. EPA initiated the Savannah River Watershed Project by convening a meeting between the primary water quality agencies, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the project to the States, receive agreements of support, gain consensus on the first steps of the project, and receive any other comments/issues from these agencies. An organizational struc- ture of the project was developed with EPA, EPD, and DHEC as the lead organizations. EPA is preparing an initial document outlining the concepts of this project, including a description of the watershed, preliminary identification of watershed issues, a watershed management strategy outline, discussion of ongoing watershed activities, a plan for organi- zational management of the project, a schedule, and a list of contacts. The EPA is also devel- oping a monitoring plan for the basin and a GIS data management system. Options for obtaining a land use/land cover classification system for the project are being pursued. An EPA Advisory Committee, representing all Water Management Division programs and other regional programs, has been established to provide input into the project. Facilities in the Savannah watershed have been identified for inclusion on the EPA's multimedia inspec- tion list. EPA, in conjunction with EPD and DHEC, will develop a Watershed Management Strategy to identify and prioritize watershed impairments and to specify appropriate solu- tion and control plans. This strategy will be based on existing data and known or potential environmental impacts to the watershed. Monitoring of the watershed will be con- ducted as part of the Environmental Monitor- ing and Assessment Program to further investi- gate and characterize watershed impairments. Other ongoing monitoring programs will con- tinue to collect and analyze data for the project. Ongoing efforts to model water quality impacts to the Savannah River and estuary are under- way with EPD, DHEC, and other Federal, State and local groups. These cooperative efforts are aimed at ensuring that designated uses of the river are attained and natural resources are protected. Sources of funding for project activities will be identified and obtained as the strategy is developed and implemented. Stakeholders Georgia Conservancy Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Environmental Protection Division Georgia Ports Authority Local government, consultants, and industry National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Geological Survey ------- Tangipahoa River Watershed Project The Tangipahoa River flows southeast- ward from the Mississippi-Louisiana state line through the Mississippi Valley Loess and Southeastern Plains, and the Mississippi Alluvial Plain into Lake Pontchartrain. Initially the river is an upland stream, flowing through rolling hills and having a sand and gravel substrate. The characteristics of the river change to those of a lowland stream as the river widens and flows through cypress/tupelo swamp before entering Lake Pontchartrain. Environmental Threats This watershed and others that comprise the Lake Pontchartrain basin ;are threatened by extensive pesticide application, physical degra- dation of water and wetlands, degradation of terrestrial habitats, hazardous and toxic air pol- lution, and nonpoint source discharges. Specific threats to the Tangipahoa River stem from both industrial point and nonpoint sources, resource extraction and exploration, surface mining, and land development. Water quality problems include metals, ammonia, organics, pathogens, and suspended solids. All of these problems can be seen as outgrowths of the larger, more generalized problems facing the Lake Pontchartrain basin. Actions EPA characterized land use in the water- shed to develop an impact assessment for tar- geting activity in the area. This characteriza- tion revealed heavy agricultural use. Initial investigations by the State in response to con- cerns over high pathogen counts resulted in enforcement actions for multiple wastewater facilities. The EPA has shifted its focus to address permitting of minor point source dis- charges that predominate in the watershed. Nonpoint sources have also been identi- fied as major contributors to the Lake's water quality problems. In the State's efforts to con- trol runoff from the 273 dairies in the water- shed, it has sought the involvement of Citizens for a Clean Tangipahoa, a group that has been instrumental in educating and involving farm- ers about the problems of agricultural run-off. This partnership lead to the installment of waste treatment systems on many of the water- shed's dairy farms. The Soil Conservation Service and Cooperative Extension Service provided design specifications, technical over- sight for installation, and financial assistance for the construction of these systems. EPA provided funding through the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to moni- tor the effectiveness of this effort. The Citizens for a Cleaner Tangipahoa continue to sponsor nonpoint source education programs. Meanwhile, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality is also working with the Louisiana State Department of Health and Hospitals to address septic tank and non-sew- ered community problems in the Tangipahoa watershed, and the State of Mississippi has begun to monitor the portion of the Tangipahoa within its borders for bacteria levels in an effort to document and control sources that may orig- inate in its State. Efforts to improve the Tangipahoa River will also be assisted by another local organiza- tion, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation that received Congressional funding to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Lake's basin, which includes the Tangipahoa watershed. Stakeholders Citizens for a Clean Tangipahoa Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service State of Mississippi U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Soil Conservation Service ------- Truckee River Watershed Protection Project The Truckee River travels through a desert ecosystem while transporting water from Lake Tahoe, California, into the saline Pyramid Lake in Nevada. The Truckee River headwa- ters arise in the Sierra Nevada mountains of eastern California and western Nevada at the outlet of oligotrophic Lake Tahoe, and the River drains approximately 3,060 square miles in its 140 mile course. The upstream area is mostly mountainous alpine forest, the middle area is dominated by meadows and significant geothermal springs, and the lower watershed is predominantly desert. The flow of the Truckee River is highly regulated with most of the river water fully allocated via water rights. Lake Tahoe and Boca, Prosser, Martis, and Stampede Reservoirs supply water to those with water rights. Stampede Reservoir is also used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to induce spawning of the endangered fish, cui-ui, and to provide drought relief. Below the cities of Reno and Sparks, Nevada, approximately one- third of the river flow is diverted via dam to Lahontan Valley to irrigate alfalfa and pastures. The watershed also supports the resort commu- nities surrounding Lake Tahoe, the greater met- ropolitan area of Reno and Sparks, and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Reservation. Key land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, mining, skiing, fishing, and hunting. Environmental Threats The Truckee River suffers from water quality degradation caused by nutrients and sediment loadings and the diversion of water from the river to irrigation projects. Poor water quality, including elevated temperatures, dete- riorates the aquatic habitat, including the threatened and endangered fish species habitat. Actions The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe has taken numerous legal actions over the last 100 years to obtain legal compensation for the adverse impacts resulting from the diversion to Lahontan Valley. Lake elevations have dropped 80 feet, thereby restricting fish access for spawning. The Tribe also pressed for efforts to reduce pollutant loadings, to amelio- rate elevated water temperatures, and to restore the water course. EPA initiated the Truckee, River Strategy to end litigation, and Senator Reid of Nevada facilitated a negotiated settle- ment accord through public law. EPA coordi- nates different program activities and agencies to focus restoration efforts on the Truckee River Strategy, a holistic watershed restoration program. In particular, EPA provides grant assistance to Native American tribes to assess problems, to develop a water quality model, and to implement both nonpoint and point source controls. EPA also oversees and approves the development of State water quali- ty standards, Total Maximum Daily Loads, and stormwater and treatment works permits. Stakeholders California's environmental agencies Citizens and environmental groups Nevada's environmental agencies Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Reno and Sparks municipal governments U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washoe County, Nevada ------- Upper Arkansas River Watershed Initiative At more than 13,000 feet above sea level, the Arkansas River originates in the Pike-San Isabel National Forest near Colorado's Continental Diyide. Formed by snow melt, the Upper Arkansas flows south through magnificent mountain scenery before turning east to follow a steep gorge on its way to the high plains of eastern Colorado. The Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative defines the Upper Arkansas watershed as the basin from the headwaters to Pueblo Dam at the edge of the high plains. The Upper Arkansas River flows through portions of two ecoregions: the Southern Rockies and Southwestern Tablelands, with the majority of the upper watershed in the mountainous Southern Rockies ecoregion. This region is character- ized by steep slopes that are prone to erosion, especially during the runoff season. The vege- tation communities shift from tundra to conif- erous forests dominated by Englemann spruce and sub-alpine fir, grading into Douglas fir, Lodgepole pine, and finally open stands of Ponderosa pine at lower to middle elevations. Environmental Threats In the Upper Arkansas River watershed, the principal human-related stressors are asso- ciated with past mining practices, erosion of rangeland, loss of riparian and wetland areas, and hydrologic modification. Drainage and runoff from abandoned hard rock mines and mine tailings contribute significant loads of heavy metals and contaminated sediments to the river's mainstem and a number of tribu- taries in the upper basin. Agricultural practices have increased erosion on large areas of upland rangeland, and the cumulative effect on water resources has been aggravated through loss of riparian and wetland areas along many tribu- taries and portions of the mainstem. Consequently, stream bank erosion contributes large amounts of sediment to the river system, eliminating aquatic and wildlife habitat and altering channel stability. The river also serves as a transport system for large water diversions from the west side of the Continental Divide. The overall consequences of this hydrological modification to aquatic life and channel stabili- ty are unknown; however, there are channel effects in the headwater tributary streams. Actions Many State and Federal agencies are involved in a wide range of activities in the basin. In 1989 a technical workshop brought all people conducting research in the Upper Arkansas basin together to inform each other of their work, discuss specific questions, and develop recommenda.tions for further research in the basin. The overarching finding from this forum was that coordination among agencies had to be improved. At the same time, researchers from the EPA developed a pro- posed management plan for research that would lead to a comprehensive understanding and remediation of water quality impacts from human disturbances, principally hard rock min- ing. The ongoing work, the workshop, and the management plan helped generate enthusiasm for more cooperative efforts and culminated in a Memorandum of Understanding among the Colorado Departments of Health and Natural Resources; the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and EPA, which, among other things, set a self- reproducing brown trout fishery as their bio- logical remediation goal for the river. Recognizing the need for better and more effective coordination of its responsibili- ties, EPA formed a Regional Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative Team in 1992. The Team, which includes representatives from a broad range of EPA programs, established as its mis- sion, the goal of "integrating the Region's water resources1 assessment and management programs and expertise to guide the develop- ment and implementation of a watershed pro- tection strategy for the Upper Arkansas Basin," and the Team set out specific objectives for achieving that goal. ------- There are a number of current and future remediation activities already underway or planned, such as nonpoint source projects at an abandoned mining site along Chalk Creek and on rangeland along Badger Creek. These pro- jects have already provided noteworthy lessons. For example, the Chalk Creek partici- pants discovered the importance of and meth- ods for fully characterizing the hydrogeology of mining sites before beginning remediation - techniques and lessons that are being trans- ferred to other similar sites. Several recently constructed metal treatment facilities will con- trol two major point source discharges to the river, with an expected significant reduction in metals load to the mainstem of the river. Local citizen participation is also under- way in the watershed. A local Resource Conservation and Development Council, with EPA funding support, recently hired a local teacher to serve as the on-site watershed coor- dinator for the Initiative. The on-site coordina- tor will foster cooperation among various stakeholders, solicit ideas for the strategy, and develop a public outreach program for the Initiative. A volunteer monitoring program, with strong participation by local high schools, is active in the basin. This program was devel- oped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and based on its success in the Arkansas basin, the program is being implemented statewide. Stakeholders ASARCO Cities of Leadville, Buena Vista, Salida, and Canon City Colorado Association of Conservation Districts Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Riparian Association * Colorado State Engineer's Office Colorado State Soil Conservation Board Friends of the Arkansas Irrigation companies Lake County Conservation District Sangre de Cristo Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District The Nature Conservancy Upper Arkansas River Recreation Task Force U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency * U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Soil Conservation Service ------- Upper Tennessee River Basin The Upper Tennessee River Basin, which contains the Clinch, Powell, and Holston Rivers, is located in Virginia and sup- ports more than twenty Federally endangered and over 130 globally rare species, including mussels, fish, mammals, plants, and other invertebrates. In addition, there are more than 50 species endemic to the area. The Nature Conservancy recognized this area as an inter- national riverine conservation initiative through its Last Great Places program. The watershed, characterized by karst topography, contains a vast network of caves and sunholes that directly link ground and sur- face waters. The local economy of this rural and forested area is poor, based on a single industry, coal mining. Environmental Threats A complex array of threats could signifi- cantly impact water quality, including point source pollution, catastrophic spills, nonpoint source pollution from agriculture and urban development, and coal mining. The quantities and sources of threats are poorly understood and the specific environmental effects, particu- larly on aquatic organisms, remain mostly undocumented. Actions The Nature Conservancy launched its Clinch Valley Bioreserve hi 1969 to address the protection of the rare species. Interest in the watershed increased as life history studies of mussels by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documented their decline. Declines in the health and numbers of mussels prompted initiation of creative answers based on the interconnected nature of the water dependent resources. This effort was further supported by the Virginia Division of Soil and Water, which described many of the hydrologic units in the watershed as high prior- ities for nonpoint source pollution potential. Watershed-wide quantification of sources of threats led to the adoption of riparian and karst conservation programs as well as the develop- ment of new partnerships. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, the Nature Conservancy, and the Virginia Division of Soil and Water are now working together to reduce nonpoint sources of pollu- tion to the rivers. The Virginia Water Control Board placed a ban on halogen-based sewage treatment systems in endangered species waters, which includes most of the watershed, and has adopted stricter standards for parame- ters such as copper in the Clinch River. The Nature Conservancy has completed a 5-year strategic plan for the watershed and is commit- ted to ecosystem protection in the area. All partners will continue to implement nonpoint source pollution prevention tech- niques.. EPA will act as facilitator for the part- nership infrastructure by bringing its water pro- grams to bear in one geographic area. This watershed protection effort, and other related projectsEcological Risk Assessment and Mid-Atlantic Highland projectswill solidify partnerships throughout the watershed. Stakeholders Local governments State Water Control Board The Nature Conservancy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation Virginia Tech ------- Upper Tensas River Watershed Project As part of the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain, the Upper Tensas River watershed was once dominated by bottomland hardwoods. Today as much as 85 percent of the landscape has been converted to other uses, primarily agriculture, and consists mainly of ridges and swales. Wetlands generally occur as backwater depressional areas, old scour channels, and old river cutoffs. Environmental Threats According to 1987 land use statistics, bottomland hardwood forest in the Tensas Basin has decreased from about 2.5 million acres to 387,790 acres, an 85 percent decline. This has resulted in forest fragmentation, iso- lating small patches of non-contiguous forest. Further, agricultural fields in the basin typically extend to the stream edge. In 1987, only 14.7 percent of all streams in the Tensas Basin remained bordered by bottomland hardwood forest. As a result of land use conversion, water quality in the basin is poor. Total phosphorus levels exceed the EPA-recommended maxi- mum concentration in 96 percent of the sam- ples taken. Total suspended solids (TSS) loads in the basin were also measurably high, partic- ularly during storm events. The high TSS val- ues are a consequence of forest clearing and the highly erodible soils that are found in the Tensas Basin. Additionally, the Louisiana black bear, a federally listed threatened species, lives in the basin. Actions Recent wetland regulatory events and the growing awareness of the environmental prob- lems threatening the river led the public, espe- cially the agricultural community, to become involved in actions to protect the Upper Tensas River watershed. At the same time, Federal and State agencies recognized the need for col- laborative action given their shrinking budgets. The Northeast Delta Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Board formed a 14- member Environmental Committee represent- ing a broad range of special interests within the Tensas Basin. This committee will inform the RC&D Council on environmental issues and concerns throughout the local parishes. The EPA, Soil Conservation Service, the Nature Conservancy, RC&D, and local Soil and Water Conservation District provided funding for an onsite project coordinator. The coordinator will serve as a direct link between the RC&D and the various agencies and groups that make up the Technical Steering Committee, which consists of representatives from all of the active agencies. This organizational structure is designed to reduce duplication of effort, increase public Understanding of various Federal and State laws pertaining to wetlands and water quality, improve communication between partners and land users, target fund- ing for coordinated restoration and protection projects, and serve as a model for other States along the Mississippi Valley. The Louisiana Department of Environ- mental Quality currently has a State grant to document the Tensas Watershed Protection Approach. As part of this grant, special pro- jects, such as public outreach and GIS informa- tion gathering, support the overall effort. Also, the USDA is developing a river basin study tar- geting wetlands and water quality. The USDA will work with EPA's research laboratory in Corvallis to apply the "synoptic approach" to wetlands risk assessment in the basin. Stakeholders Farm Bureau LA Association of Conservation Districts LA Cooperative Extension Service LA Department of Agriculture and Forestry LA Department of Environmental Quality LA Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Louisiana State University National Assoc. of Conservation District Northeast Delta Resource Conservation and Development Board The Nature Conservancy U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Soil Conservation Service U.S. Forest Service Tensas River Upper Watershed ------- Waquoit Bay Land-Margin Ecosystems Project Waquoit Bay is a shallow coastal bay on the southern shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The bay and its watershed encompass an area of approximately 20 square miles. The site is ideal for examining land use impacts on an estuary since the subwatersheds draining into the bay exhibit different degrees of urbanization and forestation and since many characteristics of the bay have been document- ed by previous research because of the bay's proximity to research institutions at Woods Hole. In addition, as a designated National Oceanic and Atmospheric [Administration National Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit Bay provides a setting that fosters conserva- tion, research, and public outreach activities. Environmental Threats There is good historical evidence that the bay's waters are steadily becoming enriched with nitrogen and that water 'quality, eel grass beds, and the existing shellfishery are declining as indicated by an accompanying increase in fish kills and mats of macroalgae. Actions As a result of these disturbing trends, the EPA and the National Science Foundation began the Waquoit Bay Land-Margin Ecosystems Research Project. The primary goal of the project is to determine the relation- ship between land use and water quality. Land uses and nutrient loadings are being character- ized; physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring in the bay and surrounding subwatersheds are being determined; and a geographical information system (GIS) and a variety of models are being developed to understand the links between land use and impacts observed in Waquoit Bay. Research results to date are being fed into an easy-to-use management model that calculates steady state nitrogen loading rates for various scenarios. The initial version of this management model was tested in fall 1992 by a variety of potential users, including the town planners from the towns in which Waquoit Bay is'located, planners from other Cape Cod towns, and. planners from the Cape Cod Commission, the regional planning authority with regulatory powers. This and other extensive reviews will ensure that the model be more than locally applicable since nitrogen loading is a pervasive problem along much of the East Coast. Stakeholders Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod Cape Cod Commission Citizens for the Protection of Waquoit Bay Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Science Foundation Towns ofFalmouth and Mashpee U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Geological Survey Universities - Boston University - Hampshire College - Smith College - University of Southern California - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 52 ------- West Maul Watershed Protection Project Maui is a Hawaiian island formed by volcanic activity in the Pacific Ocean that is a popular tourist attraction. The West Maui Watershed is actually a series of small water- sheds along a 16-mile stretch of coast between Olowalu and Kapalua. The topography is very steep; for example, 5 miles from shore, there is one peak that is 5,788 feet high. Along this stretch of coast, the West Maui mountains are deeply incised by over 24 streams. To the south, the streams are perennial. To the north, the drier side of the island, the streams become annual. Rainfall in the mountains can be more than 400 inches annually. A freshwater lens resting on top of a salt water aquifer underlies the watershed. The freshwater aquifer occa- sionally extends seaward of the shoreline and causes fresh water seeps. Rainforest covers the upper reaches of these watersheds. At the base of these moun- tains, residents cultivate sugar cane and pineapple on the steeply sloping plains. Over time urban development consisting of resorts, condominiums, and golf courses has been replacing agricultural land along the coast. Environmental Threats In 1988 the west coast of Maui began to suffer massive macroalgal (seaweed) blooms that have killed reefs through smothering and threatened Maui's tourist industry, because the decomposing algae along the beach raised pub- lic health concerns. In the nutrient-poor waters of Hawaii, nutrient inputs from agriculture, golf courses, and sewage injection wells appear to be the likely cause of the algal blooms. Actions The algal problem was first brought to EPA's attention by four Congressional inquiries in the fall of 1991. EPA responded by forming an EPA Maui Algae Team to coordinate with the State of Hawaii's Department of Health. This partnership drafted a strategy to mitigate the algal problem. The strategy is basically a comprehensive watershed management plan focusing on nutrient source controls within the watershed. EPA is also working with the Hawaii Department of Health, the County of Maui, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on studies regard- ing the linkage between sewage injection wells and the ocean and source controls. Through this effort, the Mayor of Maui publicly committed to increased water recla- mation and canceled plans for new sewage injection wells. Stakeholders Hawaii Department of Health Local sugar and tourist industries Maui County National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ------- ------- Watershed Protection Approach Funding Matrix The watershed protection approach fund- ing matrix is intended to assist project man- agers by providing a broad perspective on EPA's Office of Water funds which potentially could be applied to watershed activities. It also delineates the specific applications of those funds. It is important to note that this informa- tion may become outdated as the result of changes in budget levels and/or priorities. This matrix was developed by EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW), but relies heavily on a table devel- oped by EPA Region I that describes funding resources for state water programs. OWOW would like to thank Region I's Bill Nuzzo as well as the people in Headquarters and the Regions who have reviewed the various drafts of this document. * Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number. Funding Source* Section 106 Water Pollution Control [66.419] Section 604(b) Title VI set- aside Water Quality Man- agement Planning [66.454] Section 603(d) Revolving Fund Title VI set- aside [66.458] Section 3 19(h) Nonpoint Source Implementation [66.458] Funding Purpose/ Eligible Recipients ihllHillfliltfiilliflllH To administer programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. State and interstate agencies, Indian tribes. To carry out water quality management planning. State agencies (Planning activities shall involve local, regional, and interstate entities.) Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund State agencies Implementation of nonpoint source management program. State designated lead NFS agencies. (In developing and implementing a management program, a state shall, to the maximum extent practicable, involve local public and private agencies.) Allocation Method/ Conditions/ Limitations State targets determined by national formula. Level of Effort (LOE) required. 1% of Title VI funds appropriated; $100,000 minimum per state. 40% pass-through to Regional Public Comprehensive Planning Organizations (RPCPOs)/ Interstate Organizations (IDs). Eligible Activities (Examples) Prevention and abatement of sur- face and ground water pollution (permitting, pollution control studies, water quality planning, sampling and monitoring, enforcement, assistance to localities, training, and public information). Funds can be used to determine the nature, extent, and causes of water quality problems. Funds can be used in identifying cost effective and locally acceptable facility and nonpoint measures to meet and maintain water quality standards and develop an implementation plan to obtain state and local financial and regulatory commitments to implement such measures. Up to 4% of capitalization grant Administering the SRF program; amount may be used for financial assistance to any administering the SRF. municipality, intermunicipal, Part of capitalization grant - not interstate, or state agency for a separate grant. construction of publicly owned 1-Mi irr 11 . ji. ^ i treatment works. Title VI allocated by national formula. Regional targets based on formula including State targets and competitive pool. Approved NPS assessment and management program required. Maintenance of Effort (MOE) and 40% match required. Administrative costs are limited to 10% of the amount of the grant. States may use funds from grants made pursuant to this Section for financial assistance to persons only to the extent that such assistance is related to the cost of demonstration projects. Section 319(h) awards fund implementation of approved NPS Management Programs, and can be targeted at particular watersheds. Activities can include post- implementation monitoring. A portion of 319(h) grants may be used for ground water assessment as part of an approved comprehensive NPS pollution control program. Funding Available ($ Million) FY-93 81.7 FY-92 81.7 FY-91 81.7 FY-93 20.1 FY-92 19.5 FY-91 20.5 FY-93 80.5 FY-92 77.9 FY-91 81.9 FY-93 50.0 FY-92 52.5 FY-91 51.0 ------- Funding Source Funding Purpose/ Eligible Recipients Allocation Method/ Conditions/ Limitations Eligible Activities (Examples) Funding Available ($ Million) Section 320(g) National Estuary Program [66.456] Development of comprehensive conservation and management plans for specific estuaries. State, interstate, and regional water pollution control agencies, state coastal zone management agencies, interstate agencies, other public or non-profit private organi- zatipns, individuals. Funds allocated by formula. Limited to specific estuaries. Grants Shall not exceed 75% of the costs of research, survey, studies, and work necessary for the development of CCMPs. The non-Federal share of such costs must be provided from non-Federal sources. Planning activities in designated estuaries; implementation precluded by Section 320. FY-93 15.2 FY-92 15.2 FY-91 15.2 Near Coastal Waters [66.464] Improving the environ- mental conditions of near coastal waters. State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or non-profit agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals. Assistance awards (i.e. grants and cooperative agreements) using jNCW funds require a minimum of 5% non-Federal match. Grants awarded under Section 104(b)(3). Implement watershed approach for coastal areas. NCW funds can be used to develop and implement regional strategies that target geographic areas. Activities include: identification of problems, identification of appropriate participants, and strategy implementation. FY-93 FY-92 3.4 FY-91 4.1 State Wetlands Program [66.461] Grant funds can be used to either (1) develop new wetlands programs or (2) refine existing wetland protection programs. State agencies adminis- tering or developing wetland protection pro- grams, State agencies with wetlands-related programs, and Federally- recognized Indian Tribes. States will be expected to provide at least a 25% match for the Federal funds awarded through this program. Grants awarded under Section 104(b)(3). State Wetland Conservation Plans, State Section 404 Assumption Assistance, Watershed Protection Approach Demonstration Projects, incorporating wetlands into Section 401 Programs, streamlining state regulatory programs. (Projects must clearly demonstrate a direct link to increasing a state's ability to protect its wetland resources.) FY-93 10.0 FY-92 8.5 FY-91 5.0 Assessment and Watershed Protection Support Assessment and watershed protection support activities can include all levels of government and private organizations. Funds availability determined annually. Grants in this program are made underi the authority of CWA Section 104(b)(3). Resources may also be used for lAGs and contract support. FY 1992 guidance highlights watershed planning priorities, including 303(d), general support for watershed approach projects, and Region-wide geographic targeting. FY 1992 guidance emphasizes support for monitoring program priorities, including 305(b) process environmental indicators. FY-93 2 FY-92 0.6 Water Quality Cooperative Agreements Section 104(b)(3) [66.463] Unique investigations, special one-time studies, pilots and demonstrations to implement NPDES- related activities. State water pollution control agencies, inter- state agencies, other public or non-profit agencies, institutions, organizations and individuals. Regional targets based on formula. No state funding targets. Regional selection of projects. No match required. 1- to 2-year demonstration-type projects. Not for continuing program operation. Support implementation of NPDES program: combined sewer overflow/stormwater discharge control programs (develop stormwater permit program, develop and implement BMPs for stormwater, demonstration of innovative CSO controls, development of permit conditions for CSO systems). FY-93 16.5 FY-92 16.5 FY-91 16.5 56 * Total Regional allocation ofFY93 Near Coastal Waters funds has not yet been determined, pending final operating plan. 2 Total Regional allocation 0/FY93 Assessment & Watershed Protection funds has not yet been determined, pending final operating plan. ------- Funding Funding Source Regional Initiatives Wetlands Protection Program Section 3 14(b) Clean Lakes [66.435] Congressional Appropriation Add-Ons Section 104(g) Operator Training Funding Purpose/ Eligible Recipients No limitations on potential participants. Wetlands protection activ- ities can involve other Federal agencies, state agencies, and local groups, including agricultural groups. To prepare identification and classification surveys of all publicly-owned lakes; to establish methods & procedures to control sources of pollution and restore the quality of such lakes. Grants are provided to states. (Historically, par- ticipants in Clean Lakes projects have represented various levels of both public and private sectors.) No limitations on potential participants. Participants are often determined by appropriation language. To provide an adequate supply of trained person- nel to operate and main- tain existing and future treatment works. State and interstate agencies, municipalities, and educational institutions. Allocation Method/ Conditions/ Limitations A relatively new process allowing Regions to develop individual initiatives within the framework of the annual budget process. Grants in this program can be made under the authority of CWA Section 104(b)(3). Resources may also be used for lAGs and contract support. 30% match for Phase I -diag- nostic/feasibility. (Not to exceed $100,000.) 50% match for Phase n restoration, assessment. (Priority consideration given to projects that show a commitment to program integration.) 30% match for Phase ffl - post- restoration monitoring. (Not to exceed $125,000.) Appropriations language may or may not impose specific restrictions on how resources may be spent (e.g. through grants, contracts, etc.). State allocation by performance. Congressional add-on to budget. 25% match required. Eligible Activities Available (Examples) ($ Million) All phases of a watershed FY-93 4.0 protection project can be supported. Funds can be used to provide FY-93 ^ technical assistance on effective FY-9? 4 ? river corridor/watershed management planning. Wetlands protection funds can be used for activities involving targeted watersheds such as advance identification, targeted Section 404 enforcement actions and education/outreach programs. Funds can be used for Section 404 compliance monitoring programs for specific priority watersheds. Lake Water Quality Assessment FY-93 4.0 (LWQA) funds are to compile a FY-92 7 0 comprehensive, statewide assessment of lake water quality, to enhance overall state lake management programs and to increase public awareness and commitment to preserving lakes. Diagnostic/Feasibility Study funds are provided to perform a comprehensive study of a partic- ular lake and its watershed. Funds can be used to evaluate possible solutions and recommend restora- tion and protection methods. (Phase I) Restoration/Protection Implemen- tation Project funds are provided to implement recommended in- lake techniques and watershed management practices. (Phase II) Post-Restoration Monitoring funds are provided to determine effectiveness of various restoration techniques. (Phase III) No limitations on potential FY-93 46.9 4 activities. Activities are generally determined by appropriations language. Training projects, technical FY-93 0.8 assistance for publicly owned FY-92 2 0 treatment works operators. 57 Total Regional allocation ofFY93 Wetlands Protection funds has not yet been determined, pending final operating plan. OW AC&C Add-ons. (Does not include Congressional add-ons for Clean Lakes and NFS Grants.) ------- Funding Source Funding Purpose/ Eligible Recipients Allocation Method/ Conditions/ Limitations Eligible Activities (Examples) Funding Available ($ Million) Section 104(g) Small Community Outreach Incentive grants to develop or expand small community outreach programs. State agencies, nonprofit agencies, universities, water research institutes, Indian tribes. Regional allocation. Competition within Region. 50% match of the requested Federal amount. Intended to encourage the establishment or enhancement of state small community outreach programs. FY-93 0.2 FY-92 0.0 FY-91 0.15 Safe Drinldng Water Act Mill Section 1443(a)(l) Public Water System Supervision [66.432] To carry out public water system supervision programs. State agencies, Indian tribes. State targets determined by national formula. States must have primacy. 25% match required. Public water system supervision; state drinking water programs (program costs, technical assistance, lab capability, enforcement, data management). FY-93 58.9 FY-92 50.0 FY-91 47.8 Section 1443(b) Underground Injection Control [66.433] To carry out underground injection control program. State agencies, Indian tribes. State targets determined by national formula. States must have primacy. 25% match required. Underground injection control programs (program costs, inventories, data management, technical assistance). FY-93 10.5 FY-92 10.5 FY-91 10.5 Section 1442(b) Wellhead Protection (WHP) Demonstration projects aimed at assisting municipalities to design and implement a wellhead protection program. Municipalities, as defined under the SDWA, meaning cities, towns, or other public bodies created by or pursuant to state law, or Indian tribes. Regional allocation. Competitive process within Region. 5% match required. Delineation of WHP areas; identifying sources of contamination; public education; development of ordinances for WHP; WHP contamination source surveys; GIS mapping of WHP FY-93 0.0 FY-92 1.5 FY-91 1.5 ------- For more information on EPA's involvement in watershed activities in your area, contact the appropriate Regional contact listed below. Region 1 (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT) Bill Nuzzo (617) 565-3480 U.S. EPA, Region 1 JFK Federal Building Boston, MA 02203 Region 2 (NY, NJ, PR, VI) RickBalla (212)264-5671 Janice Rollwagen (National Estuary Programs) (212) 264-5170 U.S. EPA, Region 2 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278 Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV) VickiBinetti (215)597-6511 Rich Pepino (215) 597-1181 U.S. EPA, Region 3 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN) Meredith Anderson (404) 347-2126 Charles Sweatt (205) 386-2614 U.S. EPA, Region 4 345 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30365 Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI) DougEhorn (312)886-0243 U.S. EPA, Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 Region 6 (AR, LA, MM, OK, TX) Russell Bowen (214) 655-7140 Beverly Ethridge (214) 655-2263 U.S. EPA, Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202 Region 7 (IO, KS, MO, NE) Larry Ferguson (913)551-7447 Kerry Herndon (913) 551-7286 Donna Sefton (913) 551-7500 U.S. EPA, Region 7 726 Minnesota Avenue . Kansas City, KS 66101 Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) BiUWuerthele (303)293-1586 U.S. EPA, Region 8 999 18th Street Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202-1603 Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, GU, AS) CatKuhlman (415)744-2001 U.S. EPA, Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA) John Armstrong (206) 553-1368 U.S. EPA, Region 10 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 For general information on EPA's watershed protection approach, contact: Policy and Communications Staff Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-9108 ------- *£&» * . >.»-,. »** tyEsjsyjaii *s».i*m>*'^'*e> Printed on recycled paper ------- |