United States
           Environmental Protection
               Office of Water
January 1993
The Watershed Protection
Annual Report  1992
                                           An Integrated, Holistic Approach •


  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.

The Watershed Protection Approach: Annual Report

     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

     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

     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

     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
 • 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

     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

     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

      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
 • Coastal Society 13th Annual International
 • 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

      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

     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

     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

     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

     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-

     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

      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

      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

      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

      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
            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.

Activities in  the Field
      How are EPA's Regions
      adopting watershed
      This section highlights various methods
being used by Regional offices to foster water-
shed protection.  These Regional activities are
largely experimental and provide valuable

      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

      Regional—State 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
territories—New 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

      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

      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
 • Obtaining funding
 • Effecting change.


      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

      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 watershed—such 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

     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
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
 Bear Lake Regional
 Bear River Resource
 Conservation and
 Development Council
 Idaho Division of
 Environmental Quality
 Idaho Fish and Game
 Local citizen groups
 Utah Department of
 Environmental Quality
 Utah Division of Water
 Utah Division of Wildlife
 Utah Power and Light
 U.S. Bureau of Land
 U.S. Bureau of
 U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
 U.S. Forest Service
 U.S. Soil Conservation
 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.


     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
      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.


      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.


 • 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.


     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.


      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.

 • 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.


      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

     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


 • Casco  Bay National Estuary Program
 • League of Women Voters of Maine
 • Maine's Department of Environmental
 • 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.


     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.


 • Adams County
 • 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

                             Coeur D'Alene Basin Restoration Project
• 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
* Local citizens
• Mining interest
* Panhandle Health
• Shoshonc County
• Three soil conservation
• Timber interests
• U.S. Bureau of Indian
• U.S. Bureau of Land
• U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife
• U.S. Forest Service
• U.S. Geological Survey
• U.S. Soil Conservation
• 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.


      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

      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
  • Superfund program long-term activities
  • Superfund program short-term actions
  • 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
     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.


     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.


 • County Department of Economic
 • Local drainage district
 • Oregon Department of Agriculture
 • Oregon Department of Environmental
 • Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
 • Oregon Department of Forestry
 • Soil Conservation District
 • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                              Flint Creek Project

• Alabama Cooperative
  Extension Service
• Alalwma Department
  of Agriculture and
• Alabama Department
  of Environmental
• Alabama Department
  of Public Health
• Alabama Forestry
• Alabama Geological
• Alabama Soil and
  Water Consen-ation
• Morgan County Sheriff
  Department (Litter
  Control Officer)
• Morgan, Lawrence,
  and Collman County
  Soil and Water
  Conservation District
• Tennessee Valley
• Tennessee Valley
  Resource Consen-ation
  and Development
• U.S. Depart, of
  U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency
  U.S. Fish and Wildlife
  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.


      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
           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-
                                             Flint Creek
                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.


      Developed in  September 1990, the
Northwest Indiana Action Plan currently
guides EPA and the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management.  Its objectives

  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
   4) Launch a broad pollution prevention
      initiative with local industries and
      municipalities as a supplement to Federal

   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.

• Indiana Department of
• 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
• U.S. Soil Conservation

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.


      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.


 • Hillsdale Reservoir Watershed Committee
 • Johnson County
 • Kansas Conservation Commission
 • Kansas Department of Health and
 • 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

Lake Champlain Basin Initiative
      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.


     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.


 • Academics
 • Agricultural representatives - Soil and
   Water Conservation Districts, Farm Bureau,
 • 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
 • 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
 • 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.


     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.


 • Boise Cascade, Kettle Falls
 • British Columbia Ministry of the
 • 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
• 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.


       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.


      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.


 • Academic organizations
 • Agricenter International
 • Agricultural
 • All interests related to
  water/habitat quality
  within Gulf of Mexico
 • Conservation
 • Cultural heritage
 • 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.

 • Citizen groups
 • Connecticut Department of Environmental
 • Interstate Sanitation Commission
 • Local governments
 • National Oceanic and Atmospheric
 • 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-


                          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-


 • California Regional Water Quality Control
 • 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

  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

  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.

      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

 • 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
                   	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.


                          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

     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.

     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.


 • Cal Poly — San Luis Obispo
 • California Regional Water Quality Control
 • 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.
    • 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  York—New Jersey Harbor
	 The New York—New Jersey Harbor
Complex consists of the New York Bight Apex
north of  the Sandy  Hook—Rockaway
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 York—New 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 York—New
 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.


     This watershed effort provides a frame-
work for coordinating activities in two ongoing
related programs, the New York—New 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.
      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.

 •• Arizona Department of Environmental
  • Arizona Department of Transportation
  • Local county government
  • Local environmental groups and
 • 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


 • Citizen groups
 • Interstate Sanitation Commission
 • Local governments
 • National Oceanic and Atmospheric
 • 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

 • City of Syracuse
 • New York
   Department of Law
 • New York State
   Department of
 • Onondaga County
 • U.S. Army Corps of
 • 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


       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

       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
      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.


     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-

     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.


 • Environmental advocacy groups
 • Lancaster County Conservation District
 • Lancaster County Planning Commission
 * Local consulting firms
 • Local farmers
 • Pennsylvania Agronomic Products
 • Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
 • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
 • 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.


                           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-

     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

                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
 • Support for coordinator positions within
     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.
 « Environmental, agricultural and
  recreational organizations
 • Federal agricultural and natural resource
 • Industries and utilities
 • Local agricultural and natural resource
 • Nebraska Department of Environmental
 • Regional and local governments
 • State agricultural and natural resource
 • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
 • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Geological Survey

                      Pocono Partnership for Better Environmental Planning

 • County
 • Economic
  Council of NE PA
 • Pocono Chamber
  of Commerce
  (Pocono Plan)
 • Pocono NE
 • Resource
   Conservation and
  Development Board
 • Three county
  • 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

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
     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

      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.


                                  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.


                                             • Coastal Conservancy
                                             • Local landowners, sand and gravel mining
                                               operations, and environmental
                                             • 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
      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.


      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

 • California
  Department of Fish
  and Game
 • California Regional
  Water Quality
  Control Board
 • Camp Pendleton
  Marine Base
 • County and
 • Local conservation
  and environmental
  groups and local
 • National Park
 • 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.
       Savannah River
                     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
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-
 • 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
 • Fishery impacts due to poor water quality
   — e.g., striped bass, endangered short-nose
 •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.


      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

 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.

 • Georgia Conservancy
 • Georgia Department of Natural Resources
 • Georgia Environmental Protection Division
 • Georgia Ports Authority
 • Local government, consultants, and industry
 • National Oceanic and Atmospheric
 • 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

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.


      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


 • Citizens for a Clean Tangipahoa
 • Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
 • Louisiana Department of Environmental
 • Louisiana Department of Health and
 • 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.
     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.


 • 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.


     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.

 • Cities of Leadville, Buena Vista, Salida, and
   Canon City
 • Colorado Association of Conservation
 • Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
 • Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor
 • 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
 • The Nature Conservancy
 • Upper Arkansas River Recreation Task
 • 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


     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
projects—Ecological Risk Assessment and
Mid-Atlantic Highland projects—will solidify
partnerships throughout the watershed.


 • 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
 • 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

     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.


     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.


 • 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

                     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.


                          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.


 • Association for the Preservation of Cape
 • 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
 • 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

 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.


     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.


 • Hawaii Department of Health
 • Local sugar and tourist industries
 • Maui  County
 • National Oceanic and Atmospheric
 • 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.

Section 106
Water Pollution
Section 604(b)
Title VI set-
aside Water
Quality Man-
Section 603(d)
Revolving Fund
Title VI set-
aside [66.458]
Section 3 19(h)
Funding Purpose/
Eligible Recipients
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
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

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
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
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
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.
($ 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 Purpose/
  Eligible Recipients
     Allocation Method/
  Conditions/ Limitations
       Eligible Activities
($ Million)
         Section 320(g)
Development of
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
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
Assistance awards (i.e. grants
and cooperative agreements)
using jNCW funds require a
minimum of 5% non-Federal
                                                    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
FY-92  3.4
FY-91  4.1
         State Wetlands
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
Assessment and
watershed protection
support activities can
include all levels of
government and private
Funds availability determined
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
FY 1992 guidance emphasizes
support for monitoring program
priorities, including 305(b) process
environmental indicators.
FY-93 2
FY-92  0.6
         Water Quality
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
Regional targets based on
No state funding targets.
Regional selection of projects.
No match required.
1- to 2-year demonstration-type
Not for continuing program
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
                       * 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.




Section 3 14(b)
Clean Lakes


Section 104(g)

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

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
Allocation Method/
Conditions/ Limitations
A relatively new process
allowing Regions to develop
individual initiatives within the
framework of the annual budget
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
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

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 are generally determined
by appropriations language.

Training projects, technical FY-93 0.8
assistance for publicly owned FY-92 2 0
treatment works operators.

 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 Purpose/
  Eligible Recipients
     Allocation Method/
   Conditions/ Limitations
       Eligible Activities
($ Million)
 Section 104(g)
Incentive grants to
develop or expand small
community outreach
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
FY-93  0.2
FY-92  0.0
FY-91  0.15
Safe Drinldng Water Act

 Public Water
To carry out public water
system supervision
State agencies, Indian
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)
To carry out underground
injection control program.
State agencies, Indian
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)
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
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

        *£&» *
          . >.»-„,. »**
Printed on recycled paper