United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4501F)
EPA840-S-94-001
November 1994
vvEPA
The Watershed Protection
Approach
1993/94 Activity Report
-------
The shaded areas on the map depicted on the front and bade covers of this document represent the
approximatelocadonsof manyof the watershedprojectsdescribedin this document (descriptions begjn on
pag2l9). Theinfentofthemapistogivethereaderageneralideaof the geographic scope covered by these
prq|ed§;however,£hemapdoesnotshowall projects described in this document, and the boundaries are
not exact
-------
Introduction
The Nation's aquatic resources are among its most
valuable assets. Although significant strides have
been made in reducing the impacts of discrete pollut-
ant sources, these aquatic resources remain at risk.
Today's challenges include resolving significant and
complex pollution problems that come fromnonpoint
sources, maintaining safe drinking water supplies,
and protecting and restoring the health and integrity
of aquatic ecosystems. Since 1991, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) has been promoting
the watershed protection approach as a framework
for meeting these challenges. EPA's Office of Water
has taken steps to reorient and coordinate point
source, nonpoint source, lakes, wetlands, coastal,
ground water, and drinking water programs in sup-
port of the watershed approach. In addition, EPA is
promoting multi-organizational, multiobjective, wa-
tershed management projects across the nation. This
shift toward comprehensive watershed management
has helped lead the Agency toward a "place-based
approach" to environmental problem solving (see
Edgewater Consensus, p. 13).
What is the watershed protection approach?
The watershed protection approach is an inte-
grated, holistic strategy for more effectively restoring
and protecting aquatic resources. This approach
focuses on hydrologically defined drainage basins-
watershedsrather than on areas arbitrarily defined
by political boundaries. Thus, for a given watershed,
the approach encompasses not only the water re-
source, such as a stream, river, lake, estuary, or aqui-
fer, but all the land from which water drains to the
resource. To protect water resources, it is increas-
ingly important to address the condition of land areas
within the watershed because as water drains off the
land or leaches to the ground water it carries with it
the effects of human activities throughout the water-
shed.
The watershed protection approach is character-
ized as being action oriented, driven by broad envi-
ronmental objectives, and involving key stakehold-
ers. The three major cornerstones of the watershed
protection approach are:
1) Problem identification - Identify the primary
threats to humanandecosystemhealth within
the watershed.
2) Stakeholder involvement - Involve the people
most likely to be concerned or most able to
take action.
3) Integrated actions - Take corrective actions
in a comprehensive, integrated manner once
solutions are determined. Evaluate success
and refine actions, as necessary.
The watershed approach places emphasis on all
aspects of water quality: physical (e.g., temperature,
flow, mixing, habitat); chemical (e.g., conventional
and toxic pollutants such as nutrients and pesti-
cides); and biological (e.g., health and integrity of
biotic communities, biodiversity). The approach en-
compasses all waterssurface and ground, inland
and coastal.
EPA has established a five-pronged approach for
implementing the watershed protection approach.
The five elements of the approach are:
1) Try it - Initiate and carry out activities on a
watershed basis.
2) Advertise it - Promote the watershed protec-
tion approach using a variety of opportuni-
ties including conferences, newsletters, and
publications.
3) Integrate it - Align programs on a watershed
basis.
4) Develop tools for it - Provide technical assis-
tance that will facilitate implementation of
the watershed protection approach.
5) Measure it-Monitor success of implemented
solutions and make changes as necessary.
What is the purpose of this document?
This document provides a summary of activities
EPA has carried out in 1993 and 1994 to support the
watershed protection approach and a short discus-
sion on anticipated future directions. In addition,
summaries of watershed projects in which EPA is a
stakeholder are included.
-------
EPA is very committed to the watershed protec-
tion approach and has made great strides in 1993
and 1994 to further incorporate the watershed protec-
tion approach into its water programs and to facili-
tate watershed protection efforts outside of EPA.
This section is organized around the five elements
try it, advertise 5t, integrate it, develop tools for it, and
measure it of EPA's strategy for implementing the
watershed protection approach. For each element, a
summaryof accomplishments isprovided. Seepages
14 - 16 for a list of contacts for the activities and
publications described in this section and the Future
Activities section.
Try It
EPA is committed to trying the watershed pro-
tection approach in order to gain experience that can
guide future policy. The many projects in which EPA
nowparticipates area result of EPA's commitment to
trying it (see individual project descriptions begin-
ning on page 17). In addition, EPA's programs are
creating incentives to encourage watershed protec-
tion efforts by others. For example, EPA is targeting
many of its grants to assist in watershed projects.
These grants include Clean Water Act Section 104(b)
grants, Clean Water Act Section 319 grants, wetlands
grants, and total maximum daily load/nonpoint
source mini-grants.
Advertise It
To promote a broad understanding of the water-
shed protection concept, EPA is working to open,
improve, and maintain communication with poten-
tial stakeholders, including other federal agencies,
state and local governments, and nongovernmental
organizations. Selected efforts to advertise water-
shed protection are described below.
"Know Your Watershed" Campaign: In 1993, the Na-
tional Association of Conservation Districts' Conser-
vation Technology Information Center launched a
campaign to encourage rural and agricultural com-
munities to play an active role in managing their
watersheds. The "Know Your Watershed" Cam-
paign is building a national partnership of agricul-
tural commodity groups, farm organizations, farm
managers, agricultural retailers, industry, govern-
ment, and others to address the conservation of natu-
ral resources, watershed protection, and nonpoint
source pollution. EPA is a key participant in this
campaign.
Initial products include a brochure, Forming a
Watershed Alliance, that describes a watershed and
how human activities may adversely affect water
quality. It provides suggestions for starting a local
watershed alliance and implementing practices that
protect water quality. Three awareness scorecards
help landowners and others evaluate their knowl-
edge of watersheds and the environment: Scorecard
for Rural and Suburban Landowners, Scorecard for Farm-
ers and Ranchers, and Whatis Your Ecological Quotient?.
WATERSHED '93: This major conference held in
March 1993 brought together more than a thousand
professionals from, federal, state, and local agencies
and industrial, agricultural, environmental, and rec-
reational communities to share experiences and ex-
change information on watershed management. The
conference featured more than 150 speakers and
generated considerable momentum for watershed
management efforts. EPA, along with 12 other Fed-
eral agencies, several local government sponsors,
and numerous nongovernmental groups supported
this conference matt was developed and organized by
the Terrene Institute.
Watershed Events: EPA coordinates development and
production of this newsletter on watershed protec-
tion which, in 1994, expanded to an interagency
newsletter with contributing editors from eight fed-
eral agencies. Watershed Events provides its readers
with information on watershed projects around the
country, activities to support watershed protection,
new publications, and upcoming conferences. More
than 4,000 people receive the newsletter and circula-
tion continues to grow.
Rural Clean Water Program Review: Working with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), EPA di-
rected the review and evaluation of the 10-year Rural
Clean Water Program performed by North Carolina
State University. This comprehensive evaluation of
22 watershed projects resulted in a series of recom-
mendations and findings on a wide range of water-
shed project topics, including project planning, evalu-
ation, information and education, and producer par-
ticipation.
-------
1993/1994 EPA Activities
Clean Lakes Program Review: A Commitment to Water-
shed Protection: This review of the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram documents the program's success and explains
how lessons learned from it can be applied to other
management initiatives. Four principles form the
base for this success: local involvement and commit-
ment, state management, matching funds, and good
science.
Regional Meetings: All of EPA's Regions have held
watershed meetings at various levels. For example,
Region VII held a workshop to introduce regional
employees to watershed approach concepts and is-
sues and move the Region toward institutionalizing
the watershed approach. Region X provides another
example. Region X supported a conference that was
attended by over 1,000 people representing a variety
of watershed stakeholders. The purpose of the con-
ference, held from September 28-30, 1994, was to
identify approaches and strategies for effective wa-
tershed stewardship. The conference allowed par-
ticipants to share information about watershed tools,
technology, and philosophies and to build partner-
ships.
National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress:
This report is produced every two years and provides
a snapshot on the quality of the Nation's waters. In
1996, this report will contain significant new infor-
mation including additional biological and ecologi-
cal health information. The guidelines for 1996 in-
clude a strong recommendation that states report
water quality on a watershed basis.
Integrate It
EPA is striving to modify its programs to better
incorporate watershed protection. EPA is building
on its experience with its geographic initiatives (e.g.,
Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico) and pursuing op-
portunities to eliminate barriers and identify actions
to be taken to promote and support watershed pro-
grams within EPA and at the state and local level.
EPA is also playing an active role in legislative efforts
to reauthorize the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Examples of some of these
efforts to integrate programs are described below.
Geographic Initiatives
National Estuary Program (NEP): The NEP employs a
watershed approach for protection of estuarine wa-
ters and serves as an Agency model for promoting
ecosystem protection. Currently, there are 21 estuar-
ies in the NEP. The NEP emphasizes the importance
of promoting long-term involvement of all water-
shed stakeholders in local decision making. The ex-
periences gained and materials produced by the NEP
are extremely valuable to watershed managers. Sum-
maries of each of the 21 NEPs are included among the
individual project descriptions that begin on page 17.
Great Water Bodies: EPA has several well established
programs, including the Chesapeake Bay Program,
the Great Lakes Program, and the Gulf of Mexico
Program, that take a comprehensive, geographically
targeted approach. These programs are promoting
smaller scale watershed projects as an important part
of the overall effort to restore and protect the Nation's
Great Water Bodies.
For the Chesapeake Bay, nutrient .over-enrich-
ment is the biggest challenge facing the overall resto-
ration effort. To address this problem, in 1992, Penn-
sylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Co-
lumbia committed to set specific nutrient reduction
goals for each of the Bay's majqr tributaries and
develop individual tributary strategies to achieve
those goals as well as to protect and improve aquatic
habitats. The o. erall goal is to reduce controllable
nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the Bay by 40
percent. This goal translates into an annual reduction
of 74.1 million pounds for nitrogen and 8.43 million
pounds for phosphorus. These targets are to be
reached by the year 2000 and are based upon the 1985
base nutrient loada combination of the 1985 point
source discharges of nutrients and the average
nonpoint source discharge from 1984-1987. (See indi-
vidual project description on page 40 for more infor-
mation.)
The Gulf of Mexico Program includes the Gulf
Ecological Management Sites (GEMS) and the Mo-
bile Bay Restoration Demonstrations. The GEMS
project is currently identifying unique and important
areas throughout the Gulf that need to be managed or
protected to maintain their essential qualities. The
Gulf of Mexico Programhas recently initiated a project
to identify potential mechanisms that will ensure that
the areas selected as GEMS are managed in a way that
protects their intrinsic value. The Mobile Bay Dem-
onstrations are focusing on an ecosystem approach to
-------
1993/1994 EPA Activities
watershed environmental management. (See indi-
vidual project description on page 67 for more infor-
mation.)
For each of the five Great Lakes, the United States
and Canada have agreed to develop and implement
Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs). The primary
goal of a LaMP is to reduce both point and nonpoint
source loadings that are causing or have the potential
to cause beneficial use impairments. LaMPs also
emphasize pollution prevention and address other
stressors associated with beneficial use impairments
such as degradation and loss of habitat and threats to
protected species. A key element of each LaMP is the
integration of federal, state, provincial, and local
programs. Each LaMP includes the following stages:
Stage 1: Assess beneficial use impairments and
identify stressors;
Stage 2: Identify actions to reduce, eliminate,
or prevent beneficial use impairments;
and
Stage 3: Assess progress towards environmen-
tal goals.
EPA is working in partnership with the Great Lakes
states and public stakeholders to develop the LaMPs.
(See individual project descriptions for Lake Michi-
gan, page 78, and Lake Ontario, page 80, for more
information.)
In addition to the LaMPs, Remedial Action Plans
(RAPs) are being developed and implemented for the
43 specific Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great
Lakes region tha t have been designated by the United
States and or Canadian governments. The RAPs
address impairments to any one of 14 beneficial uses
(e.g., fish and wildlife consumption, navigation, or
drinking water consumption) associated with these
areas. A RAP is developed in three stages which are:
Stage I: Identify and assess use impairments
and identify the sources of the stresses
in the AOC;
Stage II: Identifyproposedremedialactionsand
their method of implementation; and
Stage III: Documentevidencethatuseshavebeen
restored.
The eight Great Lakes states and the Province of
Ontario have the lead in preparing and implement-
ing the RAPs. EPA provides oversight and technical
assistance. The input and expertise of other federal
agencies and organizations as well as local citizen
groups and individuals is also vital to the success of
the RAP process. The LaMPs provide a lakewide
framework for evaluating the effectiveness of RAP
efforts. (See individual project descriptions that be-
gin on page 17 for more information about a number
of AOCs.)
Clean Lakes Program: The Clean Lakes Program (CLP)
was established in 1972 and has been an important
model for the watershed protection approach and
ecosystem management. The CLP has taken a holis-
tic, place-based approach using sound science, in-
volving stakeholders, and forming partnerships for
comprehensive, integrated action to protect and re-
store lake resources in the Nation. Many tools have
been produced under the CLP which have wider
applicability. These tools include technical/guid-
ance documents,bioassessmentprotocols/biocriteria,
tracking systems, conferences, and outreach tool kits.
The CLP has established guidelines for watershed
protection, and funding was provided for a number
of watershed projects under the CLP in 1993-94, as
well as support of statewide lake assessment, volun-
teer monitoring, and lake enhancement programs for
states and tribes. Better integration of the CLP with
nonpoint source efforts, water quality management,
permitting, and other ecosystem protection efforts is
being implemented through the Clean Lakes Strategy
- New Directions for the Future. Through better inte-
gration, the CLP will increase its emphasis on pro-
tecting ecosystem health, aquatic habitat, and drink-
ing water supplies through pollution prevention.
Legislative Activities
President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative: This Initia-
tive presents the position the Administration took on
reauthorizing the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
Initiative included specific recommendations for
watershed management. Although the CWA was
not reauthorized during the 1994 session of Con-
gress, the Administration will work within its cur-
rent authorities to implement to the extent possible
the watershed recommendations.
The recommendations that will continue to be
pursued include empowering states and local gov-
ernments to practice comprehensive watershed man-
agement. Specifically, the Administration proposes
to guide and reward voluntary state programs for
comprehensive watershed management that would:
Delineate watershed boundaries.
Examine the condition of all watersheds and
identify the watersheds most in need of at-
tentionthose thatare impaired, threatened,
or in need of special protection.
-------
1993/1994 EPA Activities
Designate multidisciplinary, multiorgan-
izational, locally-based watershed manage-
ment teams and their lead agencies. Charge
those teams to:
- Establish environmental objectives,
which would include water quality
standards and other important envi-
ronmental goals.
- Identify the highest priority problems
in the watershed.
- Create and carry out action plans to
solve those problems.
- Revise their plans and actions, as
needed.
In addition, establishing incentives to reward
states that choose to implement a watershed program
will be explored. Possible incentives include oppor-
tunities to tailor or target nonpoint source controls; to
receive a multi-purpose water grant; and to obtain
flexibility and streamlining under the wetlands, point
source, and drinking water programs.
Safe Drinking Water Act Protection Proposal: Included
in the Administration's plan for reauthorizing the
Safe Drinking Water Act is a recommendation for
development and implementation of source water
protection programs. The goal of these programs is
to protect ground and surface water drinking sup-
plies through pollution prevention. Benefits of source
water protection programs include reduced treat-
ment needed to comply with the regulations, more
focused and targeted monitoring of vulnerable water
supplies, avoided costs for finding alternative sources
of water, and citizen involvementin protecting water
supplies. The proposed baseline source water pro-
tection program would include a delineation of drink-
ing water protection areas, inventories of significant
sources of contamination, vulnerability assessments,
contingency plans, and local involvement. An en-
hanced program would contain stronger, enforce-
able prevention measures. Where enhanced pro-
grams are in place, states would be allowed to estab-
lish tailored monitoring and treatment exemptions.
This program with its comprehensive approach and
emphasis on local involvement compliments water-
shed protection efforts.
Strategies, Grant Consolidations, and
State Reorientations
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Watershed Strategy: Over the past 20 years,
theNPDESprogramhas employed technology-based
and water-quality-based permit requirements to
achieve significant reductions in pollutant discharges
to surface waters from hundreds of thousands of
NPDES regulated entities. In recentyears, the NPDES
program has broadened to include a number of addi-
tional initiatives aimed at addressing remaining
sources of pollutant discharges including 1,100 com-
munities with combined sewer overflows, over 15,000
treatment works treating domestic waste (sewage
sludge), and storm water discharges fromover 100,000
industrial facilities and 200 municipal separate storm
sewer systems.
The challenge for the NPDES program is manag-
ing baseline program requirements and newer initia-
tives within the context of both limited resources and
environmental impacts that vary from state to state
and region to region. Over a six month period that
began in the Fall of 1993, EPA developed a strategy to
fully integrate the NPDES permits program into the
watershed protection approach. By integrating its
program functions into the broader Watershed Pro-
tection Approach, the NPDES program can meet this
challenge and cost-effectively address remaining
point source environmental impacts.
The NPDES Watershed Strategy outlines national
objectives and implementation activities to 1) inte-
grate NPDES program functions into the broader
Watershed Protection Approach and 2) support de-
velopment of state-wide Basin Management Ap-
proaches (BMAs). The strategy identifies six areas
that are considered essential for EPA Headquarters
and Regions to support these objectives. These areas
are:
State-wide coordination - Promote develop-
ment of basin management frameworks that
identify the roles and responsibilities of par-
ticipating programs, long-term program-
matic and environmental goals, geographi-
cally delineated basins, and a schedule for
periodically evaluating the environmental
condition of each basin.
NPDES permits - Encourage NPDES permit
issuance on a watershed basis using one of
two methods: 1) development of a basin
management plan and synchronization of
permit issuance within basins, or 2) develop-
ment of a basin management plan and assur-
ing that permits are issued in accordance
with it.
Monitoring and assessment - Promote the
development of state-wide monitoring strat-
-------
1993/19941EPA Activities
egies to assure the most effective targeting of
limited resources and coordinate collection
and analysis of NPDES, nonpoint source,
and other watershed data.
Programmatic measures and environmental
indicators - Revise national accountability
measures to facilitate implementation of
watershed protectionactivities and establish
new measures of success that reflect assess-
ment of progress toward watershed protec-
tion goals.
Public participation - Promote long-term
public support for basin management activi-
ties by providing opportunities for the pub-
lic to participate in goal development, prior-
ity setting,strategy development, and imple-
mentation.
Enforcement - Coordinate compliance and
enforcement programs and activities both at
the federal and state level to focus resources
on priority point sources within identified
basins.
While the essential components listed above fo-
cus on action i tems for the NPDES program, they also
emphasize critical areas in which the NPDES pro-
gram must coordinate its activities with the efforts of
other surface and ground water programs. The Strat-
egy recognizes that, while the NPDES program will
play a central environmental protection role in a
number of watersheds, in many other watersheds,
point sources will not represent the primary stres-
sors. The NPDES program's main task in the latter
watersheds will be to support and facilitate effective
implementation activities for meeting environmen-
tal objectives (e.g., monitoring, public participation).
In either case, the NPDES Watershed Strategy is not
intended to supersede or impede existing watershed
protection efforts; rather, it is intended to support
ongoing state initiatives and supplement the efforts
of other environmental programs by identifying ar-
eas where the NPDES program can contribute.
Several states and EPA Regions have taken sig-
nificant steps towards integrating NPDES program
activities into the broader Watershed Protection Ap-
proach, however, the program nationally is a largely
untapped resource. To promote implementation of
the NPDES Watershed Strategy on a national level,
each EPA Regional office will complete the following
action items:
Regional state by state assessments and ac-
tion plans - Assess current watershed protec-
tion activitiesineachstate and, in the context
;, t 4f«H c- - -
of that assessment, develop Regional action
plans for fiscal year 1995 that identify how
the Region will support and facilitate each
state's movement toward the Watershed Pro-
tection Approach.
State/EPA workplan agreements - Include
specific activities within state/EPA
workplans for fiscal year 1995 which will
promote the central components of the
NPDES Watershed Strategy.
Internal coordination - Develop Regional
strategies which describe the Regional deci-
sion making processes, oversight role, and
internal coordination efforts necessary to
ensure support for the Watershed Protection
Approach.
Wellhead Protection Program: EPA has been operating
the Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program since the
1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
created the program. The program is a place-based
ground water protection program that protects pub-
lic drinking water supplies from contamination. It is
designed to identify all potential sources of contami-
nation within a delineated wellhead protection area
and differentially manage those sources through a
variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools. Con-
tingency planning is another vital element of the
program, because contamination incidents can hap-
pen, even with the best source management. The
active involvement of all stakeholders is needed for a
viable wellhead protection program.
As of October 1993, over 18,000 local WHP Pro-
grams have been initiated. These local programs,
which are essentially watershed programs, can be
found in communities of all sizes across the country.
Comprehensive StateGround Water Protection Approach:
In 1992, EPA released its Final Guidance for Compre-
hensive State Ground Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPPs). EPA is encouraging states to develop
these programs to coordinate federal, state, and local
ground water protection efforts and to target these
efforts to priority ground water areas. States are
currently developing CSGWPPs and are beginning
to submit them to EPA for endorsement.
Like a watershed approach, CSGWPPs are place-
based rather than source-based or nationally-ori-
ented, include all of the relevant stakeholders, and
have multiple environmental objectives. CSGWPPs
ihould be carefully coordinated with a state's water-
-------
1993/1994 EPA Activities
shed or basin protection approach for maximum
effectiveness in protecting water resources.
Regional Watershed Protection Approach Framework
Documents: Most EPA Regions are in the process of
drafting or beginning implementation of Regional
Watershed Protection Approach Framework Docu-
ments. These documents generally outline:
The framework which EPA will use to help
states move to a watershed protection ap-
proach.
The role for states in regional identification
of priority water sheds which cross state lines
or are of international importance.
Options for restructuring the Region to bet-
ter promote the watershed protection ap-
proach.
106/319/604 (b) Grant Consolidation: Working within
existing statutes, the Watershed Integrated Grants
Workgroup is building upon the successful efforts of
two earlier efforts to improve grants management for
Clean Water Act Sec tions!06and319. The workgroup
is systematically analyzing the grant allocation, ne-
gotiation and award, and tracking and close out
processes in order to identify improvements that will
facilitate state adoption of watershed protection ap-
proaches. To date, the workgroup has identified
grant related barriers to adopting watershed ap-
proaches; consolidated a number of grant certifica-
tions previously required for each individual grant;
and issued funding guidance for Sections 106,604(b),
and 319. The workgroup is currently investigating
greater use of electronic transfer in the grant award
process, increased use of automated data systems for
program tracking and accountability, and potential
use of other sources of funds to support state water-
shed protection approaches. The workgroup is com-
posed of staff from EPA's Headquarters and Regions
and from a number of states.
State Reorientation: EPA continues to support indi-
vidual states and regions in implementing watershed
protection approaches through facilitation of State
watershed protection approach development and
educational workshops. For example, EPA's Region
IV office recently held two one-day workshops with
the States of Georgia and Mississippi to provide them
with an overview of state basin planning and a pro-
cess to convert their water programs to this approach.
Details provided at these workshops ranged from
how to synchronize basins to how to involve the
public. Both workshops were very well received by
the states. A follow-up workshop in Georgia has also
been held.
Many states are taking steps toward imple-
menting watershed management. Efforts range from
showing interest to actual implementation. North
Carolina is one state that is in the process of
transitioning their surface water program to a basin
management approach. Monitoring, assessment,
planning, permit issuance and other implementation
activities are rotated through the State's 17 basins
every five years allowing all program resources to be
focused on interrelated basin problems and solu-
tions.
State Wetland Conservation Plans: EPA is encouraging
development of State Wetland Conservation Plans
(SWCPs) as a tool to achieve no net loss of wetlands
in the short term and net gain in quantity and quality
in the long term. These comprehensive state plans
encourage integration of federal, state, and local
wetlands programs with other programs which im-
pact wetlands (e.g., nonpoint source). The State
Wetland Conservation Planning process, which seeks
to involve all stakeholders, encourages states to in-
ventory existing resources and programs and to for-
mulate goals and objectives for resource protection.
These goals of ten include streamlining existing regu-
latory programs and an increased emphasis on place-
based planning programs such as watershed plan-
ning. In addition, the planning process stresses the
need for development of implementation and moni-
toring strategies in order to meet the goals and objec-
tives outlined in the plan.
While SWCPs are useful for identification of state
goals and program gaps, watershed plans are viewed
as tools for implementation of goals and objectives
outlined in SWCPs. EPA provides funds for develop-
ment of watershed protection projects as well as for
SWCPs. Each process encourages a holistic approach
to resource protection and provides a significant
opportunity for integration of planning and protec-
tion efforts.
Develop Tools for It
EPA recognizes the need to provide technical
information and tools to support watershed protec-
tion. The Agency is working to develop tools and
training for watershed stakeholders. Examples of
some of these tools and training are described below.
-------
19^3/1994 EPA Activities
Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Workshops: EPA
initiated a series of annual workshops to provide
direct assistance to nonpoint source watershed
projects that are funded primarily through the Clean
Water Act Section 319 Program, but also include
projects administered by USD A and others. The first
workshop was held in September 1993 in Charlotte,
North Carolina, and was hosted by the North Caro-
lina Cooperative Extension Service, Gaston County
Quality of Natural Resources Commission, Gaston
Soil and Water Conservation District, Gaston County,
and DukePower. Participants fromacross the Nation
learned and shared ideas about project planning,
land treatment, monitoring, and data analysis. A
field trip highlighted the activities underway in the
Long Creek Watershed, one of the first projects ap-
proved under the Section 319 National Monitoring
Program. The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency with EPA support hosted the second nonpoint
source watershed project workshop in September
1994. Planning for subsequent workshops has al-
ready begun for 1995-1998.
CZARA Guidance and Workshops: EPA and the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) are working together to assist states in de-
veloping their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs (CNPCP) required by Section 6217, Pro-
tecting Coastal Waters, of the 1990 Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA). CNPCPs
are intended to strengthen the links between federal
and state coastal zone management and water qual-
ity programs, thus enhancing state and local efforts to
manage land use activities which degrade coastal
waters and habitats. Each state with a federally
approved coastal zone management program (29 of
the 35 states with coastal borders) must develop and
implement a CNPCP or face financial penalties. To
be approvable, CNPCPs must include enforceable
policies that will ensure the implementation of ap-
propriate management measures.
EPA and NOAA have developed two guidance
documentsGuidance Specifying Management Mea-
sures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters
and Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. The
former document addresses technology-based man-
agement measures. The latter document addresses
both baseline technology management measures and
additional water quality-based measures as neces-
sary to address remaining water quality problems in
particular coastal watersheds. The Guidance targets
five major nonpoint sources of pollutionagricul-
ture, forestry, urban areas, hydromodification
projects, and marinas. In addition, cross-cutting
measures that address the protection of wetlands,
riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems are
included in the Guidance. The guidance documents
have been widely distributed.
EPA and NOAA are providing additional assis-
tance through workshops and threshold reviews.
The workshops were held in several locations around
the country and provided training to states on devel-
oping their CNPCPs. The threshold review process
established by EPA and NOAA is voluntary and is
intended to provide states with early feedback on
their proposed app>roaches to developing their coastal
nonpoint programs.
Ecosystem Protection Research Program: EPA's Office
of Research and Development has consolidated its
ecological research under the Ecosystem Protection
Research Program.. The program emphasizes devel-
oping an understanding and techniques for effective
place-based management of ecological resources;
Research will be conducted to support assessment
efforts at three broad spatial scales-the watershed,
the region, and the nation. Within each spatial scale,
the program is organized along the risk paradigm
and will include research on effects, exposure, and
assessment methods. The strategy for acquiring wa-
tershed-scale ecological risk assessment capability is
to develop, test, and demonstrate integrated evalua-
tions of the likelihood of ecological effects from one
or more stressors operating at multiple scales of
ecological complexity (organism, population, com-
munity/ecosystem, etc.). The Savannah River Wa-
tershed (southeastern United States) and the Pacific
Northwest have been selected as initial research sites.
Guidance for Ecological Watershed Risk Assessments:
EPA is developing guidance for risk assessors and
risk managers on how to develop and use watershed
ecological risk assessments to support the develop-
ment of effective watershed management plans.
Watershed management plans based on ecological
risk assessments will help risk managers to prioritize
risks from multiple stressors and target limited envi-
ronmental dollars to achieve desired outcomes. The
guidance will support ecological risk assessments in
watersheds of different types and sizes and those
containing a variety of stressors and ecological re-
sources.
To establish a foundation for the guidance, five
ecological risk assessment case studies are being
-------
1993/1994 EPA Activitie
conducted. Watersheds selected as case studies in-
clude the Middle Platte River Wetlands, Nebraska;
Big Darby Creek, Ohio; Clinch River, Virginia; Snake
River, Idaho; and Waquoit Bay Estuary, Massachu-
setts. The experience gained during development of
the case studies, coupled with the combined experi-
ence of local and state implementation of watershed
management initiatives, will be used by EPA's Office
of Water to write the guidance which should be
available in December 1995.
The case studies and guidance documents will be
used as the basis for outreach, training modules, and
videotapes to help local, state, and federal risk man-
agers. The case studies will also support future
development of Agency-wide guidelines for ecologi-
cal risk assessment on a landscape scale.
EMAP-Landscape Ecology: The newest formed group
of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) is the EMAP-Landscape Ecology
team. Unlike EMAP's resource groups, which moni-
tor indicators of the condition of individual resources
such as lakes, forests, or estuaries, EM AP-Landscapes
will monitor and assess the ecological condition of
mixed groupings of ecological resources at broader
geographic scales. Watersheds are being evaluated
as one of the primary geographic units upon which
EMAP-Landscapes' monitoring and assessment will
occur. A working, integrative concept of watershed
condition and indicators appropriate for estimating
watershed condition is under development, and the
program has expressed interest in input from water-
shed managers during the development process.
EMAP-Landscapes' Research Plan under went peer
review in early 1994, and pilot activities are currently
taking place in EPA's Region III (Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
West Virginia) in cooperation with the Middle Atlan-
tic Integrated Assessment (MAIA).
IntergovernmentalTaskForceonMonitoring Water Qual-
ity (ITFM): ITFM is a federal/state/tribal partner-
ship with representatives from 20 agencies and orga-
nizations that was established in 1992 to develop a
national strategy to improve water-quality monitor-
ing, assessment, and reporting. The strategy will
address surface, ground, and coastal waters; wet-
lands and habitat; and atmospheric deposition. EPA
serves as ITFM chair, and the U.S. Geological Survey
serves as vice chair and executive secretariat. The
ITFM is a 3-year effort that will disband in favor of
full implementation activities in January 1995.
ITFM's strategy ratifies and encourages ongoing
efforts in some instances while in others it calls for
fundamental changes in the ways water-quality pro-
grams are defined, designed, prioritized,and funded.
Specific ITFM recommendations include:
Establishment of a National Water-Monitor-
ing Council as a permanent successor to the
ITFM. This Council would address water-
quality monitoring and assessment in the
broadest senseas keys to sustaining hu-
man health, ecosystem health, and economic
stability. The Council would promote imple-
mentationoflTFMrecommendationsamong
member agencies, provide technical guid-
ance, and sponsor the development of a co-
ordinated national training program.
Establishment of a Methods and Compara-
bility Council to promote and coordinate the
collection of moni taring da ta of known qual-
ity.
Creation of a linked net work of major agency
water-quality data systems.
To facilitate implementation of the national strat-
egy, ITFM has developed several "building block
products." These include:
A framework for a monitoring program.
Selection criteria for environmental indica-
tors.
A matrix of environmental indicators to
measure designated uses.
A policy on data comparability and perfor-
mance-based methods.
A matrix of monitoring activities of federal
agencies
An index of monitoring and data programs.
The final national strategy will be released in January
1995.
Watershed Monitoring Guidance: EPA has character-
ized the eight stages at which watershed managers
need water information and is developing a hand-
book to help managers locate that data. The eight
stages are:
Delineation-Determiningwatershedbound-
aries, ecological regions within watersheds,
and ancillary data such as demographics
and land use.
Goal and indicator selection - Choosing indi-
cators to assess whether or not goals are
being met.
« Status information - Describing the charac-
teristics of the watershed. Characteristics
9
-------
1^3/1994 EPA Activities
include wetlands, sedimentation, and aquatic
resources.
Problemidentification-Describingthecauses
and sources of problems in the watershed.
Ideally, information gathered in this stage
will help predict future problems.
Priority setting and ranking - Ranking the
watershed problems in priority order ac-
cording to the relative risk the problems pose
to human and ecological health.
Program and project design and implemen-
tation - Designing monitoring programs to
gather data to allow program and project
design. Designing pollution prevention and
remediation programs.
Measuringsuccess and compliance over time
- Determining if the goal for the watershed
has been achieved, if the program is achiev-
ing its desired environmental effect, and if
the project is in compliance with regulatory
requirements. Information gathered in this
stage is the basis for evaluating the success of
the watershed program and redesigning the
program if necessary.
Communicating results - Clearly presenting
to managers and the public the results of
watershed actions.
This handbook should be available in the latter part
of 1995.
Watershed Protection Approach Guidance Documents:
Two guidance documents on watershed protection
are nearing completion. These documents are:
Volume 1: A Project Focus
* Volume2: StatewideBasin/Aquifer Management
Innovative Finance Mechanism Handbook: Financing
watershed actions is an area where many resource
managers have requested assistance. The NEP has
begun a project to provide watershed managers with
technical assistance in evaluating management op-
tions and identifying innovative or underutilized
methods to finance and implement environmental
infrastructure and resource management programs
at local, regional, and multi-jurisdictional levels. This
guidance can serve as an abbreviated implementa-
tion checklist for soliciting and evaluating alternative
funding sources for watershed projects. While the
contents of this document focus on the types of
activitiesmostoften employed byregionalNEPs, this
framework is also useful to similar environmental or
natural resource programs. EPA expects to release
this document in the Fall of 1994.
Using Nonprofit Organizations to Advance Estuary Pro-
gram Goals: This paper examines how nonprofit
organizations (NPOs) can fulfill the role of attracting
and receiving funds for watershed management. It
discusses the ability of NPOs to attract and disburse
funds and describes the direct and indirect imple-
mentation activities they can undertake. The paper
examines specific types of NPOs and reviews the case
for using a public: charity structure, the most com-
monly used type of NPO to date. The circumstances
that would favor the use of some other form of NPO
are also reviewed. In some cases, existing institu-
tions, already active in watershed management, could
serve as candidates to fulfill this role. The paper looks
at the advantages and disadvantages of using an
existing institution instead of, or in conjunction with,
a new NPO. The paper was originally designed for
the NEP but is applicable to all watershed manage-
ment projects.
Economic Valuation Handbook for NEPs and Watershed
Managers: The Economic Valuation Handbook is
currently under development and uses resource eco-
nomics and valuation for coastal management deci-
sion-making (as opposed to damage assessment).
The Handbook will describe all relevant valuation
methodologies, how needs and questions drive the
choice of methodologies, and processes for carrying
out an economic valuation study in a watershed. The
experience of the Casco Bay NEP and the Galveston
Bay NEP will be used throughout the handbook. The
handbook should be completed in the Fall of 1994.
Outcome Monitoring for Estuary Managers: The pur-
pose of this manual is to provide guidance and ex-
amples to watershed managers on developing meth-
ods for measuring the effectiveness of watershed
management actions. The manual includes methods
for tracking the effectiveness of agencies in managing
resources as well as effectiveness of actions taken to
pursue environmental improvements. Training work-
shops will be held to help watershed managers effec-
tively use the manual. The final manual should be
released in the Fall of 1994.
National Estuary Program Guidance: Technical Charac-
terization in the National Estuary Program: This docu-
ment provides guidance for conducting a technical
characterization under the NEP and provides a ge-
10
-------
1993/1994 EPA Activities
neric approach in support of other non-NEP water-
shed management efforts. The guidance outlines the
goals and purposes of technical characterization; com-
municates the role of technical characterization in
developing management plans; presents basic, ge-
neric tasks for accomplishing technical characteriza-
tion that can be adapted to specific watersheds; and
identifies various roles the management entity plays
in accomplishing technical characterization.
Case Studies on CCMP Governance: The NEP is prepar-
ing national guidance on the development of govern-
ment institutions for implementing the NEPs' Com-
prehensive Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMPs). This guidance will also apply to organiza-
tions establishing watershed management entities.
Case studies of several multijurisdictional environ-
mental programs that may serve as models for over-
seeingCCMP implementation will be compiled.Case
studies include several NEPs that have begun imple-
mentation (Puget Sound, Buzzards Bay), as well as
other watershed programs (Cape Cod Commission,
Chesapeake Bay Commission, Nisqually River Coun-
cil, Southwest Florida Water Management District,
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council). A final re-
port will be prepared describing key factors that
should be considered when developing mechanisms
for CCMP implementation. The final report is ex-
pected in the Fall of 1994.
Interactive Computer Program on the Chesapeake Bay:
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office worked with
the National Geographic Society and the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation to develop an interactive computer
program on the Chesapeake Bay. This program was
part of the Chesapeake Bay exhibit that was on dis-
play in the National Geographic's Explorers Hall in
Washington, DC from April through October 1993.
More than 200,000 visitors saw the exhibit. The
interactive computer program taught visitors about
how an estuary and its drainage basin interact and
how nutrient inputs affect the ecosystem and the
living resources that people value. An educational
video that builds on the interactive computer pro-
gram is being developed. Several organizations have
already expressed an interest in using the video
including the Smithsonian Institution and Biosphere
II.
Water Data Systems Modernization: EPA is moderniz-
ing many of its water data systemsSTORET, the
Waterbody System, and FRDS (will become SDWIS).
By 1997, the new systems will be complete, though
prototypes of parts of the system are available now.
In addition, EPA's water program has significantly
expanded its Geographic Information System capa-
bilities. Together the modernized systems will de-
liver geo-referenced and spatial data with enhanced
biological components so watershed managers can
easily obtain data for the areas of interest.
Volunteer Monitoring Program: EPA conducts a strong
volunteer monitoring support program including
handbooks for quality assurance/quality control in
volunteer monitoring programs for lakes, streams
(due in 1995), and for state managers. EPA also
publishes an ever expanding National Directory of
Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs. These
tools help volunteers ascertain the health of their
watershed.
Measure It
EPA is developing methods for measuring both
programmatic and environmental watershed protec-
tion successes. Some examples of these measure-
ment methods are described below.
Clean Water Act Section 319 National Monitoring Pro-
gram: The Clean Water Act Section 319 National
Monitoring Program (NMP), implemented by EPA,
is directed at monitoring water quality and land
treatment to document water quality changes associ-
ated with land treatment. EPA has established mini-
mum tracking and reporting requirements for land
treatment and water quality in support of this pro-
gram. This information will be helpful to watershed
managers when determining best solutions for
nonpoint source problems in watersheds.
Projects in the NMP are funded from an annual
five percent set-aside of Section 319 funds. Currently,
nine projects have been approved. See box on next
page for a description of these projects and the pri-
mary pollution problems being addressed. These
projects are all scheduled for 6-10 years and include
pre-implementation and post-implementation moni-
toring to evaluate the extent to which project goals
are achieved and to evaluate the water quality im-
pacts of nonpoint source controls.
Environmental Indicators: EPA has adopted national
water goals and made a preliminary selection of
indicators to measure these goals. The goals are
11
-------
applicable to any size watershed. It is intended that
information on the core indicators would be gathered
at all scales and aggregated into a national report,
The national water goals are:
Protectandenhancepublichealth(safedrink-
ing water, fish and shellfish consumption,
and aquatic recreation).
National Monitoring Program Projects
PrimarvPollutionProblem
Sycamore Creek, MI Sediment impacting
aquatic habitat.
Elm Creek, NE
SnyMagilUA
Sediment, increased tem-
perature, and peak flows
impacting aquatic life.
Sediment, nutrients, and
pesticides impacting trou
fisheries and recreational
fishing.
Lake Champlain, VT Sediment, nutrients, and
bacteria from livestock
impacting the streams and
lake.
Pequea and
Mill Creeks, PA
Long Creek, NC
Otter Creek, WI
Oak Creek, AZ
Vforro Bay, CA
Nitrate levels in ground
water and grazing impacts
on streambanks.
Sediment,bacteria,and nu-
trients impacting drinking
water and aquatic habitat.
Bacteria, nutrients, and
sediment impacting fish-
ery and recreational uses.
Bacteria impacting recrea-
tional area, i
Sedimentation impacting;
anadromous fish streams
and bacteria contaminSt-'
ing oyster beds.
Snake River Plain, ID Nitrate and pesticide ;
pilot ground water contamination of ground
project) ' ' ' water.. *'.: .':,'V'.-..^
Conserve and enhance ecosystems (biologi-
cally healthy water resources).
Improve ambient conditions (improved sur-
face water ambient concentrations of toxic
and conventional pollutants, attainment of
water quality objectives for ground water,
no net loss of wetlands, reduction of con-
taminated sediments).
Reduce pollutant loadings (reduced toxic
and conventional pollutant loadings).
Twenty-one indicators have been initially identified
for measuring progress toward meeting the above
national goals. A sampling of these indicators in-
cludes:
Waters meet drinking water supply desig-
nated use
Disease outbreaks from swimming
Fish advisories
Species diversity
Ambient ground water quality
Water quality standards attainment
Extent of contaminated sediments
Loss or gain of wetland acreage
Marine debris
An EPA Indicators Workgroup is making recom-
mendations for the final selection of indicators to
include in a 1995 report that characterizes thebaseline
for reporting on the progress made toward meeting
the national water goals.
Regional-EMAP: EPA's Region IV office (Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Caro-
lina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) has initiated an
EMAP-type monitoring study in the Savannah River
basin. This study will provide statistically significant
information on the status and trends of the condition
of basin resources. This information will comple-
ment existing state monitoring programs by merging
EMAP concepts and methods with the state pro-
grams and will, ultimately, serve as a baseline upon
which to measure progress of the Savannah River
Basin Watershed Project. These methods can be
applied to other priority basins to assess the condi-
tion of the basin and to measure progress toward
project goals.
gt-
12
-------
Future Activities
More and more, the natural resource protection
community is moving toward a holistic ap-
proach to protecting natural resources and managing
on an ecosystem basis. At EPA, shifting toward
ecosystemmanagementisatoppriority. The Agency's
strategy for ecosystem management was developed
intheSpringofl994andisreferredtoastheEdgewater
Consensus. To address ecosystem management for
water, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water has
established the Watershed Management Policy Com-
mittee.
Edgewater Consensus
The Edgewater Consensus (drafted in Edgewater,
Maryland in March 1994) is a proposed strategy for
ensuring that EPA programs work to protect ecosys-
tems. The Edgewater Consensus states that ecosys-
tem protection is place-based environmental man-
agement that is driven by the key environmental
problems that occur in particular geographic areas. It
relies on stakeholders in those places to define the
problems, to set priorities, and to help with the solu-
tions. As envisioned, such place-based environmen-
tal management would integrate the goals for long-
term ecosystem health with those for economic sta-
bility. Protecting human health and welfare and
protecting natural systems are integral goals of the
Edgewater Consensus.
EPA's role in place-based environmental man-
agement will often be that of catalyst or facilitator.
For any given place, EPA will participate in establish-
ing a process for determining environmental needs
and will orient its work to meet those needs. EPA will
rielp to define the vision, assist in convening collabo-
rative efforts, bring to bear its expertise and authori-
ties, and provide financial and technical assistance.
EPA will not always be the lead but will frequently be
a participant in ecosystem management projects led
by others such as another federal agency or a state or
regional agency.
The Edgewater Consensus reinforces and pro-
vides a further impetus for the continuation of EPA's
watershed efforts and these efforts provide a founda-
tion for achieving the vision articulated in the
Edgewater Consensus. For ecosystems that are best
defined by watershed boundaries, the goals of the
Edgewater Consensus can be readily met by apply-
ing the watershed protection approach.
Watershed Management Policy Committee
EPA has instituted a regular leadership forum
for coordinating its programs to support watershed
management. Upper-level water program managers
from EPA's headquarters and regional offices serve
on this Watershed Management Policy Committee
which is chaired by EPA's Assistant Administrator
for Water. The Committee meets on a regular basis to
assess how successfully EPA has implemented the
watershed approach, identify and commit to critical
action items, and assure fundamental consistency on
key issues across water programs. In addition, the
Committee is coordinating the water program's sup-
port of the Agency's Ecosystem Management Task
Force.
13
-------
For Further Information
"Know Your Watershed" Campaign
Joan Warren
US. EPA (4501F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7796 FAX: (202)260-2529
WATERSHED '93 Proceedings (Document Num-
ber: EPA840-R-94-002)
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road
Buildings
Cincinnati, OH 45242
FAX: (513)891-6685
Watershed Events
Anne Robertson
US.EPA(4501F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-9112 FAX: (202)260-2529
Rural Clean Water Program Review
Steve Dressing
US.EPA(4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7110 FAX: (202)260-7024
Clean Lakes Program Review: A Commitment to
Watershed Protection (DocumentNumber: EPA841-
R-93-001)
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road
Buildings
Cincinnati, OH 45242
FAX: (513)891-6685
National Estuary Program
Darrell Brown
U.S.EPA(4504F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-9130 FAX: (202)260-9960
Clean Lakes Program
Susan Ratcliffe
US. EPA (4503F)
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5404 FAX: (202)260-1977
National Water Quality Inventory: Report to
Congress
Barry Burgan
US. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7060 FAX: (202)260-7024
President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative
Janet Pawlukiewicz
US. EPA (4501F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-9194 FAX: (202)260-2529
Safe Drinking Water Act Protection Proposal
Ground Water Protection Division
U.S. EPA (4602)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7077 FAX: (202)260-0732
NPDES Watershed Strategy
Jeff Lape
U.S. EPA (4203)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5230 FAX: (202)260-1460
Wellhead Protection Program
Ground Water Protection Division
US. EPA (4602)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7077 FAX: (202)260-0732
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
Approach
Iround Water Protection Division
U.S. EPA (4602)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7077 FAX: (202)260-0732
106/319/604(b) Grant Consolidation
Don Brady
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202)260-5368 FAX: (202)260-7024
i <
14
-------
:X5l Kfeth^r JnjfotMatipn
State Reorientation
Don Brady
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5368 FAX: (202)260-7024 -
State Wetland Conservation Plans
Wetlands Division
U.S. EPA (4502F)
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7791 FAX: (202)260-8000
Nonpoint Source Watershed Project Workshops
Steve Dressing
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7110 FAX: (202) 260-1977
CZARA Guidance and Workshops
Dov Weitman
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7085 FAX: (202)260-7024
Ecosystem Research Protection Program
Office of Research and Development
U.S. EPA (8101)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7676
Guidance for Ecological Risk Watershed
Assessments
Dr. Suzanne Marcy
U.S. EPA (4304)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-0689 FAX: (202)260-1036
EMAP-Landscape Ecology
K. Bruce Jones
U.S. EPA
Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
(702) 798-2671 FAX: (702) 798-2208
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality
Elizabeth Fellows
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7062 FAX: (202)260-7024
Watershed Monitoring Guidance
Elizabeth Fellows
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7062 FAX: (202)260-7024
Watershed Protection Approach Guidance
Documents
Don Brady
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5368 FAX: (202)260-7024
Innovative Finance Mechanism Handbook
Margherita Pryor
U.S. EPA (4504F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9176 FAX: (202) 260-9960
Using Nonprofit Organizations to Advance Estuary
Program Goals (Document Number: EPA842-B-93-
008)
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road
Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242
FAX: (513)891-6685
Economic Valuation Handbook for NEPs and Wa-
tershed Managers
Eric Slaughter
U.S. EPA (4504F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1051 FAX: (202)260-9960
15
-------
Fof Further InforMation
Outcome Monitoring for Estuary Managers
Betsy Tarn
US.EPA(4504F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-6466 FAX: (202)260-9960
NationetlEstuary Program Guidance:Tedtnical Char-
acterizationintheNationalEstuan/Program(Docu.-
ment Number: EPA842-B-94-006)
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road
Buildings
Cincinnati, OH 45242
FAX: (513)891-6685
Case Studies on CCMP Governance
Ruth Chemerys
U.S. EPA (4504F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-9038 FAX: (202)260-9960
Interactive Computer Program on the
Chesapeake Bay
Kent Mountford
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
US. EPA
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
(410) 267-5707 FAX: (410) 267-5777
Wafer Data Systems Moderninzation
Bob King
US. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7028 FAX: (202)260-7024
Volunteer Monitoring Program
Alice Mayio
US. EPA (4503F)
401M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7018 FAX: (202)260-7024
Clean Water Act Section 319 National Monitoring
Program
Steve Dressing
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7110 FAX: (202)260-7024
Environmental Indicators
Elizabeth Fellows
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7062 FAX: (202)260-7024
Regional-EMAP
Ron Raschke
US. EPA
Environmental Services Division
960 College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605-2720
(706) 546-2294 FAX: (706) 546-2459
Edgewater Consensus
Carl Myers
U.S. EPA (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7062 FAX: (202)260-7024
Watershed Policy Committee
Janet Pawlukiewicz
U.S. EPA (4501F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-9194 FAX: (202)260-2529
ll~" t "
-------
EPA plays a variety of roles, including participant, catalyst, and facilitator, in a large number of watershed
efforts. The following projects are a sampling of these projects which are representative of an integrated,
holistic watershed approach. They illustrate the array of watershed protection approach efforts across the
country.
Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, NC
Alcyon Lake, NJ
Anacostia'River, DC, MD
Ashtabula River Area of Concern, OH
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary, LA
Barnegat Bay, NJ
Bear River, ID,UT,WY
Beeds Lake, IA
Big Darby Creek, OH
Big Spring Basin, IA
Blackfoot River, MT
Blackstone River, MA
Bowman-Haley Reservoir, ND
Buffalo River Area of Concern, NY
Buzzards Bay, MA
Cache River, IL
Camden County Aquifer, NJ
Cameron Atrazine Pollution Trading, MO
Canaan Valley, WV
Casco Bay Estuary, ME
Chalk Creek, UT
Chehalis River, WA
Chesapeake Bay, NY, PA, DE, MD, VA, WV, DC
Christina, DE, PA
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, MT, ID, WA
Clear Creek, CO
Clear Lake, IA
Clinton River Area of Concern, MI
Coeur D'Alene Basin, ID
Colorado River, CO, UT, AZ, WY, NV, CA, NM
Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins, OR
Corning Aquifer/Elmira Aquifer, NY
Corpus Christi Bay, TX
Cranberry Lake, NJ
Deal Lake, NJ
Delaware Estuary, NJ, DE
Delaware Inland Bays, DE
Eighteenmile Creek Area of Concern, NY
Elkhorn Slough, CA
Elm Creek, NE
Endicott-Johnson City Aquifer, NY
Flint Creek, AL
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, FL
Galveston Bay Estuary, TX
Goodman Creek, ND
Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor Canal Area
of Concern, IN
Great Lakes, NY, PA, OH. IN, MI, IL, WI, MN,
Ontario
Greenwood Lake, NY, NJ
Gulf of Mexico Program
Gulf Ecological Management Sites
Mobile Bay Restoration Demonstrations
Hackensack Meadowlands District, NJ
Hillsdale Reservoir, MO
Illinois River - Battle Branch, OK
Indian River Lagoon, FL
Iowa Great Lakes. IA
Klamath Basin, CA, OR
Kootenay River, MT, ID, British Columbia
Lake Champlain, NY, VT
Lake La Plata, PR
Lake Loiza, PR
Lake Michigan, IL, IN, MI, WI
Lake Musconetcong, NJ
Lake Ontario, NY, Ontario
Lake Pontchartrain Basin, LA
Lake Roosevelt, WA
Lake Worth, TX
Little Bear River, UT
Long Island Sound, NY, CT
Los Angeles River, CA
Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative, AR, IL, KY, LA,
MO,MS,TN
Malibu Creek, CA
Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Bays, MD
Massachusetts Bays, MA, NH
Massachusetts Bays Program/Mini-Bays Project,
MA
Maumee River Area of Concern, OH
Meramec River, MO
Merrimack River, NH, MA
Middle Fork River, WV
Middle Snake River, ID
Milwaukee Estaury Area of Concern, WI
Morro Bay, CA
Narragansett Bay, MA, RI
New York City Water Supply Watersheds, NY
New York-New Jersey Harbor, NY, NJ
Niagara River Area of Concern, NY
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan, NY
Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative, IN
Oak Creek, AZ
Onondaga Lake, NY
17
-------
Watershed Projects
Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern, NY
Otter Creek, UT
Peconic Bay, NY
Pequea and Mill Creeks, PA
Pine Creek, IA
Platte River, NE
Pocono Watershed, PA
President's Forest Plan (Pacific Northwest), WA,
OR,CA
Puget Sound Estuary, WA
Red River, ND
Rochester Embayment Area of Concern, NY
Saginaw Bay, MI
St. Lawrence River Area of Concern, NY
St. Mary's River Area of Concern, MI
San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary, CA
San Juan Bay, PR
San Luis Rey River, CA
Santa Margarita River, CA
Santa Monica Bay, CA
Sarasota Bay, FL
Savannah River, GA, SC, FL
Silver Lake, DE
Southeast Michigan Initiative, MI
South Florida Ecosystem, FL
Squaw Creek/Bald win Creek, WY
Swartzwood Lake, NJ
Tampa Bay, FL
Tangiapahoa River, LA
Tensas River, LA
Tillamook Bay, OR
Truckee River, CA, NV
Upper Arkansas River, CO
Upper Clark Fork Basin, MT
Upper Tennessee River Basin, VA
Verde River, AZ
Virginia Eastern Shore Coastal Waters, VA
Waquoit Bay, MA
West Lake, IA
West Maui Watershed, HI
Willamette River Basin, OR
Yakima River, WA
-------
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary
Size and location: The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary is
composed of seven sounds with several rivers which
in turn drain over 30,000 square miles of land. A total
of 36 counties in northeastern North Carolina and all
or part of 19 counties and independent cities in south-
eastern Virginia comprise the watershed.
Organization that initiated project:
State of North Carolina
Major environmental problems:
Declines in fishery productivity
Impaired health of aquatic resources
Impairment of nursery area function
Eutrophication and sedimentation
Fish kills
Habitat loss
Shellfish closures
Toxic contamination
Actions taken or proposed: The Albemarle-Pamlico
Estuary was selected for inclusion in the National
Estuary Program by EPA in 1987. A Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that
recommends priority corrective actions to restore
and maintain the estuarine resources was completed
and accepted by the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound Policy
Committee in November 1993. The Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuary Management Conference proposes
to coordinate implementation of the CCMP through
five regional councils organized along watersheds.
The CCMP calls upon local governments and citizens
to protect the estuary through stronger state and local
land use policies, land stewardship, best manage-
ment practices, and public education. The CCMP
stresses:
Voluntary programs with strong incentives
for implementing the various recommenda-
tions in the CCMP;
Land and water use plans; and
Improved wetland and habitat protection.
During development of the CCMP, several demon-
stration projects were undertaken to show the viabil-
ity of final recommendations for restoration of the
estuary. These demonstration projects included habi-
tat restoration, storm water management, animal
waste management, and fishery by-catch reduction.
Stakeholders:
Businesses
Commercial fishing
General public
Recreational users including anglers and boaters
Contact:
Guy Stefaaski
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study
NC Dept. of Environment Health, and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919)715-4084
FAX: (919) 733-9555
19
-------
Alcyon Lake
Size and location: Alcyon Lake is located in the Bor-
ough of Pitman, Gloucester County, New Jersey. The
lake is 13.5 acres in size, with a watershed of 4 square
miles. The lake is 800 feet downstream of the LiPari
landfill, a Superfund site.
Organization that initiated project:
Gloucester County Planning Department
Major environmental problems:
Toxic contamination from the LiPari landfill
Silt and organic matter from a sewage treat-
ment plant (closed in 1972)
Sediments, organics, and heavy metals from
urban storm water runoff
Siltation: nutrient and pesticides from agri-
cultural sources
Actions taken or proposed: New Jersey received a Clean
Lakes Program grant in 1991 to conduct a Phase I
diagnostic/feasibility study for Alcyon Lake and its
watershed. This study will analyze the lake's condi-
tion and determine the causes of that condition,
examine the watershed to determine the sources of
pollution, and then evaluate solutions and recom-
mendations for the most feasible procedures to re-
store and protect lake water quality.
Through the National Demonstration Program
for lake water quality established under the Clean
Water Act and earmarked and competitive Clean
Lakes funding, a watershed master plan will be de-
veloped and implemented. Actions to be taken may
include:
Development of a Geographic Information
System(aninteracn'velandmanagementdata
base that uses water quality modeling to
determine methods of mitigating sediment
loadings).
Installation of erosion control devices.
Establishment of a Watershed Action Com-
mittee to technically review proposed activi-
ties.
« Design of a storm water conveyance system.
Development of environmental ordinances
and land management guidelines.
In addition, the LiPari landfill itself has been
remediated through the Superfund program. The
downstream wetlands and the lake itself have been
included as part of the offsite remediation, and ac-
tions will include dredging and restoration of the
wetlands and dredging of the lake sediments, which
will deal with the in situ toxics.
SJk 1 ' 1 t ^v, v,^ ^
Stakeholders:
Borough of Pitman
City of Gloucester
Gloucester County Planning Department
Local citizens
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
EPA:
Theresa Faber
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8708
FAX: (212) 264-2194
State:
Budd Cann
Bureau of Monitoring
Management
NJ Department of Environ-
mental Protection (CN 427)
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-0427
FAX: (609) 633-1095
20
-------
Anacostia River
Size and location: The Anacostia River flows from ]
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Mary-
land to the District of Columbia where it empties into
the Potomac River and eventually the Chesapeake
Bay.
Organizations that initiated project:
State of Maryland
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in
Maryland
District of Columbia
Major environmental problems:
Nonpoint source runoff
Storm water problems
Toxic contamination of sediments
Loss of natural habitat for fish
Actions taken or proposed: The Anacostia River is a
priority for several different organizations. The White
House Task Force on Ecosystem Management has
included this river among its seven priority areas for
study. The Chesapeake Executive Council has desig-
nated the Anacostia as one of three Regions of Con-
cern for toxic pollution. EPA has targeted the
Anacostia in its fiscal year 1995 budget as one of four
priority ecosystems for Ecosystem Management.
American Rivers, Inc. has made the Anacostia River
one of its top 10 priorities.
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Com-
mittee has outlined six goals which serve as the
strategic framework for the restoration of the
Anacostia River.
On July 14, 1994 an agreement on ecosystem
management in the Chesapeake Bay was signed be-
tween EPA and 25 other federal agencies. Under this
agreement the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is de-
veloping a Biennial Federal Workplan for the
Anacostia. It will provide a framework for all federal
stakeholders to contribute to the restoration of the
Anacostia River through specific commitments in-
cluding environmental compliance. One aspect of
the agreement is support to the Anacostia River
Demonstration Project in conjunction with the
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee. The
intent of the Anacostia River Demonstration Project
is to provide an opportunity to apply innovative
ecosystem management concepts in an urban envi-
ronment. Planning for this project will begin in fiscal
year 1995.
A Chesapeake Bay Regional Action Plan for the
Anacostia is under development with EPA financial
and technical support. The plan defines goals and
strategies for remediation and prevention of toxic
pollutants. The plan may include remediation mea-
sures for sediments, preventive measures for point/
nonpoint sources, and public education. It will be
completed in the fall of 1995.
In fiscal year 1994, EPA awarded, through a
cooperative agreement, $250,000 to the District of
Columbia to conduct toxicological human health and
ecological risk assessments for purposes of imple-
menting risk reduction, pollution prevention, and
public education and outreach. The objectives of this
project are to identify, rank, reduce, and/or prevent
pollutants in the impacted communities. EPA ex-
pects to provide additional support for this effort in
fiscal year 1995.
In fiscal year 1995, EPA will place additional
emphasis on enforcement activities in the Anacostia
watershed. EPA will identify facilities with signifi-
cant adverse environmental impacts in the water-
shed. EPA will schedule inspections at selected
facilities and determine environmental compliance.
EPA will administer appropriate enforcement re-
sponse to facilities in violation of environmental regu-
lations. In addition, EPA is revising the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for
the District of Columbia's Blue Plains facility to con-
form with the National Combined Sewer Overflow
Policy.
Other activities include a U.S. Arboretum led
effort to develop a federal tributary strategy for land-
holders within the District of Columbia by the end of
1995. This tributary strategy will deal with meeting
the nutrient reduction goals of the Chesapeake Bay
Program in support of the District of Columbia.
Stakeholders:
American Rivers, Inc.
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee
Anacostia Watershed Society
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton
District of Columbia
Federal agencies including U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(U.S. Arboretum), U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, and the National Park Service
Local public interest groups including Friends
of the Anacostia, Georgetown University Law
Center, and Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
Maryland
Anacostia River continued on page 24
21
-------
; Ashtabula River Area of Concern
Size and location: The Ashtabula River Area of Con-
cern (AOC) is located in the northeast corner of Ohio.
It includes the watershed for the lower Ashtabula
River, its tributaries, and the harbor and nearshore of
LakeErie. Oneof the tributaries, Fields Brook (Brook),
is a Superfund site.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Congress
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
» Contaminated sediments (contaminants of
concern are: PCBs, PAHs, hexachloroben-
zene, hexachlorobutadiene, and to a lesser
degree some metals)
Degraded fish and wildlife populations
Unhealthy fish and wildlife consumption
Degradation of fish habitat
Degradation of benthos
Actions taken or proposed: The Ashtabula River AOC
is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by the
United States and/or Canadian governments in the
Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is
being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term
course of action for environmental cleanup. A RAP
Advisory Council, comprised of local stakeholders
has been established. Stage I of the RAP, which
describes the nature and extent of the problems, was
completed in 1992, and approved by EPA and the
International Joint Commission in late 1992.
Stage II of the RAP, which devises a plan for
implementingremediation,isinitsconceptualstages.
Recently, the Advisory Council has decided to ini-
tiate a new tool in developing Stage II. Focusing on
the contaminated sediments in the entire watershed,
the Advisory Council is seeking to develop a public-
private partnership in the Ashtabula. The partner-
ship would combine sediment projects in the AOC;
the authorities of different agencies; different poten-
tial funding sources; and the goals of the RAP, citi-
zens, and agencies to save time, money, and effort in
obtaining a solution.
Already a partnership charter has been signed by
stakeholders, agencies, and industrial firms; and over
half a million dollars have been directed by EPA, the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Corps to investigate multi-party remediation plans.
The funds shall be used to study locations for and to
design a disposal facility to hold contaminated sedi-
ments. It is hoped that a consensus-based plan,
rif' f if
Vi
focusing on the entire watershed can remediate the
area instead of Superfund. While Superfund is con-
tinuing studies of the river contamination, EPA is
holding off on formally designating the downstream
river a Superfund site to see how the partnership
develops.
Superfund activities on the upstream highly con-
taminated Brook are continuing and include:
A Record of Decision in 1986 which directs
design of the Fields Brook cleanup.
A Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study done in 1986 describing contamina-
tion and possible remedial alternatives.
Studies of properties on the Brook to ensure
that the Brook is not recontaminated which
are near completion.
In addition, an ecological assessment of the area
surrounding the Brook is planned.
Superfund activities in the river are assessing
how contaminated sediments might move or be trans-
ported and result in wildlife and humans being ex-
posed to these sediments.
Stakeholders:
Boaters
City Manager
Congressional staff
Industry
Local citizens
Local government agencies
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Sea Grant
Port authority
Soil and Water Conservation District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Amy Pelka
U.S. EPA Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312) 886-0135
FAX: (312)886-7804
-------
Barataria-lefrebonne Estuary
Size and location: The Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary
consists of adjacent basins which cover over four
million acres of south central Louisiana, between the
Mississippi River and the Atchfalaya River. Parts or
all of 15 parishes are included in the study area.
Organizations that initiated the project:
State of Louisiana/Department of Environmen-
tal Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Loss of more than 656 square miles of pro-
ductive wetlands and barrier islands
Hydrological modification
Loss of sediments
Habitat loss/modification
Changes in living resources
Actions taken or proposed: Barataria-Terrebonne Estu-
ary was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary
Program in 1990. A Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP) is being developed
by a coalition of affected agencies, industries, and
other organizations to identify detailed remedial ac-
tion plans.
In order to assess future environmental condi-
tions in the Barataria-Terrebone estuarine system,
and to evaluate potential management measures, the
program will use two state-of-the-art predictive mod-
els. Although the two models address different
environmental parameters, hydrologic alteration, and
landscape charge, they are being developed in close
coordination with one another. This coordination is
essential because the hydrology of the estuarine sys-
tem greatly affects the rate and timing of habitat
change. Other activities/studies include:
Working with the Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency to determine the extent of
environmental damaged caused by Hurri-
cane Andrew on the Barataria-Terrebone
estuary system and to develop plans to mini-
mize future impacts.
Mapping the oyster producing areas within
the Barataria-Terrebone estuaries. This map-
ping will assist in evaluating how the oyster
and fishery is influenced by environmental
changes within the estuaries.
Survey of vegetative damage caused by nu-
tria herbivory in the Barataria-Terrebone
basins. This will provide information re-
garding the distribution of damaged areas,
species of vegetation being impacted, and
status of recovery of damaged areas.
Locating,characterizing,andmappingstorm
water drainage stations with the Barataria-
Terrebone systems. Focusing on storm wa-
ter runoff discharge and its potential contri-
bution to elevated levels of fecal coliform
bacteria in areas that support recreation and
shellfish will assist in developing a storm
water management strategy.
Measuring the input and distribution of sus-
pended sediments and other aquatic param-
eters in the western Terrebone marshes and
determining the system's response to those
inputs. This involves determining the distri-
bution of selected water column parameters
and how their distribution relates to forcing
functions such as tide and river discharge.
DevelopingaWetlandsWorkshoptoincrease
public awareness regarding environmental
problems and issues facing Louisiana's coast.
Production of a high quality video focusing
on residential sewage treatment systems and
developmentof support materials. This video
will educate the public regarding the impor-
tance of maintaining or installing a treat-
ment system.
Stakeholders:
Educational institutions
Federal government agencies
Industries and businesses
Local citizens
Local government agencies , ;
Regional planning agencies
Scientific community
State government agencies
Various user groups
Contacts:
EPA:
Barbara Keeler (6W-QM)
U.S. EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-6698
FAX: (214) 665-6689
Local:
Dr. Steve Mathies
Director
Barataria-Terrebonne
NEP
Nicholls State Univer-
sity Campus
P.O. Box 2663
Thibodaux, LA 70310
(504) 447-0868 or
1-800-259-0869
FAX: (504) 447-0870
23
-------
Barnegat Bay
Size and location: Barnegat Bay is a 75-square mile
estuarine system, with Ocean County, New Jersey as
the northern boundary and New Jersey Route 72 as
the southern boundary.
Organizations that initiated project:
New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro-
tection (NJDEP)
Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Bay Area Municipalities
Major environmental problems:
Degraded water quality caused by
- Nonpoint source loadings caused by de-
velopment on land and the activities as-
sociated with development (e.g., vehicle
use, lawn and garden maintenance, sep-
tic systems)
- Boat populations
- Wildlife populations
Actions taken or proposed: In 1987 the New Jersey
Legislature passed a law requiring the study of the
nature and extent of development impacts upon the
Bay. As a result of that study, a draft Watershed
Management Plan for Barnegat Bay was completed
by the NJDEP in April 1992. The watershed manage-
ment plan is being reviewed with all of the munici-
palities within the watershed to solicit their support
and to make changes in a municipality's zoning and
subdivision regulations, where needed, to effectively
implement the draft management plan watershed-
wide.
In support of this effort, Clean Water Act funds
arebeingutilized forbestmanagementpractice (BMP)
demonstration, determining the effectiveness of
BMPs, and intensive monitoring.
Stakeholders:
Borough of Barnegat Light
Borough of Bay Head
Borough of Beachwood
Borough of Harvey Cedars
Borough of Island Heights
Borough of Lavallette
Borough of Mantoloking
Borough of Ocean Gate
Borough of Pine Beach
Borough of Point Pleasant
Borough of Point Pleasant Beach
Borough of Seaside Heights
Borough of Seaside Park
Borough of Ship Bottom
Borough of South Toms River
Borough of Surf City
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Township of Barnegat
Township of Berkeley
Township of Brick
Township of Dover
Township of Lacey
Township of Long Beach
Township of Ocean
Township of Stafford
Contact: Barbara Spinweber
U.S. EPA Region II
Water Management Division, Room 813
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8632
FAX: (212)264-2194
Anacostia River continued from page 21
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in
Maryland
Washington Council of Governments
Contacts: Jon Capacasa
U.S. EPA Region III (3DAOO)
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-6529
FAX: (215)597-8255
Dominique Lueckenhoff
U.S. EPA Region III (3CBOO)
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-8228
FAX: (215)580-2023
24
-------
Bear River
Size and location: The Bear River has a 7,600-square
mile watershed located in Wyoming, Utah,and Idaho.
Organization that initiated project:
Utah Division of Water Resources
Major environmental problems:
Soil erosion, increased sediment loadings,
coliforms, and high nutrient loadings due to
animal feeding operations, dairies, urban
development, roads, oil and gas exploration,
and silviculture
Riparian vegetation removal
Stream channelization
Degradedstreamchannelsandstream banks
Actions taken or proposed: 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
BearRiverwaterdevelopmentandmanagementplan.
The effort is to address both water development and
water quality issues, with a water quality plan that
includes a broad reaching analysis of pollutant load-
ing to the river as well as chemical, biological, and
physical habitat assessments. Because the Bear River
encompasses Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, a regional
planning effort has been initiated. The purpose of the
regional effort is to share information, coordinate
planning efforts, and involve "grassroots" direction
and participation. An array of water projects in the
Bear River Basin initiated by different organizations
and groups are being coordinated through the Bear
River Watershed Water Quality Coordination Com-
mittee.
For example, the State of Utah, EPA, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), initiated a wa-
tershed restoration project on the Little Bear River
(one of the major tributaries in the basin), using funds
from USDA and EPA. The project includes stream
channel and riparian habitat restoration, land man-
agement, and animal waste treatment actions. Sev-
eral additional nonpoint source projects are now
underway in Wyoming that are aimed at restoring
tributary streams that have been impacted by
channelization, stream bank modification, and ripar-
ian habitat loss.
These "on-the-ground" demonstration projects
are helping to generate enthusiasm for more coop-
erative efforts.
Stakeholders:
Bear Lake Regional Commission
Bear River Resource Conservation and Devel-
opment Council
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Fish and Game Department
Local citizen groups
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
Utah Department of Agriculture
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Utah Division of Water Resources
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Utah Power and Light
Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Contact: Barbara Russell
Bear River Resource Conservation and
Development Council
1260 N. 200 East, Suite 4
Logan, UT 84321
(801) 753-3871
FAX: (801)753-4037
25
-------
Seeds Lake
Size and location: Beeds Lake has an 18,966-acre
watershed and is located in Franklin County in north
central Iowa.
Organizations that initiated project:
Friends of Beeds Lake
Franklin County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Major environmental problems:
Sediment, nutrients, and pesticides from
cropland
Animal wastes
Actions taken or proposed: The Beeds Lake project was
initiated with Fiscal Year 1993 Clean Water Act Sec-
tion 319 funds. The State Resource Enhancement and
Protection Program and the Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service Water Quality Incen-
tive Program are also providing funding. The project
workplan lays out a three-year project, but with the
involvement of an active citizen's group, watershed
protection activities should extend beyond the life of
the funds.
Project objectives include reducing sedimenta-
tion by 70 percent, and encouraging the farmers to
apply best management practices such as no-till,
contour farming,and nutrientand pesticide manage-
ment on the 5,500 most critical acres upstream from
the lake. Seventy percent of the watershed landown-
ers are targeted for involvement over the next two
years. Grass/tree filter strips, pasture and hayland
management, critical area planting, animal waste
management,streambankstabilization, and well test-
ing are among the other activities planned.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
American Boy Scouts
Ducks Unlimited
Franklin County Board of Supervisors
Franklin County Conservation Board
Franklin County Sanitarian
Franklin County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Friends of Beeds Lake
Future Farmers of America
Hampton Fish and Wildlife Club
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa State University Extension
Pheasants Forever
Soil Conservation Service
The Jaycees
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact:
Ubbo Agena
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-6402
FAX: (515) 281-8895
26
-------
Big Darby Creek
Size and location: The Big Darby Creek watershed is
located in west central Ohio. The watershed drains
557 square miles.
Organization that initiated project:
The Nature Conservancy
Major environmental problems:
Changes from agricultural land use to urban
and suburban development
Uncertainties of market and governmental
influences on agricultural practices and land
use
Actions taken or proposed: The Nature Conservancy
has identified the Big Darby Creek as a high priority
area for protection of biological diversity and is try-
ing to develop a long-term management and protec-
tion plan for the river and riparian areas. In support,
EPA and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
are jointly conducting an ecological risk assessment
case study. The intent of the case study is to clearly
identify risks to Big Darby Creek so that managers
may guide development and land use in a manner
that allows native species to continue to exist.
To achieve short-term improvements, EPA is
providing grants for agricultural projects through
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The work in-
volves the installation and monitoring of best man-
agement practices for various sites within the water-
shed. Another grant, under Section 104 (b) (3) of the
Clean Water Act, funds the development of a plan to
control long-term growth.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is
involved in Big Darby Creek in a variety of ways. The
Soil Conservation Service is providing technical as-
sistance, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-
vation Service is providing financial assistance, and
the Extension Service is implementing an educa-
tional program. USDA participates in a conserva-
tion tillage and increased critical area seedings project
that has been established for the watershed. The
project has a goal of reducing sediment by 50,000
tons. To date sediment reduction to the stream is
estimated at 17,000 tons. Gross erosion has been
reduced by 243,000 tons.
The U.S. Geological Survey is monitoring pesti-
cides, nutrients, and suspended solids on a daily
basis. Three in-stream monitoring devices are in
place to develop long-term trends. During the past
three years biologic integrity of the streams appears
to have remained constant with some new species
migrating further upstream.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
Big Darby Partners
Extension Service
General Public
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio State University
Private Corporations
Soil Conservation Service
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
Contacts:
Tom Davenport
U.S. EPA Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0209
FAX: (312)886-7804
Susan Cormier (Eco-Risk)
U.S.EPAEMRD
26 West Martin Luther
King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7995
27
-------
Big Spring Basin
Sizeand location: Big Spring Basin is a 103-square mile
ground water basin in Clayton County in northeast
Iowa.
Organization that initiated project:
Iowa Consortium on Agriculture and Water
Quality
Major environmental problems:
Elevated nitrate and coliform levels in farm-
stead wells
Herbicides including atrazine in ground and
surface water
Actions taken or proposed: The Big Spring project
comprises a comprehensive multidisciplinary ap-
proachindudingresearch, demonstrations, and edu-
cation programs. The research phase was started in
1981, and the demonstration program started in ear-
nest in 1986. Project activities are ongoing, with
funding from numerous sources, including EPA, Soil
Conservation Service, various state programs, and
others. Because it takes a long time for water quality
monitoring to provide conclusive evidence of the
effectiveness of best management practices, monitor-
ing will continue over the next several years, even
though the major portion of funding for the demon-
stration projects has run out.
The project focuses on the impacts of agricultural
activities on ground and surface water. Specific
actions include:
Demonstration sites for animal waste man-
agement and various crop related activities
such as alfalfa management and weed man-
agement.
Collection of detailed information at the
Spring through monitoring.
Studies of the aquatic ecology of the Basin.
Examination of the impacts of agriculture on
aquatic ecosystems, and in turn assessment
of the nutrient losses that are taken up in this
ecosystem.
Surveys of farm management practices and
chemical use.
* Extensive publicity and public education
activities.
Numerous field days for national and inter-
national visitors, as well as for local and
regional interests.
The Big Spring project has been the basis for
other innovative initiatives in Iowa such as the Inte-
grated Farm Management Program and the Model
Farms Demonstration Program. Iowa has been able
to demonstrate (significant reductions in nitrogen
fertilizer use across the state, with no loss in crop
yields. These programs were the foundation for
Iowa's receiving the EPA Administrator's Pollution
Prevention Award in 1992.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
Clayton County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Farmers
Iowa Chemical and Fertilizer Dealers Associa-
tion
Iowa Consortium on Agriculture and Water
Quality
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa State University Extension
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University of Iowa
Contact:
Dr. George Hallberg
University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory
102 Oakdale Campus #H101 OH
Iowa City, IA 52242
(319) 335-4500
FAX: (319) 335-4555
28
-------
Blackfoot River
Size and location: The Blackfoot River has a 2,290-
square mile watershed located in western Montana
and eastern Idaho. The watershed is 125 miles long.
Organizations that initiated project:
Blackfoot Trout Unlimited
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition
Major environmental problems:
Sedimentation from grazing and silvicultural
activities
Heavy metals from active and inactive mines
Loss of riparian areas and instream habitat
Recreational impacts
Actions taken or proposed: In 1991, the Blackfoot River
Symposium was held and created the Blackfoot River
Challenge. It was established to promote cooperative
resource management of the Blackfoot River, its tribu-
taries, and adjacent lands. The Symposium devel-
oped the following goals:
Provide a forum for the timely distribution
of technical and topical information from
public and private sources.
Foster communication between public and
private interests to avoid duplication of ef-
forts and capitalize on opportunities.
Recognize and work with the diverse inter-
ests in the Blackfoot Valley to resolve issues
and avoid confrontation.
Examine the cumulative affects of land man-
agement decisions and promote actions that
will lessen their adverse impacts in the
Blackfoot Valley.
American Rivers listed the Blackfoot River as one
of the top 10 most endangered rivers. Native char
and native cutthroat trout are species of concern.
EPA funded a Geographic Information System
project that will assemble the available information
on the Blackfoot River into a usable format that will
facilitate watershed assessment and land use deci-
sions. Meanwhile, private funds have been provided
for a fisheries investigation report and a part-time
facilitator. In addition, some ranchers are reducing
cattle access to tributaries to reduce erosion and
nonpoint source pollution. EPA has supported the
restoration and monitoring of a tributary impacted
by placer mining and channel straightening.
To date, activities have been limited to non-
controversial arenas. However, the coalition will
continue to work together searching for solutions to
more difficult issues over time.
Stakeholders:
ARCO
ASARCO
Blackfoot Trout Unlimited
Champion International
Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition
County Commissioners
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Landowners
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks
Montana Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences
Montana Department of State Lands
Phelps-Dodge
Plum Creek Paper
Recreationalists
Soil Conservation Service
The Nature Conservancy
Trout Unlimited
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
Contacts:
Jim Stone, President
Blackfoot Challenge
Box 148
Ovando,MT 59854
(406) 793-5530
Mike Settevendemie, Executive Director
Blackfoot Challenge
Box 1117
Bonner,MT 59823
(406)244-5600
29
-------
Blackstone River
Size and location: The Blackstone River is located in
south central Massachusetts and flows from Worces-
ter,Massachusetts to theSeekonk River inPawtaucket,
Rhode Island. The Blackstone has a total length of 48
miles with a drainage area of 540 square miles. The
river is the second largest freshwater tributary to the
Narragansett Bay. The Blackstone River is an impor-
tant 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.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency based on
recommendations from Massachusetts and
Rhode Island
Major environmental problems:
Industrial and municipal discharges
Water withdrawal
Heavily contaminated sediments
Actions taken or proposed: Both Massachusetts and
Rhode Island have adopted numeric and whole efflu-
ent water quality criteria and anti-degradation provi-
sions in their state water quality standards. Strict
water qualify based permits have been issued to
major wastewater dischargers, and combined sewer
i overflow strategies are being implemented. The
following actions have been taken or are currently
underway:
* Historic analysis of existing water quality
data.
Collection of dry weather data.
Calibration of a dissolved oxygen model to
include impacts from phosphorus and nitro-
gen.
Calibration of trace metals model for the
developmentofaTotalMaximumDailyLoad
(TMDL) and waste load allocation (WLA).
« Collection of wet weather data to determine
annual wet weather loads to Narragansett
Bay as well as intermediate locations along
the river and the identification of water qual-
ity hot spots to target land use based best
management practices.
In addition to the above, the Massachusetts Ex-
ecutive Office of Environmental Affairs has initiated
a technical assistance program which is providing
pollution prevention assistance to industries to assist
them in reducing the use of toxic materials. The
assistance is provided by a non-regulatory state of-
fice and consists of various activities including multi-
media evaluations, economic evaluations, educational
materials, seminars and workshops, and identifica-
tion of alternative chemicals and process technolo-
gies.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as part of
their Section 22 Planning Assistance to States Pro-
gram, has funded a study to investigate the feasibility
of restoring anadromous fish and enhancing water
fowl habitat along the Blackstone River.
The State of Rhode Island has completed a Com-
prehensive Conservation and Management Plan for
the Narragansett Bay which includes recommenda-
tions for the Blackstone. The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts is including the Blackstone in its Wa-
tershed Permitting Plan.
Stakeholders:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Environmental, recreation, cultural, and
watershed organizations
Local governments
Local industries and utilities
New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
State of Rhode Island
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
University of Rhode Island
Contact:
Gerald C. Potamis
U.S. EPA Region I (WMN)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3575
FAX: (617)565-4940
-------
Bowman-Haley Reservoir
Size and Location: Bowman-Haley Reservoir consists
of a 304,000-acre watershed located in southwestern
North Dakota along the border between North and
South Dakota.
Organization that initiated project:
Bowman-Slope Soil Conservation District
Major environmental problems:
Nutrients from grazing practices and feed-
lots
Eutrophication
Sedimentation from grazing practices and
eroding streambanks
Contamination from livestock waste
Actions taken or proposed: To improve water quality
conditions in the reservoir, the Bowman Slope Soil
Conservation District and Water Resource District
Boards initiated a water quality improvement plan.
At least 90 percent of the watershed issued for agri-
culture or wildlife recreation. The primary goal of the
plan is to reduce wind and water erosion in the
watershed by improving the management practices
on over 50 percent of the agricultural lands in the
watershed. The project objectives are:
Develop resource management for over 50
percent of the agricultural lands in the water-
shed to reduce wind/water erosion and the
transport of nonpoint source pollutants to
the reservoir.
Develop livestock waste management plans
for the priority livestock concentration areas
to reduce/eliminate runoff from these areas.
Monitor water quality trends and track best
management practices implementation.
Educate landowners/operators on the most
effective land use technologies and manage-
ment strategies which will protect/improve
water quality.
The Conservation District is meeting the objectives
by implementing an aggressive nonpoint source in-
formation/education campaign and providing fi-
nancial and technical assistance to landowners to
encourage voluntary implementation and conserva-
tion practices on their farm units. Participation by
individual farmers to voluntarily implement prac-
tices to improve water quality throughout the water-
shed has been high.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
Bowman-Slope Soil Conservation District
Ducks Unlimited
Farmers
Harding County Conservation District
North Dakota Department of Health
North Dakota Extension Service
North Dakota Game and Fish
Pheasants Forever
Soil Conservation Service
South Dakota Department of the Environment
and Natural Resources
State Association of Conservation Districts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
State: Greg Sandness
North Dakota State Department of
Health and Consolidated Laboratories
1200 Missouri Ave.
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
(701)221-5232
FAX: (701)221-5200
Local:
Kent Belland
Bowman-Slope Soil Conservation
District
P.O. Box 256
Bowman, ND 58623
(701) 523-3872
FAX: (701) 523-3870
31
-------
T, | ff \'-m , %*??' "!::!i|!; 'If'1: -! I .'; >">#! '.-,' ! W" ''
Buff alo River Area of ConceM
Size and location: The Buffalo River Area of Concern
(ADC) is located in the City of Buffalo in western
New York State and extends approximately six miles
from the mouth of the river to the east. The river
discharges into Lake Erie near the head of the Niagara
River.
that initiated the project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
Major environmental problems:
PCBs, chlordane, and PAHs are impairing
fishing and aquatic life
* Navigational dredging of the river and
bulkheading and other alterations of the
shoreline have degraded fish and wildlife
habitat
* Metals and cyanides in the sediment
Actions taken or proposed: The Buffalo River AOC is
one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by the
United States and/or Canadian governments in the
Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
has been developed for this AOC to provide a long-
term course of action for environmental cleanup.
RAP development began in 1987 and was completed
in 1989 as a working document. A Remedial Advi-
sory Committee wasformedin 1990 to assistNYSDEC
in RAP implementation. Actions that have been
taken to date include:
A flow activated sampling station was estab-
lished by NYSDEC to collect samples during
high flow events. Measurements were also
made at another station at the upper end of
the AOC.
A sediment dynamics model of the Buffalo
River has been developed by EPA under the
Assessment and Remediation of Contami-
nated Sediments Program. This model will
allow predictions of sediment scour and
deposition under a variety of flow condi-
tions in the AOC.
A remedial waste removal action is under-
way at the Bern Metal site and remedial
construction action is underway at the Madi-
son Wire site.
A plan has been developed by NYSDEC to
assess existing habitat conditions in the Buf-
falo River and to identify potential habitat
improvements. Field work has been initi-
ated to compile data on existing habitat con-
ditions in the AOC and the immediate up-
stream watershed. Faculty and students at
New York State University have conducted
physical mapping, siltation rate evaluations,
and additional biological surveys.
Stakeholders:
ARO Corporation
Bern Metal
Buffalo River Citizens' Committee
Buffalo River Study Group
Dresser Industries
Erie County Department of Environment and
Planning
Friends of the Buffalo River
Madison Wire
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Other industries
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Ellen Heath
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1865
FAX: (212) 264-2194
-------
Buzzards Bay
Size and location: Buzzards Bay is located in south-
eastern Massachusetts. It has a surface area of 228
square miles and a watershed area of 432 square
miles.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmen-
tal Affairs
Major environmental problems:
Nitrogen enrichment
Toxic pollutants
Pathogenic contamination of shellfish
Actions taken or proposed: Buzzards Bay was selected
for inclusion in the National Estuary Program in
1987. A Comprehensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plan that recommends priority corrective ac-
tions to restore and maintain the estuarine resources
has been developed. Actions accomplished include:
Development of nitrogen loading limits for
localized embayments.
Establishment of a tri-town nitrogen man-
agement district.
Creation of a toxic use reduction program for
the highly industrialized New Bedford area.
Establishment of a boat no discharge area for
the waters in the town of Wareham.
Completion of two storm water remediation
projects and partial completion of four oth-
ers.
Establishment of a Mutual Aid Compact for
Oil Spill Containment among the 12 munici-
palities surrounding Buzzards Bay.
Stakeholders:
Anglers
Boaters
Citizens
Coastal property owners
Environmental organizations
Industry
Local governments
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environ-
mental Affairs
Naturalists
Tourists
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
EPA:
Bruce Rosinoff
U.S. EPA Region I (WQE)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-9448
FAX: (617)565-4940
State:
Joseph E. Costa
Buzzards Bay Project
2 Spring Street
Marion, MA 02738
(508) 748-3600
FAX: (508)748-2845
33
-------
Cache River
Size and location: The Cache River is located in south-
am Illinois and is a tributary of the Ohio River. The
area is adjacent to the Shawnee National Forest.
Organization that initiated project:
The Nature Conservancy
Major environmental problems:
Habitat loss
Timber loss
Impacts of agriculture
Actions taken or proposed: The Nature Conservancy is
working on a long-term plan for the Cache River
Basin.
The State of Illinois received a grant from EPA
under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act in October
1992 that was used to obtain and control land ease-
ments in critical areas. Also, work was conducted on
seed bank protection and preparation.
Stakeholders:
The Nature Conservancy
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Ernie Lopez
U.S EPA Region V (WQW-16J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-3017
FAX: (312)886-7804
. Camden: Coiinty Aquifer
Size and location: Activities will focus on the south-
eastern half of Camden County, New Jersey. Well-
head protection program activities will be expanded
to the northwestern half of the county by the Camden
County Department of Health.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
* Ground water contamination potentially
caused by unpermitted discharge, under-
ground storage tank operations, abandoned
hazardous waste sites, and salt storage at
municipal garages
Actions taken or proposed: EPA and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection are work-
ingin concert to enhance the capability of the Camden
County Department of Health to establish a well-
head protection program countywide. These activi-
ties include: design of a ground water-related geo-
graphic information system database; geo-position-
ing of public drinking water needs and potential
sources of contamination to the underlying aquifer
system; delineation of zones of influence (wellhead
protection areas) around public wells; and public
outreach and education. The regulatory agencies
will also target ground water-related programactivi-
ties to the project area including inspections and
preremedial investigations.
Stakeholders:
Business interests
Camden County Department of Health
Municipal governments
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Other county agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
EPA:
Susan Schulz
U.S. EPA Region II
Water Management
Division
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-5719
FAX: (212)264-2194
Local:
Robert Pirrotta
Camden County Dept. of
Health
Jefferson House, 3rd
P.O. Box 9
Lakeland Road
(609) 757-8600
FAX: (609)374-0143
-------
Cameron Atrazine Pollution Trading
Size and location: This project consists of a 2,500-acre
watershed that contains three city water supply lakes.
The watershed is located in Clinton and Dekalb Coun-
ties in northwest Missouri.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Atrazine in city drinking water supply
Runoff from agricultural activities
Actions taken or proposed: EPA provided seed money
in 1992 for this project under Section 104 of the Clean
Water Act. The final report for the activities funded
by that grant is due in early 1995. The U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture has also provided funds for
watershed management activities through the Water
Quality Incentive Program. The project is directed at
evaluating themost cost effective and efficient method
of atrazine control in the drinking water supply. The
project costs of treatment at the water plant are being
compared with costs of implementing integrated
crop management practices in the watershed. Water
quality monitoring of the reservoirs is also being
conducted.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
City of Cameron
Clinton County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Dekalb County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Grindstone, Lost, and Muddy Creek Water-
shed Trustees
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University of Missouri Extension
Contact: Tom Lorenz
U.S. EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7292
FAX: (913) 551-7765
Canaan Valley
Size and location: Canaan Valley covers 55 square
miles and is located in Tucker County, West Virginia.
Organization that initiated project:
The Canaan Valley Task Force
Major environmental problems:
Second home development and off-road ve-
hicle (ORV) use threaten sensitive wetlands
Actions taken or proposed: EPA created the Canaan
Valley Task Force in July 1990. The Task Force is a
public, private, and government partnership formed
to ensure long-term environmental protection while
allowing for reasonable and sustainable economic
growth. The Task Force facilitates open and regular
dialogue among all the interests in the Valley. The
Canaan Valley Task Force coalesces diverse, often
competing interests into a working federal, state,
local, and public partnership to address a compre-
hensive range of issues. The dialogue facilitates the
resolution of controversial and sensitive issues of
habitat protection, economic growth, and property
rights.
The following actions have been taken or are
under way:
A land-use trends analysis through Geo-
graphic Information System applications.
Advance identification of wetlands.
« Suspension of Nationwide Permits for sur-
face mining, minor road crossings, and head-
water and isolated wetlands.
Increased wetlands surveillanceand enforce-
ment.
Vigorous public outreach including numer-
ous open public meetings and development
of fact sheets as well as an informational
brochure.
A wastewater assimilation study of the
Blackwater River.
Two-year assistance to Tucker County for
non-traditional means of wastewater treat-
ment.
35
-------
Canaan Valley
Studies of impacts from ORVs involving
water quality and vegetative communities.
A study of the economic impact of the pro-
posed Canaan Valley National Wildlife Ref-
uge.
An assessment of the headwater wetlands of
the Valley.
A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ground
water study and development of a concep-
tual ground water flow model.
* A USGS surface water study and develop-
ment of a surface water model.
Due in large part to the activities of the Task
Force, theMonongahela Power Company, the largest
landowner in the northern half of the Valley where
most of the sensitive wetlands are located, has pro-
hibited the use of ORVs on its property, thereby
reducing impacts to the wetlands ecosystem from
this activity. The Task Force has also helped pave the
way for the creation of the Canaan Valley National
Wildlife Refuge. The first refuge acquisition was
formally dedicated on October 22,1994 as the Nation's
500th National Wildlife Refuge. As more sensitive
habitat is acquired for the refuge, the integrity of the
wetlands ecosystem will be better protected.
Stakeholders:
Brooks Bird Club
Canaan Valley Landowners Association
League of Women Voters
Local Citizens Groups
Local citizens
Motorcycle Industry Council
National Audubon Society
National Park Service
National Wildlife Federation
The Nature Conservancy
Timberline Council
Trout Unlimited
Tucker County Chamber of Commerce
Tucker County Citizens for Progress
Tucker County Commission
Tucker County Convention and Visitor's
Bureau
Tucker County Development Authority
Tucker County Planning Commission
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
West Virginia Audubon Council
West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club
West Virginia Division of Environmental
Protection
West Virginia Division of Izaak Walton League
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
West Virginia Division of Tourism and Parks
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy
West Virginia Mountain Bike Association
West Virginia Off-Highway Vehicle Associa-
tion
West Virginia Recreational Vehicle Association
West Virginia Wildlife Federation
Contact: John Forren
U.S. EPA Region III (3ES42)
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-3361
FAX: (215)597-7906
36
-------
Casco Bay Estuary
Size and location: Casco Bay covers 229 square miles
and its watershed covers 985 square miles. The bay
extends from Cape Elizabeth, Maine to Phippsburg,
Maine. Portland, Maine's largest city, borders Casco
Bay.
Organization that initiated project:
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Major environmental problems:
Water quality impacts from storm water and
combined sewer overflows
Habitat impacts from development
Water quality and human health impacts
from individual wastewater systems (septic
systems)
Living resource impacts from existing sedi-
ment contamination
Lack of public stewardship
Actions taken or proposed: Casco Bay was selected for
inclusion in the National Estuary Program in 1990. A
preliminary management plan for the Bay has been
developed, and a final Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan that recommends priority
corrective actions to restore and maintain the estua-
rine resources is due in September 1995. To date a
series of implementation and demonstration projects
have been undertaken, including:
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-
vation Service distributed over $200,000 in
cost-share funds in Casco Bay watershed to
address agricultural nonpoint source pollu-
tion.
A public education campaign provided in-
formation on the need to restore eroding
streambanks along the Pleasant River. Vol-
unteers undertook the restoration work.
A training program for municipal officials
was developed to provide information on
nonpoint source pollution and best manage-
ment practices.
Administrative structures to ensure the in-
spection and maintenance of septic systems
are being evaluated.
A storm water management plan for a town
center is under development to demonstrate
storm water control planning in areas that
are designated as growth areas under local
zoning ordinances.
Stakeholders:
Business and industry
Environmentalists
Farmers and foresters
Fishing industry
Homeowners
Local, state, and federal officials
Marina operators
Realtors and land developers
Contacts:
EPA:
Mark P. Smith
U.S. EPA Region I (WQE)
JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-9461
FAX: (617)565-4940
State:
Lee Doggett
Casco Bay Estuary
Project
312 Canco Road
Portland, ME 04103
(207) 828-1043
FAX: (207)828-4001
37
-------
Chalk Creek
Size and location: Chalk Creek has a 173,000-acre
watershed that is located 45 miles east of Salt Lake
City, Utah.
Organizations that initiated project:
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Utah Department of Agriculture
Major environmental problems:
Sedimentation due to oil and gas construc-
tion sites, grazing practices, road construc-
tion, and loss of riparian vegetation
Nutrients due to erosion and livestock con-
centrations
Degradingstreamchannelsandstreambanks
Loss of riparian vegetation
* Eutrophication of Echo Reservoir
Actions taken or proposed: Inventories have been com-
pleted for rangeland, forest, irrigated cropland, fish-
eries, stream and riparian areas, and wildlife. Alter-
native treatment plans havebeen developed for range-
land, irrigated cropland, and forest land.
The resource inventories and alternative treat-
ment plans were used to complete a coordinated
resource management plan (CRMP) for the water-
shed in 1994. The CRMP is a watershed management
plan that represents consensus of all the stakeholders
in the watershed. Watershed activities are coordi-
nated by a Project Steering Committee which was
organized by the U. S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the local soil conservation district in
1991.
A Project to demonstrate stream stabilization
measures has been completed with Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 319 funds. USDA provided the tech-
nical assistance. Now that the CRMP has been com-
pleted, USDA is accelerating work on development
of conservation plans for individual landowners.
Watershed treatment practices to stabilize stream
channels and control pollutants from rangeland and
irrigated pasture and hayland are in the initial phases
of implementation. Funding is being provided
through CWA Section 319, USDA Water Quality
Incentive Program, and landowners. Information
and education activities are also being carried out.
Stakeholders:
Citizens Dependent on Weber River for
Drinking Water
Local governments
Local landowners
Summit Land Trust
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Utah Association of Conservation Districts
Utah Department of Agriculture
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining
Utah Division of Water Resources
Utah Division of Water Rights
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Weber Basin Water Conservancy District
Contact: Roy Gunnell
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801) 538-6146
FAX: (801) 538-6016
38
-------
Size and location: The Chehalis River has a 2,660-
square mile drainage basin, located midway along
the western Washington State coast (includes the
entire Chehalis River Watershed, minus the Grays
Harbor estuary).
Organization that initiated project:
Chehalis River Council (CRC)
Major environmental problems:
Bacteria
Temperature
Dissolved oxygen
Siltation
Suspended sediments
Phosphorus
Actions taken or proposed: A plan has been developed
and is in place for protecting and restoring the Chehalis
River Basin. Funding to implement the plan is cur-
rently being sought. Actions to be taken once fund-
ing has been obtained include:
An economic feasibility study for a biowaste
processingfacility to remove waste streams
Tri-County BioProducts, a group of dairy
farmers and other interested citizens and
agricultural interests will manage the study.
Ground water monitoring studies of fecal
coliform and nitrates impacted areas (the
county is already doing some work).
Education and outreach to teach people about
environmental problems and their relation-
ship to the ecosystem.
Actions that have already been taken or are un-
derway in the Chehalis River Basin include:
Completed a nonpoint source pollution plan
by consensus of river basin users in Decem-
ber 1992.
Formed the Chehalis Basin Resources Alli-
ancea nonprofit not eligible for tax deduct-
ible giftsfor fund raising and grant appli-
cant for CRC.
Formed Chehalis Basin Resource Trusta
nonprofit eligible for tax deductible gifts,
easements, and bequests.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecol-
ogy) is doing a Total Maximum Daily Load
study of the middle Chehalis River and Black
River, a tributary, and began a wasteload
allocation process in fiscal year 1994.
Ecology (with EPA funding) has developed
a proposal to use the Chehalis River system
to test a trading scheme between point and
nonpoint sources to improve water quality.
Dillenbaugh Creek Model Watershed project
begun by Lewis County Conservation Dis-
trict.
Basin-wide private well water testing pro-
gram is underway through Centralia Col-
lege.
The Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force, a
nonprofit group, is developing and imple-
menting a $20 million fisheries (salmon and
steelhead) restoration plan for the Chehalis
River Basinthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice funded 21 projects (primarily habitat
restoration) in fiscal year 1992 some of which
were completed in fiscal year 1993.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural interests
Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force
Chehalis River Council
Cities and counties in the basin
Columbia/Pacific Resource Conservation and
Development
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reserva-
tion
Conservation districts
Environmental groups
Fish Growers Association
Fisheries interests
Grays Harbor Conservation District
Indian Tribes in the basin including the
Quinault Indian Tribe and the Chehalis Indian
Tribe
Lewis County Cattlemans Association
Lewis County Conservation District
Timber interests
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
Universities
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Environmental Council
Washington State Department of Fisheries
Washington State University Cooperative
Extension
Contact: Dave Palmer
Chairman
Chehalis River Council
P.O. Box 586
Oakville,WA 98568
(206) 273-8117
39
-------
Chesapeake Bay
Size and location: The Chesapeake 633/5 watershed
covers 64,000 square miles and encompasses parts of
New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Vir-
ginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
Organizations that initiated project:
U. S. Congress
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (repre-
senting all federal agencies)
States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania
District of Columbia
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Major environmental problems:
Nutrient enrichment from all sources, in-
cluding air deposition
Habitatlossand degradation (including sub-
merged aquatic vegetation)
* Toxic substances
* Interstate fishery management
Population growth and development
Actions taken or proposed: The major initiative of the
Chesapeake Bay Program concerns nutrient reduc-
tion. In 1987 the signatory jurisdictions agreed to
reducenutrientsenteringthe Bay by 40 percent by the
year 2000 and retain those levels into the next cen-
tury. In 1992 that agreement was further clarified to
apply to the 10 major tributaries in the watershed.
The four jurisdictions have completed their draft
strategies specifying how the 40 percent reduction
target will be reached in each tributary. A ban on
phosphate detergent in the Bay states has helped to
reduce phosphorus entering the Bay by 16 percent
since 1985. Biological Nutrient Removal, a leading-
edge cost-effective technology developed by the Bay
Program, is currently being used to remove nitrogen
at eight sewage treatment plants throughout the Bay
watershed. Nutrient management plans, and ero-
sion and runoff control measures initiated by the Bay
Program are now being used on over 700,000 acres of
agricultural land throughout the Bay watershed.
Habitat restoration projects address numerous
problems. The removal of blockages and construc-
tion of denil fishways and fish elevators to create fish
passages has reopened 175 miles of river to anadro-
rnous fish in the watershed, with many new projects
underway. The Bay Program has committed to re-
opening731 milesof streamhabitatby 1998 and 1,357
miles by 2003. Oyster reefs have been created in
various areas throughout the Bay. The return of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is inseparably
linked to water quality improvement and nutrient
reduction, and areas of the Bay where SAV is now
growing have nearly doubled since 1984.
The Bay Program has developed a Toxics of
Concern List and is developing strategies to remove
or reduce the impact of these chemicals. The Pro-
gram identification of tributyltin (TBT) boat paint as
a harmful toxin and its subsequent ban in the Bay led
to a nationwide ban. Voluntary Integrated Pest Man-
agement practices to decrease the use of pesticides
and pesticide runoff are successfully promoted
throughout the watershed. The new Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy
commits the Bay Program to 75 percent coverage of
the entire watershed with Integrated Pest Manage-
ment practices. The Strategy also commits federal
facilities in the watershed to reduce all toxic emis-
sions by 75 percent by the year 2000 and targets a 75
percent reduction of Toxics of Concern by private
industry.
The striped bass or rockfish, which spawns in
Chesapeake Bay, was the focus of federal legislation
in 1984 to regulate this interstate fish. A subsequent
moratorium on fishing, first by Maryland and then
Virginia, led to a dramatic recovery of the species.
The 1993 survey of juvenile rockfish in the Bay was
the highest in the 40 years that the survey has been
conducted. The Bay Program has developed baywide
interstate fishery management plans for a dozen
species of finfish and shellfish.
Both Maryland and Virginia passed statewide
legislation aimed at helping to protect sensitive Bay
shoreline areas from development.
In July 1994, representatives from25 federal agen-
cies and departments signed the Agreement of Federal
Agencies on Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake
Bay. The agreement included many very specific
commitments by federal agencies, especially on fed-
eral lands within the watershed, including pollution
prevention assessments by interagency teams aimed
at reducing nutrients; beneficial use of clean dredge
material for habitat restoration projects; and integra-
tion with National Civilian Community Corps projects
throughout the watershed.
Chesapeake Bay continued on page 44
II ill II IlllllllllMl
ill'iiinn
40
-------
Christina River
Size and location: The Christina River Watershed
encompasses over 1,000 square miles and drains
portions of southeastern Pennsylvania, Delaware,
and a small portion of Maryland. The watershed lies
within the Delaware River Basin.
Organizations that initiated project:
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-
sources
Major environmental problems:
Nutrient problems caused by point and
nonpoint sources
Toxic pollutants
Threats to water supplies, major recreational
areas, and aquatic life from urban and agri-
cultural runoff as well as major point sources,
including several hazardous waste sites
Actions taken or proposed: Through a coordinated
effort by Pennsylvania and Delaware, this area is in
the first stages of developing a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL). Problems have been identified, and a
proposed short and long term monitoring strategy
has been developed. The monitoring plan and pro-
posed future studies for the development of control
requirements have been approved by environmental
officials in Pennsylvania, Delaware, the Delaware
River Basin Commission (DRBC), and EPA. The
monitoring program was initiated onOctoberl,1994.
The approved plan calls for three years of moni-
toring in order to develop sufficient data to calibrate
and verify the Water Quality Analysis Simulation
Program water quality model. The last two years of
the plan will be devoted to the development of low
flow TMDLs and control needs.
The states, DRBC, and EPA have begun to factor
in the nonpoint source problems in the basin. An
interstate nonpoint source workgroup has been es-
tablished that will develop a workplan to address
these problems. This workplan will factor in, as
much as possible, the ongoing monitoring activities
described above. The receiving stream model noted
above will be used to develop TMDLs and control
needs for the problem areas within the basin.
In addition, the states have initiated a ground
water study for a portion of this watershedthe Red
Clay Creek watershed (between Pennsylvania and
Delaware). Studies of ground water quality and
quantity were conducted by the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey (ground water supplies 70 to 80 percent of base
flow year round). The effects of ground water pump-
ing, septic systems, and recharge by waste water spray
irrigation systems were examined. The potential for
deep injection of wastewater was also examined and
ruled out due to the geology of the basin. The ground
water of the Red Clay Creek was found to be gener-
ally good, but there are warning signs about potential
threats to ground water quality.
Stakeholders:
Brandy wine Conservancy
Brandy wine Valley Association
Chester County Water Authority
City of Newark
City of Wilmington
Conservation districts
Delaware Nature Society
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Delaware River Basin Commission
New Castle County
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-
sources
Red Clay Valley Association
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Geological Survey
White Clay Creek Watershed Association
Contact:
Thomas Henry
U.S. EPA Region III (3WMI2)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-9927
FAX: (215)597-3359
41
-------
tObBK F3IlRig«^
She and location: The Clark Fork-Fend Oreille Water-
shed covers 26,000 square miles in Montana, Idaho,
and Washington.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S, Congress
Major emrironmental problems:
Nutrients from sources including irrigated
agriculture, septic tanks, and municipal and
industrial waste water discharges
Heavy metals from active and inactive min-
ing activities
Actions taken or proposed: Section 525 of the Clean
Water Act calls for a comprehensive study of the
sources of pollution in Lake Fend Oreille and the
Clark Fork River and its tributaries. Such an under-
taking has required help from three states, two EPA
regions,andtheEPALas Vegas EnvironmentalMoni-
toringSystems Laboratory. Using a range of techno-
logical tools, the study of the rivers feeding Lake
Fend Oreille was linked with an analysis of the lake
by a project team made up of the U.S. Geological
Survey, theUniversityof Idaho, the PanhandleHealth
District, the Eastern Washington University, the
Bonner County Planning and Development Depart-
ment, theldaho Departmentof Environmental Qual-
ity, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the
EPA Las Vegas Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory.
Objectives of the project include:
» Control nuisance algae in the Clark Fork
River by reducing nutrient concentrations.
Protect Pend Oreille Lake water quality by
maintaining or reducing current rate of nu-
trient loading from the Clark Fork River.
Reduce near shore eutrophication in Pend
Oreille Lake by reducing nutrient loading
from local sources.
Improve Pend Oreille Lake water quality
through macrophyte management and tribu-
tary nonpoint source controls.
Actions include:
» Convene a Tri-State Implementation Coun-
cil to implement the management plan rec-
ommendations.
« Establish a basin-wide phosphate detergent
ban.
Establish numeric nutrient loading targets
for the Clark Fork River and Pend Oreille
Lake.
I
Develop and maintain programs to educate
the public on its role in protecting and main-
taining water quality.
Control Eurasian milfoil (a nuisance plant)
by education, rotovation (a harvesting tech-
nique), and research into alternative meth-
ods of control.
Install centralized sewer systems for devel-
oped areas on Pend Oreille Lake.
Institute seasonal land application and other
improvements at the Missoula wastewater
treatment facility.
Enforce existing regulations and laws con-
sistently and aggressively, particularly state
anti-degradation statutes.
Establish and maintain a basin-wide water
quality monitoring network to assess effec-
tiveness and trends and to better identify
sources of pollutants.
Develop and enforce storm water and ero-
sion control plans and county ordinances.
In addition, Idaho received a Clean Lakes Pro-
gram grant in 1987 to conduct a Phase I diagnostic/
feasibility study for Lake Pend Oreille and its water-
shed. This study will analyze the lake's condition and
determine the causes of that condition, examine the
watershed to determine the sources of pollution, and
then evaluate solutions and recommendations for
the most feasible procedures to restore and protect
lake water quality.
In 1993, a Phase II Clean Water Lakes grant was
awarded. The Phase II project will translate the Phase
I recommendations into action. Phase II projects
implement in-lake restoration work as well as critical
watershed management activities to control nonpoint
source pollution to the lake.
Stakeholders:
City of Butte
City of Deerlodge
City of Missoula
City of Newport
Clark Fork Pend Oreille Coalition
Clean Lakes Coordinations Council
Idaho County Commissions
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Implementation Council
Intermountain Forest Industry Association
Intermountain Resources
Kalispill Indian Tribe
Clark Fork continued on page 45
42
-------
Clear Creek
Size and location: The Clear Creek watershed covers
roughly 600 square miles and includes 5 counties and
more than 13 communities. From the headwaters on
the continental divide to the plains near Denver,
Clear Creek connects small mountain communities
with Colorado's largest metropolitan area.
Organization that initiated project:
No one organization initiated the project, per se.
It resulted from a critical mass of representative
groups from industry, agencies, local organiza-
tions, and private citizens that joined together to
protect the Clear Creek.
Major environmental problems:
Metal loadings from active and inactive min-
ing sites
Highway construction and maintenance run-
off and direct spills to the creek from high-
way accidents
Urban development and runoff
Hydrologic modification
Nutrient pollution from septic tanks and
municipal point sources
Channel and riparian area destruction and
erosion caused by construction for gambling
growth
Industrial discharges
Leaking underground storage tanks
Actions taken or proposed: In 1983 the Clear Creek/
Central City site was included on the Superfund
National Priorities List. It is one of the largest
Superfund study areas in the Nation encompassing
all of two counties in the upper watershed. Planned
Superfund remedial actions and voluntary cleanups
have played and will continue to play an important
role in the restoration of the river. Specifically, they
include: Argo Tunnel water treatment plant, Burleigh
Tunnel and man-made wetlands treatments, and
private party mine waste cleanups in Central City
and Blackhawk.
The most unique partnership was formed to
address the McClelland Mine. Recently, through
cooperative efforts of Superfund, Coors Brewing
Company, the Colorado Department of Health, the
Colorado Department of Transportation, Clear Creek
County, and the Mining Headwaters Initiative, each
taking one part of the six-part project, a comprehen-
sive restoration was accomplished. The capping of
mine tailings and mine waste piles, treatment of a
wetlands area, and boat ramp and trail installation
transformed what was once a hazardous site into a
county park.
Other actions taken in the watershed are:
Emergency dial-down system to inform wa-
ter users when spills have occurred in the
Creek.
Coors, the County, the Department of Trans-
portation and the U.S. Forest Service have
completed the Bakersville to Loveland Trail.
AMAX Henderson Mine water quality
project.
Reworking of old Urad mill tailings to re-
duce metal loadings.
Guanella Pass road reconstruction.
Bear Mine Project by the U.S. Bureau of Mines
and the U.S. Forest Service.
Idaho Springs habitat remediation project.
Formation of the North Clear Creek
minif oruma venue for small mountain com-
munities to jointly cooperate on environ-
mental solutions.
« Water supply environmental impact state-
ment.
Wetlands planning.
City ordinances.
Clear Creek Land Conservancy - Forest Stew-
ardship Program.
Jefferson County Open Spaceacquisitions
to protect water quality and stream corridors
"Trails 2000 Plan."
The Nature Conservancy mapping of endan-
gered species specifically the orchid, Ute
Ladies' Tresses (Spiranthes Diluvailis).
Clear Creek Canyon Action Planenviron-
mentally sustainable development plan for
the central canyon area.
GoldenGateCanyon"Great Outdoors Colo-
rado" State Park improvements.
Colorado School of Mines freshman class
EPICS -nonpoint source evaluations.
Colorado School of Mines Research Insti-
tuteemergency cleanup of radioactive
waste.
City of Goldenwater quality ordinances
and enforcement.
Riparian restoration of Clear Creek through
Golden and Wheat Ridge by Coors.
Clear Creek WIIN Newsletter and video.
ClearCreek-I-76jointlanduseplanbyArvada
and Jefferson County with specific environ-
mental performance standards.
43
-------
Clear Creek
Standley Lake Agreementcomprehensive
watershed management agreement for
implementation of new water quality stan-
dards within the basin.
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District-
-urban runoff water quality control and flood
prevention projects.
Division of Wildlife - Stream Watch Pro-
gram.
Adams County River Parks.
Many of these projects and programs were insti-
gated or facilitated by the two Clear Creek Watershed
Forums which were organized and attended by a
diverse group of stakeholder interests. The Clear
Creek watershed effort is a model for ecosystem
protectionin Colorado. Thewater and the watershed
through which it flows easily establishes a sense of
place for the citizens and a focus for efforts to protect
the environment. Over 85 percent of the water is used
as a drinking water supply for the metro area; there-
fore, the people of the lowlands have a special inter-
est in remediation of the impacts of the past mining
activities. Also the enhancement and protection of
natural areas for recreation have spawned several
Joint projects throughout the watershed.
StotehoJders:
Cities - Central City, Black Hawk, Empire, Silver
Plume, Georgetown, Idaho Springs, Golden,
Arvada, Westminster, Northglenn
Colorado Department of Health
Colorado Department of Transportation
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Counties - Jefferson, Clear Creek, Gilpin
Denver Regional Council of Governments
Environmental groups - Clear Creek Land Con-
servancy, PAVE
Large and Small industries - Amax/Cypros,
Coors Brewery Company, Western Mobile Per-
mit
Local citizens
Professional organizations
U.S. Bureau of Mines
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association
Contacts: Carl Norbeck
Colorado Water Quality Control Division
4200 Cherry Creek Dr. South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3513
FAX: (303) 782-0390
Holly Fliniau (8HWM-SR)
Carol Russell (8WM-WQ)
U.S. EPA Region VIII
99918th. Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 293-1822 or (303) 293-1449
FAX: (303) 391-6957
Chesapeake Bay continued from page 40
Stakeholders:
Agricultural interests
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Chesapeake Research Consortium
District of Columbia
Industry
Local environmental and citizens groups
Sport and commercial fisheries
States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania
Utilities
Various federal agencies including EPA
Contact: Bill Matuszeski
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
U.S. EPA
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
(410) 267-5700
FAX: (410)267-5777
TJ "
-------
Clear Lake
Size and location: Clear Lake consists of an 8,700-acre
watershed located in Cerro Gordo County in north
central Iowa.
Organization that initiated project:
Cerro Gordo County Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District
Major environmental problems:
Nutrients, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus
High turbidity
Low water clarity
Algal blooms
Impaired fishery
Inhibited recreational use
Runoff from urban areas and cropland
Actions taken or proposed: This three-year project was
initiated with Fiscal Year 1994 Clean Water Act Sec-
tion 319 Nonpoint Source Management funds. The
project will address both urban and agricultural
nonpoint source water pollution through household
and agricultural campaigns that consist of demon-
strations and education efforts, technical assistance,
and financial incentives for best management prac-
tice implementation. The urban campaign includes
reducing nutrient impacts at the business and resi-
dential level as well as a volunteer water quality
monitoring program. The agricultural campaign in-
cludes wetlandsdevelopment,nutrientand pest man-
agement, and both structural and non-structural prac-
tices in the watershed. Specific goals are to reduce
urban phosphorus and nitrogen inputs by 70 percent
and 50 percent respectively; to reduce or eliminate
algal blooms; and to improve water clarity by reduc-
ing phytoplankton levels.
Stakeholders:
Cerro Gordo County Health Department
Cerro Gordo County Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District
Cerro Gordo County Solid Waste Agency
Clear Lake Economic Development Corporation
Clear Lake Sanitary District
Ducks Unlimited
Hancock County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stew-
ardship
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Northern Iowa Area Community College
Pheasants Forever
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Contact: Ubbo Agena
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-6402
FAX: (515) 281-8895
Clark Fork continued from page 42
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
Local citizens
Missoula City, County Health Department
Montana County Commissions
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks
Montana Department of Health and Environ-
mental Science
Montana Power Company
Pend Oreille Conservation District
Soil Conservation Service
Steering Committee for the Tri-State Imple-
mentation Council
Stone Container
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Forest Service
University of Idaho
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Department of Environmental
Quality
Washington Water and Power
Contacts:
State: Gary Ingman
Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-5320
FAX: (406) 444-1374
Local:
Ruth Watkins
Clark Fork-Fend Oreille Tri-State Imple-
mentation Council
206 N. 4th Ave., Suite 157
Sand Point, ID 83864
(208) 265-9092
45
-------
Clinton River Area of Conce
Size and location: The Clinton River is located in
southeastern Michigan, just north of Detroit. The
river flows 80 miles from its headwaters to Lake St.
Clair near Mt Clemens, and is a tributary in the Lake
Erie watershed. Before entering Lake St. Clair, the
river flows through a natural channel and a man-
made spillway. The Area of Concern (AOC) is com-
prised of the main branch of the Clinton River down-
stream of Red Run (a major tributary of the Clinton
River) to the mouth (17 miles) and the spillway (2
miles).
Organization that initiated project:
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Major environmental problems:
* Degradation of benthos
Degradation of fish populations and habitat
Contaminated sediments (contaminants in-
clude PCBs, heavy metals, cyanide, ammo-
nia, oil and grease, and phenol)
High fecal coliform bacteria levels
Low dissolved oxygen levels
Increased sedimentation (due to the natu-
rally occurring problems of low flow and the
decreased slope of the river)
Municipal and industrial discharges
Nonpoinfc sources of contaminants from ur-
ban storm water, agricultural runoff, com-
bined sewer overflows (CSOs), ground wa-
ter contamination, and atmospheric deposi-
tion
Actions taken or proposed: The Clinton River AOC is
one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by the
United States and/or Canadian governments in the
Great Lakes region. A Remedial ActionPlan (RAP) is
being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term
course of action for environmental cleanup. Stage II
of the RAP, which identifies proposed remedial ac-
tions and their method of implementation, is tar-
geted for completion by April 1996. The RAP in-
cludes 23 recommendations; of these, 6 are for speci-
fied actions and 14 call for investigations to provide
information for further decision-making. Three pro-
grams called for in the RAP are underway: nonpoint
source and erosion control, air quality and monitor-
ing, and a watershed-funded clearinghouse.
In addition, a variety of o ther activities have been
taken or are underway including:
Navigational channel dredged, increasing
flow rate substantially during high flow pe-
riods only.
Sediment deposits dredged from behind the
spillway weir.
A reconnaissance/feasibility study is being
done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
redesign the weir to allow fish to go over.
The design study will follow in the near
future.
A spill response plan is being developed for
Red Run Drain (portion of the Red Run that
has been placed underground).
Cleanup activities proceeding at four
Superfund sites.
The Michigan Department of Natural Re-
sources (MDNR) reissued National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System permits
for three wastewater treatment plants that
included provisions for treatment or elimi-
nation of CSOs.
Nine towns in the AOC have upgraded their
wastewater treatment plants, reducing dis-
charge of both conventional and toxic pollut-
ants and bacterial contamination.
Biological surveys and reports completed
undernonpointsourcesurveillance for seven
tributaries.
Bottom draw structure at the Lake Orion
dam installed, resulting in cooler water dis-
charges to Paint Creek, a tributary to the
Clinton River, increasing suitable trout wa-
ter through the summer.
Implementation begun of best management
practices to control and prevent nonpoint
sources of pollution to Gallagher Creek, a
tributary to the Clinton River, with focus on
storm water control and ordinance standards.
Development, by the Clinton River Water-
shed Council using a Public Participation
Grant from the State, of a training video and
manual for the Clinton River Early Warning
System (CREWS). CREWS is a voluntary
network of residents who help detect spills
by observing water conditions such as odor
and color and reporting changes to the fire
department.
Citizen cleanups and a River Watch program
(for reporting of spills) are on-going.
Clinton River continued on page 47
46
-------
Coetir D'Alene Basin
Size and location: The Coeur D'Alene Basin encom-
passes 3,700 square miles in Idaho.
Organizations that initiated project:
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Major environmental problems:
Heavy metals contamination
Eutrophication
Threatened water supply
Actions taken or proposed: Because of the many agen-
cies involved in the restoration efforts for Coeur
D'Alene Basin, a Steering Committee was created to
oversee the basin restoration and policies regarding
basin restoration activity.
One major source of basin contamination is the
South Fork of the Coeur D'Alene River, which was
identified as a water quality limited segment. There-
fore, the State of Idaho must develop a Total Maxi-
mum Daily Load (TMDL) for both the point sources
and nonpoint sources in the basin. Another major
source of basin contamination is the Bunker Hill
Superfund Site. Contamination at this site is being
Clinton River continued from page 46
MDNR has obligated $120,000 to conduct
remedial investigations to identify the sources of
PCBs to the Clinton River.
Stakeholders:
Clinton River Remedial Action Plan Public Advi-
sory Council
Clinton River Watershed Council
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Mt. Clemens River Improvement Program (a
collection of local entities, including the City of
Mt. Clemens, citizen groups, service organiza-
tions, and local corporations)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Mark Messersmith
U.S. EPA Region V (WQB-16J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312) 353-2154
FAX: (312) 886-7804
addressed through the Superfund remedial action
process. The remedial actions implemented and
resulting monitoring data will provide information
that can help evaluate cleanup strategies.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural interests
Benewah County
Coeur D'Alene Basin Interagency Group
Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Land Management
Idaho Department of Water Resources
Idaho Fish and Game
Kootenay County
Kootenay Environmental Alliance
Local citizens
Mining interests
Panhandle Health District
Shoshone County
Soil Conservation Service
Three soil conservation districts
Timber interests
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
University of Idaho
Contact: Geoff Harvey
Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality
2110 Ironwood Parkway
Coeur D'Alene, ID 83814
(208) 769-1422
47
-------
Colorado River
Size and location: The Colorado River basin covers
about 244,000 square miles in seven states including
west-central Colorado, eastern Utah, western Ari-
zona, southwestern Wyoming, southeastern Nevada
and California, and western New Mexico.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Congress
Major environmental problems:
* Increasing salinity levels in the river and the
effects on agricultural soils in Arizona, Cali-
fornia,andMexicoandonmunicipal/indus-
trial water supplies in Nevada, Arizona, and
California
Loss of wetlands
Actions taken or proposed: Colorado River salinity
standards, including a plan of implementation and
numeric criteria, were developed by the states and
approved by EPA. The plan of implementation is
designed to maintain the salinity concentrations at or
below the numeric criteria established at three lower
basin monitoringlocations and to meet commitments
to Mexico. The plan of implementation includes
policies used in all basin states for implementing the
salinity standards through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit program and
salinity control projects implemented through fed-
eral and state funding primarily in the upper basin
states. Improved irrigation systems for salinity con-
trol on agricultural lands can dry up existing irriga-
tion-induced wetlands. Mitigation of wetland losses
is required for Bureauof Reclamation salinity control
projects. The U.S. Department of Agriculture man-
ages a voluntary wetland replacement program for
its on-farm salinity control program.
Salinity control activities are coordinated through
an Interagency Salinity Control Coordinating Com-
mittee, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum comprised of representatives of the seven
basin states, and two other committees.
Stakeholders:
Citizens of AZ, CA, CO, NV, NM, UT, WY
Mexico
State wildlife agencies
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact:
Jack Barnett
CO River Basin Salinity Control Forum
106 W. 500 South Suite 101
Bountiful, UT 84010
(801) 292-4663
FAX: (801)524-6320
48
-------
Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins
Size and location: Coos Bay and Coquille River Basins
are located along the southern part of the Oregon
coast.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Degraded Salmonid spawning gravel areas
Overgrazing of riparian corridors
Bank erosion
Elevated water temperatures
Degraded commercial shellfish beds
High bacteria loadings
High rates of juvenile salmon mortality
Toxics contamination
Actions taken or proposed: State and local interests
have recognized the major environmental threats
listed above for some time. In many instances, indi-
vidual actions had already been planned or initiated,
but the level of effort and necessary teamwork was
not nearly adequate to address the magnitude of the
problem. EPA approached the lead state agencies to
attempt a more integrated watershed approach.
Stakeholders:
County Department of Economic Development
Local drainage district
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Department of Forestry
Soil Conservation District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Mike Rylko
U.S. EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-4014
FAX: (206) 553-1775
49
-------
Corning Aquif er/Elmira Aquifer
Size and location: The Corning Aquifer and Elmira
Aquifer are located in Steuben and Chemung coun-
ties, In south central New York State. These aquifers
are designated as primary sources of drinking water
by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
* Ground water contamination potentially
caused by unpermitted discharges, under-
ground storage tank operations, abandoned
hazardous waste sites, and salt storage at
municipal garages
Actions taken or proposed: EPA geographically tar-
geted its ground water-related program activities to
the project area and provided technical and Geo-
graphic Information System (CIS) assistance to the
local agencies in the development of their wellhead
protection programs. EPA completed activities such
asinspections and pre-remedial investigations within
the project area. GIS equipment was purchased for
the regional planning board with EPA grant funding
..id custom-designed with contractor assistance.
Intermunicipal workgroups were formed to co-
ordinate ground water protection strategies. The
local participantsareimplementingwellhead protec-
tion practices, and new local ordinances are being
developed to provide for zoning changes in vulner-
able wellhead protection areas. In addition, the local
participants are conducting outreach activities in-
cluding increased outreach on Underground Injec-
tion Control Program requirements.
Stakeholders:
Big Flats, NY
Cooperative Extension Service
Cornell Water Resources Institute
Corning, NY
Erwin,NY
Horseheads, NY
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
New York State Department of Health
Painted Post, NY
Soil and Water Conservation Districts
South Corning, NY
Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and
Development Board
Steuben County Farm Bureau
Three Rivers Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
Contacts:
EPA:
Susan Schulz
U.S. EPA Region II
Water Management
Division
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-5719
FAX: (212)264-2194
Local:
Jennifer Fais
Southern Tier Central
Regional Planning and
Development Board
145 Village Square
Painted Post, NY 14870
(607) 962-5092
s ***.>
"* "***«. ** X f
W ^} ^w «^,v.v**«*. X'.'.vvXW.'f ^ -.H-N -. ssvsUv\1>''si.^1. .,., 'i*.^v,,^^^ SK 1
-------
Corpus Christ! Bay
Size and location: The Corpus Christ! Bay National
Estuary Program (CCBNEP) encompasses the estua-
rine environment of 75 miles of the south-central
Texas coastline and the 12 member counties of the
Coastal Bend Council of Governments. This 550-
square mile area includes all bays and saltwater
bayous in the Aransas, Corpus Christi, Baffin, and
upper Laguna Madre Bay systems.
Organizations that initiated the project:
Office of the Governor of Texas
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commis-
sion
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Limited freshwater inflows to the Corpus
Christi Bay system
Loss of wetlands, seagrasses, and other criti-
cal habitats
Oil field brine discharge into estuaries
Negative impacts from dredging and the
disposal of dredged materials
Impacts of persistent brown tide
Degradation of water quality in the estuaries
and their tributaries from point and nonpoint
sources of pollution
Endangered Species issues: Whooping Crane,
Piping Plover, and Kemp's Ridley sea turtle
Actions taken or proposed: Corpus Christi Bay was
selected for inclusion in the National Estuary Pro-
gram in 1992. A Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) is being developed for
Corpus Christi Bay that recommends actions to pro-
tect and enhance the water quality and living re-
sources of the Bay.
The CCMP will outline specific actions, sched-
ules, and budgets to remediate those problems iden-
tified by the CCBNEP. These actions will be devel-
oped using a consensus-based approach involving
all possible affected parties. The CCMP will be a truly
comprehensive plan including commitments and
plans for financing, implementing, and monitoring
priority management actions.
Stakeholders:
Business and industry representatives
Citizen's groups
Federal agencies
Local agencies and governments
Local citizens
State agencies
Universities
Contacts:
EPA:
Laura Radde
U.S. EPA Region VI
(6W-QM)
1445 Ross Avenue
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-6697
FAX: (214) 665-6689
Local:
Richard Volk
Director
CCBNEP
TAMU - Corpus Christi
Campus Box 290
6300 Ocean Boulevard
Corpus Christi, TX 78412
(512) 985-6767
FAX: (512)985-6301
51
-------
Cranberry Lake
Size and location: Cranberry Lake is located in Byram
Township, New Jersey. The lake is 190 acres in size,
with a mean depth of 6.9 feet and maximum depth of
15.1 feet. The watershed is 1,814 acres, including the
lake.
Organization thai initiated theproject:
Byram Township
Major environmental problems:
Excessive weed growth
Reduced dissolved oxygen
Sediment loading
High in-lake phosphorus concentrations
Excessive algal concentrations
Reduced fish habitat
Septic related and nonpoint source discharges
Sediment infilling
Actions taken or proposed: New Jersey received a Clean
Lakes Program Phase II Restoration/Implementa-
tion grant in 1992 for Cranberry Lake. This project
will implement in-lake restoration work as well as
critical watershed management activities to control
nonpoint source pollution to the lake. Activities that
are being supported by this funding include:
Control of future land development through
a sensitive lands management plan.
Weed harvesting.
Storm sewer management.
Correction of existing soil erosion problems.
Stakeholders:
. Byram Township
Cranberry Lake Community Club
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Sussex County Planning Department
Tourism
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
EPA:
Theresa Faber
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8708
FAX: (212) 264-2194
State:
Budd Cann
Bureau of Monitoring
Management
NJ Department of Environ-
mental Protection (CN 427)
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-0427
FAX: (609) 633-1095
"M>*nfnn. v. v, » \ <> wi.
"
52
-------
Deal Lake
Size and location: Deal Lake is located in eastern
Monmouth County, New Jersey. The lake is 143 acres
with a watershed of 1,228 acres.
Organization that initiated project:
Deal Lake Commission (a substate agency under
the Land Use Planning Law of New Jersey), in
conjunction with the neighboring towns.
Major environmental problems:
Upstream and urban development causing
increased nutrients and sediment loads
Filling in of some shallower areas of the lake
Accelerated weed growth
Algal blooms which produce odor problems
when rotting
Bacteria levels exceeded bathing criteria
Actions taken or proposed: A State funded diagnostic/
feasibility study was completed in 1983. It developed
a three step approach. The steps are:
1) to upgrade or develop ordinances and zon-
ing requirements dealing with soil erosion
control, storm water quality management,
and proper watershed/land use manage-
ment;
2) the identification of all existing sources of
erosion and implementation of the ordi-
nances or avoidance of development; and
3) the construction of detention basins.
The Harvey Brook arm of the lake was restored in
1988. The demonstration project included several
sediment-nutrient control projects, identification of
sensitive environmental areas, and the development
of environmental ordinances and rezoning. The Deal
Lake Commission has developed agreements with
the five watershed municipalities and meets on a
regular basis to discuss watershed activities.
In 1989, New Jersey was awarded a Clean Lakes
ProgramPhase II Restoration/Implementation grant
for Deal Lake. This project will implement in-lake
restoration work as well as critical watershed man-
agement activities to control nonpoint source pollu-
tion to the lake. Permits are presently being obtained
for construction of sedimentation basins funded
through the Clean Lakes Program, and a preliminary
draft of the sensitive landmanagement plan is under
review.
Stakeholders:
Asbury Park
County Mosquito Commission
Deal Lake Commission
Interlaken
Local citizens
Neptune Township
Ocean Township
Tourists
Town of Deal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
EPA:
Theresa Faber
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8708
FAX: (212) 264-2194
State:
Budd Cann
Water Monitoring
Management
NJ Department of Environ-
mental Protection (CN427)
Trenton, NJ 08625-0427
(609) 292-0427
FAX: (609) 633-1095
53
-------
Delaware Estuary
Size and location: This project focuses on the tidal
portion of the Delaware River between the falls at
Trenton, New Jersey and the mouth of the Bay (be-
tween Cape May, New Jersey and Cape Henlopen,
Delaware). The project area, however, encompasses
the entire river basin.
Organizations that initiated project:
Tho States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and
Delaware petitioned EPA for inclusion of the
Delaware Estuary in the National Estuary Pro-
gram.
Major environmental problems:
« Toxics in sediments, fish, and birds
* Loss of diversity and loss and fragmentation
of certain habitat types
* Nonpoint source pollution
Water use: supply, quality, and allocation
Actions taken or proposed: The Delaware Estuary was
selected for inclusion in the National Estuary Pro-
gram in 1988. A Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) is currently being devel-
oped for the Delaware Estuary that advocates a wa-
tershed protection approach in implementing the
action plans contained in the CCMP. It will provide
abasin-wideperspectiveinmanagingland use, toxics,
habitat protection, and water use issues.
One project already underway is mapping of
habitat for priority species throughout the estuary.
The maps will be designed for use by local govern-
ments to help them protect habitat through improved
planning procedures. Land uses and practices ap-
propriate for such areas, coordination of interstate
management plans, and inclusion of the important
species in Environmental Impact Statements will be
proposed.
Theprogramisalsodevelopinganonpointsource
plan that will assist states in prioritizing watersheds,
an action plan to address the impacts of toxics on
fisheries and raptors, and an action plan for restora-
tion of urban stream corridors. Interstate fish adviso-
ries will be coordinated and loading limits for se-
lected toxicants (Total Maximum Daily Loads) will
be established. The program will provide technical
support for watershed-based land planning for storm
water management and nonpoint source control.
The program is proposing development of a
long-term environmental policy plan that would in-
tegrate environmental concerns into decision-mak-
ing by all sectors of society to achieve sustainable
development.
Other activities include:
Examining potential water supply shortages
in certain areas of the Delaware basin (such
as the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer
system and the Triassic lowland bedrock
aquifers) and encouraging protective action
by water and wastewater utilities.
Providing tools and technical assistance to
local governments in support of improved
land use planning.
Encouraging and providing incentives for
increased regional planning.
Improving coordination of water supply
planning to address water quantity and qual-
ity planning.
Addressing toxics loadings from ground
water and nonpoint sources.
Developing a regional information manage-
ment service that will facilitate sharing of
information.
Continuingandexpandingtheongoingpub-
lic participation program.
Coordinating and expanding the monitor-
ing programs of Delaware, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania.
Stakeholders:
Anglers
Business and industry
Commercial fishing
Environmental groups
Local and regional agencies
Local citizens
Private organi2ations
States of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylva-
nia
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Contacts: Mania CXMalley Walsh/Robert Tudor
U.S. EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-9296 (Maria)
(215) 597-9977 (Robert)
FAX: (215)597-1850
54
-------
Delaware Inland Bays
Size and location: The Delaware Inland Bays Estuary
program addresses the water quality and environ-
mental problems of three interconnected watersheds
(the Indian River, the Rehoboth, and the Little
Assawoman Bays) in Sussex County, Delaware. The
drainage area is approximately 300 square miles,
with a water surface area of 32 square miles.
Name of organization that initiated project:
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Major environmental problems:
Habitat loss/modification due to erosion,
sedimentation, dredging, and filling
Eutrophication (nutrient over-enrichment)
Actions taken or proposed: The Delaware Inland Bays
Estuary was selected for inclusion in the National
Estuary Program in 1988. The draft Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the
Estuary has been completed and recommends a five-
tiered approach to resolving the problems. These
efforts include:
1) An Agricultural Source Action Plan which
proposes treatment of agricultural wastes
and fertilizers.
2) A Habitat Protection Action Plan which pro-
poses various methods to control the loss of
significant habitat and the preservation of
existing aquatic and terrestrial ranges.
3) A Public Education and Outreach Program
which explains the benefits of the Estuary
and the methods of preservation.
4) An Industrial, Municipal and Septic System
Action Plan which proposes a pollution con-
trol strategy and a long-term capital expen-
diture program for wastewater treatment.
5) A Land Use Action Plan which evaluates
current land-use practices and proposed
mitigation measures.
In March 1990 the Inland Bays Recovery Initia-
tive was launched. This two-year program has been
integral to the estuary program. The purpose of the
Recovery Initiative was to field test ideas that could
be central to the CCMP. In addition to the Recovery
Initiative, Action Plan Demonstration Projects which
are designed to test new techniques were started.
Lessons learned from these projects will influence a
number of the tactics selected for implementation in
the CCMP.
Other activities in the estuary include:
Preparation of the Water-Use Activity Impacts
Report in 1989 which will serve as a basis for
developing a Water-Use Plan for managing
use of the Bays' waters.
Development, by the Universityof Delaware
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service, of the
Inland Bays Citizen Monitoring Program
which is monitoring 30 to 50 sites using more
than 50 volunteers.
Use of a Geographic Information System to
provide topographical and other informa-
tion useful in planning water and wetland
programs and in issuing permits.
Identification, by the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, of areas in which to focus water quality
treatment technologies as part of a national
Hydrologic Unit Area project. Results will
be used to further refine existing agricultural
runoff control tactics.
Assistance to landowners for implementing
conservation practices that include building
structures for water control and waste man-
agement, tree planting, buffer stripping, and
managing wetlands. This assistance is pro-
vided through the Indian River Watershed
Protection Plan.
Stakeholders:
Delaware Department of Agriculture
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Environmentalists and landowners
Farmers
Local citizens
Resource users (anglers, swimmers, etc.)
Sussex County Council
Sussex Conservation District
Sussex County local governments
Tourist industry
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Various industries
Contact: John Schneider
Delaware Inland Bays Estuary Program
DE Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401,89 Kings' Highway
Dover, DE 19903
.(302)739-4590/5409
FAX: (302)739-6140
55
-------
Eighteenmilej Creek Area of Concern
Size and location: This Area of Concern (AOC) is
defined as Eighteenmile Creek and Olcott Harbor on
the southwestern shore of Lake Ontario in New York.
Organizations that initiated the project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
Major environmental problems:
Contaminated sediments
Contaminated fish
Loss of habitat in the lower reach of the
Eighteenmile Creek
Actions taken or proposed: The Eighteenmile Creek
AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by
the United States and/or Canadian governments in
the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) is being developed for this AOC to provide a
long-term course of action for environmental cleanup.
RAP development began in March 1994. The Stage I
Report on problem definition is in progress and is
projected to be completed in 1995. A Remedial Ac-
tion Committee hasbeenformed to assistNYSDECin
RAP development. Meanwhile, some projects that
had been planned on a Lake Ontario-wide basis are
resulting in actions that impact the Eighteenmile
Creek AOC. For example, NYSDEC is developing
pollution prevention regulations to require imple-
mentation of 'Toxic Chemical Reduction Plans" for
facilities that generate certain amounts/types of haz-
ardous wastes or toxic chemicals. Some industries in
the Eighteenmile Creek AOC have already taken the
initiative to institute pollution prevention practices.
Stakeholders:
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Other stakeholders to be identified
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact:
Alice Yeh
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1332
FAX: (212) 264-2194
56
-------
Elkhorn Slough
Size and location: Elkhorn Slough winds between
Santa Cruz and Monterey, California covering a dis-
tance of approximately seven miles. Its watershed
encompasses 2,500 acres of salt marsh, mudflat, and
tidal channels and is the largest wetland in central
California.
Organization that initiated project:
Elkhorn Slough Foundation
Major environmental problems:
Overgrazing
Erosion
Nonpoint source pollutants
Pesticide runoff
Actions taken or proposed: EPA is funding several
projects to demonstrate the restoration of native veg-
etation on formerly over-grazed,lands in this coastal
watershed and implementnonpoint source best man-
agement practices. In addition, the project includes a
survey of restoration needs and livestock impacts in
the Elkhorn Slough (the Slough) watershed.
Many entities are presently carrying out projects
at Elkhorn Slough. The Slough is a National Estua-
rine Research Reserve, designated by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and man-
aged by the California Department of Fish and Game.
The California State Water Resources Control Board
is managing a Clean Water Act Section 205(j) project
studying runoff from strawberry fields. The Nature
Conservancy recently purchased a large parcel near
the site of this EPA project, and is planning restora-
tion efforts.
The Elkhorn Slough Foundation, a nonprofit en-
vironmental organization focusing on restoration of
the watershed, is receiving assistance for surveys and
educational activities from Moss Landing Marine
Laboratory graduate students. Additional funds to
augment aerial photo costs have also been acquired.
"V.
Stakeholders:
California Coastal Commission
California Coastal Conservancy
California Department of Fish and Game
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
California State Water Resources Control Board
Elkhorn Slough Foundation
Local farmers
Local governments
Local industry
Moss Landing Marine Lab
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University of California-Santa Cruz
Contact:
Suzanne Man-
US. EPA Region IX (W-3-1)
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
(415) 744-1974
FAX: (415)744-1078
57
-------
Elm Creek
Size and location: Elm Creek consists of a 35,800-acre
watershed located in Webster County in south cen-
tral Nebraska.
Organization that initiated project:
Lower Republican Natural Resource District
Major environmental problems:
Nonpoint source pollution in the form of
instream sedimentation affecting cold water
fishery
Erosion from near-stream gullies/overfalls,
upland areas of cropland and pasture, irriga-
tion return flows, and livestock access
Streambank erosion
Actions taken or proposed: Elm Creek is a U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA) Hydrologic Unit Area
project, and is one of EPA's National Monitoring
Program Projects under Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). A small amount of USDA Water
Quality Incentive Program funding has also been
devoted to the project area.
The objectives of the project are to:
Identify and target critical areas of nonpoint
source pollutantloadingscontributingto im-
pairment of beneficial uses.
" Implement demonstrable land treatment
practices which are "cost-effective" and can
functionally reduce sediment loadings to Elm
Creek by 50 percent.
Facilitate a nonpoint source public educa-
tion effort within the project area.
Conduct water quality monitoring; and inte-
grate CWA Section 319 funding/activities
with other funding/activities in the water-
shed to provide a holistic watershed man-
agement project for water quality protection.
Practices being employed include nutrient
andpestmanagement,grazingmanagement,
cattle exclusion from the streams, and
streambank restoration.
Stakeholders:
Lower Republican Natural Resources District
NebraskaDepartmentof Environmental Quality
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University of Nebraska Extension
Contact: Dave Jensen
Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 98922
Statehouse Station
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402) 471-3196
FAX: (402) 471-2909
Endicott-Johnson City Aquifer
Size and location: The Endicott-Johnson City Aquifer
is located in Broorne County in south central New
York. This area is designated as a primary source of
drinkingwater by theNew York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Ground water contamination potentially
caused by unpermitted discharges, under-
ground storage tank operations, abandoned
hazardous waste sites, and salt storage at
municipal garages
Actions taken or proposed: EPA geographically tar-
geteditsenforcementprogramactivities to the project
area and provided technical and Geographic Infor-
mation System (GIS) assistance to the local agencies
in the development of their wellhead protection pro-
grams. EPA's enforcement and remedial programs
completed activities such as inspections and pre-
remedial investigations within the project area. GIS
equipment was purchased for the county Depart-
ment of Health with EPA grant funding and custom-
designed with contractor assistance.
Under joint EPA and NYSDEC grant funding, a
technical assistance center has been developed to
help small quantity generators of hazardous waste
comply with applicable regulations and research cur-
rent techniques for pollution prevention. The local
participants are implementing wellhead protection
practices, and new local ordinances were passed
providing for zoning changes in vulnerable wellhead
protection areas. In addition, the local participants
are conducting outreach activities including increased
outreach on Underground Injection Control Program
requirements.
Endicott Aquifer continued on page 60
58
-------
Flint Creek
Sizeand location: FlintCreek has a 290,000-acre water-
shed that is located in north-central Alabama and
drains to Wheeler Reservoir in the Tennessee River.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alabama Department of Environmental Man-
agement*
Tennessee Valley Authority*
U.S. Department of Agriculture*
*key players in formation of the project
Major environmental problems:
Runoff from agricultural lands
Point source pollutants
Runoff from urban areas
Bank-side and instream debris and litter
Actions taken or proposed: The Flint Creek Watershed
Project was initiated in 1992 with an organizational
meeting with stakeholders. Project objectives and
resource commitments were obtained at this meet-
ing. Several subsequent meetings of the major stake-
holders and sub-committee members have resulted
in the following actions:
Hired a Project Leader.
Developed watershed maps and an inven-
tory of land uses in the watershed.
Compiled existing water quality data and
collected additional water quality data.
Conducted two fish health studies and sev-
eral biological assessments.
Initiated an Agriculture Stabilization and
Conservation Service Water Quality Initia-
tive Project in Crowdabout Creek.
Developed a volunteer monitoring program.
Working on development of a Total Maxi-
mum Daily Load model.
Developed three outdoor laboratories.
Formed a watershed Conservancy District
and elected eleven directors from the three
county area.
Developed a Geographic Information Sys-
tem for the watershed.
Approved grants for best management prac-
tices to control waste on dairy and swine
farms.
Assisted area farmers with animal waste la-
goon pumpout.
Developed a Self-Enviro-assist program.
Implemented a sociological survey to assess
community attitudes and measure attitude
changes over time.
Developed several educational activities and
environmental literature for school and com-
munity distribution.
Stakeholders:
Alabama A & M Cooperative Extension Service
Alabama Department of Agriculture and Indus-
tries
Alabama Department of Environmental Man-
agement
Alabama Department of Public Health
Alabama Forestry Commission
Alabama Geological Survey
Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Commit-
tee
Auburn University Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice
Cullman County Soil & Water Conservation Dis-
trict
Lawrence County Soil & Water Conservation
District
Morgan County Litter Control Office
Morgan County Soil & Water Conservation Dis-
trict
Soil Conservation Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Resource Conservation & De-
velopment
U.S. Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation
Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Contact:
Charles Sweatt
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(205) 386-2614
FAX: (205)386-3331
59
-------
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuajry
Size and location: The Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary encompasses approximately 2,800 square
nautical miles of nearshore waters extending from
just south of Miami to the Dry Tortugas, a small
island west of Key West in the Gulf of Mexico.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA)
Florida Department of Environmental Protec-
tion
Major environmental problems:
Degraded water quality
Septic leachate from on-site disposal sys-
tems
Discharges from sewage treatment/package
plants and live-aboard vessels
Storm water runoff
Seagrass die-off, sponge die-off, algal blooms
Actions taken or proposed:: EPA and the Florida De-
partment of Environmental Protection have recently
completed the development of a Water Quality Pro-
tection Program for the Sanctuary. The purpose of
the Program is to recommend priority corrective
actions and compliance schedules addressing point
and nonpoint sources of pollution to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integ-
rity of the Sanctuary. A comprehensive water quali ty
monitoring and research program was also devel-
oped and will be implemented in fiscal year 1995.
nvnvvnum^
\ tf
Stakeholders:
Local citizens
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration
Recreational users including anglers, boaters,
and divers/snorkelers
Seafood processors
State of Florida
Tourist industry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Fred McManus
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-1740, ext. 2065
FAX: (404)347-1797
Endicott Aquifer continued from page 58
Stakeholders:
Bromme County Department of Health
Broome County Division of Solid Waste
Chenango, NY
Conklin, NY
Fenton, NY
Johnson, NY
Kirkwood, NY
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Southern Ti^r East Regional Planning Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Vestal, NY
Contacts:
EPA:
Susan Schulz
U.S. EPA Region II
Water Management
Division
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-5719
FAX: (212)264-2194
Local:
Ron Brink
Broome County Depart-
ment of Health
One Wall Street
Binghamton, NY 13901
(607) 778-8885
60
-------
Galveston Bay
Size and location: Galveston Bay Estuary is located
near Houston, Texas and empties into the Gulf of
Mexico. The estuary itself covers 600 square miles
and has a watershed that encompasses 32,000 square
miles.
Organization that initiated project:
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commis-
sion (formerly Texas Water Commission)
Major environmental problems:
Wetland loss
Nonpoint source pollution
Sewer overflows/bypasses
Possible future alterations of freshwater inflow
Aquatic toxicity
Living resources declines
Poor shoreline management practices
Oil and chemical spills
Bioaccumulation of toxics in seafood
Illegal connections to storm sewers
Low dissolved oxygen
Oyster bed closures
Poor water and sediment quality in marinas
Shoreline erosion
Bay debris
Risks of contact recreation due to pathogens
Exotic species
Actions taken or proposed: Galveston Bay Estuary was
selected for inclusion in the National Estuary Pro-
gram in 1988. A Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) is being developed for
Galveston Bay that recommends priority corrective
actions to restore and maintain the estuarine re-
sources. Costs for implementation of the CCMP are
projected to be about $36.5 million.
Actions that have been taken in the Bay include:
Designation of two State Coastal Preserves.
Proposed designation of Christmas Bay as
an Outstanding National Resources Water
under the State's water quality standards.
Restored shoreline vegetation in several ar-
eas.
Conducted industrial pollution prevention
activities.
Built a 5-acre oyster reef using artificial sub-
strate.
Increased use of pump-outs by recreational
boaters through an intensive education ef-
fort.
Implemented a continually expanding citi-
zen monitoring program.
Implemented a Citizens' Pollution Report-
ing Hotline.
Developed a seafood consumption safety
program.
Some of the most important actions that have yet
to be taken but that have been proposed in the devel-
opment of the CCMP include:
Acquire and protect quality wetlands.
Restore, create, and protect wetlands.
Implement storm water control programs
for local cities.
Establish residential load reduction pro-
grams.
Correct malfunctioning septic tanks.
Eliminate or reduce bypass and overflow
problems.
Issue National Pollutant Elimination Dis-
charge System permit for control of oil and
gas discharges.
Establish sediment quality criteria.
Perform Total Maximum Daily Load for oxy-
gen demand and nutrients.
Reduce nutrient and biological oxygen de-
mand loadings to problem areas.
Establish a planning program for shoreline
development.
Reduce water consumption.
Implement a Bay-wide effort to strengthen
species management.
One unique feature of the Galveston Bay pro-
gram was the use of contingent valuation to deter-
mine an estimated value for the resource.
Stakeholders:
Business and commerce
Commercial fishing
Environmental groups
Federal agencies
Local citizens
Local governments
Local industries
Recreational fishing
State government agencies
Galveston Bay Estuary continued on page 62
61
-------
Gobdiiian GleeH
Size and location: Goodman Creek has a 59,000-acre
watershed and is located in west central North Da-
kota.
Organization that initiated project:
Mercer County Soil Conservation District and
Water Resource District
Major environmental problems:
Nutrients from soil erosion
* Sediments from soil erosion and degraded
riparian areas
Contamination from livestock waste
Actions taken or proposed: The Mercer County Soil
Conservation District is sponsoring and coordinat-
ing this project in rural North Dakota. The water
quality of Goodman Creek will be improved by pro-
moting improved land management and installing
various best management practices (BMPs) which
effectively reduce erosion on 60 percent of the agri-
cultural lands within the watershed. These land
treatment practices will primarily focus on managing
crop residue and improving current grazing systems
within the project areas. In addition, information on
the positive impacts the implementation of various
BMPs can have on water quality within a small
watershed will be documented and disseminated.
Water quality and land treatment data compiled
during this project will be used to determine the
correlation between land treatment and water qual-
ity improvements. Upon completion of this project,
the data will be analyzed to evaluate the impact the
project activities had on the water quality within the
subwatershed and the cumulative effect
subwatershed treatment can have on water quality
within the large watersheds of North Dakota. Given
the size of this project area, trends toward improved
water quality should be nearly immediate and more
easily documented as compared to those in larger
watersheds.
Stakeholders:
Individual farmers
Mercer County Soil Conservation District and
Water Resource District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
State: Greg Sandness
North Dakota State Department of
Health and Consolidated Laboratories
1200 Missouri Ave.
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
(701) 221-5232
FAX: (701)221-5200
Local: Pam Stabenow
Mercer County Soil Conservation
District and Water Resource District
Boards
1200 Highway 49, Box 580
Beulah, ND 58523
(701) 873-2101
FAX: (701) 873-4689
Galveston Bay Estuary continued from page 61
Contacts:
EPA: . Local:
Ken Teague Dr. Frank Shipley
U.S. EPA Region VI Program Director
1445 Ross Avenue Galveston Bay NEP
Bay Plaza One, Suite 210
West Bay Area Boulevard
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 665-6687
FAX: (214) 665-6689 Webster, TX 77598
(713) 332-9937
FAX: (713)332-8590
. . -Xv . , ,& ^.-. > X^ \
62
-------
Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal Area of Concern
Size and location: The Grand Calumet River/Indiana
Harbor Canal (GCR/IHC) Area of Concern (AOC)
lies approximately 15 miles southeast of Chicago,
Illinois in Lake County, Indiana. The AOC covers the
entire Grand Calumet River watershed, including
the Indiana Harbor Canal and Nearshore Lake Michi-
gan from the Indiana/Illinois State Line southeast to
the Marquette Park Lagoons in Gary, Indiana.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Municipal and industrial discharges
Combined sewer overflows
Contaminated ground water
Storm water runoff
Highly polluted sediments (pollutants in-
clude chromium, lead, and PCBs)
Actions taken or proposed: The GCR/IHC AOC is one
of 43 AOCs that have been designated by the United
States and/or Canadian governments in the Great
Lakes region. ARemedial ActionPlan(RAP) isbeing
developed for this AOC. The RAP will provide EPA
and the Indiana Department of Environmental Man-
agement (IDEM) with a long-term course of action for
environmental cleanup for the Grand Calumet River
and Indiana Harbor. The RAP is addressing control-
ling nonpoint sources of pollution, remediating con-
taminated sediments, and restoring habitat.
Because of water quality problems and other
threats to human health and the environment, EPA
and IDEM have focused their Northwest Indiana
Environmental Initiative (see page 105) on the GCR/
IHC AOC. Initiative successes include court-en-
forceable agreements with facilities at the head of the
Grand Calumet to clean up wastewater discharges to
meet permitted limits and remediate contaminated
sediments in a 5-mile stretch of the River. The Agen-
cies secured a$55millionagreementcoveringcleanup,
process improvements, and sediment remediation
with a facility adjacent to the Indiana Harbor Canal.
In August 1994, the Agencies entered into a ground-
breaking voluntary agreement with five northwest
Indiana companies to control the migration of oil
floating on top of the ground water.
Through the Initiative, the Agencies will con-
tinue to ensure compliance with all federal and state
environmental statutes. The Agencies will also be
working to see that Ambient Air Quality Standards
for the area are achieved and that methods of pollu-
tion prevention are promoted to local industry and
municipal treatment facilities. The initiative will
direct special attention to efforts necessary for the
dredging of the Indiana Harbor Canal and the safe
disposal/treatment of sediments. EPA has been
working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a
draft Environmental Impact Statement required for
the dredging of the canal.
Stakeholders:
Citizens' Advisory for Remediation of the
Environment (CARE) Committee
Indiana Department of Environmental Man-
agement
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact:
Robert Tolpa
U.S. EPA Region V (WCC-15J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-6706
FAX: (312)886-0168
63
-------
Gireat Lakes
Size and location: By area, the Great Lakes constitute
the world's largest area of surface freshwater (95,000
square miles, 6 quadrillion gallons, holding 18 per-
cent of the world's supply). The five Great Lakes and
their drainage areas encompass all or parts of eight
states (New York/Pennsylvania^hioJndiana, Michi-
gan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) and the
Province of Ontario.
Organization that initiated project:
The Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) steers and coordinates a consortium of
local, state, federal, and non-governmental orga-
nizations in ecosystem management and priority
setting. The Great Lakes Five-Year Strategy,
developed jointly by GLNPO and its multi-State,
multi-agency partners and built on the founda-
tion of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
with Canada, pro vides the agenda for Great Lakes
ecosystem management.
Ms/or environmental problems:
Contaminated fish and wildlife
Contaminated bottom sediments
Threatened habitats ("endangered" or
"threatened" classification for 52 species of
plants and animals within the region)
Non-native species (More than 130 non-na-
tive specieshavebeen introduced to the Great
Lakes since 1800, recent invaders include
zebra mussels and river ruffe)
Vulnerable native fish populations
Excessive phosphorus
Actions taken or proposed: Federal, State, and Tribal
partners developed the Great Lakes Five-Year Strat-
egy to jointly address the problems of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. The Strategy focuses on three over-arch-
ing goals: reducing releases of toxicants to the envi-
ronment protecting and restoring habitat, and pro-
tecting human/ecosystem species health.
In 1989, in recognition of the vulnerability of the
Great Lakes to bioaccumulative chemicals, EPA and
theStatesbegantheGreat Lakes Water Quality Initia-
tive, a precedent setting, cooperative effort to estab-
lish common regulatory practices for the Great Lakes
waters. Proposed guidance for minimum water qual-
ify standards, antidegradation policies, and imple-
menting procedures ivas published in the Federal
Register in April 1993.
Pursuant to a Great Lakes Pollution Prevention
Action Plan, launched by EPA and the Great Lakes
States in 1991, source reduction projects are under-
way with the auto and printing industries. Under the
National 33/50 Program, Great Lakes manufacturers
have already surpassed the Agency's interim 33 per-
cent reduction goal.
In 1993, EPA and its partners initiated a Virtual
Elimination Pilot Project to analyze opportunities for
achieving virtual elimination through source reduc-
tion of targeted pollutants. Two pollutants, PCBs
and mercury, have thus far been selected for analysis.
Sediment cleanups are being accomplished at
numerous sites across the Basin under EPA's regula-
tory authority. Examples include: the December 1992
Gill Creek cleanup of 6,500 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated sediment which has eliminated 20 per-
cent of total annual PCB load to Lake Ontario through
the Niagara River; the 1990-93 Waukegan Harbor
Superfund removal of over one million pounds of
PCB-contaminated sediment; and multimillion dol-
lar consent decrees in Northwest Indiana requiring
sediment characterization and cleanup. As a follow-
up to the completed Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments program, GLNPO is sup-
porting states with contaminated sediment charac-
terization and assessment as the necessary first step
in remediating contaminated sediments.
Air toxics monitoring stations have been estab-
lished on each of the Great Lakes to collect data on
nutrients, toxic rnetals, and organic contaminants.
Two years of intensive monitoring of air, water,
sediments, and biota began in 1994 on Lake Michi-
gan. From such work, EPA and its partners will
design load reduction strategies.
EPA, Environment Canada, the states, and the
Province of Ontario announced the Lake Superior
Binational Programin 1991, one aspect of which is the
designation of nine bioaccumulative pollutants for
"zero discharge."' The program will also identify
beneficial use impairments and restore and protect
the basin's ecosystem.
The watershed approach that EPA and its part-
ners are taking in Lakes Ontario, Superior, and Michi-
gan is embodied in the Lakewide Management Plans
(LaMPs) for each of these lakes. A similar effort has
commenced in Lake Erie and will be taken for Lake
Huron. In addition, Remedial Action Plans are being
developed and implemented on a smaller "water-
shed" level for the 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
EPA is working with its partners, including U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), states, tribes, and
The Nature Conservancy (TNC), to restore and pro-
ect habitat within the Great Lakes consistent with a
64
-------
Great Lakes
TNC report: The Conservation of Biological Diversity in
theGreatLakesEcosystem:IssuesandOpportunities.The
Report, funded in part by EPA, identifies important
habitat for achieving biological diversity and eco-
logicalintegrity in theGreatLakes ecosystem. GLNPO
has funded some 70 habitat protection/restoration
projects over the last three years. Projects are under-
way at locations such as Hamilton Lake/Fish Creek,
Kakagon/Bad River Sloughs, the Maumee River,
Allouez Bay, Irondequoit Bay, Black River, St. Louis
River, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay. These demon-
strations reflect a variety of activities including on-
the-ground restoration, public participation, and
education. GLNPO can provide information regard-
ing each of these efforts upon request; however, the
following project summaries best illustrate the wa-
tershed work GLNPO is currently supporting:
HamiltonLake/FishCreek(SteubenCounty,
Indiana) combines wetland restorations by
USFWS, agricultural land treatment prac-
tices through U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture and its state and local partners, and
actions of TNC. Resultant actions will im-
prove habitat for species of mussels (some
endangered) and fish.
Kakagon/Bad River Sloughs Watershed
Demonstration Project (involving the Bad
River Band of the Chippewa Nation and
TNC) centers around a 16,000-acre wetland
complexthe largest undeveloped wetland
complex on Lake Superior. The project will
protect and restore fish spawning ground
and a waterfowl marsh inhabited by numer-
ous rare species; model restoration and pro-
tection for more profoundly disturbed sites;
explore sustainable development possibili-
ties for the watershed; and demonstrate pos-
sibilities for ecologically viable activities.
The Glacial Lake Chicago Crescent, a multi-fac-
eted initiative in northeast Illinois and northwest
Indianaemphasizing sustainable economic develop-
ment is another major project that is currently under-
way. This initiative includes:
A Housing and Urban Development/EPA
Demonstration Project to rehabilitate vacant
buildings for housing and reuse empty lots
for native garden projects.
TNCs Mighty Acorn Project which incorpo-
rates in-the-f ield education about ecological
processes includinghands-onrestorationfor
children.
Organization by the Indiana Nature Conser-
vancy, workingwiththelllinoisNatureCon-
servancy field office, of a volunteer steward-
ship network to encourage public participa-
tion in stewardship of northwest Indiana
natural area sites requiring ecological pro-
tection and restoration.
CitySpacedeveloping open space policies
for empty Chicago lots, through which lots
will be redeveloped into parks and garden
space for residents.
Partners in initiative projects will include TNC, local
school districts, park districts and forest preserves,
U.S. Forest Service, USFWS, and many others.
Actions to control introductions of non-native
species include Coast Guard requirements for man-
datory ballast water exchange, EPA regulation of
chemical control, USFWS and state testing of control
techniques, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration educational efforts.
Stakeholders:
23 Indian Tribes
Forest preserves
Great Lakes Fisheries Commission
Illinois
Indiana
Industry
Labor
Local citizens
Local school districts
Michigan
Minnesota
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration
New York
Non-governmental organizations
Ohio
Park districts
Pennsylvania
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Interior (National Park
Service and National Biological Survey)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Wisconsin
Great Lakes continued on page 66
65
-------
Greenwood Lake
Size and location: Greenwood Lake is located in
Orange County, New York and Passaic County, New
Jersey. The lake is 1,920 acres in size, 9.6 miles long
and 1.2 miles wide, with a mean depth of 17 feet, and
a maximum depth of 57 feet. The watershed is 37.2
square miles, exclusive of the lake.
Organization that initiated the project:
U.S. Congress
Major environmental problems:
Massive weed growth in parts of the lake
Floating stumps form a hazard to navigation
Anoxic conditions in the summer months
Erosion fromdevelopment causing sedimen-
tation at river mouths
Taste and odor problems
Nonpoint storm water runoff
Septic and point source discharges
Internal phosphorus cycling
Acliom taken or proposed: In 1980, New Jersey re-
ceived a Clean Lakes Program grant to conduct a
Phase I diagnostic/feasibility study for Greenwood
Lake and its watershed. This study analyzed the
lake's condition and determined the causes of that
condition, examined the watershed to determine the
sources of pollution, and then evaluated solutions
and recommendations for the most feasible proce-
dures to restore and protect lake water quality. A
management plan was developed. This plan recom-
mended:
Weed harvesting.
Lake drawdown.
Construction of storm water quality man-
agement structures.
Septic management district development.
Sensitive lands management plan.
Public education.
In 1989, Phase II Clean Lakes Program grants
were awarded to New Jersey and New York for
Greenwood Lake. Phase II projects implement in-
lake restoration work as well as critical watershed
management activities to control nonpoint source
pollution to the lake. The Phase II projects will
translate the Phase I recommendations into action.
Stakeholders:
Greenwood Lake Improvement Committee
Greenwood Lake Watershed Management
District, Inc.
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
New York/New Jersey Departments of Trans-
portation
Orange County Planning Commissioner
Orange County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Save the Lake Action Committee
Tourism
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Warwick and Greenwood Lake, NY
WestMilford,NJ
Contacts:
NJ:
Budd Cann
Water Monitoring
Management
NJDEP (CN-427)
Trenton, NJ 08625-0427
(609) 292-0427
FAX: (609) 633-1095
EPA:
Theresa Faber
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8708
FAX: (212) 264-2194
NY:
Dr. Jay Bloomfield
Division of Water
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3502
(518) 457-7470
FAX: (518) 457-1088
Contacts
Great Lakes continued from page 65
James Giattina
GLPNO (G-9J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
(312) 886-4040
FAX: (312) 353-2018/886-2403
Iff XV
wXwiVA SV*
66
-------
Cjljjl of IVlexicO Progr|i|ij
Size and location: The Gulf of Mexico, an area of
630,000 square miles, abuts five Gulf Coast states and
has a watershed area of 1,812,000 square miles in the
United States. About two-thirds of the total area of
Mexico is within the Gulf watershed.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Loss of coastal wetlands and seagrass beds
Endangered commercial and recreational
fisheries and shellfish beds
Nutrients
Toxic substances
Pathogens
Trash on beaches
Impaired coastal habitats that support mi-
gratory birds, fish, and other living resources
Actions taken or proposed:
Accomplishments to date include:
Developed a programinfrastructure and five-
year plan that ensured a common coopera-
tive approach with all local, state, and fed-
eral agencies having legislative or adminis-
trative responsibility for any portion of the
environmental health of the Gulf. The plan
has been signed by the Gulf-State governors
and cooperating agency heads.
Funded demonstrations to use wetlands for
filtration of domestic, agricultural, and ur-
ban wastewater to reduce impacts on shell-
fish growing waters in several locations.
Organized biannual beach cleanups that re-
move nearly 1,000 pounds of trash per mile.
Funded restoration of 600 acres of coastal
habitat in cooperation with the Tampa Bay
Estuary Program and the State of Florida.
Developed technical background informa-
tion and promoted special area designation
under MARPOL Annex V for the Gulf of
Mexico (Wider Caribbean).
Within the next five years, through an integrated
effort that complements existing local, state, and
federal programs, the program will:
Significantly reduce the rate of lose of coastal
wetlands.
Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast seagrass
beds.
Enhance the sustainability of Gulf commer-
cial and recreational fisheries.
Protect human health and food supply by
reducing input of nutrients, toxic substances,
and pathogens to the Gulf.
Expand public education/outreach tailored
for each Gulf Coast county or parish.
Ensure that all Gulf beaches are safe for
swimming and recreational uses.
Reduce by at least 10 percent the amount of
trash on beaches.
Increase Gulf shellfish beds available for safe
harvesting by 10 percent.
Descriptions of two specific projects that are
being carried out by the Gulf of Mexico Program
follow.
Stakeholders:
Agriculture
Development interests
Environmental organizations
Fisheries
Local and state governments in FL, AL, MS,
LA,andTX
Manufacturing and mining
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration/National Marine Fisheries Service
Other cooperating agencies
Public deriving food, recreation, and income
from the Gulf of Mexico
Tourism
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Soil Conservation Service
Contact:
Douglas A. Lipka, Ph.D.
EPA/GMP
Building 1103, Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
(601) 688-3726
FAX: (601)688-2709
67
-------
GMf of Mexico Program
Gulf Ecological Management Sites
Size and location: The Gulf of Mexico abuts five Gulf
Coast states and has a surface area of 630,000 square
miles and a U.S. coastline length of almost 1,700
linear miles.
Organization that initiated project:
Gulf of Mexico Program
Major environmental problems:
Habitat degradation
Impairment of wetland functions
Impaired habitat for rare or endangered species
Actions taken or proposed: The Gulf Ecological Man-
agement Sites (GEMS) initiative was created by the
Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) to demonstrate suc-
cessful models of action to protect, restore, and main-
tain the environmental and living resources of the
Gulf of Mexico. All five Gulf states are participating
in the project with each having designated a GEMS
coordinator from an appropriate state agency. The
Nature Conservancy, through the Natural Heritage
Program, is also a key participant in this project.
From the federal agencies, participants who will
assist in coordination include the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and EPA. The potential for involve-
ment by private industry is good, as privately owned
coastal lands have already been identified that com-
panies may wish to donate for the purpose of conser-
vation or sustainable development.
Under the GEMS concept, local, state, and fed-
eral agencies are nominating areas that have a spe-
cific value such as unique or scarce habitat type,
containingrareorendangeredspecies,supportswide
diversity of species, or high productivity. Once all
states have had a chance to identify these areas, a
select subset will be endorsed by all participating
agencies for endorsement as GEMS. For these se-
lected sites, mechanisms to manage these areas to
sustain or enhance their unique and/or valuable
characteristics will be identified and implemented.
At a time when Gulf coastal wetlands are being lost or
functionally compromised at a rapid rate, this project
incorporates a sustainable development approach by
which state and federal agencies can work together to
identify areas that are of value and provide support
for them.
The initial compilation of sites is currently un-
derway in all five Gulf states. In 1995, sites will be
evaluated to decide which ones receive the multi-
agency designation and support as one of the GEMS.
In 1996, mechanisms will be identified and imple-
mentation initiated for the GEMS. Funding for this
phase is now in place. After the initial selection of
GEMS, the process will be re-evaluated and revised
as necessary.
Stakeholders:
Environmental organizations
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration
Other cooperating agencies
State governments in FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Contact: Douglas A. Lipka, Ph.D.
EPA/GMP
Building 1103, Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
(601) 688-3726
FAX: (601)688-2709
Mobile Bay Restoration Demonstrations
Size and location: The Mobile Bay estuarine drainage
area covers 39,725 square miles in nine South Ala-
bama counties. The surface area of the Bay is about
500 square miles.
Organizations that initiated project:
Gulf of Mexico Program in conjunction with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama De-
partment of Environmental Management,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alabama
Department of Economic and Community
Affairs, Soil Conservation Service, National
Marine Fisheries Society, National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region IV
Major environmental problems:
Rapid population growth
Heavy shipping
Damaged wetlands
Loss of submerged seagrass beds
Reduced water quality
Closing of numerous oyster reefs
68
-------
Gulf of Mexico Program
Actions taken or proposed: TheGulf of Mexico Program
coordinated state and federal restoration demonstra-
tions in Mobile Bay to provide an ecosystems ap-
proach to watershed environmental management.
The Program was instrumental in initiating the fol-
lowing projects within the Mobile watershed ecosys-
tems:
Implemented activities in conjunction with
USFWS and ALDEM that demonstrate how
water quality may be improved by restoring
salt mar sh and seagr ass habitats which act as
water filters for nearby oyster reefs.
Implemented a program with the Alabama
Department of Public Health and the Mobile
County Health Department to monitor and
control honpoint sources of pollution affect-
ing water quality for coastal shellfish grow-
ing waters. One project involved construct-
ing a wetland to filter fertilizer and pesticide-
laden runoff from a golf course.
Developed and implemented a citizen moni-
toring support programBay Watchto use
citizen volunteers to gather information to
target and follow-up on pollution control
activities in the Mobile Bay watershed, in
cooperation with ALDEM.
Coordinated development of a menu driven
Geographic Information System to improve
decisions made during section 404 wetland
permit review for the Mobile Bay area.
Stakeholders:
Agriculture
Alabama Department of Economic and Commu-
nity Affairs
Development interests
Fisheries
Local and state governments in Alabama
Manufacturing and mining
Mobile Bay continued on page 72
Hackensack Meadowlands ;£H$fi$£
Size and Location: The Hackensack Meadowlands
District (HMD) is a 32 square mile area covering
portions of 14 municipalities in northeastern New
Jersey. This district comprises much of the lower tidal
area of the Hackensack River watershed. The unde-
veloped areas within the HMD are primarily wet-
lands (approximately 8,260 acres) and are under sub-
stantial developmental pressure.
Organization that initiated project:
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Com-
mission
Major environmental problems:
Development
Actions taken or proposed: EPA, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy agreed, by
entering into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) on March 14,1988, to prepare and implement
a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the
HMD. The MOU requires the preparation of an Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement on the SAMP and the
development of appropriate regulatory products (e.g.,
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 wetlands gen-
eral permits and/or an abbreviated permit process
and advance CWA Section404(c) actions). The SAMP
will facilitate compliance of future development ac-
tivities with all applicable environmental statutes
and regulations.
Stakeholders:
Hackensack Meadowlands Development
Commission
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Mary Anne Thiesing
U.S. EPA Region II
Water Management Division
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-8793
Fax: (212)264-4690
69
-------
Hillsdale Reservoir
Size and location: Hillsdale Reservoir is a 4,580-acre
Corps of Engineers impoundment located in Kansas
30 miles southwest of Kansas City, Missouri. Its
watershed covers 92,180 acres.
Organizations that initiated the project:
Citizens Management Committee
Lakes District Resource Conservation and De-
velopment District
Major environmental threats:
Nutrient overload and associated eutrophi-
cation effects from both point and nonpoint
sources
Minor threat from atrazine
Actions taken or proposed: A nutrient loading Total
Maximum Daily Load has been developed. A local
association of concerned citizens and agencies, to-
gether with the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment and EPA staff support, are initiating a
watershed management program using Clean Water
ActSection319,U.S.DepartrnentofAgricultureWater
Quality Incentives Program, and state funding to
control animal waste and cropland nutrient sources
and to protect the recreational and drinking water
supply benefits of the reservoir.
Stakeholders:
Association of citizens and agencies
Citizens Management Committee
Kansas Department of Health and Environ-
ment
Lakes District RC&D
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Thomas Lorenz
U.S. EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7292
FAX: (913) 551-7765
Size and location: The Battle Branch watershed is a
sub-watershed within the Illinois River Basin. It
contains approximately 36,000 acres and is located in
Delaware County, Oklahoma.
Organization that initiated project:
Cherokee Hills Resource Conservation District
Major environmental problems:
Nutrient pollution from a variety of sources in-
cluding:
- Inadequate rural wastewater systems
- Disposal of other domestic refuse
- Sub-optimal techniques for disposal of dead
poultry or other animals
- Livestockholdingareasand lagoons associ-
ated with dairy operations
- Excessive application of poultry litter and
other animal wastes to agricultural pasture
lands (more than 24,200 tons of poultry and
dairy waste per year)
Actions taken or proposed: This project was divided
into four major components:
1) Install best management practices (BMPs)
using structural or vegetative measures
suited to a program of landowner cost-shar-
ing.
2)
3)
4)
Support development of animal waste plans
through technical and/or financial assistance
to landowners. Promote voluntary land-
owner adoption of such plans.
Conduct regular monitoring to document
the effectiveness of installed BMP measures
in improving water quality.
Use information learned from Battle Branch
project to facilitate the transfer of effective
BMP approaches to other small watershed
units within the Illinois River Basin.
The project manages nutrient sources on-site as
thoroughly as possible through installation of water.
qualify oriented BMPs. BMPs were developed which
utilized proper land application techniquesand waste
handling methods in order to reduce the amount of
nutrients entering Battle Branch and its tributaries.
To date approximately 84 percent of landowners in
the Battle Branch watershed have signed-up for par-
ticipation in the project.
Implementation of BMPs in the Battle Branch
watershed have significantly reduced nutrient con-
centrations. During run-off events, nitrate levels
have decreased as much as 72 percent and total
phosphorus levels have decreased as much as 35
percent. Further, it is projected that if similar reduc-
tions could be achieved in all creeks of the Illinois
Illinois River continued on page 71
70
-------
Indian River Lagoon
Size and location: The Indian River Lagoon (IRL)
comprises more than a third of Florida's east coast
and extends 155 miles from Ponce de Leon Inlet in the
north to Jupiter Inlet in the south. The IRL basin
spans about 2,280 square miles and includes three
major watersheds.
Organizations that initiated project:
Marine Resources Council of East Central Florida
State of Florida
St. Johns River Water Management District
Major environmental problems:
Isolation of coastal wetlands due to mos-
quito impoundments
Storm water runoff
Undesirable freshwater discharges
Increased suspended matter loadings and
sedimentation
Increased nutrient loadings
, Population increase resulting in undesirable
watershed alterations
Loss of seagrass beds
Loss of emergent wetlands
Lacking consistency for environmental pro-
tection rules and criteria
Actions taken or proposed: The IRL was selected for
inclusion in the National Estuary Program (NEP) by
EPA in 1990. IRL NEP activities have focused on the
development of a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) to identify and promote
the restoration of water quality and resources in the
area. Emphasis has been placed onassessingnonpoint
sources of runoff, determining environmental re-
quirements needed for submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion, reconnecting and acquiringmosquito impound-
ments, and promotion of IRL stewardship. As part of
the development of the CCMP, several demonstra-
tion projects are being undertaken to show the viabil-
ity of final recommendations for restoration of the
estuary. These demonstrations include habitat resto-
ration, storm water management, and innovative
ecosystem management practices.
Stakeholders:
Businesses
Commercial fishing
Local citizens
Recreational users including diver/snorkelers,
boaters, and anglers
Contact: Drew Kendall
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3555, ext. 2060
FAX: (404)347-1797
Ex-
llinois River continued from page 70
River Basin, it would represent a significant reduc-
tion in nutrient loading to the Illinois River.
amples of implemented BMPs include:
Conservation plans.
Waste management plans.
Rural wastewater systems.
Poultry composters. -
Riparian tree planting.
Waste storage structures.
Stakeholders:
Businesses
Government agencies
Local citizens
Special interest groups
Contact:
Russell Bowen
U.S. EPA Region VI (6W-QS)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214)665-7140
FAX: (214) 665-6689
71
-------
Iowa Great Lakes
Size and location: The Iowa Great Lakes consist of a
64,000-acre watershed in Dickinson County in north-
ern Iowa.
Organization that initiated project:
Dickinson County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Major environmental problems:
Sediment
Nutrient runoff from both rural and urban
lands threatening 14 natural lakes
Actions taken or proposed: This five-year project was
initiated with fiscal year 1990 Clean Water Act Sec-
Uon319 funds and has also received fundingfrom the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
through the Agricultural Conservation Program, the
Iowa Resource Enhancement and Protection Pro-
gram, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
purpose of the project is to reduce the amount of
sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and animal wastes
entering the numerous lakes in the watershed. Ef-
forts are focusing on avoiding unnecessary or exces-
sive nutrient applications, especially phosphorus;
assisting with practices that reduce water running off
cropland; showing lakeshore landowners how they
can better manage their property to protect water
quality; and using wetland restoration and critical
slope protection programs.
In the two years since the project was initiated,
about 80 acres of wetlands in critical drainage areas
have been improved, restored, or protected. These
wetlands act as filters to stop pollution before it
enters the lakes. New areas of trees and grasslands
have been established on 78 acres in the watershed;
project workers have made site visits with a total of 83
of the 185 watershed landowners to discuss water
quality; and landowners throughout the watershed,
including urban residents, have gained a water qual-
ity awareness through the project's education pro-
gram.
One third of the watershed is in Minnesota, and
a cooperative effort occurs across state boundaries.
There are also plans underway to apply for similar
project funding for the Minnesota side of the water-
shed.
f
11 it
Stakeholders:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
Dickinson County Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation
Iowa State University Extension
Local lake protective associations
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Contact: Ubbo Agena
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
DesMoines,IA 50319
(515) 281-6402
FAX: (515) 281-8895
Mobile Bay continued from page 69
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration/National Marine Fisheries Service
Public deriving food and recreation from Mobile
Bay
Tourism
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Soil Conservation Service
Contact:
Douglas A. Lipka, Ph.D.
EPA/Gulf of Mexico Program
Building 1103, Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 30529
(601) 688-3726
Fax: (610)688-2709
72
-------
Klamath Basin > s V:':?
Size ««d location: The Klamath Basin ecosystem cov-
ers an area of 8,003 square miles in south-central
Oregon and northwestern California. In Oregon, the
basin covers 5,676 square miles primarily in Klamath
County with smaller areas in Jackson, Josephine, and
Lake Counties. Three river systems in the Upper
Klamath Basin discharge to Upper Klamath Lake,
including the Wood, Williamson, and Sprague Riv-
ers. The Upper Klamath Lake is a large (90,000 acre),
shallow (7.9 foot average depth) lake.
Organizations that initiated project:
The Klamath Tribe
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Major environmental problems:
Habitat degradation resulting in the listing
of two endangered speciesLost River
Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose
Sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris)
> Water quality degradation and degradation
of wildlife habitat caused by traditional for-
estry practices including large areas of clear-
cuts
Declines in anadromous fish populations
including the chinook salmon due to elevated
temperature, sedimentation, and blockage
of migration pathways
Excessive upstream withdrawals have re-
sulted in low river flows over the past several
years
Diversion of 500,000 acre feet of water in the
Upper Klamath Basin to irrigate 225,000 acres
of hay, potatoes, and sugar beets
Loss of wetlands to agricultural uses (this
conversion has been linked to water quality
and riparian degradation and wildlife habi-
tat destruction)
Point source discharges
Questionable application of toxic chemicals,
including pesticides, that have the potential
to impact salmonids, endangered species (fish
and wildlife), and non-target aquatic inver-
tebrates
Actions taken or -proposed: The Department of the
Interior has formed the Klamath Basin Ecosystem
Restoration Office. This office is staffed by both the
Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The office is based in Klamath Falls, Oregon.
The Bureau of Land Management purchased the
Wood River Ranch, a significant land acquisition
idjacent to the Wood Riveratthenorthendof Agency
Lake.
EPA provided funds for the Klamath Tribe Fish
and Wildlife Section to complete a water quality
study of Upper Klamath Lake. The grant was funded
underaClean Lakes Water Quality AssessmentGrant.
In addition, EPA has provided Clean Water Act
Section 319(h) grants to assist in developing a com-
prehensive Geographic Information System data-
base for the Klamath Basin and implementing
nonpoint source controls in high priority tributary
watersheds.
ATechnical Advisory Committee (TAG) hasbeen
formed to discuss and evaluate all studies currently
underway in the Klamath Basin. TAG members
include federal, state, and local agency personnel.
Several state and federal agencies have initiated
an investigation of the application of toxic chemicals,
including pesticides, that have the potential to im-
pact salmonids, endangered species, and non-target
aquatic invertebrates.
Stakeholders:
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
City of Klamath Falls plus other point source
dischargers
Hunting groups
Klamath Tribe
Local ranchers/farmers
Non-consumptive resource users
Several tribes in California
Sport and commercial fishing interests
Timber interests
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michael Ryan
Project Manager
Bureau of Reclamation
Contacts:
Steve Lewis
. Manager
USFWS
Klamath Basin Ecosystem Klamath Project
Restoration Office
6600 Washburn Way
Klamath Falls, OR 97603-9365
Charles E. Kimbol, Sr. Craig Bienz
Tribe Chairman Chief Biologist
Klamath Tribe
P.O. Box 436
Chiloquin, OR 97624
Klamath Basin continued on page 74
73
-------
Kootenay River
Size and location: The watershed for the Kootenay
River covers 19,000 square miles in northwestern
Montana, northern Idaho, and British Columbia.
Organization thai initiated project:
Cabinet Resource Group
Major environmental probletns:
Threats from silviculture, hydropower, min-
ing, and pulp mills
Species of special concern (white sturgeon
and bulltrout)
Actions taken or proposed: The Kootenay River Net-
work (KRN) has been formed and is composed of
federal, state, tribal, provincial, industry, and citizen
group representatives who are interested in the
Kootenay River Basin. The mission of the Network is
to involve stakeholders in the protection and restora-
tion of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Kootenay River basin waters. The goals are:
Improvecommunicationamonggovernment
and tribal water resource management agen-
cies and public and private interests for Brit-
ish Columbia, Idaho, and Montana.
Pursue coordination of efforts and standard-
ization of methods.
Develop and implement a basin-wide water
quality monitoring program.
* Fully use monitoring information to accom-
plish proactive, scientifically-based water
resources management.
Educate the public and solicit information
about water resources issues.
EPA, the Bonneville Power Administration,
Noranda Minerals, and Champion International
funded Wafer Quality Status Report (January 1994)
which provides a history and description of the
Kootenay River Basin; discusses current water qual-
ity issues, development activities, and aquatic re-
sourcesin the basin;givesanoverviewof past, present,
and potential future environmental issues and prob-
lems in the basin; and makes recommendations for
prioritizing the basin's water quality concerns and
critical issues.
The Network also received funding to have
Adopt-A-Stream Foundation prepare a workshop to
train20citizenvolunteersinstreammonitoringmeth-
ods and implement a monitoring program. These
volunteers are called Streamkeepers and are to train
othersas well. The Network has received fundingfor
a professional facilitator.
Stakeholders:
British Columbia Ministry of Environment
Cabinet Resource Group
Champion International
East Kootenai Environmental Society
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Idaho Division, of Environmental Quality
Kootenai National Forest
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
Kootenai Tribes of British Columbia
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks
Montana Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences
Noranda Minerals Corps
Panhandle National Forest
Contact: Jill Davies
14 Old Bull River Road
Noxon,MT 59853
(406) 847-2228
Ktamath Basin continued from page 73
Tom Robertson
U.S. EPA
Oregon Operations Office
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
74
-------
Size and location: Lake Champlain is located in the
northeastern United States. Its basin includes por-
tions of Vermont, northeastern New York, and the
Province of Quebec, Canada. The lake is 110 miles
long and 12 miles wide at its widest. Total area of the
basin is over 8,200 square miles.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Congress
Major environmental problems:
Toxics in lake sediments, with elevated lev-
els in Malletts and Cumberland Bays and
Burlington Harbor
Eutrophication, caused by both point and
nonpoint sources, affects water quality and
causes increased plant growth in the bays
Phosphorusespeciallyfromnonpointsources
Consumption advisories due to contami-
nated fish
Non-native nuisance aquatic vegetation and
fauna, e.g., zebra mussels
Actions taken or proposed: Planning actions date to the
1940s. In 1979 the New England River Basin Com-
mission performed a Level B Study.
In 1988, New York and Vermont signed a Memo-
randum of Understanding (MOU) with Quebec for
cooperative environmental management of the lake
including adoption of consistent phosphorus stan-
dards. The MOU was renewed in 1992. It called for
the creation of Citizen Advisory Committees to focus
on the lake.
In 1989, EPA awarded a Clean Lakes Program
grant for a Phase I diagnostic/feasibility study,
which is nearing completion, under the joint admin-
istration of the New York State Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation and the Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources. This study will analyze the lake's
condition and determine the causes of that condition,
examine the watershed to determine the sources of
pollution, and then evaluate solutions and recom-
mendations for the most feasible procedures to re-
store and protect lake water quality.
The Lake Champlain Management Conference
was established under Title 3 of the Great Lakes
Critical Program Act of 1990, the Lake Champlain
Special Designation Act of 1990. Comprised of 31
representatives from both sides of the lake, including
federal, state, and local governments; local interest
groups; and citizens, its goal is to develop a Pollution
Prevention, Control and Restoration Plan. A Pro-
gram Office funded through the conference has been
established in Grand Isle, Vermont and funding pro-
vides for education, research, monitoring, planning,
and demonstration projects.
Stakeholders:
Adirondack Park Agency
Audubon Society
Clinton County Chamber of Commerce
Lake Champlain Committee
Lake Champlain Research Consortium
Lake George Commission
Local citizens
National Park Service
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Soil Conservation Service
States of Vermont and New York
U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Vermont Agency for Natural Resources
Vermont Round table
Contacts:
EPA:
Lee Steppacher
U.S. EPA Region I
JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-4874
FAX: (617)565-4940
Theresa Faber
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 269-8708
FAX: (212)264-2194
VT:
Lisa Borre
Lake Champlain Basin
Program
54 West Shore Rd.
Grand Isle, VT 05458
(802) 372-3213
FAX: (802)372-6131
NY: Jim Connolly
NYSDEC
Rt.86
Ray Brook, NY 12977
(508)897-1211
FAX: (508)897-1394
75
-------
Like La Plata
Size and location: Lake LaPlata is a 1.9-square mile
lake located in the municipality of Toa Alta, near San
Juan, Puerto Rico.
Organization that initiated project:
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Major environmental problems:
Nonpointsource pollution from agricultural
practices and urban development
* Extreme sedimentation rates reducing stor-
age capacity of the reservoir
* Increased nutrient rates accelerating
eutrophication
Oxygen depletion below 13-16 feet
Water hyacinth infestation
Bacterial concentrations exceeding water
quality standards
Actions taken or proposed: Puerto Rico received a Clean
Lakes Program grant in 1981 to conduct a Phase I
diagnostic/feasibility study for Lake LaPlata and its
watershed. This study analyzed the lake's condition
and determined the causes of that condition, exam-
ined the watershed to determine the sources of pollu-
tion, and then evaluated solutions and recommenda-
tions for the most feasible procedures to restore and
protect lake water quality. The overall restoration
plan that was developed addressed water hyacinth
harvesting, sewage improvements, and nonpoint
source best management practice implementation,
including animal waste treatment. The watershed is
extensively used for chicken production.
In 1986 and again in 1991, Phase II Clean Water
Lakes grants were awarded. The Phase II projects
will translate the Phase I recommendations into ac-
tion. Phase II projects implement in-lake restoration
work as well as critical watershed management ac-
tivities to control nonpoint source pollution to the
lake. The Phase II projects include a farmer education
and agricultural inspection program and the con-
struction of a chicken manure processing plant. The
manure processing plant construction is complete.
The processed manure will be sold to Island flower
growers as fertilizer. It is a cooperative effort with the
Commonwealth's Rural Development Corporation.
Stakeholders:
Local citizens
Local government
Puerto Rico Department of Health
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Rural Development Corporation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
EPA:
Theresa Faber
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8708
FAX: (212) 264-2194
Puerto Rico:
Robert Ayala
PR Environmental Quality
Board
Santurce, PR 00909
(809) 722-5959
FAX: (809) 767-1962
76
-------
_i4T'^»-.'4, .;*%":-ziv:*:' -;' ':
'LakeXpiza
Size and location: The Lake Loiza watershed covers
207 square miles (101,380 acres) and is located in the
mountains of east-central Puerto Rico, originating in
the Espino Ward in the town of San Lorenzo and
flowing to the Atlantic Ocean at Loiza Aldea.
Organizations that initiated project:
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
Cooperative Extension Service
Major environmental problems:
High nutrient concentrations
Bacteria
Pesticides
Sedimentation
Household garbage
Dead animals
Polluted runoff from urban areas
Actions taken or proposed: In 1990, an Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Unit Project Plan was
submitted to and approved by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture as partof its Water Quality Initiative to
fund agricultural nonpoint source projects. A four-
year accelerated technical and financial assistance
programis being carried outon approximately 36,050
acres of agricultural land that will be adequately
treated or benefited by the application of agricultural
best management practices (BMPs). The Loiza Lake
project will reduce onsite soil erosion on 4,050 acres
of cropland and 26,000 acres of pasture land to an
acceptable level and reduce offsite agricultural sedi-
mentation by 85 percent or 983,350 tons per year and
will reduce the amount of chemical and organic
matter in the lake.
Clean Water Act funds are being used to inspect
applied BMPs, determine BMP effectiveness, and
carry out an intensive monitoring program.
In addition, information and education efforts
will include BMP demonstration projects, field tours,
training meetings, broadcast and print media, and
publications and bulletins.
Stakeholders:
Este Soil Conservation District
Municipality of Aguas Buenas
Municipality of Bayamon
Municipality of Caguas
Municipality of Carolina
Municipality of Giiaynabo
Municipality of Loiza
Municipality of San Lorenzo
Municipality of Trujillo Alto
Puerto Rico Association of Conservation Dis-
tricts
Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Turabo Soil Conservation District
Contact:
Barbara Spinweber
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8632
FAX: (212) 264-2194
77
-------
Sizeand location: Lake Michigan is 307miles long and
118 miles wide covering 22,300 square miles of area.
Another 45,600 square miles of land drain into the
Lake and the watershed extends across the states of
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Congress
Major enwronmental problems:
Toxic pollutants
Actions taken or proposed: Under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement between the United States
and Canada, a Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP)
for Critical Pollutants has been developed for Lake
Michigan. A draft LaMP was published in 1992 and
revisions were made based on the public comments
received. A second draft will be published in late
1994 in the Federal Register. The final LaMP will be
published in 1995. The goal of the LaMP is to reduce
toxic pollutants in order to restore the beneficial uses
of Lake Michigan and prevent any further degrada-
tion of the Lake system from the release of toxic
pollutants.
Several activities have already been initiated di-
rectly through the Lake Michigan LaMP process.
These include:
Tributary and air deposition monitoring for
LaMP pollutants.
Sediment assessment and remediation
projects for Lincoln Park Gun Club, Illinois;
Manistee Lake, Michigan; and Trail Creek,
Indiana.
* Agricultural "clean sweep" collections for
pesticides in Indiana, Michigan, and Wis-
consin.
Urban "clean sweep" in northwest Indiana.
Pollution prevention technical assistance and
education projects in Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin; Chicago, Illinois; and western Michigan.
Development of a mass balance model for
Lake Michigan.
Assessment of potential pollutant loads to
Lake Michigan from contaminated sedi-
ments.
Development of the Great Lakes Envirofacts
data management system to provide access
to loadings and ambient data as well as pro-
grammatic databases.
A number of other projects are planned or will be
implemented based on results of the monitoring
studyorfurther review of existinginformation. These
include:
Continue sediment remediation at high pri-
ority sites, and use results of the Assessment
and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) study to select appropriate
remediation technologies.
Continue to identify pollution prevention
needs and opportunities for LaMP pollut-
ants.
Develop and monitor chemical and biologi-
cal indicators of ecological health to track
progress towards restoration of beneficial
uses.
Stakeholders:
Chippewa/Ottawa Fishery Treaty Manage-
ment Authority
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Indiana Department of Environmental Man-
agement
Industry
Local citizens
Local governments
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Non-profit organizations
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Contact:
Gary Kolhlhepp
U.S. EPA Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-4680
FAX: (312)886-7804
t
t
78
-------
Lake Musconetcong
Size and location: Lake Musconetcong is located in
Sussex County, New Jersey. The lake is 329 acres in
size, with a mean depth of 4.8 feet, and a maximum
depth of 10 feet. The watershed covers 14,000 acres.
Lake Musconetcong is upstream of Lake Hopatcong,
thelargestlakeinNewJerseyat2,686acresandispart
of its watershed.
Organization that initiated the project:
Lake Musconetcong Regional Planning Board
Major environmental problems:
Extensive weed growth
Nonpoint source storm runoff
Septic and point source discharges around
upstream lakes
Internal nutrient recycling
Accumulation of organic sediments
Algal mat bloom
Actions taken or proposed: The immediate area around
the lake has been sewered. The restoration and
management plan developed as a result of the Phase
I Clean Lakes project recommended the following:
Decrease nutrient inputs from watershed
sources.
Reduce the influx of storm water related
sediment loading.
Control the growth of aquatic vegetation
and mat algae.
Deepen the lake.
Funding was provided for localized dredging,
shoreline stabilization, and implementation of a storm
water management program (detention basins). The
lake is also a priority watershed in New Jersey. It has
received Clean Water Act Section 319 funding for
best management practices.
stakeholders:
Borough of Netcong
Lake Musconetcong Regional Planning Board
New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro-
tection
Tourism
Town of Stanhope
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
EPA:
Theresa Faber
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-8708
FAX: (212) 264-2194
State:
Budd Cann
Bureau of Monitoring
Management
NJ Department of Environ-
mental Protection (CN 427)
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-0427
FAX: (609) 633-1095
79
-------
Lake Ontario
Sizeand location: Lake Ontario lies at the downstream
end of thechainof GreatLakes. Itis the smallest of the
Great Lakes in terms of surface area (7 square miles,
7.8 percent of the total Great Lakes surface area). Ii
has a land drainage area of 24,720 square miles (12.2
percent of the Great Lakes drainage area). It is the
second deepest lake with a 282 foot average depth
and an 800 foot maximum depth, but its volume (393
cubic miles) surpasses only Lake Erie.
Organizations that initiated the project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
Environment Canada (EC)
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
(MOEE)
Mo/or environmental problems:
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consump-
tion due to PCBs, dioxin, DDT, and mirex
Degradationoffishandwildlifepopulations,
as well as bird and animal deformities or
reproductive problems due to PCBs, dioxin,
DDT, and dieldrin
Drinking water taste and odor problems due
to algae or bacteria
Actions taken or proposed: Under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement between the United States
and Canada, a Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP)
for Critical Pollutants is being developed for Lake
Ontario. The primary goal of the LaMP is to reduce
both point and nonpoint source loadings that are
causing or have the potential to cause beneficial use
impairments.
In addition, a Declaration of Intent was signed in
1987 by EPA, EC, NYSDEC, and MOEE, initiating the
Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP) to
reduce toxics loadings to the lake. Actions that have
been taken to date under the LaMP and LOTMP
include:
EPA has initiated a pilot Clean Sweep project
in Erie County to assist farmers to safely
dispose of stores of their banned or unregis-
tered pesticides. About 77 farmers and
agribusinesses participated, resulting in the
collection of approximately 7,500 pounds of
toxiccontaminants. TheCleanSweep project
is being extended to neighboring counties
and to the Great Lakes basin-wide to make
fci ,
the program self-sustaining without addi-
tional federal funds.
EPA and NYSDEC have begun multi-media
(air, water, land) inspections at industrial
and municipal facilities to evaluate opportu-
nities for implementing pollution preven-
tion techniques. In the 1994 fiscal year, of the
491,000 pounds of pollutants that had been
emitted by seven facilities (estimated through
their permits and waste reports), approxi-
mately 212,800 pounds (43 percent) were
eliminated as a results of the facilities imple-
menting the techniques identified in the in-
spections.
EPA has completed Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
Program demonstration projects designed
to evaluate and demonstrate numerous re-
medial treatment technologies for the con-
trol and removal of toxic pollutants in the
Great Lakes, with emphasis on the removal
of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments.
A demonstration project was completed in
the Lake Ontario Basin on the Buffalo River.
The remedial treatment technology was suc-
cessful in removing over 80 percent of the
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons present
in the sediment sample.
Stakeholders:
Environment Canada
Erie County, NY
Farmers and agribusinesses
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact:
Alice Yeh
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1332
FAX: (212) 264-2194
80
-------
Lake Pontchartrain
Sizeand location:: Lake Pontchartrain and its adjacent
lakes form one of the largest estuaries in the United
States. Nearly 1.5 million people live in the fourteen
parishes of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, one-third of
the entire population of Louisiana. The Lake
Pontchartrain Basin is a 4,700-square mile watershed
in southeastern Louisiana, stretching from the State
of Mississippi on the north and east, to the Missis-
sippi River on the west and south, and to Breton
Sound at the Gulf of Mexico.
Organizations that initiated project:
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
U.S. Congress
Major environmental problems:
Nonpoint source pollutants from sewage and
farm animal wastes
Saltwater intrusion
Storm water runoff
Sewage from fishing camps and poorly
sewered and non-sewered communities
Habitat destruction from rapidly expanding
urban development
Commercial activities along the Inner Har-
bor Navigation Canal
Loss of wetlands
Dwindling grassbeds
Diminished shellfish and fish harvests
Closed beaches
Occasional occurrence of oxygen-deficient
areas ("dead zones") in the Lake
Actions taken proposed: A Comprehensive Manage-
ment Plan that reflects a holistic watershed approach
to solving the water quality problems has been devel-
oped for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. A number of
projects are underway including:
A pilot storm water treatment effort (with
created wetlands and retention ponds).
A basin-wide educational program.
Continued construction and clean-out of no-
discharge dairy wastelagoons in Tangipahoa
Parish.
A submerged aquatic vegetation restoration
project.
Citizens monitoring projects.
A Model Ordinance project on the North
Shore.
Stakeholders:
Businesses (industry, fishing, agriculture, oth-
ers)
Government agencies (local, state, and federal
environmental, parks, recreation, land use, etc.)
Local citizens
Special interest groups (environmental, recre-
ation, preservation, education, etc.)
Contacts:
EPA:
Myron O. Knudson, P.E.
U.S. EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-7101
FAX: (214) 665-6490
Local:
Carlton Dufrechou
Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Foundation
P.O. Box 6965
Metairie, LA 70009-6965
(504) 836-2215
FAX: (504) 836-7283
81
-------
Lake Roosevelt
Size and location: Lake Roosevelt, located in north-
central Washington, has a surface area of about 125
square miles.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington State Department of Ecology
Local citizens
Major environmental problems:
Metals contamination in fish tissues and lake
sediments
Chlorinated dioxin and furan compounds in
fish tissue
Point source discharges
Actions taken or proposed: The findings of metals and
dioxin contamination in sediment and fish, followed
by fish consumption advisories, led local citizens to
press Congress to appropriate $500,000 to EPA to
develop a water quality management plan for the
lake.
As a first step, in August 1991, EPA and the
Washington State Department of 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,
which should lead to recommended strategies for
improved protection. The final product will be a
comprehensive water quality management plan for
Lake Roosevelt.
In addition, Washington received Clean Lakes
Program grants in 1991,1992, and 1993 to conduct a
Phaseldiagnostic/feasibilitystudyforLakeRoosevelt
and its watershed. This study analyzed the lake's
condition and determined the causes of that condi-
tion, examined the watershed to determine the sources
of pollution, and then evaluated solutions and rec-
ommendations for the most feasible procedures to
restore and protect lake water quality.
Stakeholders:
Boise Cascade, Kettle Falls
British Columbia Ministry of the Environment
Citizens for a Clean Columbia
Colville Confederated Tribes
Douglas County Commission
Environment Canada
Ferry County Commission
Grant County Commission
Lake Roosevelt Coordinating Committee
Lake Roosevelt Forum
Lake Roosevelt Property Owners Association
Lincoln County Commission
National Park Service
Okanogan County Commission
Pend Oreille County Commission
Spokane Tribe
Stevens County Commission
Stevens County Grange
Tri-County Health Department
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Upper Columbia River Counties
Upper Columbia United Tribes
Washington Association of Wheat Growers
Washington Department of Community Devel-
opment
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Department of Health
Washington Department of Wildlife
Washington Rural Organizing Project
Washington Water Research Center
Contact:
Lee Daneker
U.S. EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1380
FAX: (206) 553-1775
v
t v "INHMvt i
82
-------
Lake Worth
Size and location: Lake Worth is located in north
central Texas. The Lake covers approximately 50
acres and has a watershed of 2,064 square miles.
Organizations that initiated project:
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commis-
sion
City of Fort Worth
Major environmental problems:
Increasing eutrophication
Algae blooms
Sedimentation
Agricultural (dairy farms) and mining (sand
and gravel operations) impacts on lake wa-
ter quality and aquatic habitat
Actions taken or proposed: Texas received a Clean
Lakes Program grant in 1987 to conduct a Phase I
diagnostic/feasibility study for Lake Worth and its
.watershed. This study analyzed the lake's condition
and determined the causes of that condition, exam-
ined the watershed to determine the sources of pollu-
tion, and then evaluated solutions and recommenda-
tions for the most feasible procedures to restore and
protect lake water quality.
In 1989, a Phase II Clean Water Lakes grant was
awarded. The Phase II project will translate the Phase
I recommendations into action. Phase II projects
implement in-lake restoration work as well as critical
watershed managementactivities to control nonpoint
source pollution to the lake. Several restoration ac-
tivities are underway including:
Construction of a pressurized sewage collec-
tion system to replace septic systems cur-
rently causing nonpoint source pollution
around the Lake.
Removal of submerged stumps in the Lake.
Development of a comprehensive basin wa-
ter quality management plan.
Possible enhancement of an existing wetland
to remove nutrient loading to the Lake.
Stakeholders:
City of Fort Worth
Dairy owners
Local citizens
Recreation industry
Sand and gravel mining operators
Soil Conservation Service
Tarrant County Water Control and Improve-
ment District
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commis-
sion
Trinity River Authority
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
TX:
Arthur Talley
TNRCC
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512) 239-4546
FAX: (512) 239-4410
Local:
Jim Scanlan
City of Fort Worth
P.O. Box 870
Fort Worth, TX 76101-0870
(817) 871-8203
FAX: (817)871-8195
f
83
-------
Little Bear River
Size and location: Little Bear River has a 192,000-acre
watershed located approximately 80 miles north of
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Organizations that initiated project:
Soil Conservation Service
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Local soil conservation district
Major environmental problems:
Sediments
Nutrients
Erosion
Runoff from dairies, feedlots, and irrigated
cropland where animal wastes are frequently
applied
Poor riparian conditions
Degradation of Hyrum Reservoir
Degradedstreamchannelsand stream banks
Actions taken or proposed: This watershed project is a
coordinated effort involving funds from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hydrologic Unit
Area Program, Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319,
USDA Water Quality Incentive Program, Bureau of
Reclamation, landowners, and a state revolving fund.
A wide range of practices for stream stabilization,
animal waste management, riparian restoration, and
grazing and cropland management are being imple-
mented. The project is also being coordinated with a
CWA Section 314 project to improve Hyrum Reser-
voir.
Stakeholders:
Lake users
Local citizens
Local soil conservation district
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Forest Service
Utah Association of Conservation Districts
Utah Department of Agriculture
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Utah Department of Natural Resources
Contact:
Roy Gunnell, Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801) 538-6146
FAX: (801) 538-6016
84
-------
Long Island Sound
Size and location: Long Island Sound is 110 miles long
and 21 miles wide. The Sound stretches from the
Battery in Manhattan to the Race at the eastern end of
Long Island.
Organizations that initiated, project:
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Connecticut Department of Environmental Pro-
tection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen)
Toxic substance contamination
Pathogen contamination
Floatable debris
Threats to habitat and living resources
Land use and development resulting in habi-
tat loss and degraded water quality
Actions taken or proposed: The Long Island Sound
Study (LISS) was selected for inclusion in the Na-
tional Estuary Program in 1987. A Management
Conference was convened and the members of the
Management Conference developed a Comprehen-
sive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP)
for the Sound that recommends priority corrective
actions to restore and maintain the resources of the
Sound. The CCMP was approved by the LISS Policy
Committee on March 1,1994. The governors of New
York and Connecticut and the Administrator of EPA
signed a special implementation agreement on Sep-
tember 26,1994.
The Management Conference is implementing a
phased agreement to reduce nitrogen loads to Long
Island Sound. In 1990, in order to prevent continued
declines in dissolved oxygen levels, the LISS Policy
Committee called for a freeze on point and nonpoint
source nitrogen loadings to the Sound in key geo-
graphic areas at 1990 levels. This "no net increase"
policy is being implemented by the States of Con-
necticut and New York through consent orders and
permit modifications. Phase II, detailed in the CCMP,
includes significant, low-cost nitrogen reductions of
18.6 percent to begin the process of reducing the
severity and extent of hypoxia. Phase III actions will
be developed over the next year to identify additional
nitrogen reductions needed to meet the long-term
dissolved oxygen goals.
Other activities include:
Reviewing municipal and industrial dis-
charge permits to surface waters to reduce
the allowable concentrations of toxic pollut-
ants from the previous, permitted values.
Implementing combined sewer overflow
abatement programs in areas affecting Long
Island Sound to decrease pathogen contami-
nation and floatable debris.
Developing enforceable policies to control
storm water in areas where it causes closures
of bathing beaches and shellfish beds.
Encouraging public participation in activi-
ties relating to the cleanup and protection of
the Sound and providing support for activi-
ties including storm drain stenciling, beach
grass planting, and beach cleanups.
Stakeholders:
Association of Marine Industries
Citizen's Campaign for the Environment
Connecticut Department of Agriculture/
Aquaculture Division . '.
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
Connecticut Sea Grant Marine Advisory
Program
Empire State Marine Trade Association
Frank M. Flower & Sons, Inc.
Friends of the Bay
Interstate Sanitation Commission (NY/NJ/CT)
Long Island Sound Foundation
Long Island Sound Taskforce
Long Island Sound Watershed Alliance
Marine Sciences Research Center of the State
University of New York
National Audubon Society
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
New York City Department of Environmental
Protection
New York Sea Grant Extension Program
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
New York State Department of State
North Fork Environmental Council
Northeast Utilities
Pfizer, Inc.
Soil Conservation Service
Sound Keeper
Sound Watch
Long Island continued on page 86
-------
Los Angeles River
Size and location: The Los Angeles River has a water-
shed that covers approximately 890 square miles and
encompasses theLos Angeles BasinandSanFernando
Valley in California.
Organization that initiated project:
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Major emrironmental problems:
Degraded water quality
Habitat loss
Urban runoff
Wastewater discharge
Nutrients
Coliform/pathogens
Toxics
Actions taken or proposed: Since the late 1930s, the Los
Angeles River has been modified for flood control
purposes and to receive storm water and wastewater
discharges. There are three major sewage treatment
plants discharging into the Los Angeles River and its
tributaries, as well as wastewater from the Los Ange-
les Zoo. Flow is also added by other industrial
discharges and runoff from an extensive network of
storm drains.
In recent years, environmental groups and com-
munity organizations have been interested in in-
creasing recreational and wildlife uses of the river.
All the interested parties participated in the Los
Angeles River Master Plan, an initiative that will
identify opportunities for river enhancement and
restoration.
The California Water Quality Assessment Re-
port (1992) listed several sections of the Los Angeles
River as impaired or threatened. The Regional Water
Quality Control Board has proposed Total Maximum
Daily Load and Waste Load Allocation studies for the
river. EPA provided a Clean Water Act Section
104(b)(3) grant for a flow regime study and surface
water sampling to develop a Geographic Informa-
tion System model of the Los Angeles River. A trial
study will provide information needed by the Re-
gional Board and the Los Angeles River.
Stakeholders:
California Fish and Game
California Regional Water Quality Control
.Board
Caltrans
Environmental groups
Friends of Los Angeles River
Local dischargers, developers, and
homeowners groups
Local municipal governments
Los Angeles County
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest: Service
Contact: Ana Corado
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2156
(213) 266-7500
Long Island continued from page 85
Sound Waters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
University of Connecticut
Westchester County Department of Environ-
mental Facilities
Westchester County Department of Planning
Contact: Mark Tedesco
Long Island Sound Office
Stamford Government Center
Stamford, CT 06904
(203) 977-1541
FAX: (203) 977-1546
-------
Size and location: The Lower Mississippi Delta Allu-
vial Plain spans 700 miles from southern Illinois to
the mouth of the Mississippi River, a 219-county, 7-
state area (Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Missouri, Mississippi, and Tennessee). It is one of the
largest watersheds in the world.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Biological Survey
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Nature Conservancy
Major environmental problems:
Historic conversion of bottomland hard-
woods to agriculture
Loss of habitat and reduction in biodiversity
Nonpoint source pollution
Toxic contamination
Loss of flood control functions
Actions taken or proposed: A Delta-wide conference is
being planned through the leadership of the National
Biological Survey that will focus on wetland restora-
tion, water quality protection, and agricultural man-
agement practices. The Lower Mississippi Delta has
been named as the Number 1 priority ecosystem for
study and remediation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. A Delta technical forum is planned for 1994-
1995 with many Delta participants.
An EPA Region VI proposal entitled Sustainable
Development Strategy - Lower Mississippi Delta was
selected under the President's Council on Sustain-
able Development. This project will specifically fo-
cus on empowerment within impoverished minority
communities to contribute to environmental
remediation and planning in the Delta.
For 1994, The Nature Conservancy has proposed
a large data network (Geographic Information Sys-
tem-based) plan for the Delta area, working through
existing State systems and the University of Arkan-
sas.
Stakeholders
Agricultural industry
Agricultural organizations
Conservation organizations
County and parish governments
Cultural heritage organizations
Environmental organizations
Federal, state, and local agencies
Flood control interests
Forest products industry
Grassroots groups
Hunting and fishing interests
Planning agencies
Public: farm and non-farm, non-government
organizations
Recreation industry
Small landowners
Tourism industry
Universities
Urban interests
Contacts:
Jay Gamble
U.S. EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Ave. (6E-FT)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-8339
FAX: (214) 665-7446
Jack Hill
USDA/Forest Service
c/o EPA
1445 Ross Ave. (6E-FT)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-6497
FAX: (214)665-7446
87
-------
Malibu;Creek
Size and location: Malibu Creek is located northwest
of Los Angeles, California. The Creek and its water-
shed span approximately 109 square miles.
Organizations that initiated project:
Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program
Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource Conservation
District
Major environmental problems:
Water quality and quantity
Habitat loss
Urban runoff
Confined animal runoff
Wastewater discharge
Accelerated sediment loadings
Nutrients
Coliform/pathogens
Actions taken or proposed: Efforts to protect this water-
shed have been underway since the 1970s and were
accelerated recently when the Santa Monica Bay Res-
toration Project, the local National Estuary Program,
identified the watershed as one of the major contribu-
tors of pollution to the Bay. These efforts were
augmented by the Local Resource Conservation Dis-
trict, which requested and received watershed plan-
ning assistance through the U.S. Department of
Agriculture'sSmallWatershed Program (resultingin
a Natural Resources Plan study) and by the State,
which targeted the lagoon for early action in develop-
ing Total Maximum Daily Loads and Waste Load
Allocations, because the lagoon is not meeting State
Water Quality Standards.
EPA provides a Near Coastal Waters and a Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 319 grant for planning,
restoration activities, and communication among
several of the participants listed below. These efforts
resulted in a watershed plan with 111 agreed-upon
recommendations. The stakeholder group is form-
ing an implementation committee (possibly under a
joint powers agreement) to carry out these recom-
mendations. EPA will work with the State and local
stakeholders to identify funds for implementation.
The Resource Conservation District recently received
a CWA Section 319 grant to address confined animal
runoff and to restore a section of streambank in the
watershed that was damaged by development. With
EPA assistance, the stakeholder group is developing
a comprehensive watershed monitoring plan.
Stakeholders:
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Coastal Conservancy
Environmental groups
Local dischargers, developers, and homeowner
groups
Local municipal governments
Local Resource Conservation District
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ventura and Los Angeles Counties
Contact: Heather Trim
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2156
(213) 266-7500
88
-------
Marytencl's Atia|it||:jQQ?stal Bays
Size and location: Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Bays
are located on the east coast of the state behind the
barrier islands of Assateague and Fenwick. These
bays consist of Chincoteague, Newport, Sinepuxent,
Isle of Wight, and Assawoman Bays and are within
Worcester County, Maryland extending between the
Delaware and Virginia state lines. The Bays' water-
shed encompasses 187 square miles.
Organization that initiated project:
Maryland Department of the Environment-
Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Management
Administration
Major environmental problems:
Rapid development causing loss of habitat,
increased nonpoint source storm water run-
off, and increased nutrient loadings to ground
water via septic systems
Water quality degradation
Habitat and living resources losses
Conflicting land uses
Excessive anthropogenic pollutant sources
Loss of wetlands and shallow water habitat
from dredging and filling activities
Closure of shellfishing grounds
Excessive loadings of fecal coliform bacteria,
sediments, and nutrients primarily from
nonpoint sources
Actions taken or proposed: A synoptic report that
evaluated all relevant scientific studies performed in
the Coastal Bays, identified research needs, provided
an annotated bibliography, assessed the principle
subbasins responsible for the majority of pollutant
loadings, and provided a number of management
options to control the pollutant loads entering the
bays was prepared.
A more in-depth evaluation of the Bays' water-
shed by the State found that the St. Martins River, the
largest tributary to the Coastal Bays is experiencing
significant water quality degradation from point and
nonpoint sources of pollution from excessive load-
ings of nutrients. In a companion project the State of
Maryland received an additional grant from EPA to
apply a nutrient model to the St. Martins River and
the upper coastal bays to identify priority
subwatersheds which will become the focus for fol-
low-up pollution abatement and control activities.
The Maryland Department of the Environment
has completed a report that contains estimated load-
ings to the Bays' ground water by nonpoint sources
and will conduct a similar follow-up study that will
examine the St. Martins River area.
Stakeholders:
City of Ocean City
National Park Service
State of Maryland
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Worcester County, MD
Contact:
Edward Ambrogio
U.S. EPA Region III (3ES41)
841 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-3697
FAX: (215)597-1850
89
-------
Massachusetts Bays
Size and location: The Massachusetts Bays study area
contains both Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay,
which in turn consist of a myriad of smaller
embavments along the entire eastern coast of Massa-
chusetts. The Bays encompass a surface area of
approximately 2,000 square miles, with a contribut-
ing watershed area of about 6,300 square miles. The
watershed consists of significant portions of both
Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and in particu-
lar, includes almost half of Massachusetts' 351 cities
and towns.
Organization that initiated project:
The Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) is a joint
federal/state/local partnership initiated in 1988
with an award of $1.6 million in settlement funds
from the federal lawsuit over the pollution of
Boston Harbor.
Major environmental problems:
* Chemical contamination of water and sedi-
ments
« Bioaccumulation and effects of chemical con-
tamination
« Pathogen contamination
Impaired water quality
» Habitat loss and modification
Sea level rise
Actions taken or proposed: The MBP was selected for
inclusion in the National Estuary Program (NEP) in
1990. With NEP designation and accompanying
federal funding ($5 million over 5 years), the MBP
began development of a Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan (CCMP) to achieve the
goals of restoration and protection of water quality
and enhancement of the marine resources of the Bays.
The CCMP, first drafted in 1991, is currently under
revision. A draft final CCMP will be released in May
1995 for public review. Final publication of the
CCMP is scheduled for September 1995.
TheCCMPand accompanyingannual work plans
serve to direct numerous program activities includ-
ing:
Establishmentandstaffingofgoverningcom-
mittees, such as those for Policy, Manage-
ment, Steering, Technical Advisory, Local
Governance, and Public Outreach purposes.
Implementation of the CCMP on a regional,
geographic basis.
MBP funded research, demonstration, and
"Mini-Bays" projects (see page 91).
Protection of living resources from chemical
contamination through source reduction.
Numerous education and outreach efforts
(e.g., teacher training, publication of a coastal
access guide and watershed map).
Protection and restoration of harvestable
shellfish resources through storm water
remediation and septic system upgrades.
Stakeholders:
Academic community
Business and industry
Commercial and recreational users such as
anglers, whale watchers, boaters, swimmers
Environmental groups
Federal, state,, and local government agencies
Shipping industry
Tourists
Waste disposal industry
Contacts:
EPA:
Matthew Liebman, Ph.D.
U.S. EPA Region I (WQE)
Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-4866
FAX: (617)565-4940
State:
Diane Gould, Ph.D.
Massachusetts Bays JFK
Program
100 Cambridge Street
20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-9530, ext. 406
FAX: (617)727-2754
90
-------
Massachusetts Bays Program / Mini-Bays Project
Size and location: The Mini-Bays Project includes the
following three areas:
Wellfleet Harbor on Cape Cod (9.5 square
miles)
Fore River Estuary just south of Boston in
Braintree, Quincy, and Weymouth (5 square
miles)
Plum Island Sound and Rivers System on the
north shore of Boston (7 square miles)
Organization that initiated project:
Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP)
Major environmental problems:
Wellfleet Harbor: pathogens and excessive
nutrients threaten a nationally known oyster
population
Fore River Estuary: chemical and pathogenic
contaminants, which if controlled could im-
prove shellfish beds in an historically indus-
trialized area
Plum Island Sound: pathogen contamina-
tion from existing and future development
which endanger the nationally famous
Ipswich clam
Actions taken or proposed: With a five-year funding
commitment from the MBP, each MiniBay project has
developed a plan of action, created management and
advisory committees, and actively begun identifying
pollution sources. Additional effort has included
and will include the development and implementa-
tion of cost effective corrective actions; the establish-
ment of monitoring programs (typically staffed by
volunteers); and the generation of local support.
Specific examples of these efforts include creation of
the Plum Island Sound volunteer monitoring pro-
gram and reseeding of oyster beds in Wellfleet Har-
bor.
Stakeholders:
Academic community
Business and industry
Commercial and recreational users such as
anglers, whale watchers, boaters, swimmers
Environmental groups
Federal, state, and local governments
Shipping industry
Tourists
Waste disposal industry
Contacts:
EPA:
Matthew Liebman, Ph.D.
U.S. EPA Region I (WQE)
Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-4866
FAX: (617)565-4940
State:
Diane Gould, Ph.D.
Massachusetts Bays JFK
Program
100 Cambridge Street
20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-9530, ext. 406
FAX: (617)727-2754
91
-------
Maumee River Area of Concern
Size and location: The Maumee River Area of Concern
(AOC) is in Lucas County in northwest Ohio. It
includes the Maumee Bay at the southwestern corner
of Lake Erie.
Organization that initiated project:
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)
Major environmental problems:
Degradation of fish and wildlife populations
Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
Degradation of benthos
Eutrophication or undesirable algae
Impaired drinking water
Beach closings
Historical discharges from wastewater treat-
ment facilities
Industrial dischargers
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and ur-
ban runoff
Agricultural runoff
Dredge disposal
Contaminated sediments
Actions taken or proposed: The Maumee River AOC is
one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by the
United States and/or Canadian governments in the
GreatLakesregion. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is
being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term
course of action for environmental cleanup. In Octo-
ber 1990 the Stage I report of the RAP, which de-
scribes the nature and extent of the problems, was
completed. Stage II activities, which focus on identi-
fying remedial actions and implementation meth-
ods, are currently being conducted.
Data collection efforts have begun in the mainstem
Maumee and tributaries to assess the extent of con-
taminated sediments and degraded fish and benthos
communities and to evaluate water quality.
Theagricultural committee hasdeveloped aman-
agement policy statement to provide a greenway and
buffer strip along all Maumee River and tributary
waterways to inhibit further erosion.
Other actions include:
Completion of basin-wide intensive surveys
(1992-ongoing).
Intensive investigation of landfill sources,
pathways, and impacts on the AOC.
Development of public involvement activi-
ties (e.g., workgroups, cleanups, evening so-
cials, and Maumee River related events).
Evaluation of hazardous waste sites under
the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model.
Sediment screening of Ottawa River.
Reduction of CSO bypassing to the Maumee
River and tributaries as a result of a recently
completed deep tunnel reservoir project by
the Toledo Bayview Plant.
Completion of the second field season of a
massive effort to evaluate the fish,
macroinvertebrates, sediment, and habitat
of the Maumee River and tributaries by the
OEPA.
Development with local area high schools of
education and monitoring programs.
Completion by Perrysburg of a 5-year up-
grade to its wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP), doubling its treatment capacity.
Education of local land users on pollution
prevention methods for nonpoint source
pollution by EPA, OEPA, Ohio Department
of Natural Resources (ODNR), and Soil Con-
servation Service (SCS).
Joint development of a long-term dredged
materials management plan among U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, OEPA, City of
Toledo, EPA, Toledo Port Authority, ODNR,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and SCS.
Future actions planned for this area include:
Upgrade various municipal WWTPs at an
expense of $ 27 million.
. Correct CSOs at an estimated investment of
$420 million.
Abate agricultural and urban nonpoint
sources.
Address contaminated sediment problems
in Swan Creek, Ottawa River, and Maumee
River.
Preserve Maumee Bay from further filling.
Preserve and restore lost wetlands.
Conduct river investigations to document
impacts on environmental and potential
problems associated with landfill runoff.
Complete Stage II RAP.
Maumee River continued on page 93
92
-------
Meramec River
Size and location: The Meramec River meanders some
220 miles through six Missouri Ozark Highland coun-
tiesDent, Phelps, Crawford, Franklin, Jefferson,
and St. Louisbefore it empties into the Mississippi
River. Between the mouth and its source, it falls 1,025
feet. The Meramec watershed covers portions of eight
additional countiesMaries, Gasconade, Iron, Wash-
ington, Reynolds, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, and
Texastotalling approximately 3,980 square miles.
Organization the initiated project:
Missouri Department of Conservation
Major environmental problems:
Sand and gravel dredging operation impacts
Developmental pressures
Increased agricultural and livestock produc-
tion
Nonpoint source pollution
Point source pollution
Threats to water quality and drinking water
supply
Flooding
Impaired aquatic diversity (including feder-
ally and state threatened and endangered
species) due to habitat loss
Riparian corridor destruction
Wetland loss
Actions taken or proposed: The Missouri Department of
Conservation under a State Wetland Protection De-
velopment Grant from EPA will coordinate scientific
information with stakeholders to develop a water-
shed plan for the Meramec basin through the follow-
ing measures:
Provide scientific information on physiogra-
phy, geology, hydrology, geomorphology,
land usage, Clean Water Act Section 404
jurisdiction (stream and wetland), structural
influences, water quality, fish contamina-
tion, habitat conditions, community sam-
pling of fish and invertebrates, and locations
of threatened and endangered species.
Provide data in Geographic Information Sys-
tem form.
Identify basin problems and potential solu-
tions.
Prepare a basin-specific, dynamic plan to aid
managers in addressing management, coor-
dination, and information needs to integrate
wetland protection and management into a
watershed context.
Identify potential socio-political partnerships
needed to implement improvement pro-
grams.
Stakeholders:
Citizen groups
Landowners
Local governments
Missouri Department of Conservation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Missouri Stream Teams
Private organizations
Regional planning groups
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis
District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Kathleen Mulder
U.S. EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7542
FAX: (913)551-7863
Maumee River continued from page 92
Stakeholders:
Local residents
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Soil Conservation Service
Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Govern-
ments
Toledo Port Authority
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Contact: Mark Messersmith
U.S. EPA Region V (WQB-16J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312) 353-2154
FAX: (312) 886-7804
93
-------
Merrimack River
Size and location: The Merrimack River has a 5,010-
square mile watershed located in New Hampshire
and Massachusetts.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
States of New Hampshire and Massachusetts
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission
Major environmental problems:
Combined sewer overflows
Nonpoint source pollution
Toxics
Loss of wetlands and habitats
Increasing demand for water
Actions taken or proposed: man effort to reach out
to stakeholders or user groups in the watershed and
to better define the issues, the Merrimack River Wa-
tershed Consortium was held in February 1992. As a
result of the Consortium, a Management Committee
and four issue oriented subcommittees were formed.
The Management Committee and Subcommittees
include federal, state, regional, and local interest
group representatives. The subcommittee issues are:
Water Quality, Instream Flow, Information Manage-
ment/Geographic Information System (CIS), and
Resource Use and Value.
On June 7-8, 1993 the first annual Merrimack
River Watershed Management Conference, "Solu-
tions for the Future-Actions for the Present," was
held. Over 200 people attended the conference and
contributed to the development of a draft Watershed
Management Plan. In fiscal year 1993 the Initiative
had approximately $400,000 in funding. This fund-
ing was used for staffing the Initiative and in pursu-
ing a variety of priority projects determined by the
Subcommittees and Management Committee. These
include: a resource use and value inventory of the
watershed, water quality assessment, hydrologic
analysis, communication strategy, two pilot sub-
watershed studies, hydrographic coding of the wa-
tershed, and the development of CIS basemaps.
The Management Committee will be refining the
Watershed Management Plan and working to com-
municate the Initiative. Projects selected for action in
fiscal year 1994 include: the formation of a watershed
advisory group; the development of a citizen envi-
ronmental monitoring network, resource assessment,
information access network, business/government
forum, and biomonitoring in the watershed.
iff, 11 r,,*7:.-r,~.«ZT^
^ilfipuifliiljfl, unjn HJIJL un i, mn, gmi iri i, LUlj, A1 i^Sy?" £f A
The second annual Watershed Management Con-
ference was held in June of 1994. In addition, internal
EPA workgroups are pursuing projects related to
integrating internal data bases, targeting compliance
efforts, addressing combined sewer overflow issues
on the main stem river, focusing on minor permits in
degraded stream segments, targeting RCRA inspec-
tions, and locating waste sites.
Stakeholders:
Environmental organizations
Industry and business
Local governments
Massachusetts
National Park Service
New Hampshire
Regional planning agencies
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Universities
Utilities
Watershed organizations
Contacts:
EPA:
Trish Garrigan
U.S. EPA Region I (WSS)
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-2987
FAX: (617)565-4940
State (NH):
Chris Simmers
New Hampshire Dept.
of Environmental Services
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-2961
FAX: (603) 271-2867
State (MA):
Elaine Hartman
Office of
Watershed Management
Bureau of Resource
Protection
Dept. of Environmental
Protection
40 Institute Road
North Graf ton, MA
01536
(508) 792-7470
FAX: (508) 839-3469
94
-------
Middle Fork River
Size and location: The Middle Fork River Watershed
encompasses 151 square miles in the hills of central
West Virginia.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Acid mine drainage from abandoned mines
severely impacts drinking water sources,
aquatic life including a trout fishery, aesthet-
ics, and recreational activities
Actions taken or proposed: Critical areas have been
defined based on acid loads. A steering committee
reviews restoration plans such as anoxic limestone
trenches and wetlands. An engineered wetland has
been installed.. The project helped generate addi-
tional state and federal funds for mine reclamation
activities. It has helped the State develop a restora-
tion fund which will be used on a priority basis for
reclaiming mined areas.
Six ground water monitoring stations were in-
stalled near Cassity, West Virginia. Two were placed
outside of the impacted area to collect background
data. The sites, which are monitored twice a year,
include naturally-occurring springs and water. Ad-
ditional ground water monitoring occurs near
Kittle Flats, West Virginia. Ground water seepage is
monitored as part of the acid mine drainage control
and abatement project in the watershed. The moni-
toring will help assess the effectiveness of the anoxic
limestone drains that are being installed.
Stakeholders:
Recreationalists
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
West Virginia Division of Energy
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
West Virginia State Soil Conservation Commit-
tee
Contact:
Henry Zygmunt
U.S. EPA Region III (3WM11)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-3429
FAX: (215)597-3359
95
-------
Middle Snake River
Sizeand location: The Middle Snake River is located in
the Snake River Plain in south-central Idaho.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State of Idaho
Middle Snake River Study Group
Major environmental problems:
Threatened water quality
Aquatic ecosystem degradation
Runoff
Effluent
Riparian/wetland habitat degradation
Endangered and threatened species
Loss of recreational resources
Actions taken or proposed: In 1988, EPA became con-
cerned about cumulative impacts to the Middle Snake
River from existing and proposed hydroelectric
projects. As a result, EPA initiated an ecological risk
analysis of this portion of the Snake River which
utilizes both measurements and models to estimate
the likelihood of deleterious changes in the water-
shed.
In 1990, the State of Idaho designated parts of the
Middle Snake River as water quality-limited, which
required theestablishmentofaTotalMaximumDaily
Load. The State then developed a Nutrient Manage-
ment Plan (NMP). With input from industry, envi-
ronmental groups, and local government, the NMP
hopes to define a pollutant load limit that achieves
water quality standards and specifies a clearly en-
forceable allocation of allowable pollutant loadings
among the various dischargers.
Local officials also became aware of the water
quality problems in the Middle Snake River and
formed the Middle Snake River Study Group
(MSRSG). The MSRSG has completed a draft Coor-
dinated Water Resource Management Plan for the
Middle Snake River.
The integration of these three efforts (NMP, eco-
logical risk analysis, and MSRSG plan) is providing a
coordinated approach to addressing water quality
problems in the Middle Snake River.
Stakeholders:
B&C Energy, Inc.
City of Twin Falls
Clear Springs Trout Company
Cogeneration, Inc.
Dairy and feedlot 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
Contact:
John Olson
U.S. EPA
422 West Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702
(208) 334-9488
FAX: (208) 334-1231
\
96
-------
Milwaukee Estuary Area of Coitteffl
»*
Size and location: The Milwaukee Estuary Area of
Concern (AOC) is in the City of Milwaukee. It
includes the nearshore waters of Lake Michigan,
Milwaukee Harbor, and portions of the Milwaukee,
Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic rivers. Twenty-two
square miles of land drain directly to the AOC. This
22-square mile drainage area cover less than three
percent of all the land draining to the estuary. (The
AOC encompasses only a small portion of the entire
watershed.)
Organization that initiated project:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Major environmental problems:
Degraded fish and wildlife habitat
Degraded benthos, plankton, fish, and wild-
life communities
Eutrophication
Tumors and other deformities in fish
Beach closings and other restrictions on full-
body contact with surface waters
Combined sewer overflows
Contaminated sediments
Hydromodification
Storm water runoff
Sewage treatment plant effluent
Industrial process and ndncontact cooling
water discharges
Actions taken or proposed: The Milwaukee Estuary
AOC is one bf 43 AOCs that have been designated by
the International Joint Commission (a U. S.-Cahadian
commission) in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial
Action Plan (RAP) is being developed for this AOC
to provide a long-term course of action for environ-
mental cleanup. The Wisconsin Department of Natu-
ral Resources (WDNR) completed Stage I of the RAP,
which describes the nature and extent of problems, in
March 1991. In July 1994, the WDNR released a
report describing progress on the identification and
implementation of remedial actions.
The WDNR has designated all six of the water-
sheds that are tributaries to the AOC as priority
watershedsunder the State's Priority Watershed Pro-
gram. Designation as such has led to development of
nonpoint source pollution control plans for five of the
six watersheds. A plan for the sixth should be com-
plete in 1994.
Development of the plans has enabled the imple-
mentation of practices which control discharges of
pollutants from rural and urban sources. Nearly 150
rural landowners have signed agreements to share
the $1.4 million cost to implement controls. In addi-
tion, 32 public and nonprofit organizations have
initiated nonpoint source pollution control programs
in urban areas. Through mid-1993, the WDNR and
the 32 organizations spent $2 million to implement
the programs.
The WDNR has allocated $4 million for imple-
mentation of the nonpoint source pollution controls
in 1994. Implementation will reduce soil erosion
from farm land, construction sites, and streambanks.
It also will reduce the discharge of livestock waste
and household hazardous waste to surface waters.
Structural controls established in urban environments
will reduce pollutant loads from storm water runoff
and mitigate the adverse hydrologic effects of imper-
vious surfaces.
EPA is overseeing the design of a remedial action
for the Moss-American Superfund site. The site,
located in the City of Milwaukee, was used for sev-
eral decades to treat railroad ties with a creosote and
fuel oil mixture. An investigation of the site indicated
the presence of several organic compounds in ground
water, soil, and Lower Menomoinee River sediment.
Among the compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons were the most prevalent. They were found at
concentrations known to promote the formation of
tumors in fish.
In 1973, EPA funded the removal and treatment
of contaminated sediments from a 5,000-foot reach of
the Little Menomonee River. Activities to be con-
ducted as part of a full remedial action will involve
relocation of the Little Menomonee River, removal
and treatment of contaminated soil and sediment,
collection and treatment of contaminated ground
water, and isolation of untreated soil and sediment.
The remedial action is expected to take up to four
years to implement at a cost of $26 million. It is
scheduled to begin in 1997. When complete, the
remedial action is expected to reduce releases of
organic compounds to the Lower Menomonee River
and the AOC.
In 1996, local governments will complete a $2.2
billion effort to reduce the frequency of overflows
from combined sewers and improve the quality of
effluent from the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District's (MMSD) two wastewater treatment plants.
This effort involves significant improvement to exist-
ing sewers, the construction of tunnels to store wet
weather flows for subsequent treatment, and expan-
sion of the MMSD's two wastewater treatment plants.
Reduction in the number of overflow events and
97
-------
Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern .
improvement in treatment plant effluent will signifi-
cantly reduce the discharge of oxygen-consuming
matter, solids, pathogens, and toxic substances to the
AOC.
Future actions that are planned for the AOC
include:
* Implement programs and practices to con-
trol urban and rural nonpoint sources of
pollution.
Control pollutants discharged from the Mil-
waukee storm sewer system.
* Remediate the Moss-American Superfund
site.
Characterize sediments in streams that are
tributaries of the AOC (e.g., Lincoln and
Cedar creeks, Milwaukee River) and control
releases of associated contaminants.
Characterize sediments in the AOC and
implement actions to minimize the adverse
effects of associated contaminants.
Restore streambanks and create vegetative
buffer zones.
Aerate a portion of the Menomonee River.
* Establish a household hazardous waste col-
lection facility.
Minimize the introduction of pollutants to
sewers and surface waters through public
education.
Stakeholders:
Citizens Advisory Committee
City of Milwaukee
Milwaukee County
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Milwaukee River Revitalization Council
Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission
Technical Advisory Committee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Contact: Marsha Jones
WDNR - Southeast District
P.O. Box 12436
Milwaukee, WI53212
(414) 263-8708
FAX: (414) 263-8483
98
-------
Morro Bay
Size and location: Morro Bay has an approximately
100-square mile watershed located on the California
coast, approximately 150 miles north of Los Angeles.
Organizations that initiated project:
California State Coastal Commission
Soil Conservation Service
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Major environmental problem:
Sedimentation
Actions taken or proposes: To protect this endangered
area, EPA supports the Morro Bay Watershed Project
withbothfundingand technical guidance onnonpoint
source monitoring and implementation of nonpoint
source controls. Clean Water Act Section 319 grant
funds are being used to implement erosion control
and sediment retention practices on several farms
and ranches in the watershed. A National Nonpoint
Source Monitoring Program project measures the
effectiveness of agricultural and silvicultural best
management practices in reducing sedimentation. In
addition, the Regional Water Board has initiated an
effort to closely coordinate implementation of other
water quality programs, including underground tank
remediation, storm water, and point source permit-
ting on a watershed basis.
IJSi.VS
\TV'
Stakeholders:
California Polytechnic InstituteSan Luis
Obispo
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board
California State Coastal Commission
Local interest groups and landowners
Resource Conservation District
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Howard Kolb
Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board
81 Higuera St., Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5414
(805) 549-3332
99
-------
Narragansett Bay
Size and location: Narragansett Bay is an estuary
covering 147 square miles of water surface. Its water-
shed comprises 1,657 square miles, 61 percent of
which is in Massachusetts and 39 percent is in Rhode
Island.
Person that initiated project:
Governor of Rhode Island
Major environmental problems:
Toxic pollutants
Nutrients and eutrophication
Land-based impacts on water and habitat
quality
Declining health and abundance of living
resources
» Need for fisheries management
Adverse health risk to consumers of seafood
Adverse environmental impacts on commer-
cial and recreational uses
Actions taken or proposed: The Narragansett Bay was
selected for inclusion in the National Estuary Pro-
gram in 1987. A Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) has been developed as
the blueprint for immediate coordinated action by
federal, state, and local implementing authorities.
Recommended actions to address the problemslisted
above are prioritized and need to be staged over a
number of years to achieve measurable progress.
Since the CCMP received EPA approval in January
1993, some examples of implementation activities
that have been completed include:
Development of a Marina Pumpout Siting
Plan that will help lead to a request to EPA to
designate the Bay as a "no discharge area."
A Quahog (hard shell clam) Management
Plan for Greenwich Bay.
A regulatory review to identify and resolve
inconsistencies in state policies regarding
water quality issues.
Revision of the state's individual sewage
disposal system regulations and industrial
pre-treatment regulations.
Stakeholders:
Environmental advocacy groups
Federal, state, and local government agencies
Industry
Land development interests
Local citizens
Marine trade organizations
Universities
Contacts:
EPA:
JoAnne H. Sulak
U.S. EPA Region I
(WQP)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3523
FAX: (617)565-4940
State:
Richard Ribb
Chris Deacutis
Narragansett Bay Project
Rhode Island DEM
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI02908
(401) 277-4913, ext. 7271
FAX: (401)521-4230
100
-------
New York City Water Supply Watersheds
Sizeand location: The water supply for the City of New
York is composed of three systems. Together, these
systems provide water for 8 million residents in New
York City as well as 1 million residents north of the
city. The Catskill and Delaware Systems (Schoharie,
Cannonsville, Pepacton, Ashokan, Neversink, and
Rondout Reservoirs) lie west of the Hudson River,
covering an area of approximately 2,000 square miles.
The Kensico and West Branch Reservoirs of the
Catskill/Delaware Systems (plus the independent
Croton System) lie east of the Hudson River.
Organization that initiated project:
New York City
Major environmental problems:
Nonpoint source contamination from resi-
dential and commercial development
Runoff from dairy farming operations
Dischargesfromwastewatertreatmentplants
Actions taken or proposed: On December 30,1993, EPA
issued a Determination granting filtration avoidance
to New York City for the Catskill and Delaware
systems. The Determination, which is effective until
a further Determination is made or until December
15,1996, requires New York City to comply with over
150 conditions. These conditions mainly consist of
steps to further enhance watershed protection. Some
actions being taken include:
Water quality inventory, surveillance, and
monitoring.
Promulgation of new watershed regulations.
Partnership programs with watershed com-
munities and the farm community.
Kensico Reservoir coliform remediation.
Upgrading of New York City-owned and
non-City-o wned sewage treatment facilities.
Septic tank review, inspection, and remed-
iation.
Enhanced enforcement of water quality regu-
lations.
Land acquisition.
Stream corridor protection.
The New York City Department of Environmental
Protection is undertaking these actions either di-
rectly or by providing funding to others.
Stakeholders:
Building Contractor Association of Westchester
& the Mid-Hudson River
Catskill Center
Catskill Committee of the Sierra Club
City Club of New York
City of New York
Coalition of Watershed Towns (representing
all towns in the five West of Hudson counties
Congressman Boehlert
Congressman Fish
Congresswoman Lowey
Environmental Defense Fund
Hudson Riverkeeper
Natural Resources Defense Council
New York State Bar Association, Environmen-
tal Law Committee
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
New York State Department of Health
Pure Water Alliance
Putnam County Legislature
Sierra Club - New York City Group
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Westchester County
Woodstock Times/Huguenor and Highland
Herald Publisher
Contact: Robert R. Williams, P.E., Chief
Public Water Supply Section
U.S. EPA Region II
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1800
FAX: (212) 264-2914
101
-------
New York-New Jersey Harbor
Size and Location: The core area for this project is
defined as the New York-New Jersey Harbor from
the area up to and including the Hudson River near
Piermont Marsh to the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Poini
Transect the Harlem and East Rivers to Hellgate, and
all other tributaries to the head of tide. The core area
is encompassed within an approximately 50-mile
diameter circle centered on the Upper Bay of New
York-New Jersey Harbor. For planning purposes,
the New York Bight Apex along with the New Jersey
and Long Island coasts to three miles offshore, and
the Hudson River to the limit of anadromous fish
spawning are considered within the study area.
Organizations that initiated the project:
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro-
tection
Major environmental problems:
Floatable debris
Pathogenic contamination
Toxic contamination
Nutrient and organic enrichment
Habitat loss and degradation
Actions taken or proposed: The New York-New Jersey
Harbor was selected for inclusion in the National
EstuatyPrograminl988. AComprehensiveConser-
vation and Management Plan (CCMP) is being devel-
oped for the Harbor that recommends priority cor-
rective actions to restore and maintain the resources
of the Harbor. The draft CCMP is expected to be
released to the public in late 1994. The final CCMP is
due to EPA and the Governors of New York and New
Jersey by June 1,1995, and EPA's Administrator is
expected to approve the CCMP in September 1995.
Actions identified to date include:
Floatables Action Plan.
Beach/Shellfish Bed Closure Action Plan.
Site-Specific WaterQualityStandardforcop-
per.
Wasteload Allocations for toxic metals.
Stakeholders:
Citizens' groups
Interstate Sanitation Commission
Local governments including New York City
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Scientific and technical community
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Seth Ausubel
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-6779
FAX: (212) 264-2194
102
-------
Area of Concent
Size and location: The Niagara River Area of Concern
(AOC) is located in Erie and Niagara Counties in
western New York. The AOC extends from Smokes
Creek near the southern end of the Buffalo Harbor,
north to the mouth of the Niagara River at Lake
Ontario.
Organizations that initiated the project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
Major environmental problems:
Habitat and survival of aquatic life have
been impaired by PCBs, mirex, chlordane,
dioxin, hexachlor obenzene, polynuclear aro-
matic hydrocarbons, lead, mercury,
tetrachloroethylene, and pesticides
Fish tumors and other deformities
Metals and cyanides in the sediment prevent
open lake disposal of bottom sediments
dredged from the river
Actions taken or proposed: The Niagara River AOC is
one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by the
United States and/or Canadian governments in the
Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is
being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term
course of action for environmental cleanup. RAP
development began in 1989. The final draft was
completed in March 1993. A Remedial Advisory
Committee will be formed to assist NYSDEC in RAP
implementation. Actions that have been taken to
date include:
Upstream (Fort Erie) and downstream
(Niagara-on-the-Lake) water quality moni-
toring is ongoing in order to estimate pollut-
ant loadings.
Scheduled remedial actions at Occidental
Chemical's Buffalo Avenue and Durez sites,
DuPont's Necco Park and Buffalo Avenue
sites, Bell Aerospace, and CECOS Interna-
tional have resulted in an estimated 25 per-
cent reductionin loadings from waste sites in
the Niagara River basin.
Remedial actions on Gill Creek were com-
pleted in 1992.
NYSDEC is developing pollution preven-
tion regulations to require implementation
of "Toxic Chemical Reduction Plans" for fa-
cilities that generate certain amounts/types
of hazardous wastes or toxic chemicals. Many
industries have already taken the initiative
to institute pollution prevention practices.
Additional actions taken in this AOC are
included in the summary of projects under-
taken for the Niagara River Toxics Manage-
ment Plan (see page 103), which covers a
larger, but similar area.
Stakeholders:
Bethlehem Steel
Buffalo Sewer Authority
Columbus-McKinnon
DuPont-Necco Park
Environment Canada
INS Equipment
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Niagara River Action Committee
Occidental Chemical
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
Other industries
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Ellen Heath
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-1865
FAX: (212) 264-2914
ios
-------
Niagara River Toxics Manaeemeilt Plan
Size and location: The Niagara River is a 37-mile
channel that connects Lake Erie to Lake Ontario.
Divided into upper and lower reaches by Niagara
Falls, it provides 83 percent of the total tributary flow
to Lake Ontario.
Organizations that initiated the project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
Environment Canada (EC)
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
(MOEE)
Major environmental problems:
Habitat and survival of aquatic life have
been impaired by PCBs, mirex, chlordane,
dioxin, hexachlorobenzene, polynuclear aro-
ma tic hydrocarbons, lead, mercury,
tetrachloroethylene, and pesticides
Fish tumors and other deformities
Metals/cyanides in sediments prevent open
lake disposal of bottom sediments dredged
from river
Actions taken or proposed: A Declaration of Intent was
signed in 1987 by EPA, EC, NYSDEC, and MOEE
initiatingtheNiagaraRiverToxicsManagementPlan
(NRTMP) to reduce toxics loadings to the Niagara
River. Actions that have been taken to date include:
* In 1989, EPA and NYSDEC identified the
Falls Street Tunnel as responsible for over 50
percent of the aggregate point source load-
ings (from the United States to Niagara River)
of the ten persistent toxic chemicals targeted
for significant reductions by the NRTMP. In
1993, the U.S. Department of Justice lodged a
settlement in Federal Court which commits
the City of Niagara Falls to treat all the dry-
weather flow. Construction to divert the
entire dry-weather flow to the Niagara Falls
wastewater treatment plant was completed
onschedule,andtreatmentof the toxic chemi-
cals has been confirmed.
Over 5,800 cubic meters of highly contami-
nated sediment were removed from Gill
Creek, eliminating, among other pollutants,
an estimated 0.4 pounds per day load of
PCBs to the Niagara River. This magnitude
of loading is approximately 20 percent of the
loading measured from the Niagara River to
Lake Ontario.
EPA and NYSDEC identified 24 waste sites
responsible for 99.9 percent of the estimated
toxic loads from all sites and developed am-
bitious cleanup schedules for them. In June
1994, the agencies reported thatremediations
at eight sites have resulted in an estimated 25
percent reduction in these loads. By 1996,
scheduled remedial actions will reduce the
estimated toxic loads by 89 percent.
Approximately 29,000 cubic yards of con-
taminated sediments were removed from
Bloody Run Creek, also associated with
leachate from the Hyde Park landfill. Sub-
stances removed included chlorobenzene,
hexachlorobenzene, and low levels of di-
oxin. The creek was relined with clean gravel.
EPA has carried out inspections at Niagara
River basin facilities for waste minimization
activities on behalf of the Niagara Frontier
Program. EPA targeted facilities that dis-
charge either NRTMP priority toxics or toxics
that are highly bioaccumulative. EPA's re-
ports include descriptions of facility manu-
facturing processes, waste generation and
environmental releases, waste minimization
achievements to date, potential waste mini-
mization opportunities, and facility response
to the evaluation.
Stakeholders:
Bell Aerospace
City of Niagara Falls
DuPont
Environment Canada
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Occidental Chemical
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
Other industries
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
Contact: Ellen Heath
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1865
FAX: (212) 264-2194
-------
Size and location: The Initiative centers on the Grand
Calumet River watershed and encompasses parts of
Lake and Porter counties in northwest Indiana.
Municipalities include: City of Hammond, City of
East Chicago, City of Gary, and City of Whiting.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Five to ten million cubic yards of contami-
nated river and harbor sediments
Toxics
Five Superfund sites
Ground water contaminated with 15-30 mil-
lion gallons of free-phase hydrocarbons
Actions taken or proposed: The Grand Calumet water-
shed is an Area of Concern under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement.
EPA is working closely with the Indiana Depart-
ment of Environmental Management (IDEM) on a
watershed basis. EPA and IDEM have developed a
strategy for the area and have workgroups imple-
menting this strategy. EPA actions include: a Memo-
randum of Understanding with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to develop a sediment dredging project,
targeted enforcement against watershed non-com-
pliers, pollution prevention projects and workshops,
multi-media site evaluations and cleanups, natural
resource damage assessments, and an area ground
water workgroup developing a map of the extensive
ground water contamination.
Stakeholders:
Indiana Department of Environmental Man-
agement
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Industries
Local environmental groups
Local municipalities
Property owners
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Unions
Contact:
Robert Tolpa
U.S. EPA Region V (WCC-15J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-6706
FAX: (312) 886-0618
(3ak Creek
Size and location: Oak Creek Watershed covers 427
square miles in Arizona.
Organization that initiated project:
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Major environmental problems
High bacteria levels
High nutrient levels
Sedimentation
Actions taken or proposed: The Arizona Department of,
Environmental Quality initiated the Oak Creek project
to provide an analytical, planning, and implementa-
tion framework to address water quality problems
associated with point and nonpoint pollutant dis-
charges. Oak Creek was selected as a National
Nonpoint Source Monitoring project site for long-
term monitoring and assessment of nonpoint source
best management practice effectiveness. A variety of
practices to control runoff from paved surfaces will
be implemented.
Stakeholders:
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Department of Transportation
Local county government
Local environmental groups and landowners
Northern Arizona Council of Governments
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Chris Heppe
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2009
FAX: (415) 744-1078
105
-------
Onondaga Lake
Size and location: Onondaga lake is located along the
northern end of the City of Syracuse in Onondaga
County, New York. The lake covers an area of 4.6
square miles. The lake receives water from a drain-
age basin of 248 square miles located almost entirely
within Onondaga County.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Congress
Major environmental problems:
Excessive nutrient loading from a large mu-
nicipal discharge causing eutrophic and low
oxygen conditions
Combinedseweroverflowsofuntreatedsew-
age and debris generating bacteria concerns
Mercury and other hazardous materials in
the sediment, water, and biota from past
manufacturing operations
Low dissolved oxygen levels, high turbidity
levels, elevated levels of ammonia and salin-
ity, reduced plant life, unsuitable substrate,
and the presence of mercury have adversely
affected aquatic organisms.
Sediment loading from the Tully Valley
Mudboils
Actions taken or proposed: In 1989 Congress appropri-
ated funds for EPA to convenea management confer-
ence 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 management of
Onondaga Lake and called for the development of a
comprehensive restoration, conservation, and man-
agement plan for Onondaga Lake that recommends
priority corrective action and compliance schedules
for the cleanup of the lake. The Management Confer-
ence consists of representatives from the federal,
state, local, public, and private sectors who have an
interest in the Lake.
Management Conference projects include:
Develop a eutrophication model for the Sen-
eca River.
Develop a lake productivity model.
Develop a hydrodynamic model for the lake
outlet.
Fund studies on the release of nutrients and
toxic substances from lake sediments under
changing dissolved oxygen levels.
Establish a long-term baseline water quality
program.
Characterize the nonpoint source pollution
problems.
Draft a rural nonpoint source pollution plan.
Draft an urban/suburban nonpoint source
pollution plan.
Draft a fish and wildlife management plan.
Demonstration project of manipulated lit-
toral zone habitat structures indicated that
fencing and wave breaks could significantly
increase plant survival, growth, and diver-
sity and that these habitats also increased
survival of young-of-the-year fish.
Future projects proposed for Onondaga Lake
include:
Evaluate, and update on a regular basis, the
contamination status of lake organisms.
Develop and implement a biological moni-
toring program
Develop a public education plan.
Conduct pilot projects to implement flow
modification and sediment load reduction in
the Tully Valley Mudboil area.
Implement large scale macrophyte planting
project.
Reconnect fragmented wetlands area to
Onondaga Lake to provide vital fish spawn-
ing and young-of-the-year nursery areas.
Study the role of vegetation in mercury cy-
cling.
Complete the full "State of Onondaga Lake"
report.
Implementation of the plan will involve the tar-
geted use of existing regulatory programs within the
geographic confines of Onondaga Lake. For ex-
ample, a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
is being performed pursuant to a consent decree with
New York State.
Stakeholders:
City of Syracuse
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
New York State Department of Law
Onondaga County
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact:
Christopher E. Dere
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-5353 FAX: (212) 264-2194
106
-------
Oswegb River Harbor Area of Concern
Size and location: The Oswego River Harbor Area of
Concern (AOC) is located on the southeastern shore
of Lake Ontario and is centered in the City of Oswego,
New York.
Organizations that initiated the project:
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consump-
tion primarily due to PCBs and dioxin
Loss of fish and wildlife habitats caused by
periodic extreme low flow conditions below
the Varick Dam contributes to the degrada-
tion of fish populations
Eutrophication and reported algal blooms
have been attributed to excess phosphorus
from municipal discharges, combined sewer
overflows (CSOs), and agricultural runoff
Pollutants of concern fromidentif ied sources
in the basin are PCBs, dioxin, phosphorus,
mercury,mirex/photomirex,andoctachloro-
styrene
Actions taken or proposed: The Oswego River Harbor
AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by
the United States and/or Canadian governments in
the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) is being developed for this AOC to provide a
long-term course of actionfor environmental cleanup.
RAP development began in 1987. The Stage I Report,
which describes the nature and extent of problems,
was completed in 1990. The Stage II Report, com-
pleted in 1991, includes a remedial strategy to restore
water quality in the lower river and harbor, and
eliminate adverse impacts to Lake Ontario from pol-
lutants carried by the Oswego River. A Remedial
Advisory Committee (RAC) was then formed to rep-
resent all stakeholders and assist NYSDEC in RAP
implementation. Actions that have been taken to
implement the recommendations of the Stage II Re-
port include:
Under a recent settlement and enforcement
action, Bristol Myers Squib in East Syracuse
agreed to a $30 million upgrade to its pre-
treatment facilities and to conduct site inves-
tigations and pollution prevention activities.
EPA and NYSDEC are jointly overseeing the
implementation of eight Approved Pretreat-
ment Programs in the Oswego Basin.
Modeling of Onondaga Lake and Three
Rivers (Oswego, Seneca, and Oneida) is well
underway and is to be used to determine
loadings, additional upgrade needs, and CSO
needs.
Implementation of remedial actions is un-
derway at the Clothier and Quanta Resources
hazardous waste sites. Clothier involves
drum and soil contamination removal.
Quanta involves additional monitoring to
determine if interim remedial measures are
effective and sufficient. Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility Studies are in progress at
seven other sites, including Onondaga Lake
and Ley Creek PCB sites, as prerequisites to ;
remedial action.
NYSDEC is working with Niagara Mohawk
and other hydroelectric utilities to allow re-
stricted fish passage at Oswego River facili-
ties and to resolve minimum flow problems
at Varick Bypass. Estimated completion is
1995.
Stakeholders:
Auburn, Canadaigua, Fulton, Geneva, Ithaca,
Newark, Oswego, and Onondaga Counties
Bristol Myers Squib
Citizens' Advisory Committee
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Niagara Mohawk and other hydroelectric
utilities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Alice Yeh
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1332
FAX: (212) 264-2914
107
-------
Otter Creek
Size and location: Otter Creek has a 240,000-acre
watershed, located approximately 200 miles south of
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Organizations that initiated project:
Soil Conservation Service
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Local soil conservation district
Major environmental problems:
Nutrients
Sediment
Degraded riparian areas and stream channel
Streambank erosion
Erosion on rangeland
Animal waste
Eutrophication of Otter Creek Reservoir
Actions taken or proposed: This project is coordinating
funding through the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Hydrologic Unit area, Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 319, USDA Water Quality Incentive
Program, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
U.S. Forest Service, and private sources. The Soil
Conservation Service oversees this project, and a
watershed project steering committee plays an active
role in thisproject. Several water quality demonstra-
tion projects such as riparian and stream stabiliza-
tion, rangeland brush control, and re-seeding are
underway or have been completed with technical
assistance from USDA and BLM. This watershed
restoration project includes treatment of both private
and federal lands. Watershed treatment is also coor-
dinated with a CWA Section 314 project to improve
Otter Creek Reservoir.
Stakeholders:
Local landowners
Local soil conservation district
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Forest Service
Utah Association of Conservation Districts
Utah Department of Agriculture
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Utah Department of Natural Resources
Contact: Roy Gunnell, Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801) 538-6146
FAX: (801) 538-6016
108
-------
Size and location: The surface area of Peconic Bay is
about 200 square miles. The estuary lies bet ween the
twin forks of Long Island, New York.
Organization that initiated the project:
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Major environmental problems:
Nuisance algal bloom which destroyed the
once important scallop fishery and has im-
pacted other shellfish, finfish, and their nurs-
ery areas
Nutrients in the western areas of the bay
Pathogens from point and nonpoint sources
Actions taken or proposed: Peconic Bay was selected for
inclusion in the National Estuary Program in 1992. A
ComprehensiveConservation and Management Plan
is being developed for Peconic Bay that will recom-
mend priority corrective actions to restore and main-
tain the estuarine resources.
Actions that have been taken in the Bay include:
Freezing the nitrogen load from sewage treat-
ment plants at current levels.
Remediating nonpoint source nutrient pol-
lution from a local duck farm.
Replanting scallops to recovering areas.
Planting grass buffer strips to control patho-
gen contamination due to road runoff.
Remediating wetland habitats.
Construction of boat pump-out facilities.
Adoption of a total nitrogen surface water
quality guideline for the western area of the
Bay.
Stakeholders:
Accabonic Protection Committee
ACT NOW!/Promoting Community Aware-
ness
Adelphi University
Association of Marine Industries
Brookhaven National Labs
Concerned Citizens of Montauk
Cornell Cooperative Extension Association of
Suffolk County
East Hampton Historical Society
East Hampton Town Baymen's Association
Group for the South Fork
Harbor Marina
Larry's Lighthouse Marine
League of Women Voters
Long Island Farm Bureau, Inc.
Long Island Pine Barrens Association
Long Island Regional Planning Board
Long Island University
Long Island Water Commission
Modern Yachts
Montauk Boatman and Captain's Association
Montauk Chamber of Commerce
Montauk Harbor Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration
New Suffolk Civic Association
New York Sea Grant
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
New York State Department of State
New York State Department of Transportation
North Fork Bank
North Fork Environmental Council
Office of the Suffolk County Executive
Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation
Peconic Land Trust
Red Cedar Point Association
Riverhead Conservation Advisory Council
Rutgers University
Seafood Harvesters Association of New York
Shelter Island Baymen's Association
Shinnecock Marlin & Tuna Club
Soil Conservation Service
South Town Baymen's Association
Southampton Town Baymen's Association
State University of New York - Stony Brook
Suffolk Community College
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Planning Department
Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation
District
The Nature Conservancy
Town of Brookhaven Division of Environmen-
tal Protection
Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter
Island, Riverhead, and Southold
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Geological Survey
Peconic Bay continued on page 111
109
-------
Pequea and Mill Creeks
Size and location: The Pequea and Mill Creeks water-
shed is located in southeastern Pennsylvania in
Lancaster and Chester Counties. The watersheds to-
tal 135,000 acres. Land use in the watershed is pre-
dominantly agricultural; 63 percent of the land is
devoted to cropland and 13 percent to pasture.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Major environmental problems:
Agricultural runoff
Stream bank erosion
Nutrient enrichment
Pesticide contamination
Actions taken or proposed: Surface water in the Pequea
and Mill Creeks is used for drinking, irrigation, boat-
ing, fishing, water contact sports, watering livestock,
wildlife habitat, and industry. Four tributaries are
protected as trout stocked fisheries, seven areas as
cold water fisheries, and five areas as high quality
cold water fisheries. Ground water resources of the
Pequea and Mill Creeks watershed are the primary
source of private and public drinking water, live-
stock water, and barn/milkhouse water. According
to Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-
sources (PaDER), 585 stream miles within the water-
shed have been degraded by agricultural nonpoint
sources of pollution.
This initiative will implement a comprehensive
surface and ground water watershed program in-
cluding the establishment of total maximum daily
loads for the Pequea and Mill Creek basins in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania.
State and local coordinating committees have
been formed to implement a comprehensive water-
shed initiative. These committees have been meeting
regularly for several years. The U. S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), EPA, USGS, PaDER, the Penn-
sylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA), the
Lancaster Conservation District (LCCD), several pri-
vateconsultants,andthePennsylvaniaFishandGame
Commission are all members of these committees.
The Pequea and Mill Creeks watershed was cho-
sen as a Hydrologic Unit Area by USDA in February
"1991. Under this designation, USDA is given re-
sources to provide technical and financial assistance
to farmers in the watershed for the implementation of
best management practices. USDA has provided as-
sistance to farmers in the watershed over the past
three years, with the goals of significantly reducing
nutrient, bacteria, and pesticide contamination to
surface and ground waters and controlling sedimen-
tation from runoff and erosion.
In addition, the Pequea-Mill is being used in a
cooperative computer modeling effort among the
PaDER-Bureau of Land and Water Conservation,
Perm State University, and Soil Conservation Service
state offices in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Data
from the watershed will be used in the development
of the National Agricultural Pesticide Risk Assess-
ment.
USGS is conducting a number of studies. A
ground water survey was initiated in 1991. USGS
began a watershed-widebaseline Water Quality Char-
acterization Project in July 1992. The purpose of this
long-term study is to document changes in surface
water quality for storm and base flow conditions in
three watersheds within the Pequea-Mill project area,
qualitatively link the water quality changes to agri-
cultural practices and land use changes, and deter-
mine water quality changes due to increased live-
stock production by comparing the data to water
quality data collected in the basin in prior years.
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is
conducting a biological assessment in the Muddy
Run basin. The purpose of the study is to compare
existing fish and benthic macro invertebrate popula-
tions to populations after implementation of stream
fencing for livestock exclusion and other conserva-
tion practices. Data for the pre-project condition were
collected in 1991. A follow-up assessment will be
conducted in 1996.
A Wellhead Protection project for two public
watersupplywellfieldsisalsobeingdeveloped within
the watershed. The local township officials of these
Boroughs, LCCD, and PDA are inventorying the
existing sources of contamination within these Well-
head Protection Areas and PSC Engineers (consult-
ant for the Boroughs) is developing ordinances to
protect the pubic wells from contamination.
EPA is currently pursuing a Geographic Infor-
mation Systems initiative in the Pequea and Mill
Creeks watershed.
This watershed is in the top 10 percent of the
'ennsylvania nonpoint source priority watersheds,
s on the Pennsylvania 303(d) list, and is a priority for
he Chesapeake Bay Program, Ground Water Protec-
ion Program, and Public Drinking Water Supervi-
sion Program.
Pequea and Mill Creeks continued on page 113
110
-------
Pine Creek
Size and location: Pine Creek is a 9,680-acre watershed
in Hardin and Grundy Counties in north central
Iowa. Upper and Lower Pine Lakes are the feature
waterbodies of Pine Lakes State Park.
Organizations that initiated project:
Hardin County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Grundy County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Major environmental problems:
Sediment and nutrients from eroding croplands
Frequent algal blooms
Impaired fisheries
Degraded aquatic habitat
Reduced recreational use
Animal waste
Streambank erosion
Actions taker or proposed: Iowa received a Clean Lakes
Program grant in 1989 to conduct a Phase I diagnos-
tic/feasibility study for Upper and Lower Pine Lakes
and the surrounding watershed. This study pro-
vided the basis for this three-year water quality pro-
tection project. Watershed measures are being car-
ried out using Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint
Source, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service Water Quality Incentive Program, and the
State's Resource Enhancement and Protection Pro-
gram funding. Restoration of the lakes is being
carried out using Clean Lakes Program Phase II
funding awarded in 1992. The objectives of the
project include:
Implementing best management practices
(BMPs), on a priority basis, to reduce sedi-
ment and nutrient loads to Upper and Lower
Pine Lakes by 60 percent.
Implementing BMPs on 3,000 acres in the
watershed per year.
Increasing the area of warm season grasses
in the watershed by 100 percent.
Holding farmer-to-farmer meetings to facili-
tate technology transfer to landowners and
operators in the watershed.
Demonstrating and promotingthe economic
feasibility of BMPs to the local community
and public at large.
Currently, about 30 producers are participating
in the project, which is designed to encourage local
producers to implement comprehensive resource
management systems to control erosion, reduce pes-
ticide and fertilizer use, and better protect
streambanks. Activities include wildlife habitat man-
agement, pasture management, animal waste man-
agement, livestock exclusion, streambank stabiliza-
tion, filter strips, critical area plantings, integrated
crop management, and others.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Ser-
vice
Grundy County Soil and Water Conservation
District
Hardin Soil and Water Conservation District
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stew-
ardship
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa State University Extension
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Ubbo Agena
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515)281-6402
FAX: (515) 281-8895
Peconic Bay continued from page 109
Contacts:
EPA:
Rick Balla
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-5671
FAX: (212) 264-2194
Local:
Vito Minei, P.E.
Office of Ecology
Suffolk County Depart-
ment of Health Services
Riverhead Health Center
Riverhead, NY 11401
(516) 852-2077
FAX: (516) 852-2092
111
-------
Plalte River
Size and location: Originating in the mountains of
Colorado and Wyoming, the Platte River watershed
drains two-thirds of the State of Nebraska. Ground
water is a critical component of this watershed, as
there are extensive surface water/ground water in-
teractions, and the Platte River alluvial aquifer pro-
vides drinking water for 70 percent of Nebraska's
citizens.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
(NDEQ)
Major environmental problems:
Nonpoint sources of pollution
Nitrate and pesticide contamination
Habitat destruction and alteration
Floodplain development
Hydrologic modification
Actions taken or proposed: The Platte Watershed Pro-
gram is a partnership to protect and enhance the
ecosystem of the Platte River and its alluvial aquifer
in Nebraska. This ecosystem serves as a vital link in
the Central Flyway migratory bird route; sustains a
rich diversity of plant and animal life, including
threatened and endangered species; supports mul-
tiple uses, including drinking water, recreation,
aquatic lifeand wildlife, irrigation, industrial water
supply, and hydropo wer generation; and sustains an
economy based on rich agricultural production.
The Platte watershed is a priority Landscape
Conservation Area under the Great Plains Initiative
and serves as a pilot demonstration site for water-
shed ecosystem management. EPA has been work-
ing with theNebraska Department of Environmental
Quality (NDEQ), the University of Nebraska, and
other partners to develop a comprehensive ecosys-
tem approach to the Platte River Basin. The goal is to
prevent pollution and maintain a healthy, sustain-
able ecosystem, which provides for the health and
welfare of humans as well as other living things.
The strategy is to build state and local capacity to
protect the ecosystem by organizing partnerships
and involving stakeholders in cooperative assess-
ments and action. The Platte Watershed Program is
using a two pronged approach to meet its goal: 1)
coordinating and focusing activities basinwide; and
2) involving stakeholders in assessing problems and
developing action plans by subbasin.
EPA serves as a facilitator in the Platte Watershed
Program coordinating activities basinwide, perform-
ing scientific assessments, supporting outreach and
education, and providing resources to help build
state and local capacity for long-term ecologic and
economic sustainability.
EPA is working in coordination with NDEQ's
newly adopted Basin Management Approach to com-
pile and assess e>dsting water quality and pollutant
source data for each of the six Platte River subbasins
in Nebraska. This information will support NDEQ's
development of water quality monitoring project
plans and basin management plans for each subbasin.
Involvement of parties most affected by manage-
ment decisions (federal, state, and local stakeholders
as appropriate) in monitoring, identifying problems,
setting environmental goals, and measuring success
will be crucial to development of these basin manage-
ment plans.
For the Middle Platte subbasin, the assessment
will include ecological as well as water quality and
pollution source data. The Middle Platte subbasin
was selected by EPA in 1993 as one of five national
case study sites to develop the procedures for con-
ducting multiple-stressor, watershed-level ecologi-
cal risk assessments. The purpose of the case studies
is to develop a scientific process that increases under-
standing of how ecological resources within water-
sheds respond to a combination of human activities.
By comparing the five case studies, EPA hopes to
identify the principles of watershed risk assessment
and develop guidance on how to perform such as-
sessments. The Middle Platte case study is intended
to demonstrate how a watershed approach incorpo-
rating ecological response assessment might be used
by stakeholders in planning for a sustainable future.
The Middle Platte Ecological Response case study is
being conducted by a workgroup consisting of tech-
nical representatives from EPA, the U. S. Geological
Survey, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and The
Nature Conservancy and participants from 12 state
and local natural resource agencies and organiza-
tions in Nebraska.
Building on the Middle Platte ecological response
assessment, the Platte watershed is serving as a pilot
area in the Great Plains for developing wetlands
biocriteria, utilizing environmental indicators to
measure progress!, and understanding landscape
structure in relation to ecosystem function. An eco-
nomic analysis is also being planned as a companion
project to the Middle Platte ecological response as-
-------
Platte River
sessment. Together the ecologic and economic analy-
ses will provide information for resource managers
to use in evaluating management options and identi-
fying those which maximize ecological protection
while maintaining a viable economy.
Outreach and education are important compo-
nents of the Platte Watershed Program as well.
Through the Summer Orientation about Rivers
(SOAR) Program of the Prairie Plains Resources In-
stitute, students experience first-hand the relation-
ship between the quality of the natural resource base
and the quality of their life. Scientists and natural
resource managers share information and discuss
issues related to the Platte watershed during the
annual Platte Basin Ecosystem Symposium. Coop-
erative Extension Specialists at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln coordinate and promote environ-
mental education activities throughout the Platte
watershed, facilitate stakeholder involvement and
dialogue between diverse interests, form partner-
ships, coordinate investigations of the Platte River,
and promote increased public involvement in envi-
ronmental planning, volunteer monitoring, and adopt
a waterbody programs.
EPA has provided over $2.4 million for investiga-
tions and implementation activities in the Platte wa-
tershed since fiscal year 1991. Projects are initiated at
the local and state levels and focus on nonpoint
source management, wetlands and ground water
protection, pollution prevention, applied research on
atrazine, and environmental education.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural groups
Audubon
Bureau of Reclamation
Businesses
Community groups
Farm organizations
Industries
Municipalities
Natural resource districts
Nebraska Department of Agriculture
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality
Nebraska Department of Water Resources
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Nebraska Natural Resources Commission
Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance
Trust
Prairie Plains Resources Institute
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Utilities (power and irrigation)
Contact: Donna F. Sefton
U.S. EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7500
FAX: (913) 551-7765
Pec/uea and Mill Creeks continued from page 110
Stakeholders:
Environmental advocacy groups
Lancaster County Conservation District
Lancaster County Planning Commission
Local farmers
Pennsylvania Agronomic Products Association
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-
sources
Pennsylvania Fish Commission
Pennsylvania Game Commission
Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
Contact: Henry Zygmunt
U.S. EPA Region III (3WM11)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-3429
FAX: (215)597-3359
113
-------
Pocono Watershed
Size and location: The Pocono Project focuses on
county level activities with additional implementa-
tion of actions within several watersheds including
the Tobyhanna Watershed which covers 187 square
miles and the McMichaels Creek Watershed which
covers 113 square miles, both located within Monroe
County, Pennsylvania.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Development pressures
Actions takenorproposed: Growthand development^
this biologically diverse area threaten to cause degra-
dation and/or loss of valuable upland and wetland
ecosystems which would increase the likelihood for
adverse impacts to water quality. This demonstra-
tion project is aimed at proactively bringing to the
forefront issues related to growth and development
that may pose threats before further alteration of the
landscape jeopardizes the future of the area as a
viable recreational and biologically rich region.
Planning actions that have taken place include:
Establishment of an Advisory Group and
Steering Committee of local stakeholders.
Development of a project proposal and
workplan.
Through consensus, development of a vision
statement.
Identification of goals and objectives.
Several research actions have been completed
including:
Inventoryof biological diversity as described
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gap
Analysis process (Cornell University and
New York Fish and Wildlife Cooperative
Research Unit).
Evaluation of different conservation/devel-
opment options for Monroe County (Harvard
University).
Additional research actions are currently taking
place including:
Collection and integration of data layers on a
Geographic Information System.
* Assessment of risks to biodiversity (EPA -
Corvallis Laboratory).
Ongoing activities include:
Implementation of goal to identify landscape
linkages/ecosystem mosaics with input to
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan.
4p,_,_,,,,,,.. ^ H
Workshops for developers on open space
design.
Outreach to specific developers and town-
ship officials.
Establishment of stream reference sites for
biological monitoring.
Stakeholders:
Brodhead Watershed Association
Economic Development Council of Northeast
Pennsylvania
Monroe County Conservation District
Monroe County Planning Commission
Perm State Extension
Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources
Pennsylvania Game Commission
Pocono Mountains Chamber of Commerce
Pocono Mountains Vacation Bureau
Pocono Plan Alliance
State and private forestry
Tobyhanna Watershed Association
Township officials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Forest Service
Contact: Susan McDowell
U.S. EPA Region III (3ES43)
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-0355
FAX: (215)597-7906
-------
President's Forest Plan (Pacific Northwest)
Size and location: The President's Forest Plan covers
western Washington and Oregon and northern Cali-
fornia.
Organization that-initiated project:
U.S. Government (President Clinton)
Major environmental problems/issues:
Court ordered injunctions on federal (U.S.
Forest Service/U.S. Bureau of Land Man-
agement) timber sales/harvest in western
Washington, Oregon, northern California
Endangered Species Act (ES A) issues - north-
ern spotted owl, marbled murrelet - "old
growth" forest ecosystem provides critical
habitat
Pending petitions for ESA listing of other
species impacted by forest harvest, (e.g.,
salmon, steelhead, bull trout)
Regional economic impactssignificant re-
duction in forest-related jobs, particularly
for rural communities whose economic base
depends on the forest industry
Actions taken or proposed: An Aquatic Conservation
Strategy is a key component of President Clinton's
Forest Plan. This region-wide strategy is aimed at
restoring and maintaining the ecological health of
watersheds. The strategy is designed to provide a
scientific basis for protecting aquatic ecosystems and
to enable planning for sustainable resource manage-
ment. The strategy applies to riparian reserves along
perennial and intermittent streams and key water-
sheds. The strategy provides direction for watershed
analysis, restoration, and monitoring across all land
allocations.
The Klamath River, Mad River, Eel River, and
multiple tributaries are currently targeted for inter-
agency watershed assessment.
Stakeholders:
Conservation groups
Federal, state, and local agencies
Industrial and nonindustrial landowners
Other publics
Tribes
Contact: Ron Lee
U.S. EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-4013
FAX: (206)553-1775
115
-------
Size and location: The Puget Sound Estuary and its
watershed cover several thousand square miles in
Washington State in the area bordering with British
Columbia in Canada.
Name of organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State of Washington
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Major environmental problems:
Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
Nonpoint source pollution
Contaminated sediments
Diminished biological resources
Diseased and chemically contaminated fish
Contaminated (by bacteria) and closed shell-
fish beds
Actions taken or proposed: Puget Sound was selected
for inclusion in the National Estuary Program in
1987. A Comprehensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plan that recommends priority corrective ac-
tions to restore and maintain the estuarine resources
of the Estuary was approved in 1991 and is currently
being reviewed and updated.
Stakeholders:
Numerous large and small environmental groups
Contacts:
EPA:
John Armstrong
U.S. EPA Region X
(MS WD-139)
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1368
FAX: (206) 533-1775
Local:
Nancy McKay
Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority
PO Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
(206) 407-7302
(206) 407-7333
-------
Red River
Size and location: The Red River watershed is located
in eastern North Dakota and eastern Minnesota. Part
of the project area covers the Carmel, Homme, and
Renwick subwatersheds in northeastern North Da-
kota which totals 296,332 acres. Another part of the
efforts on the Red River is focused on the southern
part of the watershed near the cities of Fargo and
Moorhead.
Organizations that initiated project:
Red River Resource Conservation and Develop-
ment Council
Pembina, Walsh, and Cavalier Soil Conservation
District and Water Resource District
North Dakota Department of Health and Con-
solidated Laboratories
Major environmental problems:
Eutrophication of Homme Reservoir due to
agricultural practices
Sedimentation of Red River and tributaries
in northeastern North Dakota due to agricul-
tural practices
Ammonia and low dissolved oxygen due to
wastewater treatment discharges in south-
eastern North Dakota
Threats from agricultural practices to the
Icelandic aquifer
Actions taken or proposed: The Red River Resource
Conservation and Development Council (RC&D)
initiated the watershed effort in the northeastern area
of the watershed to reduce wind and water erosion
on 80 percent of the agricultural lands in the
subwatersheds. The RC&D annual nutrient and sedi-
ment loadings are expected to be lowered by imple-
menting the following objectives which are under-
way:
Develop resource management plans for 80
percent of the lands in the subwatersheds.
Implement an information and education
program to educate the residents on the im-
pacts of nonpoint source pollution and pos-
sible preventive measures.
Documentlanduseimprovementsand trends
in water quality.
Provide financial and technical assistance to
producers to implement the resource man-
agement plans.
Demonstrate best management practices to
restore riparian zones which are under vari-
ous agricultural uses such as crop land and
livestock production.
The State of North Dakota partnered with the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to model and verify
conditions in the southern area of the Red River
mainstem using QUAL2E. The data will be available
by the end of 1994, but the work has so far produced
a list of monitoring and modeling needs. A group of
stakeholders has developed a coordinated, monthly
synoptic in-streammonitoring plan to continue mod-
eling efforts. In addition, the group is currently coor-
dinating with several organizations to implement a
project to observe the river's behavior in winter con-
ditions when discharges take place under the ice
during low flow.
The result of these studies will help determine
the next pollution prevention actions. In the immedi-
ate future, actions will include the refinement of
effluent limits from the cities' discharges. These lim-
its will probably lead to upgrading waste water treat-
ment facilities. Possible future actions for consider-
ation during phase two of this effort include chang-
ing upstream dam operations, and addressing
nonpoint source pollution from surrounding agricul-
tural use areas.
Stakeholders:
American Crystal Sugar
City of Fargo, North Dakota
City of Moorhead, Minnesota
City of Park River
Farmers
North Dakota Department of Health
North Dakota Game and Fish Department
North Dakota Parks and Recreation
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Pembina, Walsh and Cavalier Soil Conservation
District and Water Resource District
Red River Resource Conservation and Develop-
ment Council
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Geological Survey
Red River continued on page 119
117
-------
[Rom Area of Goniern
Size and location: The Rochester Embayment Area of
Concern (AOC) is an area of Lake Ontario formed by
the indentation of the Monroe County shoreline be-
tween Bogus Point (Town of Greece) and Nine Mile
Point (Town of Webster). The southern boundary
includes approximately 6 miles of the Genesee River
that is influenced by lake levels, from the river's
mouth to the Lower Falls. The drainage area of the
embayment is over 4,828 square miles in area.
Organizations that initiated the project:
Monroe County Department of Planning and
Development (MCDPD)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
Major environmental problems:
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consump-
tion
Degradation of fish and wildlife populations
and loss of habitat
Bird and animal deformities or reproduction
problems
Eutrophication or undesirable algae and
beach closings
Restrictions on drinking water or taste and
odor problems
(The above impairments are caused by mirex and
dioxin; PCBs and chlordane from past use; PAHs
from coal gas production; heavy metals and cyanide
fromindustrialdischargers;coliform,ammoma, phos-
phorus, and sediment from the watershed; and
phenols.)
Actions taken or proposed: The Rochester Embayment
AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by
the United States and/or Canadian governments in
the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) is being developed for this AOC to provide a
long-term course of action for environmental cleanup.
RAP development began in 1988. The Stage I Report,
which describes the nature and extent of the prob-
lems, has been completed, and the Stage II Report,
which identifies remedial actions and implementa-
tion methods, is underway (to be completed in 1994).
Actions that have been taken to implement the rec-
ommendations of the Stage II Report include:
* A Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Abate-
ment Program has been implemented to con-
struct underground storage tunnels to inter-
cept CSOs before they enter the Embayment
and the Genesee River. The tunnel system
conveys the wastewater in the combined
sewers to the Van Lare Wastewater Treat-
ment Facility before entering Lake Ontario.
The number of annual overflows at 30 previ-
ous overflow locations has been dramati-
cally decreased from sixty to two or less.
The Irondequoit Bay Oxygen Supplementa-
tion Project is a water quality/habitat en-
hancement project, whose goal is to improve
the control of phosphorus by both chemical
processes (increased oxygen will enhance
the natural system of adsorption/precipita-
tion with iron oxides) and biological means
(reduced phosphorus deposition through
algal harvesting by fish). To revitalize the
cold-water fishery in the bay, introduction of
oxygen into the deep waters will both accel-
erate natural ecosystem recovery and cause
an immediate improvement in fisheries habi-
tat.
NYSDEC is developing pollution preven-
tion regulations to require implementation
of "Toxic Chemical Reduction Plans" for fa-
cilities that generate certain amounts/types
of hazardous wastes or toxic chemicals. Many
industries have already taken the initiative
to institute pollution prevention practices.
Stakeholders:
City of Rochester
Genesee Basin Subcommittee - Government
Policy Group
Lake Ontario Central/Irondequoit Basin/Lake
Ontario West Basin Subcommittees
Monroe County Department for Planning and
Development
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Alice Yeh
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1332
FAX: (212) 264-2914
118
-------
Saginaw Bay
Size and location: The Saginaw Bay watershed encom-
passes over 8,000 square miles and is located on the
north-western side of Lake Huron in Michigan. The
watershed completely surrounds the Saginaw Bay
itself. Several large tributaries provide a source of
freshwater to the Bay, including the Saginaw River,
Cass River, Flint River, Shiawasee River, and
Tittabawasee River. Within the watershed lie the
jurisdictions of 22 counties and numerous town-
ships.
Organization that initiated project:
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Major environmental problems:
Fish consumption advisories due to contami-
nation with PCBs
Eutrophication due to nutrient enrichment
Widespread destruction of aquatic habitat
from sediment
Alteration of aquatic and terrestrial habitat
from altered watershed hydrology
Actions taken or proposed: Saginaw Bay is one of 43
Areas of Concern (AOC) that have been designated
by the United States and/or Canadian governments
in the Great Lakes region. In 1987, the State of
Michigan developed a Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
that provides a long-term course of action for envi-
ronmental cleanup of the Saginaw River and Bay.
Through the RAP process and the Saginaw Bay Na-
tional Watershed Initiative the State of Michigan,
along with other partners, has identified priority
activities to be undertaken to restore and protect the
Saginaw Bay watershed. The overall goal for the
watershed is to "develop a comprehensive water
quality/resource management effort utilizing the
resources of federal, state, and local units of govern-
ment, as well as interested organizations and citi-
zens, to identify water quality/resource manage-
ment issues impacting the use or quality of natural
resources in the watershed and to implement actions
to restore and protect the Saginaw Bay watershed."
Recent activities to support the goals include:
Monitoring in the Bay and tributaries.
Prioritization of sediment delivery and ero-
sion areas.
An aggressive public education campaign.
Wetland restoration efforts to support wild-
life habitat.
Implementation of urban and agricultural
best management practices to prevent ero-
sion.
Stakeholders:
Dow Corning Corporation
Michigan Association of Conservation Districts
Michigan Department of Agriculture
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Michigan Department of Public Health
Michigan Farm Bureau
Michigan State University
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion
Saginaw Basin Alliance
Saginaw Bay Watershed Council
Saginaw Valley State University
Soil Conservation Service
. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Cooperative Extension Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
University of Michigan
Contact: Nancy Phillips/Tom Davenport
U.S. EPA Region V (WQW-16J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 50504
(312) 886-9376 (Nancy)
(312) 886-0209 (Tom)
FAX: (312)886-7804,
Red River continued from page 117
Contacts:
Greg Sandness/Mike Ell
North Dakota State Department of Health and
Consolidated Laboratories
1200 Missouri Ave.
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
(701) 221-5232(Greg)
(701) 328-5150 (Mike)
FAX: (701) 221-5200 (Greg)
FAX: (701) 328-5200 (Mike)
Paul Willman
Red River Resource Conservation and Develop-
ment Council
1004 Hill Ave.
Grafton,ND 58237
(701) 352-0127
FAX: (701) 352-3015
119
-------
St. Lawrence River Area of Concern
Size and location: The St. Lawrence River Area of
Concern (AOC)beginsabovethedamsattheMassena
Village, New York water intake and follows the river
downstream to the international boundary with
Canada. It also includes portions of the Grasse,
Raquette, and St. Regis Rivers.
Organizations that initiated theproject:
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consump-
tion caused mainly by PCBs, mercury, mirex,
and dioxin
Loss of fish and wildlife habitats caused by
physical disturbances and contaminated sedi-
ments
Actions taken or proposed: The St. Lawrence River
AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by
the United States and/or Canadian governments in
the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) is being developed for this AOC to provide a
long-term course of actionforenvironmental cleanup.
RAP development began in 1988. The Stage I Report,
completed in 1990, identified use impairments, their
causes, and sources. The Stage II Report, completed
in 1991, includes the development of remedial strat-
egies to: 1) restore water quality and use impairments
of the tributary rivers and St. Lawrence River, and 2)
eliminate adverse impacts to the AOC from sources
of pollutants at major hazardous waste sites. A
Remedial Advisory Committee (RAC) was then ap-
pointed to represent all stakeholders and assist
NYSDEC in RAP implementation. Actions that have
been taken to implement the recommendations of the
Stage II Report include:
* Following EPA's issuance of an Administra-
tive Order, ALCOA has agreed to remediate
all sites on its approximately 3,460-acre plant
at an estimated cost of up to $150 million, for
approximately eight years. A secure landfill
is to be completed by 1995 at a cost of $36
million.
EPA released a proposed remedial project to
remove 42,650 cubic yards of PCB-contami-
nated St. Lawrence River sediments next to
the Reynolds Metals Plant site for treatment
and disposal in a specially prepared upland
site on Reynold's property. The estimated
cost of the work is $36.7 million. Reynolds
has initiated the design phase for this work.
A significant reduction in the mass of PCBs
discharged fromMassena industries has been
achieved by the installation of wastewater
treatment systems, implementation of best
management practices (BMPs), and interim
remediation activities.
Interim wastewater treatment systems at
ALCOA designed to remove PCBs and other
contaminants from various waste streams,
including the sanitary lagoon effluent, have
been placed in operation. Eventually, all
contaminated storm water and process wa-
ter will receive appropriate treatment.
NYSDEC has completed nonpoint source
assessment reports for each New York State
county. A Priority Water Problem list has
been prepared to rank impaired waterbodies.
Various BMPs, including storm water man-
agement and agricultural methods, have been
recommended.
Stakeholders:
ALCOA
Environment Canada
General Motors
International Joint Commission
Massena Citizen Advisory Committee
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
Other industries
Reynolds Metals
The Mohawks at Akwesasne
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Alice Yeh
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1332
FAX: (212) 264-2194
-------
St. Mary's River Area of Concern
Size and location: The St. Mary's River forms one of the
borders between the United States and Canada. It is
also a connecting Channel between Lake Superior
and Lake Huron. It is located in Chippewa County in
Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
Organization that initiated project:
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
Major environmental problems:
Pollutant discharges from paper and steel
industries
Discharges from Publicly Owned Treatment
Works
Superfund site - Cannelton Site, former tan-
nery
Contaminated sediments
Flow diversions for navigation and power
generation
Habitat loss/change
Actions taken or proposed: The St. Mary's River Area of
Concern (AOC) is one of 43 AOCs that have been
designated by the United States and/or Canadian
governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial
Action Plan (RAP) is being developed for this AOC
to provide a long-term course of action for environ-
mental cleanup. Stage I of the RAP, which identified
use impairments, their causes, and sources, was com-
pleted in March 1992, and Stage II development is
underway. Stage II focuses on identifying remedial
actions and their methods of implementation.
Activities already underway include:
Sewer separation in the City of Sault Ste.
Marie, Michigan.
Improved treatment by Algoma Steel to en-
hance removal of oil and grease.
Various monitoring and assessment efforts.
Superfund remediation work at the
Cannelton site.
Several pilot-scale in situ sediment
remediation projects on the Canadian side of
the River to evaluate various remediation
options (completed).
Full scale sediment remediation is planned.
Stakeholders:
Environment Canada
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of the Environmentand Energy
(lead)
U.S. and Canadian citizens (Binational Public
Advisory Committee)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: David Pfeifer
U.S. EPA Region V (WQS-16J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312) 353-9024
FAX: (312) 886-7804
121
-------
San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Size and location: The San Francisco Bay/Delta Estu-
ary has a watershed that covers over 1,600 square
miles in central California.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State of California
Major environmental problems:
Destruction or fragmentation of wetlands
and riparian forest resulting from agricul-
tural conversion and urban expansion
Diversion of freshwater and loss of low-
salinity habitat
Alteration of aquatic habitats related to wa-
ter supply systems including dams, reser-
voirs, pumping facilities, and canals
Discharge of pollutants such as pesticides,
fertilizers, oil and grease, metals, nutrients,
and sediments from farms, ranches, and cit-
ies
Interference of alien organisms in the life
cycles of indigenous biota
Actions taken or proposed: The San Francisco Bay/
Delta Estuary was selected for inclusion in the Na-
tional Estuary Program in 1987. A Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan that recom-
mends priori ty corrective actions to restore and main-
tain the estuarine resources of the San Francisco Bay/
Delta Estuary was completed in 1993.
To address wetland concerns, two initiatives have
been put in place. The first, the North Bay Initiative,
focuses on wetlands management in Napa and
Sonoma Counties. The second, the Central Valley
Initiative, has two major goals which are: 1) the
facilitation of protection, restoration, and enhance-
ment of wetlands and 2) planning for the minimiza-
tion of impacts to wetlands from agriculture and
urban development. Actions that have been initiated
include:
Local planning and resource identification.
« A floodplain management study in the
American Basin.
Development of a comprehensive wetlands
protection plan for state park system lands
along the San Joaquin River corridor.
* Workshops on private landowner assistance
programs.
To address problems caused by agriculture in the
Central Valley, the Agricultural Initiative has been
established. This Initiative is developing partner-
ships to foster pollution prevention and sustainable
agriculture.
Also, water quality standards for surface water
have been proposed by EPA in conjunction with the
Endangered Species Act decisions of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisher-
ies Service and allocation decisions of the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation.
Stakeholders:
Bay Conservation and Development Commis-
sion
Business
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Delta Protection Commission
Elected officials
Environmental groups
Industry
National Marine Fisheries Service
Nine counties in the Bay Area and three counties
in the Delta
Resource Conservation Districts
Soil Conservation Service
State Waters Resources Control Board and Re-
gional Boards #2 and #5
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Yolo County Resource Conservation District
Contact: Timothy Vendlinski
U.S. EPA Region IX (W-2-4)
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, C A 94105-3901
(415) 744-1989
FAX: (415)744-1078
122
-------
San Juan Bay
Size and location: Seventy-five square miles of land
comprise this bay-canal-lagoon system on the north-
ern coast of Puerto Rico, which extends from Punta
Vacia Talega on the east to Isla de Cabras on the west.
Organization that initiated project:
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Major environmental problems:
Heavy metals
High levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
cyanide, mercury, nickel, thallium, and zinc
Violations to the Puerto Rico water quality
standards have been measured for copper,
lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc
Contaminated sediments
High levels of oxygen-depleting nutrient
loads
Low dissolved oxygen levels
Repeated fish kills
Pathogens including coliform
Floatables from garbage dumping
Hindered coral growth
Mangrove destruction
Non-permitted dredging activities
Urban development causing sediment loads
Herbicides and pesticides
Sedimentation
Loss of seagrass beds
Actions Taken or Proposed: San Juan Estuary was
declared an estuary of national significance and added
to the National Estuary Program in October 1992. A
ComprehensiveConservationandManagementPlan
is being developed for San Juan Estuary that will
recommend priority corrective actions to restore and
maintain the estuarine resources.
Stakeholders:
Municipality of Toa Baja
Municipality of Cataho
Municipality of Guaynabo
Municipality of San Juan
Municipality of Carolina
Municipality of Loiza
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewers Authority
Puerto Rico Planning Board
Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Puerto Rico Planning Board
Puerto Rico Ports Authority
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration
University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant Program
Contact:
Tere Rodriquez
U.S. EPA Caribbean Field Office
Office 2A, Podiatry Center Building
1413 Fernandez Juncos Avenue
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00909
(809) 729-6931
FAX: (809) 729-7747
123
-------
Sari Luis Rev River
Size and location: The San Luis Rey (SLR) River is
located in San Diego County in California.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
Major environmental problems:
Sand and gravel-mining operations
Agricultural activities
Urban development
Impaired streams and riparian areas
Sediment and nutrient runoff
Actions taken or proposed: The California Coastal
Conservancy, the San Diego County Department of
Parks and Recreation, and the San Diego County
Planning Department are working together to de-
velop a Multi-objective River Corridor Management
Plan for long term management of the San Luis Rey
River. The goals for this plan include better coordina-
tion of enforcement, restoration, and development
activities for maximization of wetlands protection
and enhancement.
San Diego County is involved in coordinating
the many interest groups and public agencies in the
area, A Technical Advisory Committee and a Citi-
zens Advisory Committee have been formed to over-
see development of the Management Plan. A con-
sultant is working on a resource inventory and an
opportunities and constraints analysis to be used as
the basis for development of the Management Plan.
The County has completed a Memorandum of Un-
derstanding for the participating agencies' signature
which outlines the agencies' commitment to the
prefect.
Stakeholders:
California Department of Fish and Game
California Department of Transportation
California Division of Mines and Geology
California State Coastal Conservancy
City of Oceanside
Pala, Pauma, La Jolla, and Rincon Indian Tribes
Rainbow, San Luis Rey, and Yuima Municipal
Water Districts
San Diego Area Council of Governments
San Diego County Department of Parks and Rec-
reation
San Diego County Planning Department
San Diego County Rock Producers Association
San Diego County Water Authority
San Diego Farm Bureau
San Diego Gas and Electric
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Upper San Luis Rey Resources Conservation
District
Contact:
Steprumie L. Wilson
U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-2)
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
(415) 744-1968
FAX: (415)744-1078
124
-------
Santa Margarita Rive£
Size and location: The Santa Margarita River has a 740-
square mile coastal watershed and is located in Riv-
erside and San Diego counties in California.
Organizations that initiated project:
Riverside and San Diego Counties
CaliforniaState Coastal Conservancy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Endangered wetland and riparian habitat
Flooding
Development pressures
Impacts from channelization of tributaries
Wastewater and storm water discharges
Nonpoint source discharges
Actions taken or proposed: The California State Coastal
Conservancy in cooperation with Riverside and San
Diego Counties is developing an integrated water-
shed management plan for the Santa Margarita River
Watershed. This planning effort will take a water-
shed protection approach to the long-term preserva-
tion of important wetland and riparian habitats, par-
ticularly in the estuary and the Santa Margarita River
floodplain. Hood control and development engi-
neering design criteria will be formulated which
focus on the maintenance of hydrologic balance and
riparian and creek values in both the upper basin and
the lower reaches of the watershed. An economic
analysis of alternative flood control and develop-
ment design criteria will be conducted.
A watershed policy committee, consisting of rep-
resentatives of Riverside and San Diego counties,
Temecula, Murrieta, and Camp Pendleton, has been
established. Three subcommitteesthe Recreation,
Open Space and Wildlife Habitat Subcommittee; the
Water Quality and Supply Subcommittee; and the
Hood Control and Land Use Subcommitteehave
also been created.
EPA will coordinate Superfund activities (in-
cluding an ecological assessment and remediation of
Superfund sites along the Santa Margarita River),
permit review, grant funds, the Effluent-Dependent
Streams guidance, and other applicable water qual-
ity standard issues in the watershed.
A technical framework for evaluating wetland
functions in the watershed is being developed. This
framework will be consistent with the
hydrogeomorphic approach currently being devel-
oped by a task force of scientists under the auspices
of the Wetlands Research Program at the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Also, a wetlands advance iden-
tification planning project that identifies aquatic sites
within the Santa Margarita River watershed and
evaluates whether or not they are suitable for pos-
sible future disposal sites for the discharge of dredge
and fill material is being conducted. This project will
augment a planning effort for the Santa Margarita
River that has recently been initiated by Riverside
and San Diego Counties with the assistance of Na-
tional Park Service's Rivers, Trails, and Conservation
Assistance program.
Other activities include:
Developing a database that can serve as a
focal point for enhancing all the water pro-
grams in the watershed.
« Conducting a source assessment based on
existing information for nutrients and sedi-
ments and to set target reduction goals. ,
Stakeholders:
California State Coastal Conservancy
Camp Pendleton
Local citizens
Murrieta County
National Park Service
Riverside and San Diego counties
State of California
Temecula County
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Mary Butterwick
U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-2)
75 Hawthorne St.
. San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
(415) 744-1985
FAX: (415)744-1078
125
-------
Santa Monica Bay
Size and location: The Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Project (SMBRP) stretches from the Ventura County
line to Point Fermin at the southern most tip of the
Palos Verdes Peninsula covering approximately 50
miles of coastline. Santa Monica Bay's watershed
covers 414 square miles.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
California State Water Resources Control Board
Major environmental problems:
Impairment of water quality primarily due
to urban runoff and other nonpoint source
pollution
« Public health issues associated with swim-
ming and consuming seafood
Loss and degradation of habitats/ecosystem
Actions taken or proposed: The Santa Monica Bay was
selected for inclusion in the National Estuary Pro-
gram in 1988. In May 1994 the SMBRP released for
public comment a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) that identifies actions
necessary for Bay restoration and protection. The
plan is entitled the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Plan. The Plan, which focuses primarily on control-
ling urban runoff and other diffuse sources of pollu-
tion, contains nearly 250 actions. Of these 250, 73
have been identified as "priority actions." The Plan
provides a strategy for coordinating water pollution
control on a watershed basis. The following are
highlights of the Plan:
Establishment of a Santa Monica Bay Water-
shed Council.
Implementation of a "mass emissions ap-
proach" to more effectively control discharge
of toxic pollutants from both point and
nonpoint sources.
Reduction of hazardous waste use from
households and small businesses.
Best management practices (BMPs) to im-
prove the quality of urban/storm water run-
off that enters the Bay.
Full secondary treatment of sewage at the
City of Los Angeles and County Sanitation
Districts treatment facilities.
Assessment of swimming health risks and a
plan to track down pathogen sources.
Restoration and enhancement of priority
wetlands and other sensitive marine, coastal,
and upland habitats.
Improved public educationand involvement
programs.
Implementation of a comprehensive Bay-
wide monitoring program.
Adoption of a comprehensive watershed
planning and management strategy.
In addition to developing the CCMP, the SMBRP
has undertaken a number of significant projects and
programs that support and further the goals of Bay
restoration and protection. They include:
Instituted a pilot program for treating storm
drain runoff with ozone (the City of Santa
Monica and the LTniversity of California-Los
Angeles Laboratory of Biomedical and Envi-
ronmental Science showed that ozone is an
excellent disinfectant).
Issued a Los Angeles County Storm Water
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit that is unique in its
emphasis on BMPs as opposed to water qual-
ity standards.
Established new breeding sites for the Cali-
fornia least tern, an endangered species.
Instituted a storm drain stenciling project to
educate the public about disposal of con-
taminants in the storm drains funded by the
SMBRP and carried out by various cities
within the watershed and Heal the Bay (a
local environmental group).
Restored the Lower Zuma Creek wetland,
lagoon, and sand dunes.
Established a "mini-grants" program to pro-
vide funding for schools, inner-city youth,
environmental groups, and municipalities
to educate and involve the public in Bay
resource protection and pollution preven-
tion efforts.
Designed thefirsteverepidemiologicalstudy
of human health riskfrom contaminated run-
off for the West Coast.
Performed first technical study to quantify
pollutant loads associated with storm water
runoff for the Bay watershed.
Conducted research on seafood contamina-
tion and analyzed sportfish consumption
patterns of local anglers.
Conducted a study to identify and map re-
maining wetlands and riparian habitat in the
watershed and identified several sites for
possible restoration.
Santa Monica Bay continued on page 129
126
-------
Sarasota Bay
Size and location: This project encompasses Sarasota '
Bay, Roberts Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, Dryman Bay,
and Blackburn Bay and consists of a coastal water-
shed of approximately 150 square miles of land area
and 52 square miles of water surface extending from
Anna Maria Key south to Casey Key on the southwest
coast of Florida.
Organization that initiated project:
This is a cooperative project stimulated by local
governments and communities and Mote Ma-
rine Laboratory. Sarasota Bay was selected for
inclusion into the National Estuary Program
(NEP) by EPA in 1988. The Sarasota Bay NEP is
sponsored by the Southwest Florida Water Man-
agement District, Manatee County, Sarasota
County, the City of Sarasota, and EPA.
Major environmental problems:
Excessive nitrogen loads due to inadequate
wastewater treatment
Storm water runoff
Loss of natural habitat (fresh and saltwater
wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation)
Actions taken or proposed: The NEP provides funds to
develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Man-
agement Plan (CCMP) for Sarasota Bay that will
recommend priority corrective actions to restore and
maintain the estuarine resources. During the CCMP
development, several demonstration projects are be-
ing undertaken to illustrate how the final recommen-
dations for Bay restoration will be implemented.
These demonstrations include 11 habitat-related
projects and 2 storm water management projects.
The intertidal habitat restoration projects will restore
80 acres of habitat lost since 1950. Implementation of
the storm water projects will reduce the quantity and
improve the quality of storm water discharge in
specific basins as well as providing valuable informa-
tion about storm water management techniques in
highly urbanized coastal areas. Local governments
have made significant strides toward restoring and
protecting the Bay primarily by integrating the strat-
egy of the Sarasota Bay NEP into community deci-
sions that may affect the Bay. Public education/
outreach and citizen involvement have been critical
in allowing the Sarasota Bay NEP to progress to this
point and will be essential in full implementation of
the CCMP recommendations.
Action Plans have been drafted for inclusion into
the CCMP. These action plans address: wastewater/
nitrogen loading reduction, storm water manage-
ment, fresh and salt water wetlands restoration and
protection, fisheries and other living resources, sus-
ainable recreational use, and Bay management (gov-
ernance). The final CCMP will be completed in June
1995 and will propose not only the action plans
needed to restore Sarasota Bay, but also who should
taketheleadforimplementationactivities,howmuch
these activities will cost, how these activities will be
funded, and a timeline for determining success of
implementation.
Stakeholders:
Businesses
Local citizens
Property owners
Recreational users including divers/snorkelers,
boaters, anglers
Scientists
Tourists
Contact: Hudson Slay
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3555 ext. 2059
FAX: (404) 347-1797
127
-------
Savannah River
S/2e
-------
Silver Lake
Size and location: Silver Lake is located just north of
downtown Dover, Delaware. The surface area of the
lake is 167 acres, and the lake drains approximately
19,000 acres.
Organization that initiated project:
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Major Environmental problems:
Algal blooms and bacterial contamination
due to agricultural and urban runoff
Actions taken or proposed: Delaware received a Clean
Lakes Program grant in 1987 to conduct a Phase I
diagnostic/feasibility study for Silver Lake and its
watershed. This study analyzed the lake's condition
and determined the causes of that condition, exam-
ined the watershed to determine the sources of pollu-
tion, and then evaluated solutions and recommenda-
tions for the most feasible procedures to restore and
protect lake water quality.
In 1990, a Phase II Clean Water Lakes grant was
awarded. The Phase II project will translate the Phase
I recommendations into actions. Phase II projects
implement in-lake restoration work as well as critical
watershed management activities to control nonpoint
source pollution to the lake. A seven part plan has
been initiated by the participating stakeholders, and
the project is coordinated by the Delaware Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Environmental Con-
trol. The plan includes:
Development of a nature preserve.
Modification of lake use for bank stabiliza-
tion.
Working with property owners to install
vegetative cover, riprap, etc. for shoreline
erosion control.
Retrofit storm water control ponds entering
Silver Lake to include water quality enhance-
ments.
Enforcement of construction runoff regula-
tions.
Installation of agricultural best management
practices.
Public education.
Follow-up monitoring.
Storm water detention basins will be modified to
reduce sediment and phosphorus loadings into the
lake. Citizen volunteers have placed fish attraction
structures in the lake.
Stakeholders:
Area farmers
Area merchants
City of Dover
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Kent County Conservation District
Lake users
Soil Conservation Service
Contact: Christine Reichgott
U.S. EPA Region III (3WM11)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-3364
FAX: (215)597-3359
Santa Monica Bay continued from page 126
Developed a comprehensiveand coordinated
monitoring program to provide insights into
regional, cumulative, and long-term impacts;
link public concerns with measurable indi-
cators; and reduce costs associated with cur-
rent monitoring practices.
Developed the Santa Monica Bay Restora-
tion Plan.
Stakeholders:
Area Universities
Bay watershed cities (NPDES co-permittees)
Heal the Bay
Los Angeles County
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion
State Department of Fish and Game
State Department of Health Services
State Water Resources Control Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
University of California-Los Angeles Laboratory
of Biomedical and Environmental Science
Contact: Cheryl McGovern
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
(415) 744-2013
FAX: (415)744-1078
129
-------
Southeast Michigan Initiative
Size and location: The Southeast Michigan Initiative
(SEMI) covers eight counties in and around the De-
troit, Michigan metropolitan area and includes five
AreasofConcern(AOCs)designated under theGreat
Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The five AOC
watersheds are: the Clinton River (see page 46), River
Rouge, Detroit River, River Raisin, and the St. Claire
River. The counties in the initiative area include St.
Clair, Macomb, Oakland, Livingston, Washtenaw,
Wayne, Lenawee, and Monroe.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Combined sewer overflow
Nonpoint source pollution
Sediment contamination
Urban air pollution
Actions taken or proposed: SEMI is a partnership formed
among the Michigan Department of Natural Re-
sources (MDNR), EPA, and other state and local
agencies to focus resources in eight counties in the
Detroit metropolitan area. This partnership was
prompted by therecognition thatenvironmental prob-
lems may be be tter addressed through a more coordi-
nated effort, and that they need not be solely ad-
dressed by regulatory solutions. Also that a geo-
graphical, cross-media, ecosystem and/or holistic
solution may be required for their resolution.
The Agencies' base programs will be key
tools used in this effort. Consequently, intense dis-
cussionshavebeen initiated betweenEPAand MDNR.
Examples of issues under discussion include
remediation of industrial waste in landfill along the
banks of the Rouge River and remediation of a sedi-
ments PCS hotspot on the Raisin River. The goal, in
general, is to better use the permitting, enforcement,
and planning processes to further environmental
work.
During 1994, the Initiative will be developing
innovative programs on pollution prevention, Reme-
dial Action Plans and sediments, public participation
(includingriskcommunication),and compliance and
enforcement. Several projects already initiated in-
clude: an industrial pretreatment pollution preven-
tion program for publicly owned treatment works,
the development of an industrial pollution preven-
tion network, an environmental justice study, and a
neighborhood environmental problems survey. In
addition, major resources have been allocated for
contaminated sediment characterization and
remediation.
One project in the SEMI area of particular note is
the Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project.
The project, which is funded through $128 million in
federal grants, is designed to investigate sources of
water pollution in a highly urbanized watershed
during wet weather events and demonstrate meth-
ods for their control. Additional funds totalling $160
million have been appropriated for this project.
Stakeholders:
Academic institutions
Citizen and technical advisory groups for each of
the five Areas of Concern
City of Detroit
Civil Rights groups
County governments, health departments, and
health providers
Environmental groups
Interested citizens
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Regulated community
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Mardi Klevs
U.S. EPA Region V (WCC-15J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-5490
FAX: (312)886-0618
Savanah River continued from page 128
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Union Camp Corporation
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Contact: Meredith Anderson
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-2126, ext. 6581
FAX: (404) 347-3269
130
-------
Size and location: The South Florida Ecosystem en-
compasses a 16,000-square mile watershed located at
the southern terminus of the Florida peninsula. This
region includes the Kissimmee River, Lake
Okeechobee, the Everglades, Big Cypress, Florida
Bay, and the Florida Keys; contains three National
Parks, one National Preserve, two National Marine
Sanctuaries, and twelve National Wildlife Refuges:
and is home to over six million people.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Commerce
State of Florida
Major environmental problems:
Mercury contamination of Everglades fish
and other biota
Ecological degradation of Florida Bay and
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS)
Water supply conflicts among agricultural
interests, natural resources,.and an expand-
ing urban population
Nutrient enrichment of the Everglades by
agricultural or urban drainage water
Loss of historic hydropatterns, water gradi-
ents, and discharge
Rapid regional population growth leading
to increased pollution of both air and water
Spread of exotic plants and animals
Loss of native populations and species of
flora and fauna
Extensive conversion of remaining wetlands
and natural lands to other land uses
Actions taken or proposed: In 1993 a five-year inter-
agency agreement on South Florida Ecosystem resto-
ration was signed by six federal departments includ-
ing EPA, creating a Task Force to further ecosystem
restoration, protection, and maintenance. The water-
shed was chosen as an appropriate unit for ecosystem
management. Efforts are to be comprehensive in
nature, with various agencies taking the lead on
specific restoration activities. A focus of the inter-
agency effort is the submission of an integrated plan
for ecosystem restoration, maintenance, and protec-
tion that details current achievements, ongoing ac-
tivities, and projected accomplishments. This plan,
which is to be updated annually, is to include an
evaluation of the effectiveness of ongoing efforts.
A multitude of specific efforts are underway to
address environmental problems in the South Florida
watershed. EPA has designed and begun to carry out
a comprehensive interagency multi-disciplinary
study to address the mercury contamination issue
and identify sources and solutions. EPA is working
with NOAA and the State of Florida to develop and
implement a water quality protection program for
the FKNMS. The Army Corps is proceeding with a
number of projects that will attempt to provide the
hydrologic capability to restore the hydrology and
ecology of portions of Everglades National Park, the
Kissimmee River, and the ecosystem as a whole. The
State of Florida and the federal government are work-
ing with private interests to rectify the phosphorus
enrichment issue that the Everglades faces.
Stakeholders:
Local governments
National and local environmental groups
South Florida agricultural interests
South Florida urban interests
State of Florida
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Robert F. McGhee
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4450
FAX: (404)347-5204
131
-------
Squaw Creek 4n
-------
Swartzwood Lake
Size and location: Swartzwood Lake is located in a
state park in Sussex County, New Jersey. The lake is
504 acres in size, with a mean depth of 22 feet and a
maximum depth of 42 feet. The watershed covers
11,196 acres, including the lake.
Organization that initiated the project:
Sussex County Board of Freeholders
Major environmental problems:
High in-lake phosphorus
Reduced fish habitat
Excessive weed/algal growth
Anoxia caused by internal phosphorus
recycling
Reduction in clarity
Actions taken or proposed: In 1982 the Sussex County
Board of Freeholders initiated activity in the
Swartzwood Lake watershed. Sussex County and
the state of New Jersey have also been active. Actions
to restore and protect this watershed include:
Inactivation of internal phosphorus by
hypolimnetic aeration.
Weed harvesting.
Development of a septic management plan.
Implementation of homeowner best
management practices.
Control of future land development.
Stakeholders:
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Stillwater Township
Sussex County Board of Freeholders
Sussex County Department of Planning
Tourism
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts:
EPA:
Theresa Faber
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8708
FAX: (212) 264-2194
State:
Budd Cann
Water Monitoring
Management
NJDEP(CN427)
Trenton, NJ 08625-0427
(609) 292-0427
FAX: (609) 633-1095
133
-------
Tampa Bay
Size and location: The Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program (NEP) study area encompasses both, the
398-square mile bay and its 2,300-square mile water-
shed. The watershed extends north of the Bay to the
upper reaches of the Hillsborough River, east to the
headwaters of the Alafia River, and south to Sarasota
County. Tampa Bay is the longest bay in the state of
Florida and the seventh longest in the United 'States.
Organizations that initiated project:
The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, the
Southwest Florida Water Management District,
state and local governments, and citizens began
an effort culminating with EPA selecting Tampa
Bay for inclusion into the National Estuary Pro-
gram in 1990.
Major environmental probletns:
Growth and development causing habitat
destruction, shoreline hardening, and in-
creased anthropogenic impacts
Pollutant loadings from both point and
nonpoint sources
Loss and degradation of primary habitats
within and around the bay such as tidal
marshes, mangroves, seagrasses, non-veg-
etated bay bottom, and open water (pelagic)
communities
Alteration of surface and ground water flow
patterns
Atmospheric deposition (nitrogen)
Actions taken or proposed: The NEP provides funds to
develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Man-
agement Plan for Tampa Bay that will recommend
priority corrective actions to restore and maintain the
estuarine resources. The Tampa Bay NEP intends to
approach bay restoration and measures of success by
linking water quality standards to the environmental
needs of bay habitats and aquatic communities they
support. Scientists will monitor representative plant
and animal species from each of the Bay's communi-
ties to determine the overall health of that portion of
the Bay. Assessing the condition of these indicator
species will provide tangible evidence of progress
toward goals. The Program is currently completing
a comprehensive review of conditions in the Bay, as
well as scientific studies which will define the envi-
ronmental requirements of key species. By moving
beyond water quality as the end result in bay restora-
tion to standards which measure success based upon
the health of the Bay's living resources, scientists
hope to encourage more resource-based initiatives in
environmental management.
Stakeholders:
Anglers
Businesses
Local citizens
Recreational users including anglers, divers/
snorkelers, boaters
Tourists
Contact: Dean Ulllock
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3555, ext. 2063
FAX: (404)347-1797
134
-------
Tangipahoa River
Size and location: The Tangipahoa River watershed
includes about 529,600 acres, of which 355,200 are in
Louisiana, mostly located in Tangipahoa Parish.
Organization that initiated project:
Louisiana Department of Environmental Qual-
ity
Major environmental problems:
Nutrient and sediment nonpoint source pol-
lution
Bacterial contamination
Improperly functioning municipal wastewa-
ter treatment facilities .
Runoff from unse wered communities, trailer
parks, and homes (lack of a septic system or
septic tank failure)
Runoff and discharges fromdairies and other
concentrated animal operations
Runoff from truck farming, forest harvest
areas, and roads
Actions taken or proposed: Louisiana has targeted the
Tangipahoa River within their Nonpoint Source
Management Program to reduce bacterial contami-
nation. More specifically, the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has threenonpoint
source pollution control cooperative agreements (Sec-
tion 319(h) of the Clean Water Act) with EPA, which
contain activities/projects within the Tangipahoa
River watershed, to address bacterial and nonpoint
source pollution.
LDEQ has implemented an educational program
in the areas of Tangipahoa Parish which are listed in
the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report as having
septic tank problems. The purpose is to educate local
people about their individual wastewater problems
contributing to bacterial contamination of the river.
LDEQ has been working with state and federal
agricultural agencies on a project to implement Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) designed no-discharge
lagoon systems into the dairies which operate in
Tangipahoa Parish. There are approximately 273
dairies in the parish and approximately 225 have
agreed to participate in either the SCS or the Agricul-
tural Stabilization and Conservation Service federal
cost-share program for installation of the lagoons. Of
the 225 dairymen who have agreed to participate,
approximately 93 lagoon systems have been installed.
The purpose of these lagoons is to reduce bacterial
and nutrient loading to the Tangipahoa River.
In addition to the federal cost-share program, the
Louisiana State Legislature enacted a provision to
establish a state cost-share program to assist the
dairymen in installation costs of the lagoon systems.
First year funding for the state cost-share program
had $350,000 of state funds allocated to it; the second
year of funding for the program had $250,000 of state
funds directed to it. The state cost-share programhas
been successful, with approximately 80 dairymen
participating.
LDEQ has implemented a series of five dairy
demonstration field days to educate dairymen on
how the solids in the lagoon systems need to be
cleaned out every two to four years, if they are to
continue to function as no-discharge systems. The
demonstration included information on nutrient
availability in the lagoon systems and how this trans-
lates to nitrogen and phosphorus values that can be
applied to the dairyman's fields. The equipment that
is utilized for pumping solids from the lagoon system
was available and functioning at the demonstration
site, in order for the dairymen to see what was in-
volved in pumping the lagoons and land applying
wastes to their fields. These demonstrations were
well attended by more that 100 dairymen in
Tangipahoa Parish.
The Department of Health and Hospitals has
estimated a reduction of approximately one million
gallons a day of untreated sewage being discharged
into the river, and the water quality data is beginning
to show measurable declines in the concentration of
fecal coliform bacteria within the Tangipahoa River.
Stakeholders:
Businesses
Government agencies
Private citizens
Special interest groups
Contact: Russell Bowen, 6W-QS
U.S. EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-7140
FAX: (214) 665-6689
135
-------
Tensas River
Size and location: The Tensas River flows approxi-
mately 315 miles through the upper northeast part of
Louisiana, eventually emptying into the Red River.
The Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge, estab-
lished in 1980, is comprised of 65,000 acres of exten-
sive bottomland hardwood swamps. The Tensas
River Basin Initiative is located in the upper Tensas
watershed of Louisiana, a 750,000-acre watershed in
portions of East Carroll, Franklin, Madison, and
Tensas Parishes.
Organizations that initiated project:
Northeast Delta Resource Conservation and De-
velopment Board
Louisiana Department of Environmental Qual-
ity
The Nature Conservancy
Major environmental problems:
» Historic conversion of bottomland hard-
woods to agriculture, resulting in loss of
wetlands
Channelization and loss of riparian areas
Water quality degradation
Reductionin wildlife habitat and biodiversity
Nonpoint source pollution
Environmental justice (most impoverished
area in the U.S.)
Loss of flood control functions
Actions taken or proposed: The Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality (LADEQ) received a grant
from EPA to develop a comprehensive watershed
pro tection plan for the Tensas River, utilizing a holis-
tic approach. LADEQ has contracted with The Na-
ture Conservancy to develop the watershed protec-
tion plan for the Tensas River Watershed. An addi-
tional EPA grant to the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) in Louisiana is contributing to the develop-
ment of a program-neutral River Basin Study. A
Technical Steering Committee comprised of repre-
sentatives from various state and federal agencies,
non-profit and special interest groups, and local citi-
zens, and chaired by the local Farm Bureau Represen-
tative, has developed a plan of work.
The Northeast Resource Conservation and De-
velopment Board, through funding from EPA, SCS,
and The Nature Conservancy, has hired a Watershed
Manager to inform rural landowners of the project
and to communicate between the participating part-
ners (agencies) and the public. The U.S. Geological
Survey has included the Tensas River Basin in the
Mississippi Embayment National Water Quality As-
sessment study unit. Dr. Angel Roman-Mass will
develop a proposal for participation by five states to
restore hydrology to pre-channelized conditions.
The Tensas effort is serving as a model for two
other watershed projects within the Lower Missis-
sippi Delta. A Draft River Basin Study is due in late
1994. The Study will have an individual watershed
focus and will use Public Law 566 funds for water-
shed planning. This will give landowners money for
watershed restoration. The community of Richland
will target the Boeuf River/Richland Creek
subwatershed for nonpoint source runoff reduction.
Two field days were held in 1994 to inform
landowners of incentive programs for wetland resto-
ration and protection such as the Wetland Reserve
Program and Partners for Wildlife. An annual Envi-
ronmental Education Workshop for local high school
students has been implemented with support from
state and federal agencies and private individuals.
Brochures and a videotape promoting wetland val-
ues and landowner cost share programs and utilizing
selected local farmers as role models are planned.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural industry
Agricultural organizations
Conservation organizations
County and parish governments
Cultural heritage organizations
Environmental organizations
Federal, state, and local agencies
Flood control interests
Forest products industry
Grassroots groups
Hunting and fishing interests
Local citizens
Planning agencies
Recreation industry
State and local agencies
Tourism industry
Universities
Urban interests
Contacts:
lay Gamble
U.S. EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Ave. (6E-FT)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214) 665-8339
FAX: (214) 665-7446
Jack Hill
USD A/Forest Service
c/o EPA
1445 Ross Ave. (6E-FT)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-6497
FAX: (214)665-7446
Itttl !*\f«
'4*11 I 4 MM
-------
Tillamook Bay
Size and Location: Tillamook Bay is a large shallow
estuary along the north coast of Oregon State. Its
watershed covers 364,800 acres. Five major rivers
Miami, Kilchis, Wilson, Trask, and Tillamook drain
the watershed.
Name of organization that initiated project:
A variety of groups in Tillamook County and the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
asked the Governor of Oregon to nominate
Tillamook Bay to EPA's National Estuary Pro-
gram (NEP). There is a strong local involvement
in the project conception and implementation.
Major environmental problems:
Fecal coliform contamination
Low dissolved oxygen levels
Animal wastes from agricultural activities
Bacterial contamination from dairy animal
waste
Habitat loss and sedimentation are threaten-
inganadromousfisheries(summersteelhead,
spring/fall chinook, and one of the few rem-
nant chum salmon populations in the state)
Habitat modification is impacting threatened
and endangered species (brown pelican, per-
egrine falcon, bald eagle, Aleutian Canada
goose)
Possible sedimentation problems if future
loggingactivitiesare not carefully conducted
Actions taken or proposed: Tillamook Bay was selected
for inclusion in the NEP in 1992. A Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan that will recom-
mend priority corrective actions to restore and main-
tain the estuarine resources of the Bay is being devel-
oped.
The Methane Energy and Agricultural Develop-
ment Project, an effort to collect animal waste from
dairies to produce electricity, soil amendments, and
fertilizer products, has been initiated.
Stakeholders:
Commercial/recreational fisheries
Environmental groups
Logging industry
Methane Energy and Agricultural Development
Policy Committee
National Marine Fisheries Service
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Department of Forestry
Oregon Department of Land, Conservation, and
Development
Oregon Department of State Lands
Oregon Health Department
Oregon Parks Department
Oyster/clam industries
Residents
Soil Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Tillamook Bay and Garibaldi Port Districts
Tillamook County
Tillamook County Creamery Association
Tillamook County Economic Development Com-
mittee
Tillamook Sanitation Technical Advisory Com-
mittee
Tourism industry
U.S. Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation
Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
Water Resources Department
Contacts:
EPA:
John Gabrielson
U.S. EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-4183
FAX: (206)553-0165
Local:
Marilyn Sigman
Tillamook Bay NEP
4000 Blimp Blvd.
Tillamook, OR 97141
(503) 842-9922
FAX: (206)842-3680
137
-------
Truckee River
Size and location: The 140-mile long Truckee River
runs from Lake Tahoe, California into the saline
Pyramid Lake in Nevada.
Organization that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Major environmental problems:
Water quality degradation
Deterioration of aquatic habitat
Threatened and endangered fish species
Actions taken or proposed: The flow of the Truckee
River is highly regulated with most of the river water
fully allocated via water rights. Some of the water is
used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to induce
spawning of the endangered fish, cui-ui, and to pro-
vide drought relief. Approximately one-third of the
river flow is diverted via a dam to Lahontan Valley to
irrigate alfalfa and pastures. The watershed also
supports the resort communities surrounding Lake
Tahoe, the greater metropolitan area of Reno and
Sparks, and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Reserva-
tion.
The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe has taken numer-
ous 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 ameliorate 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 settlement accord through public law.
EPA coordinates different program activities and
agencies to focus restoration efforts on the Truckee
River Strategy, a holistic watershed restoration pro-
gram. In particular, EPA:
Provides grant assistance to a Native Ameri-
can tribe and the states of Nevada and Cali-
fornia to assess problems, to develop a water
quality model, and to implement both
nonpoint and point source controls.
Oversees and approves the development of
state water quality standards, Total Maxi-
mum Daily Loads, and storm water and
treatment works permits.
Funds a grant to explore alternative eco-
nomic incentives to conserve water and im-
prove water quality.
Awarded a Clean Water Act Section 319
grant to Nevada to establish a water bank
that would allow residents to donate their
water rights to the bank to be used for benefi-
cial instream uses.
Stakeholders
California Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Board
Fenley Town Utilities
Lyon, Storey, and Washoe Counties in Nevada
National Park Service
Nevada Department of Wildlife
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Nevada Division of Transportation
Public Resource Associates
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Reno and Sparks municipal governments
Sierra Club
Sierra Pacific Power Company
Soil Conservation Service
The Nature Conservancy
Truckee River Advisory Board
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
University of California, Davis
University of Nevada, Reno
Washoe-Storey Conservation District
Contact: Cheryl McGovern
U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2013
FAX: (415)744-1078
v
-------
Upper Arkansas; R
' - r '- <'''
Sizeand location: The watershed for the Upper Arkan-
sas River covers 5,000 square miles in central Colo-
rado extending from the Continental Divide in Pike-
San Isabel National Forest to Pueblo Reservoir where
the plains meet the mountains.
Organizations that originated the project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Colorado Department of Health
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Major environmental problems:
Pollution from past mining practices
Erosion of rangeland
Loss of riparian and wetland areas
Hydrologic modification
Contaminated sediments
Actions taken or proposed: 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 recommen-
dations for further research in the basin. The
overarching finding from this forum was that coordi-
nation among agencies had to be improved. At the
same time, researchers from 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 mining. The ongoing work, the
workshop, and the management plan helped gener-
ate enthusiasm for more cooperative efforts which
culminated in a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) among the Colorado Departments of Health
and Natural Resources, the U.S. Bureau of Reclama-
tion, and EPA, which, among other things, set a self-
reproducing brown trout fishery as their biological
remediation goal for the river.
In 1992, EPA formed a Regional Upper Arkansas
Watershed Initiative Team to coordinate develop-
ment and implementation of a watershed protection
strategy for the Upper Arkansas Basin. A number of
Clean Water Act Section319NonpointSourceprojects
were initiated at abandoned mining sites along Chalk
Creek and St. Kevin's Gulch and on rangeland along
BadgerCreek. Inaddition, recently constructed metal
treatment facilities will control two major draining
mine discharges to the river, with an expected signifi-
cant reduction in metals load to the mainstem of the
river as a result of Superfund and water discharge
compliance actions.
Local citizens are active in the watershed. A local
Resource Conservation and Development Council,
with EPA funding support, hired a local teacher to
serve as the on-site watershed coordinator for the
Initiative, and he has been rehired for a second year
because of his successes. The on-site coordinator
fosters cooperation among various stakeholders, so-
licits ideas for the strategy, and implements a public
outreach program for the Initiative. He coordinated
a second MOU which has the following goal: im-
prove or maintain the aquatic ecosystem of the Upper
Arkansas River Watershed. He coordinated the first
watershed forum directed to enhancing awareness
and knowledge of watershed citizens throughout the
150 miles of the river. It was planned and imple-
mented with a steering committee of local interests.
The evaluations showed it was highly successful and
helpful in bringing information and a sense of water-
shed community to the participants. A volunteer
monitoring program, with strong participation by
local high schools, is active in the basin. This program
was developed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Based on its success in the Arkansas basin, the pro-
gram is being implemented statewide.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is
conducting a water needs assessment for fish,
recreationalists, and the riparian area of the mainstem.
EPA is supporting the development of a Geographic
Information System data base and a research project
addressing hydrologic needs of wetland/riparian
areas. The U.S. Forest Service and BLM consider the
Upper Arkansas a priority watershed and a potential
demonstration project for ecosystem management
through the Colorado Ecosystem Partnership.
Stakeholders:
ASARCO
CitiesofLeadville,Buena Vista, Salida,and Canon
City
Colorado Association of Conservation Districts
Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recre-
ation
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Colorado Riparian Association
Colorado State Engineer's Office
Colorado State Soil Conservation Board
Friends of the Arkansas
Upper Arkansas continued on page 140
139
-------
Upper Clark Fork Basin
Size mid toca tion: The Upper Clark Fork Basin consists
of a 6,060-square mile watershed in western Mon-
tana.
Organization that initiated project:
Montana State Legislature
Major environmental problems:
Over appropriation of water leading to dry
reaches, elevated water temperatures, nuisance
algae, low dissolved oxygen, and damaged fish
habitat
Actions taken or proposed: The Montana State Legisla-
turopassedlegislationcallingforamoratoriuminthe
issuance of most new surface water rights until June
30, 1995. The legislation created the Upper Clark
Fork Steering Committee which is charged with op-
erating a water management plan that would con-
sider and balance all beneficial water uses in the basin
above Milltown Dam. By law, the plan must contain
arecommervdationconcerningthe water rights mora-
torium and identify and make recommendations for
resolving water issues in the basin.
A planning process was developed following six
public meetings throughout the basin. Six commit-
tees are to identify specific problems and potential
solutions in various reaches of the basin and develop
a dispu te resolution process. The steering committee
will integrate the information from the six commit-
tees into a coordinated, comprehensive management
scheme.
Stakeholders:
City and county government
Hydroelectric utilities
Irrigators
Landowners
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Recreational and environmental groups
State and local water management agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water user groups
Contact: Gary Ingman
Montana Department of Health and Envi-
ronmental Sciences
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-5320
FAX: (406) 444-1375
Upper Arkansas continued from page 139
Irrigation companies
Lake County Conservation District
Sangre de Criso Resource Conservation and De-
velopment Council, Inc.
Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District
The Nature Conservancy
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 Arkansas River Recreation Task Force
Contact:
JeffKeidel
P.O. Box 938
Buena Vista, CO 81211
(719) 395-6035
140
-------
Upper Tennessee River Basin
Size and location: The Upper Tennessee River Basin
contains the Clinch, Powell, and Holston River Ba-
sins in southwest Virginia.
Organization that initiated project:
The Nature Conservancy
Major environmental problems:
Treated and untreated point sources (un-
treated point sources are the more signifi-
cant problem)
Nonpoint sources from agriculture, urban
runoff, and coal mining
Threats to habitat of endangered species
Actions taken or proposed.: The Nature Conservancy
launched its Clinch Valley Bioreserve in 1969 and
brought other stakeholders together to plan restora-
tion and protection activities. The Virginia Division
of Soil and Water has adopted many subwatersheds
as high priorities for nonpoint source pollution con-
trols. The Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality placed a ban on halogen-based sewage treat-
ment systems in endangered species waters. More
stringent water quality standards have also been
adopted for other pollutants. The Nature Conser-
vancy has completed a five-year strategic plan for the
watershed.
Caves, fissures, sinkholes, sinking streams and
underground streams in this limestone karst area
serve as direct recharge areas to ground water.
Nonpoint source impacts to the ground water from
poor agricultural and land-use practices are being
addressed through the implementation of appropri-
ate best management practices (BMPs). To prevent
cattle from reaching the streams and to buffer the
nonpointsourceloadingfromfields,alternativedrink-
ing water sources for cattle, fencing, buffer strips
adjacent to sinkholes and cave entrances, rotational
grazing, and permanent vegetation cover on criti-
cally eroded sites will be installed. Conservation
planning, septic tank installation, and the removal of
trash will also occur. Hydrogeologic studies will be
conducted to define, to the extent practical, ground
water drainage patterns and spring discharge sites
for future karst BMP implementation. Surface water
monitoring will occur.
Stakeholders;
Local governments
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conserva-
tion
Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State Uni-
versity
Contact: Victoria Binetti
U.S. EPA Region III (3WM50)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-6511
FAX: (215)597-3359
141
-------
"Verde River
Size and location: This project extends from Sullivan
Lake to Horseshoe Reservoir covering 125 miles of
the Verde River in Yavapai and Gila Counties in
Arizona.
Orgamzattons that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Major environmental problems:
Sand and gravel mining related sedimenta-
tion and hydrologic modification problems
Polluted runoff from abandoned hardrock
mines
Bank stabilization
Flooding
Threatened and endangered species (includ-
ing Razorback sucker and Southwestern wil-
low flycatcher)
Actions taken or proposed: EPA and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) initiated an advance
identification (ADID) wetlands project in the Verde
River watershed after receiving requests for an ADID
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Ari-
zona Department of Environmental Quality. This
ADID is identifying aquatic sites along the river and
evaluating whether or not these sites are suitable for
possible future disposal of dredge and fill material.
Goals of the ADID are two-fold:
To achieve a net gain in the quality and
quantity of the Verde River riparian ecosys-
tem in terms of acres, functions, and values.
To restore and maintain the physical, chemi-
cal, and biological integrity of the Verde
River riparian ecosystem.
The objectives are to:
Strengthen the Clean Water Act (CWA) Sec-
tion 404 wetlands permit and enforcement
program through public outreach.
* Ensure compliance with CWA Section 404
early in the planning process.
Seek avoidance of placing fill in sensitive
aquatic sites.
* Augment state and local efforts to develop a
comprehensive riparian management plan
for the Verde River.
Encourage restoration efforts.
EPA and the Corps have conducted several
public meetings to discuss the Section 404 program
and ADID, to present the results of the functional
assessment of the Verde River, and to solicit public
comments on options for identifying "suitable" and
"unsuitable" sites along the river. The technical
summary document and the final site identifications
will be completed in 1994. Public workshops will be
held to answer questions and clarify points.
In addition, Camp Verde will soon be funding a
flood mitigation study in the Town of Camp Verde
which will include determining the feasibility of
channelizing West Clear Creek, a major tributary to
the Verde River. Rood protection is a priority con-
cern for the Town of Camp Verde because approxi-
mately 20 percent of the town is located in the flood-
plain.
Stakeholders:
Local towns including Town of Camp Verde,
Cottonwood, Clarkdale, and Jerome
State of Arizona
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Verde Watershed Association
Contact: Mary Butterwick
U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-2)
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
(415) 744-1985
FAX: (415)744-1078
142
-------
Virginia Eastern Shore Coastal Waters
Size and location: A portion of the Virginia Eastern
Shore Coastal Waters lie within The Nature
Conservancy's Virginia Coast Reserve. The Reserve
encompasses 62.5 square miles; includes 14 barrier
islands, tidal marshes, and waterfront mainland sites;
and extends along the Atlantic coast of Virginia's
eastern shore.
Organization that initiated project:
The Nature Conservancy
Major environmental problems:
Development pressures
Noripoint source pollution from farms
Failed septic tanks
Point source loadings from seafood process-
ing plants
Actions taken or proposed: Under an EPA grant The
Nature Conservancy has begun work with a local
landowner and a multidisciplinary group of univer-
sity researchers to develop and implement a model
protection initiative for farmland that encompasses
several subwatersheds to Hog Island Bay. The initia-
tive has prioritized the threats to the subwatersheds
via an ecological risk assessment and is working with
the landowner and local officials to develop model
land use plans and a model conservation easement.
This model conservation easement can then be used
to protect seaside farmlands that are at risk from
ecologically unsound development.
As a complement to the farmland conserva-
tion easement initiative, The Nature Conservancy,
with the assistance of an EPA grant, is undertaking a
model waterfront village protection initiative to ad-
dress key threats associated with development of
Virginia Eastern Shore seaside towns and villages.
The Conservancy plans to develop a sustainable de-
velopment plan and implement a model protection
initiative at Willis Wharf, one of five waterfront towns
and villages on the Eastern Shore's seaside, working
in close partnership with the local citizens, busi-
nesses, and government.
The Nature Conservancy has also sponsored
studies including the Broadwater Macrosite Model
Watershed Protection Initiative, of loadings of nutri-
ents to both ground and surface water at selected
sites on the Chesapeake Bay. The Water Quality
Monitoring Initiative, a citizens water monitoring
project, monitors both ground and surface water. '
Stakeholders:
Accomack-Northampton Planning District Com-
mission
Citizens for a Better Eastern Shore
Northampton County Board of Supervisors
The Nature Conservancy
Town of Exmore
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Consortium
Working Watermens Association
Contact:
Edward Ambrogio
U.S. EPA Region III (3ES41)
841 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-3697
FAX: (215)597-1850
143
-------
Waquoit Bay
Size and location: Waquoit Bay is located on the
southern shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The Bay
and its watershed encompass an area of approxi-
mately 20 square miles; 2.5 square miles of this area
is surface water.
Organizations that initiated project:
National Science Foundation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion
Major environmental problems:
Enrichment of the Bay's water with excess
amounts of nitrogen
Decline in water quality
Loss of eelgrass beds
Decline of shellfish
* Increase in fish kills and mats of macroalgae
Actions taken or proposed: The Land-Margin Ecosys-
tems Research Project was initiated to determine the
relationship between land use and water quality.
Land uses and nutrient loadings are being character-
ized; physical, chemical, and biological processes
occurringintheBayandsurroundingsubwatersheds
are being determined; and a Geographic Information
System and a variety of models are being developed
to understand the links between land use and im-
pacts observed in Waquoit Bay. Research results are
being fed into an easy-to-use "management model"
that calculates steady state nitrogen loading rates for
various scenarios. The model is intended to be spe-
cific enough to make predictions about Waquoit Bay
and general enough to be used in other embayments
depending upon the parameters selected. It is impor-
tant that the model be more than locally applicable
since nitrogen is a pervasive problem along much of
the East Coast.
Stakeholders:
Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
Cape Cod Commission
Citi2ens for the Protection of Waquoit Bay
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmen-
tal Affairs
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion
National Science Foundation
Towns of Falmouth and Mashpee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
Universities
Boston University
Hampshire College
Smith College
University of Southern California
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Contacts:
EPA:
JoAnne H. Sulak
U.S. EPA Region I
(WQE)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3523
FAX: (617)565-4940
State:
Christine Gault
Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve
P.O. Box 3092
Waquoit, MA 02536
(508) 457-0495
FAX: (617)727-5537
Research:
Dr. Ivan Valiela
Boston University Marine Program
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA 02543
(508) 548-3705, ext. 515
FAX: (508)548-7295
-------
West Lake
Size and location: West Lake has a 6,340-acre water-
shed and is located in Clarke County in south central
Iowa.
Organizations that initiated project:
Clarke County Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
trict
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stew-
ardship
Major environmental problems:
Sediment
Nutrients and pesticides
Algal blooms
Declining fishery
High levels of organic matter in combination
with chlorination have produced
trihalomethanes exceeding the drinking
water standard
Agricultural pesticides, specifically atrazine,
cyanazine, and alachlor; atrazine consistently
exceeded drinking water maximumcontami-
nant levels
Actions taken or proposed: This project was initiated in
1990 with Clean Water Act Section319 funding and is
expected to formally last four to five years. Funding
from the State's Resource and Protection Program
has also been used to address water quality concerns
in the watershed. Cost share or other financial assis-
tance is offered for a variety of practices in the water-
shed ranging from traditional earthen terraces to
buffer strips, to crop rotations, to pasture manage-
ment, to integrated crop management. Twenty of the
35 landowners in the watershed are involved in the
project. Four landowners voluntarilyimplementprac-
tices without cost share dollars. Soil erosion has been
reduced on contracted fields from 13 tons per acre per
year in 1990 to 7.5 tons per acre per year in 1992.
Atrazine and cyanazine levels in the lake have been
reduced, and use of crop residue management is
widespread. Other activities include public educa-
tion and monitoring of the water quality of the lake
and the treated water at the water supply plant.
Changes in farming practices to protect the water
supply should continue for the long term.
Stakeholders:
City of Osceola
Clarke County Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
trict
Farmer cooperators
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stew-
ardship
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa State University Extension
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: UbboAgena
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-6402
FAX: (513) 281-8895
145
-------
West Maui Watershed
Size and location: This project consists of a series of
small watersheds along a 16-mile stretch of coast on
the island of Maui, Hawaii.
Organizations that initiated project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hawaii Department of Health
Major environmental problems:
Sediment runoff from agriculture and con-
struction sites
Nearshore turbidity
Macroalgal blooms and nutrient runoff pos-
sibly associated with agricultural runoff,
wastewater infiltration to surface waters,
resorts, and urban areas
Actions taken or proposed: 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 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 At-
mospheric Administration on studies regarding the
linkage between sewage injection wells and the ocean
and source controls. EPA funded a local watershed
manager to facilitate assessment and planning of
watershed protection activities in West Maui.
Through this effort, the Mayor of Maui publicly
committed to increased water reclamation and can-
celed plans for new sewage injection wells.
Stakeholders:
Hawaii Department of Health
Local sugar and tourist industries
Maui County
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Wendy Wiltse
Hawaii Department of Health
c/o Lahaina Comprehensive Health Cen-
ter
1837 Honiapiilani Highway
Lahaina, HI 96761
(808) 669-7571
146
-------
Willamette River Basin
Size and location: The Willamette River basin is lo-
cated in Oregon and covers 11,500 square miles.
Within the Basin are more than 5,000 miles of rivers
and tributaries.
Organization that initiated project:
A number of local, state, and federal groups are
working together to align their programs.
Major environmental problems:
Development pressures
Actions taken or proposed: EPA is working with a
variety of federal, state, local, and private groups to
develop several strategic workplans for the Willamette
River Basin. These workplans include:
Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Restoration
Targeting and Implementation;
Applying Sustainability Concepts and Ap-
proaches;
Environmental Justice through Reduction of
Toxics Exposure Risks; and
Drinking Water Protection through a Pollu-
tion Prevention Strategy.
All workplans are including field level demonstra-
tion projects. EPA is also developing new technical
approaches for reconciling conflicts between land
use and the management of terrestrial and aquatic
biodiversity.
Federal Forest Ecosystem Management Plans are
being developed for the "key watersheds" on feder-
ally owned forest lands within the Willamette Basin.
More than a dozen "key watersheds" have been
designated within the Basin. Watershed analysis for
restoration work began in 1994.
Oregon is developing state policies and pro-
cesses for fostering greater local stewardship through
inter-agency communication and the formation of
local basin councils.
Six communities within the Willamette Basin are
developingcomprehensive wetland protection plans.
There are a number of sub-watersheds in which Total
Maximum Daily Loads are being developed.
Many local and basin-wide networks have been
or are being formed in response to changes in social
and land use development patterns and the corre-
sponding effects on resource management options.
Stakeholders:
Local citizens
Local planning networks
Local soil and water conservation districts
Multiple state agencies
Pacific River Council
Soil Conservation Service
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact:
Mike Rylko
U.S. EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-4014
FAX: (206)553-0165
147
-------
Yakima Basin
Size and location: The Yakima basin is located in
south-central Washington and drains an area of 6,155
square miles.
Organization that initiated project:
Yakima Valley Conference of Governments
Major environmental problems:
* Alteredtemperature,pH,andin-streamflows
Habitat loss and degradation
Fecal coliform
Fish populations including salmon, other
aquatic life, and recreational uses at risk
Actions taken or proposed: A Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan that includes basin characterization and
problem identification; a basin and subbasin action
plan; and technical appendices has been completed
for Yakima Basin. Future work will center on action
plan implementation and local government and pub-
lic involvement/participation.
Stakeholders:
Agricultural, development, and timber interests
Bonneville Power Administration
Concerned citizens
Environmental interests
State and local government
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Yakima Indian Nation
Contact: Dan Robison
112 W. Poplar
Walla Walla, WA 99632
(509) 522-4063
FAX: (509) 522-4025
148
D.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995-617-127/81536
------- |