United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-841-N-92-009
November-December 1992
#25
&EPA News-Notes
A Water Quality Note
Twenty-Year-Old Clean Water Act Sees Accomplishments,
New Challenges — A Commentary by the Editors
Twenty years ago, our nation's waters were in trouble. Americans were dumping untreated
sewage into Boston Harbor, and sewage floated on the San Francisco Bay. Industrial wastes
poured into the Mississippi and Ohio rivers — the Cuyahoga River actually caught fire from
time to time. Massive algae tides had almost completely strangled Lake Erie, and some joked
grimly that it would soon be so full of pollution that you could walk across it. Fish and shellfish
numbers in the Chesapeake Bay plummeted. There were no national water quality standards
and no strategy to stem the flow of industrial and municipal wastes a vigorous young industrial
power produced.
The final straw was the dishonor of an historic body of water in Washington, D.C., in the late
1960s. Algae had fouled the Potomac River, killing its fish and plants and threatening human
health. Swimmers were told to get hepatitis shots. As Americans mourned the demise of a
once-beautiful national treasure, President Lyndon Johnson declared the Potomac a "national
disgrace." Many point to the river's sad condition, clearly visible to the nation's lawmakers, as
the driving force behind strengthened water quality laws.
Although this country began regulating water pollution in 1899, those first controls were
primitive by today's standards. Laws in succeeding decades made improvements, but it was not
until 1972 that Congress adopted a national goal to "restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of our nation's waters" by eliminating "the discharge of
pollutants." The Federal Water Pollution Control Act required water quality that "provides for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and... recreation in and on the
water."
Amended in 1977 and renamed the Clean Water Act, the law instituted National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, limiting the amount of gross pollution that
factories and municipal sewage treatment plants could release. Nearly 65,000 of these point
sources have since received state permits written to federal standards, and many have reduced
pollution 90 percent.
In the 1980s, we established new standards for 65 categories of toxic pollutants, including heavy
metals (such as copper and lead) and organic pollutants (such as dioxins and polychlorinated
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
A Water Quality Note
Clean Water Act Is Twenty Years Old 1
Notes on Water Quality Management
New Mexico—404 Permits Protect Water Quality 2
Austin Voters Win One for Barton Springs 4
News From The States
Colorado—MOU Clarifies CERCLA Liability 5
Texas—Statewide Watershed Assessments, Fee Supported 6
Mississippi—Groundwater Outreach 319 Supported 8
Washington—Revolving Fund Supports NFS Projects 9
Agricultural Notes
Farm Computer Program Measures Environmental Risks 10
USDA Residue Management Planning 10
Notes on The Coastal Environment
CCMP for Buzzards Bay Signed 11
NEP and CZM Programs Different But Complementary 12
Notes on Riparian & Watershed Management
Florida—Restoration of Upper St. Johns River Basin 13
Michigan—Outreach Key to Grand Travis Bay Protection 16
Notes on Atrazine
What is Atrazine? 18
USGS Survey Finds Atrazine in Mississippi River 18
Economic Assessment of Restricting or Banning Atrazine 19
USDA Responds to Atrazine in Surface Waters 20
Iowa Farmers Voluntarily Reduce Atrazine Use 21
Reviews
WEF Annual Literature Review 22
SCS Revises Wetlands Guidelines 22
NFS Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) News
How To Get On The BBS 22
New Educational Materials Database 23
Watershed Restoration Network Online 23
Announcements
Nature Conservancy Needs a Hydrologist 24
CIS Catalog on U.S.-Mexico Border 24
Rangeland Water Quality Coordinator Wanted 24
DATEBOOK 25
THE COUPON 27
-------
Twenty-Year Old biphenyls [PCBs]). The result was significantly reduced pollution, improved chemical balance,
Clean Water Act and lowered biological oxygen demand in our waters. More than 80 percent of U.S. factories
(continued) and 1,500 municipalities now pretreat noxious wastes to make them safer.
The Clean Water Act also provided substantial funding for municipal v/aste water treatment
plants. Between 1972 and 1988, the federal government dispensed $58 billion in construction
grants, added to the $17 billion that state and local governments spent. Of the nation's 15,591
municipal waste water plants, more than 80 percent can provide at least secondary treatment
quality now, and secondary or higher levels of sewage treatment serve more than 144 million
people in this country, up from 85 million in 1972. |
Today we have much to be proud of. Rivers no longer catch fire. Lake Erie is recovering. People
swim and wind surf in the Potomac without risking a visit to the doctor. President Bush — the
first president to fish the river since Teddy Roosevelt — caught a three-pound bass in the
Potomac last year. States now tell EPA that 70 percent of the river miles they've sampled
nationally fully meet their water quality standards, compared to an estimated 36 percent in
1974. Sixty percent of sampled lake and reservoir acres meet standards today, as do 67 percent
of tested estuary square miles. This improvement comes despite continually toughened
standards and increased measurement capability.
However, there are new challenges. Our progress and increasing sophistication during the last
two decades has shown us more subtle and complex problems, including the interrelationships
between ecosystems and human behavior. As point sources of pollution come under control,
our waters face bigger and more diverse threats. Rain and melted snow flowing across the
ground carry soil, pesticides, fertilizers, bacteria, oil, and medical waste into America's waters.
This wet-weather runoff, including nonpoint source pollution, storm water runoff, and
combined sewer overflows, imperils our waters today.
Meeting these new challenges will require new ways of thinking from each of us and our
personal involvement in preventing pollution. Our reward will be cleaner waters and improved
stewardship of the Earth. As President Bush has said, "Through millions of individual decisions
— simple, everyday, personal choices — we are determining the fate of. the Earth ...
environmental stewardship must flow from action by all Americans ..." Our 20-year record of
accomplishments and our pride in a dean environment indicate that Americans will meet that challenge.
Notes on Water Quality] Management
Protecting New Mexico's Streams with Section 404 Permits
(A message to New Mexicans — shared here with News-Notes readers)
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared in Clearing the Waters, the nonpoint source pollution
newsletter published for New ^Mexicans by the New Mexico Environment Department. It was written by
David Coss of that department. There are, of course, clear linkages between the use and condition of
wetlands and riparian areas, hydrologic modification, the condition of habitat, and the integrity of sur-
face and groundwaters. We discussed with Jim Piatt, chief of the New Mexico's Surface Water Quality
Bureau, the matter of water quality and this logical but creative use of §404 to enforce the state's water
quality standards and to thereby ensure water quality. Thanks, Jim, on behalf of other states that will
benefit by this bit of technology transfer.
It's a Federal-State-Citizen Partnership Thing
One of the most promising areas of cooperation between federal and state agencies and the
general public in the protection of New Mexico surface waters is the Clean Water Act section
404 program. This permit program prevents water pollution by regulating the placement of
dredged or fill materials into our waters during such activities as river crossings of utility
pipelines, bridge building, bank stabilization, and dam and levee building.
Historically, such activities have been a major cause of impacts to our waters because of damage
done to riparian zones, streamside erosion, and stream flow and habitat alteration. Under the
section 404 program, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers are working hard to eliminate such practices as a source of water quality
damage in New Mexico, while allowing necessary construction or land management activities
to continue. The results since the section 404 program became part of New Mexico's Nonpoint
Source Management Program are encouraging.
Do You Live By or Work Near a River, Lake, or Wetland?
If your answer to this question is yes, you should find out about the section 404 progri
requirements. Under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations and state water qualit
am and its
ty
-------
Protecting
New Mexico's Streams
(continued)
protection requirements, most activities that would require construction in such a waterbody
must have a permit. The Surface Water Quality Bureau of the New Mexico Environment
Department reviews all permit applications to ensure that water quality will be protected
during the proposed activity.
Depending on your project, you may do work in rivers under a nationwide permit or an
individual permit. Under either type of permit, you must have approval of plans describing
how water quality will be protected during and after the project from the Surface Water
Quality Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department before you begin work.
NMED and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff will be glad to assist you in completing your
permit application. In most cases, they can either give you advice on proper practices to use or
refer you to someone who can. Experience in this program has shown that citizens, agencies,
and corporations that follow trie permit process have been able to do the work necessary
without harm to the river in which they are working. Experience also shows that those who
ignore the permitting process often waste their money on projects that won't work, in addition
to harming the river and violating the law.
Success Stories Large and Small
El Paso Natural Gas Company and Enron Corporation proposed to lay one 42-inch and one
36-inch gas pipeline, respectively, across the San Juan River near Bloomfield this past winter.
Upon learning of the proposed crossings, a number of agencies expressed concern that these
activities would further pollute an already impaired river. Both companies worked closely
with NMED, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the NM Department of Game and Fish, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Army Corps of Engineers to prevent additional
water pollution.
The final work plans for both crossings called for using a new technology — water bags.
Manufactured by Water Structures Unlimited, the bags were used to divert the river so that
pipeline trenches could be dug and the pipes laid. It was the first time the bags had been used
in a river as fast and deep as the San Juan. With some trial and error, however, the companies
had good success in using the bags to divert the river and prevent discharges of turbid waters.
Both river crossings were thus completed without damage to the San Juan River.
Pecos River bank stabilization projects being conducted by private landowners in San Miguel
County are at the other end of the size scale from the large gas pipeline projects on the San
Juan River. The Pecos River experienced a 50-year flood in 1991 that, along with other
problems in the watershed, resulted in massive bank erosion along numerous reaches of the
river.
Under new state requirements for 404 activities, landowners wishing to place fill into a
perennial river or wetland as part of a bank stabilization project must receive NMED approval
before beginning work. This spring, 12 landowners along the Pecos River received permission
to perform bank stabilization projects. Landowners were encouraged to use logs or rocks
against eroding banks and to plant riparian vegetation for more permanent bank stabilization.
Bulldozing riverbeds and channelizing streams away from eroding banks were not allowed.
In June, bank stabilization projects on the Pecos River were reviewed. Where landowners had
worked with NMED and the Corps, projects were completed that not only protected the
landowner's properties, but they also benefitted the river through erosion control and habitat
enhancement.
Unfortunately, two landowners channelized the river next to their properties without talking
to NMED or the Corps. These illegal projects are now eroding into the river, causing
hydrologic problems downstream, and have subjected the landowners to enforcement action
from the Corps of Engineers. In addition, the money spent to do these projects will be wasted
as the berms created by the projects wash away. A similar amount of money could have
provided long-term bank stabilization for their properties without harming the river or
downstream neighbors.
All in all, NMED is pleased with progress in the 404 program. By working with resource
agency staff and following permit requirements, individuals and companies can complete
necessary projects while still protecting New Mexico's rivers.
[For more information, contact: Jim Piatt, Chief, Surface Water Quality Bureau, NM Environment
Department, P.O. Box 26110, Santa Fe, NM 87502. Phone: (505) 827-2836.]
-------
Austin Voters Win One for Barton Springs
EDITOR'S NOTE: NFS News-Notes #20 reported in April on the fight being waged by Austin, Texas, citi-
zens to protect their clean water resources. From the front lines, Lauren Ross, a civil engineer who has
worked with the SOS Coalitiori, recounts a victory. Thank you, Lauren, and congratulations. We need
more folks like the citizens of Austin.
Voters of Austin, Texas, gave1 a sweet victory to the environmental movement on August 8,
1992, when they passed a citizen's initiative water quality ordinance by a margin of two to
one. In the same election, they also approved $20 million for wilderness park land acquisition
and $22 million for endangered species habitat purchases. The voters rejected, by a large
margin, the do-nothing water quality ordinance proposed by the Austin City Council as an
alternative to the stronger one drafted by an environmental coalition. Success was all the
sweeter because the road to victory had been a rocky one.
The citizen's initiative process began in October 1991, when the Austin City Council passed a
weak and flawed "non-degradation" ordinance in response to demands from the citizens to
protect water quality in the creeks and limestone aquifer that feed Barton Springs. Barton
Springs, just three miles from the Texas State Capital in the heart of Austin, has been valued by
local residents for its clear, cold water for centuries.
After the Austin City Council opted for the clearly inadequate ordinance, local environmental
groups came together under the banner of the Save Our Springs (SOS) Coalition. With the goal
of protecting creek, aquifer, and spring water quality, SOS drafted its own ordinance. The SOS
ordinance did three things the city council had refused to do. First, it lowered allowable
development intensity. The Council's ordinance allowed up to 70 percent impervious cover.
The SOS ordinance lowers these limits to 15, 20, and 25 percent, depending on location within
the aquifer recharge or contributing zone. Second, the SOS ordinance established a pollution
prevention standard that allows no increases in the average annual loads of 13 constituents,
including sediment, nutrients, pathogens, heavy metals, organic compounds, pesticides, and
herbicides in post-development runoff.
i
Third, and most importantly, the SOS ordinance has the broadest possible applicability, so that
every development has to comply with its provisions, within the restrictions of state and
federal law. The sad history of Austin water quality ordinances has been to enact strict
regulations and then give almost all development an exemption, variance, or waiyer.
Writing the SOS ordinance took careful thought and the help of good legal and technical
minds. Collecting 35,000 signatures to get the ordinance on the ballot took five months and
hundreds of volunteer hours, But the battle really escalated after the signatures had been
validated, and it was time to put the ordinance on the ballot and give the citizens their say. As
reported previously, the Austin City Council defied a state judicial order to hold the election
on May 2, violating the city charter and delaying the election until August 8.
The delay gave development interests time to organize and wage an expensive, but ultimately
ineffective, "misinformation" campaign. The delay also allowed 248 development applications
(compared to 29 in the preceding five months) to be filed with the city during the interim
period between the two election dates. The massive developments proposed in these
applications present a significant threat to water quality if significant numbers of them are not
required to meet the provisions of the SOS ordinance.
Even with the clear mandate of the Austin voters, there is work to be done. City of Austin staff
must develop strict and fair rules to govern the day-to-day implementation of the ordinance
provisions. City staff, boards^ commissions, and the Council may also extend existing site
plans that would otherwise expire and allow development that does not meet the new
ordinance requirements.
Governmental bodies other than the city will also play a role in applying the SOS ordinance.
The Texas Water Commission will rule as to whether the ordinance is technically sound and
appropriate to its water quality objectives. Landowners have also threatened to take the city to
court to defend their property rights against what they perceive to be an illegal "taking." The
right of Austin to protect its water supply quality may also be attacked, in the Texas
Legislature, where the developers' lobby has a history of successfully limiting the
environmental protection options of Texas cities.
Clearly, the vote on August 8 is an environmental victory, but only one step toward achieving
water quality protection for Barton Springs. Members of the SOS Coalition will follow the
-------
Barton Springs process through the city, the courts, the water commission, and the Texas Legislature to ensure
Update that the ordinance chosen by the voters is ultimately implemented.
(continued) [For more information, contact: D. Lauren Ross, P.E., 1912 East Side Dr., Austin, TX 78704. Phone: (512)
448-2033. Or contact: George Cofer, Save Barton Creek Association, PO Box 5923, Austin, TX 78763.
Phone:(512)480-0055.]
News From The States
In Colorado, Memo of Understanding Clarifies
CERCLA Liabilities in State 319 Mining Cleanups
At Issue, the Reclamation of Abandoned Mine Lands
Acid mine drainage and other pollutants (heavy metals, etc.) from inactive and abandoned
mine sites are some of Colorado's most difficult nonpoint source problems. Much of this
pollution occurs in the tributaries and headwaters of prime Rocky Mountain streams, highly
desirable sites for recreation, including hunting and sport fishing. These are also the sites of
domestic drinking water supplies. Often the condition of the streams threatens or precludes
these highly desirable and beneficial uses.
When §319 mining site reclamation projects have been developed, the required 40 percent state
match has been obtained on a project-by-project basis. Match funds come from a variety of
public and private sources, often including monitoring from the Colorado Division of Wildlife,
heavy equipment from cities or counties, labor from local volunteers, and cash or services from
private organizations and industry.
For example, in reporting on the St. Elmo project, News-Notes observed:
Total project costs have come to $400,000, including post-reclamation water quality
monitoring. The Nonpoint Source Program of tlie Water Quality Control Division, Colorado
Department of Health, authorized the project. Nonpoint source control funding was provided
under section 201(g)(l)(B) [construction grant money authorized for nonpoint source purposes
— eds.Jofthe Clean Water Act in the amount of $76,800.
Additional funding and/or "in-kind" contributions to make up the project costs have been
provided by Chdffee County; Colorado Division of Wildlife; Colorado Mined Land Reclamation
Division; Colorado Soil Conservation Board; Coors Pure Water 2000; Cypress Minerals
Company; Kaess Contracting, Inc.; T.H.E. Consultants; Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado; and
the following federal agencies: Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, Forest Service, Soil
Conservation Service, and the U.S. EPA Off ice of Solid Waste.
CERCLA Liability Threat Stalls Projects
Early in 1992, these kinds of creative partnerships became stalled as existing and potential
cooperators were advised to avoid involvement in cleanup of abandoned or inactive mines
under §319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) because of potential grave financial liability that
might arise under federal law contained in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
Since EPA is the federal agency that administers both CWA and CERCLA, EPA's Denver
regional office (Region VIII) set about devising the ways and the means for the provisions of
both acts to be satisfied and to eliminate the threat of potential liability under CERCLA.
Furthermore, all of this had to be reduced to writing and made understandable to all parties,
both public and private, including potential cooperators and their legal counsel. Suffice it to
say that procedures were developed, and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) setting
forth those procedures was signed on June 3,1992, between the Colorado Department of
Health, the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, and the U.S. EPA.
The Procedures
The MOU sets forth detailed steps to be taken by the state and the EPA to comply with both
laws. Briefly, these steps include the following:
1 For a description of two such sites and the reclamation efforts of Colorado, see WPS News-Notes Issues #9 (December 1990) and #17
(December 1991) dealing with the headwaters of the Arkansas River and the St. Elmo reclamation project (Chalk Creek).
-------
In Colorado, MOU • The state will appoint a state project officer whose responsibilities are described in
Clarifies CEHCLA the MOU, including a site evaluation and a determination that a section 319 action is
Liability in 319 Mining appropriate. Factors that will be considered in determining the appropriateness of
Cleanup taking action are listed in the MOU.
(continued) m A Project Implementation Plan (PIP) that follows EPA Region VIII PIP guidance for
watershed projects is then developed. A cover letter attached to the PIP supplies the
information and format prescribed by the Superfund Removal. Procedures/Action
Memorandum Guidance.
• An EPA on-site coordinator in the EPA Hazardous Waste Division will review the
state's PIP for EPA hazardous waste approval. The PIP is also reviewed for approval
by the state EPA project officer in the Water Division. Both approvals are required
before work on the project begins.
In essence, that is the story. The MOU specifically says that its purpose is to implement a
procedure by which the state land its agents (i.e., the cooperators) would receive protection
from liability from CERCLA, as amended by SARA, while engaged in cleanup of abandoned
or inactive mines under §319 bf CWA. :
Significance
Karen Hamilton, Region VIII Water Division's lead in the development of the MOU, told
News-Notes:
No such agreement has been produced in the nation before now. This MOU has generated
considerable interest in states that have water quality problems stemming from inactive mine
sites. The MOU will encourage participation in inactive mine site remediation by industry,
local government, and volunteers through a program that builds partnerships and public
ownership of solutions, free from confrontation and litigation.
[For more information, contact: Karen Hamilton, Watershed Section, Water Quality Branch, U.S. EPA
Region VIII (8WM-WQ), 999 18th St., Denver, CO 80202-2466. Phone:(303)293-1576. FAX: (303)
294-1386.]
In Texas, Clean Rivers Act of 1991 Calls for Statewide Watershed'
Assessments Supported by Water Users and Wastewater Dischargers Fees
The 72nd session of the Texas Legislature passed an innovative and far-reaching new water
management law. Senate Bill 818, the Texas Clean Rivers Act of 1991, was enacted in response to
the high priority placed on the continued availability of a sufficient supply of clean water for
Texas now and in the future.
The statute provides for the following:
• The Texas Water Commission to establish a partnership with regional water resource
entities, such as river authorities, to coordinate a combined water quality assessment
and management effort of all appropriate agencies;
• Comprehensive water quality assessments to be performed in all watersheds and
river basins in the state;
The formation of "steering committees"
in each watershed; and
to support and guide the assessment process
• The preparation of biennial reports to the Governor, Texas Parks; and Wildlife
Department, and the legislature summarizing the results of the watershed/basin
assessments, actions taken to address water quality, and local recommendations on
the Texas Water Commission's (TWC's) regional water quality management plans.
The comprehensive water quality assessments will identify and prioritize water quality
problems for the development of solutions. The statute also provides a state-level process for
levying fees against wastewater discharge and water rights permit holders to support the
program established by S.B. 818.
The Water Situation in Texas
The Clean Rivers legislation was enacted by the legislature against some, stern facts. Consider
these elements of the water scenario:
Texas, true to its image, encompasses a large geographic area and contains a correspondingly
diverse range of environmental settings within its boundaries. Texas also supports a large and
-------
In Texas, Clean Rivers
Act of 199T Calls for
Statewide Watershed
Assessments
(continued)
growing population and associated economy. Water resources in Texas currently serve a
population of 17.5 million. The population is expected to reach 30 million by the year 2040. The
current demand for water is considered to be at about 75 percent of existing capacity. Clearly,
proper management of the state's water resources is of high priority for the future of Texas. The
task is a formidable one. , :
Texas contains over 190,000 miles of streams and rivers, more than 3 million acres of
constructed reservoirs, almost 2,000 square miles of coastal bays, 3,800 square miles of Gulf of
Mexico waters, and almost 8 million acres of wetland waters. Seven major and 17 minor
groundwater aquifers With a total storage capacity estimated to be approximately nine billion
acre-feet of potable water have been delineated in Texas.
Twelve ecoregions have been identified in Texas. They range from the southwestern deserts
characterized by dry climatic conditions and sparse vegetation through the semi-tropical
conditions of the southern Texas plains to the southern pine forests of the western Gulf coastal
plain. Water use planning must be accomplished holistically, framed by the ecosystems found
within the state's ecoregions.
It is against this backdrop that the regional watershed assessments and plans will be
constructed.
The Assessments
The Texas Clean Rivers Act requires the TWC to ensure that comprehensive regional water
quality assessments are performed in each river basin in the state. Further, the basin
assessments will include assessments for all watersheds within the basin. TWC will either
contract with appropriate regional, intergovernmental entities, such as river authorities,
councils of governments, or special districts, or the TWC itself will conduct the assessment in
basins when no other entity is able to do so.
Rules promulgated by TWC define "assessment report" to mean:
A comprehensive record of historical, existing, and projected water quality conditions of a
watershed.
The statute states that the purpose of the assessments is to identify significant issues and to
provide sufficient information for taking corrective actions necessary to maintain and improve
water quality.
The rules expand on the purpose of the assessments:
The intent of developing water quality assessments in each watershed is to identify water
quality problem areas and to focus resources and future studies on these areas.
Thus the assessments are to perform a targeting and priority setting function.
The statute specifically requires that nonpoint sources of pollution, nutrient loadings, toxic
materials, and health of aquatic life be addressed by the assessments.
According to the law, the assessments must identify significant nonpoint sources of pollution.
They are to be discussed and depicted on a map. Land use maps are to be developed for areas
where nonpoint source pollution has been identified as a threat to water quality. The SB 818
assessments are considered to be the appropriate vehicle to update the state's Nonpoint Source
Water Quality Assessment report as required under §319 of the Clean Water Act and its biennial
§305(b) water quality inventory.
The statute and TWC rules stress that these assessment undertakings and the resultant
corrective or pollution prevention actions are to.be truly cooperative intergovernmental
undertakings. As the rules indicate:
.. .the assessments will be the result of a cooperative partnership between river authorities,
designated local governments, other political subdivisions, other state agencies, and the Texas
Water Commission. The assessments will be conducted in such a manner which avoids, as
much as possible, duplication of effort...
Each of the regional entities performing assessments must convene a watershed steering
committee composed of representatives of appropriate governmental bodies to
• support and guide the assessment process,
• identify water quality issues,
1 Assessment reports are to be organized and evaluated by stream segments, which are subsets of watersheds. TWC directives indicate
that segments are surface waters exhibiting common biological, chemical, hydrological, natural, and physical characteristics and
processes. Segments will normally exhibit common reactions to external stresses.
-------
In Texas, Clean Rivers m make relevant data available, and
Act of 1991 Calls for m ., , ... . t
Statewide Watershed • provide for public input
Assessments The Texas Water Code was amended so that all wastewater discharge permits within a single
(continued) watershed will have the same expiration date.
Fiscal year 1992 was the first year for SB 818 assessments in Texas. The first year tasks
consisted of convening the steering committees and compiling existing water quality data and
information into consistent formats to permit meaningful comprehensive evaluations. The first
year assessment reports were due from 16 river basins in Octoberl992.
The Fee Structure
The water law requires TWO to assess reasonable and proportional annual fees from all users
of water rights and wastewater discharge permit holders to recover the costs of the watershed
assessment program. In the fall of 1991, TWC set up a task force to assist in determining the
funding amounts and formulas to be used to assess the fees. The task force was comprised of
representatives of industries; utilities, river authorities, municipalities, environmental groups,
and agricultural interests.
TWC decided to assess fees for discharge permit holders on the basis of flow volumes and
pollutant loadings up to a maximum of $35,000 per permit. Fees for water rights permit
holders are based on the right to appropriate water under a permit issued with differentiations
made between consumptive uses, nonconsu'mptive uses, and irrigation uses. Entities
possessing both wastewater and water rights permits were assessed fees only on the basis of
the wastewater permit.
On this basis, TWC billed $4.6 million and allocated it to 16 river authorities and other entities
to perform the assessments in 15 identified river basins. TWC staff members are doing the
sixteenth assessment in the Rio Grande River basin along the international border with Mexico.
The First Year Is the Beginning...
"The goal of the watershed assessment program in the state of Texas is to establish
partnerships between the TWC, appropriate regional water management agencies, and local
governments and interests to manage water quality on a watershed basis," commented Arthur
Talley, P.E. of the TWC staff. "We've made a lot of progress toward thai: goal during our first
year. We're still breaking new ground and installing new ways of doing things, but we are sure
we're headed in the right direction," he concluded. ;
Based on the 16 regional assessments, the commission is preparing its first biennial summary
report on the watersheds of Texas. The Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, and the
Parks and Wildlife Department should receive the summary December 1,1992.
[For further information, contact Linda Brookins, Watershed Assessment Team, Texas Water Commission,
P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087. Phone: (512) 463-8443. FAX: (512) 463-8439.]
Mississippi Develops Groundwater Outreach
and Private Well Protection Program w/NPS Funds
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article was developed from information provided to News-Notes by Laura
Cook Beiser of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, including an article written by stu-
dent intern Tim Phillips for the Department's Enivronmental News, May 1992 issue. Thank you, Laura.
Mississippi's Groundwater Education and Private Well Protection Project was made possible
by a §319 NFS grant through the state's Department of Environmental Quality, Office of
Pollution Control. The program is designed to increase the public's awareness of the
potentially adverse impacts on water quality that can result from land use activities. Using a
hands-on, person-to-person approach, the program enabled several state and federal agencies
and organizations to cooperatively accomplish a set of broad-based educational and outreach
public health goals.
The program allows rural homeowners in selected counties to have their private
drinking-water wells tested at little cost. To participate, private well owners purchase a $5
sample container in which to collect a water sample from their well. The state chemical lab at
Mississippi State University then tests the samples for ammonium, calcium, chloride, fluoride,
hardness, lead, magnesium, nitrate, nitrite, pH, phosphate, potassium, sodium, specific
-------
Mississippi Develops
Groundwater Outreach
and Private Well
Protection Program
w/NPS Funds
(continued)
conductance, arid sulfate. The well owner has the option of having the water analyzed for
pesticides and other agricultural chemicals for a slight additional charge. The EPA grant
funded the purchase of a chromatograph to increase the speed of the testing procedure at the
state lab.
Fifteen counties were selected to participate in. the program based on
• the number of private drinking water wells in the county,
• the level of community interest in the program, and
• the potential for groundwater contamination.
In each county, a public meeting for participating well owners covered sources of water, best
management practices for well head and groundwater protection, and methods of storing,
mixing, and rinsing agricultural and lawn chemical containers to prevent groundwater
contamination. At each meeting, an aquifer model demonstration depicted storage of
groundwater and groundwater contamination routes.
Results from analysis of the water samples benefit the participating agencies by providing an
indication of the overall impact of land use on aquifer quality across the state. Follow-up
information was provided by the Mississippi Extension Service to individuals who own wells
with water quality problems.
Taking part in the project were each county's Soil and Water Conservation District and Farm
Bureau, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, the state's Soil and Water
Conservation Commission, the Mississippi Farm Bureau, Mississippi Cooperative Extension
Service, Bureau of Plant Industries, and the state Chemical Laboratory at Mississippi State
University.
There was a major side benefit to this program. Laura Cook Beiser, an environemental scientist
and NFS staff member in Mississippi, told News-Notes:
All agencies actively participated ...and... had several representatives on a steering
committee to coordinate the program agenda. This was an excellent opportunity for NFS staff
to learn about the role of other agencies in the state, to share information, and to meet contact
people who can help with the planning of future programs. We consider this program to be a
great success and to be important in contributing to a groundwater database concerning surface
activities and their effects on groundwater.
[For more information, contact Laura Cook Beiser, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, P.O.
Box 10385, Jackson, MS 39289-0385. Phone: (601) 961-5373. FAX: (601) 354-6612.]
Washington State Commits FY93 Revolving Loan Funds
to Five Facility and Eight Nonpoint Source Projects
Washington State Department of Ecology's FY 93 Intended Use Plan for its State Revolving
Fund (SRF) contains eight nonpoint source control projects totalling approximately $3.2
million.
Five of the eight nonpoint loan projects will establish local loan funds — four at the county
level and one at a conservation district level. Low-interest loans can be made to individuals
from these funds to help meet nonpoint pollution abatement requirements. Three of these
funds will be used for septic system repair and two for implementing best management
practices on dairy farms.
Additional projects include a $1.6 million loan to the city of Olympia for construction of a
stormwater management facility, a loan to a county to cover matching funds for groundwater
monitoring, and a loan to the Washington State Conservation Commission to assist in
developing a nonprofit plant materials nursery for nonpoint pollution control projects located
statewide.
Washington State has pioneered the use of SRF funds for nonpoint pollution control projects.
Nonpoint projects have been included in each of the three years of the fund's existence.
The plan also contains five local treatment plant construction projects totalling approximately
$38.3 million.
[For more information, contact: Bryan Howard, Department of Ecology, Water Quality Assistance Program,
P.O. Box47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600. Phone: (206) 438-7515.]
-------
Agricultural Notes
New Farm Computer Program Reveals Potential
for Nitrogen Leaching and Surface Runoff
A field test of PLANETOR, the new Extension Service farm decision support computer
program, revealed a Delaware farm's potential for nitrogen leaching, surface water runoff, and
other environmental risks, reported University of Delaware Farm Management Specialist H.
Don Tilmori. The computer program guides farmers in analyzing their crop and livestock
enterprises and production practices, while helping them eliminate-or control water pollution
and other environmental problems. ,
News-Notes first reported on PLANETOR in August 1990 (issue #7), when the program was in
an early operational stage. Sii;ice that time, databases of local information essential to
PLANETOR analysis have befen constructed in cooperating states and farmers enlisted to test
the program. :
Tilmon, one of 230 agricultural professionals in 15 states who helped test the program, said
PLANETOR showed that current practices on the Delaware crop and livestock farm had a
medium potentials for both soil erosion and nitrogen leaching, while the potential for pesticide
leaching and surface runoff was much greater.
Based on the PLANETOR analysis, a revised farm plan called for the use of reduced herbicide
rates and a single cultivation (if necessary). The other pesticide application rates, however,
were unchanged. This area is a weak link in the PLANETOR program and will be addressed in
later versions of the program, said Tilmon. ' ._
According to/the new plan, broiler manure would be tested and applied in quantities that
would furnish 60 pounds of nitrogen in year one (based on mineralization rates). One hundred
feeder pigs were added under the revised plan, bringing the total to 300, while the broiler
chicken operation was left unchanged.
PLANETOR projected reduced erosion and nitrogen leaching under the1 revised plan. Tilmon
added that more work is being done in the "soils-chemical" area in the next version of the
program model. The next version of the program will also calculate phosphorus application
rates to address the problem of overapplication of this nutrient.
In the new farm plan, water control structures in the drainage ditches will have a dual role
controlling runoff and subsurface irrigating the crop. Net farm income from the revised plan
was slightly lower but not significantly so, reported Tilmon.
The farm owner indicated that he looked to Extension Service and Soil Conservation Service
staffs to furnish scientific information on rotations and pesticide use. He said he was willing to
change any of his practices if he could see research-based data indicating that he should make
a change and how much the change would cost him.
The Center for Farm Financial Management, University of Minnesota Cooperative Extension
Service conducted the programming on PLANETOR in cooperation with a national Low Input
Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) project by University of Missouri Extension. Version II of
PLANETOR, currently being programmed at the Center for Farm Financial Management at thl
University of Minnesota, is expected to be ready for general distribution and use in late fall or
early winter 1992-93, according to Tilmon. . '• . "
[For additional information, contact: the Center for Farm Financial Management, University of Minnesota
Extension Service, 249 Classroom Office Bldg., 1994 BufordAve., St. Paul, MN 55108. Phone: (612)
625-1964. Or, contact: H. Don Tilmon, University of Delaware Farm Management. Specialist, 129
Townsend Hall, Newark, DE 19717-1303. Phone: (302) 831-1325. FAX: (302) 831-3651.]
"Alliance for Residue Management" —
USDA's Three-Year Action Plan
Nearly 75 percent of the 135 million acres of highly credible land on the nation's farms will be
under some kind of conservation residue management in order for farmers to meet the
conservation compliance requirements of the 1985 and 1990 farm bills, according to SCS
National Agronomist David L. Schertz. USDA has developed a three-year Crop Residue
^ Management Action Plan (CRMAP) to assist farmers in implementing their conservation plans.
-------
"Alliance for Residue
Management" —
USDA's Three-Year'
Action Plan
(continued)
Schertz said in a speech at the 1992 national meeting of the Soil and Water Conservation
Society that one of the most important aspects of the CRM initiative is building Crop Residue
Management alliances. By involving key entities in American agriculture, commonality of
information can be delivered to farmers.
Schertz said a national alliance has been formed that includes government agencies, industry,
farm media, commodity groups, and grower associations. The USDA-coordinated initiative
involves the Soil Conservation Service, Extension Service, Agricultural Stabilization and ^
Conservation Service, Agricultural Research Service, Economic Research Service, Farmers
Home Administration, Federal Crop Insurance Corp., National Agricultural Stashes Service,
and the Cooperative State Research Service. This cooperative initiative is considered a
landmark because of the close USD A agency coordination through the three-year Action I Ian.
The objectives of the Action Plan.are to
• develop a coordinated initiative between government agencies, agribusiness, and
organizations,
• increase information delivery to the farming community, particularly through local
agricultural dealers,
• increase technical training among local personnel, and
• increase technical assistance to farmers to help them implement their conservation
plans.
With the help of the broad agricultural alliance, voluntary compliance with the farm bills can
be achieved by 1995, Schertz told the conferees. States are encouraged to seek counsel of their
state and local leaders, using their existing Food and Agriculture Council Committees. States
and localities also need to identify challenges and opportunities for implementing CRM and
work together to persuade industry and state organizations to become active participants in
already existing government alliances.
SCS Changes a Term
Schertz explains that SCS has changed a philosophy regarding the use of the term
"conservation tillage." SCS is placing less emphasis on that term and more on crop residue
management." The main reason for the change, according to Schertz, is that many individuals,
including agribusiness and other agencies, felt that "conservation tillage" identified only
no-till Although no-till may provide a very high level of erosion reduction, there are other
tillage types, such as mulch-till and ridge-till, that leave sufficient amounts of crop residue on
the soil surface to achieve significant erosion reduction.
[For more information, contact: David L Schertz, National Agronomist, Ecological Sciences Division
USDA-SCS P.O Box 2890, Washington, D.C. 20013. Phone: (202) 720-3783, FAX: (202) 720-2646, Or,
Jim L. Bushnell, National Program Leader-Agronomy, USDA-ES, Rm. 3341 South Bldg., Washington, D.C.
Phone: (202) 720-4341. FAX: (202) 720-4924.],
Notes on The Coastal Environment
CCMP for Buzzards Bay Signed
EPA Administrator Bill Reilly presented the signed Buzzards Bay Comprehensive
Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) approval letters to the Buzzards Bay staff at a
meeting in Boston April 20. Buzzards Bay, located between Cape Cod and the southern coast
of mainland Massachusetts, is the second National Estuary Program (NEP) to complete its
CCMP. Puget Sound, located off the coast of Washington, was the first to complete its CCMP,
which was signed in the fall of 1991.
The CCMP identifies three priority problems for Buzzards Bay, including:
1. Pathogens associated with the improper treatment or disposal of human wastes and
the subsequent health risks and closures of shellfish beds;
2. Excessive nutrient inputs to the bay and their potential for degrading water quality
and causing loss of habitat; and
11
-------
CCMPfor
Buzzards Bay Signed
(continued)
3. Contamination of fish, shellfish, and lobsters by toxic substances.
Development of this CCMP has resulted in some major accomplishments, including creation
and adoption of the country's first zoning overlay protection district specifically intended to
limit nitrogen entering marine waters; creation of the Buzzards Bay Action Committee to
exchange innovative approaches and strategies among 13 municipalities and develop regional
solutions (this is the first regional organization of its type in Buzzards Bay); and incorporation
of enforceable CCMP elements into the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program,
thus ensuring long-term commitment to implementation from state agencies.
In addition to the Buzzards Bay Project staff, the meeting was attended by Julie Belaga, Region
I administrator, and Jeff Benoit, director of Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program.
[For more information, contact: Joe Costa, Buzzards Bay Project, 2 Spring St., Marlon, MA 02378 Phone-
(508)748-3600.]
NEP and CZM Programs Different But Complementary
Coastal Zone Management Program National Estuary Program
Plans govern activities along the entire
length of the state's coast (the coastal
zone includes the territorial sea and
coastal lands as determined necessary
by the state to protect coastal
resources).
Plans are developed by the states, with
public hearings in affected coastal
areas.
Plans are approved by NOAA and
must be based on "enforceable
policies."
• CZMA provides both program
development and administration grants
to states.
CZMA provides for a periodic federal
review and evaluation of approved
coastal programs, and NOAA has the
authority'to impose monetary sanctions
or decertify a state program in the
event of serious state deviation from
the approved program.
States with approved coastal
management programs are authorized
to review federal activities, licenses,
and permits for consistency with the
enforceable policies of the state
program. Federal licenses and permits
may not be issued if they are
inconsistent with the state's coastal
program.
• Plans are designed to protect
resources of specific estuarine
watersheds nominated by governors
and selected by EPA.
• Plans are developed by a Management
Conference composed of affected
federal, state, and local agencies and
representatives of industry, the
scientific community, and the general
public.
• Plans are approved by EPA and must
contain "recommended priority
corrective actions," but these
recommendations a,re not required to
be enforceable.
• NEP grants are authorized only for
development of the management plan.
Implementation of the plans is to be
funded through other sections of the
Clean Water Act (e.g., section 319
NPS grants, SRF loans under Title VI)
and by state and local participants.
• After approval of the plan, EPA has a
responsibility to monitor
implementation of the plan but has no
formal mechanism for ensuring
implementation.
• NEP management conferences are
responsible for reviewing federal
financial assistance and development
projects (not federal licenses and
permits) for consistency with the plan.
Federal agencies are required only to
"accomodate or explain" in response to
comments received through the state
clearinghouse process.
12
-------
Notes on Riparian & Watershed Management
Restoration of Florida's Upper St. Johns River Basin
Helps Heal Headwater Marshes
EDITOR'S NOTE- This is a report on the upper St. Johns River in east-central Florida and the major resto-
ration work going on there these days. A century ago, the vast marshes of central and south Florida
were drained in the name of progress. Cities, towns, farms, and citrus groves sprang up where
wetlands had formed the headwaters of the two major river systems in Florida — the St. Johns River
flowing north and the Kissimmee-Okeechobee chain flowing south to the Everglades. Restoration ef-
forts to repair the unintended effects to the environment are underway on both river systems. We re-
ported on the restoration plans on the Kissimmee in News-Notes, Issue #18 (Jan-Feb '92), which is
available on the NFS. BBS News-Notes database. We now report on the St. Johns.
The large and significant part of this story lies in the lessons learned from the fact that construction of
the original St. Johns project was stopped in its tracks when a 1970 Environment Impact Statement re-
vealed that serious environmental destruction would result from carrying out the single-purpose flood
control project The totally redesigned project now under construction is the result of a wholly different
understanding. A river system — a watershed, if you please — cannot be treated for a single purpose
like flood control or agricultural irrigation; it must be treated as a sum of all of its uses and functions,
holistically including its support of living things. If you have to deal with flood control or irrigation, you
have to be sure that the critters that live there can survive and that water quality is assured for man
and beast alike. That's quite a lesson to learn.
We first discussed the St. Johns project with Carol Fall at the recent national Rural Clean Water Project
symposium held in Orlando, FL. Carol is an 'environmental specialist working on the project. She fol-
lowed up our talks by sending us a lot of informative material on the St. Johns River Management Dis-
trict and the project. The story that follows has been adapted from that material. Thanks, Carol, for
your willing and enthusiastic help. — Hal Wise, Editor
The District and Its Setting
The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), one of five regional districts in
Florida, covers 21 percent of the state's total area. Through research, planning, and regulation,
the District is responsible for managing all the ground-water and surface water resources
within its 19-county area of northeast and east-central Florida.
The SJRWMD area is rich in water resources, including rivers, creeks, lakes, lagoons, marshes,
and other wetlands. So rich, in fact, that much of the resource has been destroyed or seriously
impaired over the years by attempts to "control" the water and develop incompatible land
uses. Whole ecosystems have been seriously altered or wiped out with the concomitant loss m
fish and wildlife resources and the degradation of water resources. Resource restoration and
reclamation is therefore one of the principal missions of SJRWMD.
Within the District is the Indian River lagoon system, which stretches 155 miles along the
Atlantic Ocean from New Smyrna Beach south to Jupiter Inlet, making up 40 percent of
Florida's east coast. Six federal parks, two wildlife refuges, and a national seashore are located
within the lagoon system.
The lagoon acts as a breeding ground and nursery for aquatic animals. It has the highest
species diversity of any estuary (where salt- and freshwater mix) in North America, with more
than 4,300 species of animals and plants. Among that number are 35 rare and endangered
species.
The .St. Johns River is a major resource in the District. It is the only major river in the United
States entirely in one state that flows in a northerly direction for the greater part of its length. It
begins in the broad marshes west of Vero Beach and meanders 310 miles northward before it
meets the Atlantic Ocean at Mayport. The St. Johns River has been key to northeast Florida's
development and economy since the 1500s. As a major deepwater port for international
shipping, it is also home to the second largest U.S. Navy base on the east coast. The city of
Jacksonville is located on the lower Stjohns River.
Along the way, the St. Johns River drains 9,169 square miles — about one-sixth of the state.
The river's combined sport and commercial fishing industry's economic impact is more than
$100 million per year.
13
-------
Restoration of Florida's
Upper St. Johns River
Basin Helps Heal
Headwater Marshes
(continued)
Governor Lawton Chiles has petitioned EPA to designate the last 100 miles of the St. Johns as an
estuary of national significance. This lower section of the river drains 2,777 square miles in six
counties. Chiles commented, "The St. Johns River is truly a unique and irreplaceable natural
and economic resource. It is our responsibility and obligation to do all within our power to
protect and restore the river."
!
Upper St. Johns River Basin Project
Chronology of the Upper St. Johns Project:
• 1954 — Congress authorizes flood control works in the upper St. Johns River Basin.
• 1957 — Initial project^ design completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Design includes large upland reservoirs to store water and canals to move flood
waters to the Indian River Lagoon.
• 1966 — Construction begins.
• 1970 — Environmental impact study begins.
• 1972 — Construction halted while additional environmental assessments are
conducted. ',
• 1974 — Project deemed unacceptable for environmental reasons.
• "I977 — Project sponsorship transferred to SJRWMD; major replanning begins.
• 1980 — Basic project design concept design adopted by SJRWMD favors replacing
flood storage in the historic river basin.
• 1982 — Corps of Engineers determines project design is economically feasible and
warrants federal participation. :
• 1986 — Current project design approved based on "semi-structural" water
management concept.
• 1988 — Construction jbegins.
• 1992 — Several major water control structures and project levees completed; major
parts of project now operational.
• 1995 — Construction expected to be completed.
In the Beginning •
In the early 1900s, the steam shovel opened Florida's watery interior for "reclamation." Grand
water management schemes — often supported by the government — included plans to drain
extensive areas of marshlands for agricultural production and private development.
A network of private canals was constructed across the marshes. Some cut through a low-land
ridge separating waters in the;upper St. Johns marsh from the Indian River. Through these
canals, large amounts of freshwater were diverted from the St. Johns River Basin to the Indian
River Lagoon and the Atlantic Ocean. As dikes were constructed and pumps installed to meet
private flood protection needs, thousands of acres of nutrient-rich floodplains were opened for
citrus, cattle, and row crops.
Over the past several decades, a significant loss of historical floodplain marsh in the upper St.
Johns River basin resulted in major flooding and water quality problems. Loss of wetland
habitat resulting from floodplain encroachment practices has severely altered the natural
hydrologic regime of the marsh ecosystem. The impacts of lost floodplain storage was
especially acute after major hurricanes in the 1920s and 1940s resulted in devastating floods in
the central and southern parts of Florida.
Congress authorized federal flood control action in the upper St. Johns River basin in 1954. The
Corps of Engineers completed initial project designs in 1957 and 1962. Construction started in
1966.
Under the 1960s plan, flood stages would be reduced in the upper reaches of the basin by
diverting large amounts of water from the St. Johns River to the Indian River Lagoon during
major storm events. Downstream flood stages would be attenuated by detention and storage of
runoff in large reservoirs west of the river valley. By 1970, the diversion canal system to Indian
River Lagoon was fully operational and the reservoir system was near completion.
Environmental Impact Statement Prepared
In 1970, the Corps began preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required
by the then-new National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In 1972, construction within the
upper St. Johns basin was halted pending completion of a more comprehensive EIS. After a
technical evaluation of the EIS in 1974, the state of Florida determined that the project was
14
-------
Restoration of Florida's
Upper St. Johns River
Basin Helps Heal
Headwater Marshes
(continued)
unacceptable for several environmental reasons. Environmental concerns included the
potential adverse impacts of freshwater discharges into the Indian River Lagoon and the
potential for severe water quality and habitat degradation of the natural upland drainage
systems. As a result, project construction was indefinitely suspended.
In 1974, local sponsorship of the project was transferred from the Central and Southern Florida
Flood Control District to SJRWMD, which was created by the legislature in 1972. The SJRWMD
conducted an extensive study resulting in a major'reconnaissance report in 1980. The report
described basin conditions. A citizens advisory committee, whose membership was
representative of basin interests, worked with SJRWMD staff to develop the Basic Design
Concept (BDC) that the SJRWMD governing board adopted in November 1980.
The BDC called for plugging the canals to the Indian River Lagoon and replacing flood water
storage structures in the basin with the use of reclaimed marshland for flood control. Water
quality was to be improved by keeping agricultural runoff from entering the river.
In 1982, the Corps determined that a plan consistent with the BDC would be economically
justifiable and warrant federal participation. The Corps presented several alternative plans
consistent with the BDC. The SJRWMD governing board approved a recommended plan,
which has a 1.7 benefit/cost ratio, in February 1983. The current plans, including the EIS, were
released in June 1985 .
Project Description
The project is situated in east-central Florida just southwest of Melbourne in Brevard, Indian
River, and Osceola counties.
The upper St. Johns river basin drains a watershed of some 2,000 square miles, an area larger
than the state of Delaware. The project will more than double the functional wetlands in the
river's headwaters region. When finished in 1995, the project will have restored more than
125,000 acres of marshlands to hold water for fish and wildlife and to feed the river in dry
seasons.
The project plan revitalizes the river's flow by restoring drained marshlands, plugging canals,
and building reservoirs to store and reuse agricultural runoff. As a part of the plan, several
water control structures will allow water to "sheet flow" unimpeded through the river's
marshes. Thus, the project is "semi-structural" in design and function. It relies more on
restored wetlands to hold and release flood waters, rather than dams, which are common with
more traditional water projects. Under maximum storm conditions, the project will hold
500,000 acre-feet of water — enough water to cover an 85-square-mile area 10 feet deep.
Agricultural drainage will be separated from existing marshes to improve water quality in the
river. Water levels throughout the project areas will be managed to simulate natural marsh
conditions to improve fish and wildlife habitat.
Costs for this $165 million project are being shared by the SJRWMD and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Current project costs have been estimated as follows:
Flood Damage Reduction $46.5 m
Recreation Construction 4.7 m
Engineering & Design 9.9 m
Project Lands & Right of Way 87.3 m
Relocation 11.3m
Construction Management 5.7 m
Total $165.4 m
All construction costs are paid by the federal government. The SJRWMD is responsible for
acquiring lands needed to build and operate the project. Land costs are funded primarily
through property taxes levied by the District and Florida's Save Our Rivers Trust Fund.
Recreation development costs are shared equally between the Corps of Engineers and the
District.'
The multiple benefits include
• reducing damages from floods,
• improving water quality,
• curtailing freshwater flows to the Indian River Lagoon,
• restoring fish and wildlife habitat, and
• increasing public recreational opportunities.
IS
-------
Restoration of Florida's
Upper St. Johns River
Basin Helps Heal
Headwater Marshes
(continued)
Much qf the project area is operated as a wildlife management area in cooperation with the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The project will also support a broad range of
active and passive recreational activities, including fishing, hunting, boating, nature study,
hiking, and camping. An outstanding recreational feature of the project is the 20,000-acre Ft.
Drum Conservation Area in southwest Indian River County. The Blue Cypress Marsh
Conservation Area includes 29,500 acres also in Indian River County. Blue Cypress Lake and the
surrounding marsh, now one of the top sport fisheries in the state, lie within the conservation
area.
The project will serve as a national model of floodplain management, according to Maurice
Sterling, assistant director of engineering for the water management district, who heads the
Upper St. Johns Project.
In a summary report prepared on the project, the District wrote:
Water managers acknowledge that at best, their efforts are corrective surgery to restore the
river to functional — not prime — conditions. But the project will help balance the special
needs of the river with those of the people and creatures who will depend on it for many years
to come.
[For more information, contact Maurice Sterling, Projects Coordinator, Upper St. Johns River Basin
Project, SJRWMD, P.O. Box 1429,\ Palatka, FL 32178-1429. Phone: (904) 329-4500.]
In Michigan, Outreach and Partnerships Key
To Protection of Grand Traverse Bay
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was submitted by Mark Breederland (currently on leave from the Northwest
Michigan Council of Governments to the International Joint Commission), P.O. Box 32869 Detroit Ml
48232. (313) 226-2170. Thank you, Mark.
16
Over 40 local governments in the Grand Traverse Bay watershed of Lake Michigan have
mobilized an impressesive public education effort aimed at preserving and protecting the bay's
water quality. The keystone of the effort was an international conference hosted by the
community. The conference brought 1500 scientists, citizens, and policy makers to the shores of
Grand Traverse Bay and focused public attention on the bay's resources and the need to
preserve them.
Located on the northwest side of Michagan's lower peninsula, Grand Traverse Bay is key to the
quality of life of the watershed's 100,000 year-round residents and numerous visitors. Protection
of the area is imperative if the watershed is to sustain the area's tourism- and recreation-based
economy. The bay, a deep coldwater inlet, is distinctive for its oligotrophlc water quality, and
area residents are vividly aware of its beauty and fragility.
In the late 1980s, small localized Cladophora algae growths began to signal degradation of bay
water quality. Recognizing the all-too-rare opportunity to protect a resource before serious
water quality problems occurred, a committed core of citizens and local agnecies banded
together to begin a multi-year initiative protection effort. A 319 grant through the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was instrumental in starting this process.
Most important was coordinating the basin's many local governmental jurisdictions, each of
which manages its own land-use planning and zoning as permitted under Michigan law.
Coordination among these various entities is essential for adequate management of the
973-square-mile watershed, particularly as development pressures increase. A long-term
management team that included state, local, citizen and business members was jointly
facilitated through the regional multi-county agencies — the Northwest Michigan Council of
Governments (NWMCOG) and the Northwest Michigan Resource Conservation &
Development Council (RC&D)< '•
Seeking a way to highlight the bay's uniqueness in the Great Lakes basin and the need for
proactive measures, the team invited the International Joint Commission (IJC) to hold its 1991
biennial meeting in Traverse City. (The IJC is a treaty organization between the United States
and Canada charged with overseeing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement signed between
the^two countries in 1972.) The whole community was excited to find out in June 1990 that the
IJC's international conference would be held near the shores of Grand Traverse Bay.
Watershed-wide.plans began immediately. The management team enlisted an enthusiastic
group of teachers, citizens, and business people to begin working on creative ways to reach out
and involve the local community in an educational celebration of water quality during the IJC
event. The team's key motivating factor was the unique opportunity for long-term impact on
-------
n Michigan, Outreach
d Partnerships Key To
Protection of Grand
Traverse Bay
(continued)
local residents. Several months before the meeting, the daily newspaper began to work on a
series of stories about the Grand Traverse Bay.
The IJC Biennial Meeting in October 1991 was a huge outreach success in the Grand Traverse
region. Four high school coed track teams from throughout the watershed did a "Run For The
Bay" and were greeted by IJC Commissioners and the Lt. Governor. A special Great Lakes
museum display from the Chicago Academy of Sciences was brought in and opened to school
groups and the public for three weeks. A street theater group, Trinity Theatre of Toronto,
produced sketches related to water quality and growth management issues that were
performed by local elementary and secondary school students. Great Lakes research vessels,
including the Lake Guardian, docked and gave tours. A special dinner presentation about the
bay was given to over 400 guests at the conference.
Electronic and print media coverage was extensive, including a tremendous series of articles
that ran for six days in the Traverse City Record-Eagle. The compilation of these articles won
several press awards, including an environmental award from the American Planning
Association.
After the conference, the long-term management team recognized the need to solidify
partnerships. NWMCOG and RC&D drafted a generalized partnership agreement. This
non-legal binding partnership agreement focuses on the mission statement: "The ecological
integrity of the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed will be sustained or restored to ensure regional
economic viability and quality use by future generations." More than 80 organizations
representing agriculture; economic development; education; local, state, and federal
government; and environmental and non-profit groups (such as land conservancies) have
signed this agreement and send one representative to quarterly partnership meetings. The
partnership committee is currently forming specific target committees (i.e. education, water
quality modeling, land protection) for coordinating efforts.
Fostering additional excitement in the community is an innovative educational program that
began in 1989. The Inland Seas Education Association (ISEA) takes students out on the Grand
Traverse Bay aboard a Great Lakes schooner, teaching ecological and maritime concepts. This
program is highly visible in the local media and was also featured in a 1991 National
Geographic special on the Great Lakes. Over 6,000 students from the Great Lakes region have
now had this learning experience, and ISEA is in process of building its own "science ship"
schooner to further expand their outreach.
Current initiative work includes an institutional analysis funded through CWA §604(b) to
explore options for long-term management structures such as watershed councils. An
EPA-funded watershed demonstration project for wetlands in partnership with the Michigan
DNR is in the works, and EPA recently awarded environmental education money to get
children involved in a water quality sampling project.
Scientific information about the bay is still needed. Grand Traverse Bay was the study site of a
large Sea Grant-funded program in the early 1970s, but little data has been gathered in well
over a decade. NWMCOG has secured 319 funding through the Michigan DNR for a year
study to begin this effort by compiling historical data and gathering select nutrient runoff data
completed in 1991.
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative began through local recognition of the value of
clean water and was launched into the the community's mainstream through creative use of a
large water quality conference and outstanding local media coverage.
The partnership agreement to involve the many stakeholders from early on will help ensure
that needed protective actions are taken by all sectors. The Initiative is seeking resources to
provide scientific information to local land use decision-makers and encourage watershed
planning. According to the IJC Sixth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, the IJC was
"extremely impressed by the community's commitment to develop a model program and
support its desire to be the first area designated as a high-quality or sustainable development
area worthy of long-term protection." Given the motivated citizens of the region and the
committed partnerships that have been formed, the Grand Travis Bay is off to a good start in a
long-term process!
[For further information on the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative, contact: Amy Johnson, Northwest
Michigan RC&D Council, (616) 946-6817); or, Amy Pflughoeft, NWMCOG, P.O. Box 506, Traverse City Ml
49685. Phone: (616) 929-5000. For more information on the Inland Seas Education Association, contact:
Tom Kelly, Director, Inland Seas Education Association, P.O. Box 4223, Traverse City Ml 49685. Phone:
(616)271-3077.]
17
-------
Notes on Atrazine
What Is Atrazine? An Editor's Note.
Atrazine is the most widely used herbicide in U. S. corn and sorghum production. It was first
marketed to U.S. farmers in 1959. In 1991, 51 million pounds of active ingredient of atrazine
were applied to 40 million corn acres (62 percent of the U.S.fcrop). The average application rate
was 1.3 pounds per acre. Approximately 4.1 million pounds of atrazine were applied to 67
percent of the 3.8 million sorghum acres in a Midwest study area.
Atrazine has been identified as a potential pollutant of surface water in the Midwest. A U.S.
Geological Survey study of 122 river basins in 12 midwestern states found that transient
atrazine concentrations exceeded EPA's maximum contaminant level of 3 parts per billion in
27 percent of raw water samples. As a result, EPA might restrict or ban the use of atrazine in
the affected areas. EPA currently classifies atrazine as a potential human carcinogen.
We realize that there are many sides to the atrazine issue. This series is not intended to be an
exhaustive treatment of the subject, nor is it meant to promote the particular viewpoint of any
of the actors. The articles that follow summarize recent reports on the atrazine-related events.
Readers wishing to explore atrazine issues in greater depth are encouraged to obtain the
documents cited or contact the people listed at the end of each artcile. Some of these
documents may be available on the NFS BBS. See Neivs-Notes #5 (June 1990) and #21 (May
1992) for other atrazine-related stories.
USGS Survey Finds Atrazine
in the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Atrazine was detected in each of 146 water samples collected from eight sites on the
Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri rivers and on three smaller tributaries in April, May, and June
1991 by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). The results from the first three months of the
year-long study were released in November 1991 in a report, Distribution of Selected Herbicides
and Nitrate in the Mississippi River and its Major Tributaries.
The report's senior author, Hydrologist Don Goolsby, said, "One of the significant findings of
the study is that atrazine concentrations were found to exceed EPA's maximum contaminant
level (MCL) continuously for several weeks in rivers as large as the Missouri and Mississippi.
These rivers drain areas of more than half a million square miles." The report said the
concentration of atrazine exceeded the MCL for drinking water, 3 ug/L or 3 ppb, in 27 percent
of the samples and at six of the eight sampling sites.1 One site near St. Louis, Missouri, showed
atrazine concentration exceeding the MCL 35 percent of the time between May 1 and Julv 28,
1991. *
The study found that atrazine concentrations increased in early May in response to rainfall
that occurred after herbicide application and then began to decrease in early to mid-June.
Herbicide concentrations in the smaller tributaries began to increase in early to mid-May and
were generally were highest between early May and early June, according to the USGS report.
Increases in concentrations were smaller and more gradual in the larger tributaries and rivers,
where peak concentrations also occurred later.
According to the report, the median concentrations of atrazine ranged from 0.29 micrograms
per liter (ug/L) in the Mississippi River at Clinton, Iowa, to 3.2 ug/L in the White River at
Hazelton, Indiana. Maximum concentrations measured for atrazine were 6.3 to 10 ug/L for the
smaller tributaries and 3.7 to 5.7 ug/L in samples from the lower Mississippi and Missouri
rivers.
The USGS report included the results of mass-transport calculations for atrazine to determine
the predominant source area. These calculations indicate that about 37 percent of the atrazine
discharged from the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico entered the river from streams
draining Iowa and Illinois. The second largest source area was the Missouri River basin.
The data in the report are for untreated river water; MCLs apply to water supplied to the user after treatment. However conventional
treatment processes generally do not remove these herbicides.
18
-------
USGS Survey Finds Besides atrazine, the study also looked at four other herbicides (alachlor, cyanazine,
Atrazine in the metolachlor, and simazine) and nitrate-nitrogen. Alachlor exceeded the MCL-of 2 jxg/L in 4
Mississippi River and percent of the samples.
Tributaries [For more jnformati0n or to obtain single copies of the report, Distribution of Selected Herbicides and
(continued) Nitrate in the Mississippi River and Its Major Tributaries, Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4163,
contact: Donald A. Goolsby, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Box 25046, MS 406,
Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Phone: (303) 236-5937. To order more than one copy, contact:
USGS, Books and Open-File Reports, Federal Center, Box 25046, Denver, CO 80225. Phone: (303)
236-7476.]
Economic Assessment of Restricting
or Banning Atrazine
In response to concerns about atrazine as a contaminant of ground and surface water, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and state land grant universities, under the National Agricultural
Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP), assessed the economic impacts of potential
restrictions on atrazine and other triazine herbicide use. The assessment focused on corn and
sorghum because they are the major crops for which atrazine is used in the study area, which
includes Corn Belt, Lake, and Northern Plains states and Kentucky.
The report was based on statistics of current product use and on the expert opinions of weed
scientists in the major corn- and sorghum-producing states of the Midwest.
Report Claims Atrazine Restrictive Actions Cause Economic Losses
According to the NAPIAP summary report, The Effects of Restricting or Banning Atrazine Use to
Reduce Surface Water Contamination in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, restrictions on the use of
atrazine could be economically damaging. NAPIAP used the following four levels of
restriction to calculate economic loss:
• Limit 1. Restriction of atrazine application rates to 1.5 pounds of a.i. per acre on
preemergence applications and to 1 pound per acre on postemergence applications.
• Limit 2. Restriction of atrazine application rates to 1 pound a.i. per acre on
postemergence applications and ban all other atrazine applications.
• Limit 3. Banning the use of atrazine.
• Limit 4. Banning the use of atrazine and all other triazines (including ametryn,
cyanazine, metribuzin, and simazine).
NAPIAP found that economic loss, measured by the sum of producer plus consumer losses,
increased as the limits became more restrictive. The least restrictive limit, Limit 1, would result
in an annual loss of $80 million, while Limit 4 would cause $1.2 billion to be lost annually, the
report said.
The report said data indicated that limits would become less cost-effective in reducing atrazine
use as they become more restrictive. Each pound of atrazine a.i. eliminated under Limit 1
would cost producers and consumers $8. The average economic loss of eliminating all
triazines would be about $16 per pound.
The report said that .the restrictions in the study region would increase corn prices between
one and four percent and that sorghum prices would increase 3 percent.
Report Predicts Restriction Will Increase Use of Other Herbicides
According to NAPIAP, restrictions on atrazine or triazines could increase the use of other
herbicides and cultivation. Some of the other triazines replacing atrazine could need to be
used at higher rates. The quantity of herbicides in pounds a.i. would only decrease, the report
said, if all triazines were banned. NAPIAP reported that if triazines were banned, farmers
would rely more on postemergence herbicides with lower application rates. "Although total
treatments with herbicides would not decrease," the report continued, "chemical use on
triazine acres, as measured by pounds a.i., would decrease 36 percent of trianzine weight."
The report pointed out that increased cultivation resulting from restricting triazines could
potentially increase sedimentation and soil erosion.
The report noted that development of herbicide-resistant corn could result in weed
management strategies that could reduce surface runoff and hence water contamination.
__
-------
Economic However, the report said, the practices are not currently available to farmers, and no data are
Assessment of available on the ramifications of their use, so they were not considered in the assessment
Restricting or m
Banning Atrazine The report concluded:
(continued) This study did not estimate the effect that the restrictions would have on the contamination of
surface water with atrazine, other triazines, other pesticides, or sediments.
NAPIAP recommended that the potential impacts of increased use of alternative chemicals
and cultivation on health or the environment be evaluated before banning or restricting
atrazine or triazine use.
A limited quantity of the NAPIAP summary report is available from the office of Nancy
Ragsdale, Director, NAPIAP, Rm. 321-A, USD A Administration Bldg., 14th and Independence
Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250.
[For additional information contact: David R. Pike, Weed Scientist, NAPIAP Chairman, Dept. of Agronomy,
University of Illinois, Turner Hall, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801. Phone:(217)333-4424.]
USDA Response to Atrazine in Surface Waters
A report entitled Atrazine in Sfirface Waters was released in May 1992 by USDA's Working
Group on Water Quality (WGWQ). The report was produced by an ad hoc, interagency
(USDA, USGS, and EPA) task group to the WGWQ. The report is a response to the
USGS-documented presence of atrazine in surface waters. (See the lead article in this Notes on
Atrazine section, above.) The report describes what the cooperating agencies are doing and
recommends actions to be taken.
i
The WGWQ response is based on EPA's current established Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) of 3 parts per billion (ppb) and the presence of atrazine spikes in the Mississippi River
and some of its tributaries. It takes into consideration the implications of the seasonal
variations of atrazine levels, the ability of public water suppliers to comply with the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the perceptions and concerns of the general public. The
study area of the ad hoc task group includes Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, and
Indiana.
The report indicates concerns of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) about
• the expense of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act regulations,
• possible public anger over higher water costs, and :
• negative public reactions should even temporary non-compliance occur.
The Ciba-Geigy Corp., the principal manufacturer of atrazine, is naturally concerned about
undesirable publicity and possible restrictions on atrazine use. It contends that the use of
appropriate BMPs by farmers will keep atrazine levels in drinking water low enough to meet
the SDWA requirements for nearly all water treatment facilities, and Ciba-Geigy supports the
establishment of atrazine management areas under state authority for those areas where BMPs
are insufficient. In addition, Ciba-Geigy has voluntarily withdrawn atrazine as an industrial
weed control and has made label changes that reduce application rates, eliminate fall
application, and designate atrazine as a restricted-use pesticide. Additional label changes to
deal with surface water concerns have been accepted by EPA and will become effective for the
1993 planting season.
Federal agency actions reported include the following:
• EPA indicates that there is a strong possibility that additional regulatory actions will
be taken on atrazine registrations. The agency is concerned that USDA programs do
not recognize or adequately address the problem of atrazine in surface waters used
as public water supplies.
• USGS has continued to monitor water quality in the Mississippi River and its
tributaries and will continue to interpret and report the data to provide a estimate of
average annual concentrations of atrazine in those surface waters.
• USDA has coordinated its response process to assess the need for its agencies to
redirect water quality programs or activities to further address the issue of pesticides
in surface water. •
Current programs and projects of the USDA, USGS, and EPA are already addressing many
aspects of pesticide management. The USDA has a number of ongoing programs, including
20 - ; '
-------
USDA Response to Integrated Pest Management, Pesticide Applicator Training, and Integrated Crop
Atrazine In Surface Management, that address aspects of water quality. Others include farm management
Waters practices that reduce surface runoff and the Conservation Reserve Program that has removed
(continued) an estimated 8.8 million acres of highly erodible lands from crop production. USDA has begun
16 demonstration projects under the President's Water Quality Initiative, and it has started
projects in 74 USDA Hydrologic Unit Areas.
The report's Plan of Action concludes with this paragraph:
This coordinated response will ensure that the states give appropriate attention to atrazine
and other agricultural chemicals, that the best technology is readily available to farmers, and
that informed and considered decisions are made in the adoption of management practices. It
will also build greater awareness of environmental considerations in the use of agricultural
chemicals and in farm management and will contribute to the intent of the President's
Initiative.
[For additional information contact: Fred N. Swader, Executive Secretary, WGWQ, USDA-OSEC, 324-A
Administration Building, Washington, D.C. 20250-0100. Phone: (202) 720-4751.]
Farmers Voluntarily Reduce
Atrazine Use in Iowa Watershed
During 1991 and early 1992, atrazine levels in drinking water from West Lake in Osceola,
Iowa, exceeded EPA's maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 3 parts per billion. For the 1992
cropping season, farmers in the lake's 6,340-acre watershed dramatically reduced their
atrazine use from an estimated 440 gallons in 1990 to only eight gallons in 1992, reported Alan
Teel, Extension Service field specialist .in integrated crop management. This reduction appears
to have significantly reduced the atrazine levels in water treated for drinking.
The atrazine problem is one of several being addressed by an ongoing project to implement
agricultural BMPs to protect the lake. The 325-acre West Lake is the source of drinking water
for the cities of Osceola and Woodburn and for about 500 rural water users. The lake's water
quality is impacted by runoff from its agricultural watershed. Sediment, nutrients, and
pesticides are major concerns.
Eleven of 13 water samples taken from West Lake by Osceola Municipal Water Department
and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources between June 1990 and April 1992 exceeded
EPA's MCL for atrazine. In contrast, following the drastic reduction in atrazine use in the
watershed, only one of the samples collected has exceeded the MCL. However, monitoring
over a longer period will be necessary to determine if atrazine levels remain this low.
To protect the lake, a comprehensive nonpoint pollution control project emphasizes education,
information, and voluntary adoption of BMPs by farmers. The project also offers financial
incentives for implementing BMPs, such as residue management and other soil conservation
practices on the land, according to Lisa Cooper, SCS district conservationist in Osceola. The
project has already cut soil loss on cropland from an estimated 11.8 tons per acre in 1990 to 7.7
tons per acre in 1992. The project is receiving EPA section 319 funds as well as state funds,
according to Julie Elfving, NFS coordinator, EPA Region VII.
To address the atrazine problem, farmers in the watershed, a farmer advisory board, the
Osceola water board, the Cooperative Extension Service, the Clarke County Soil and Water
Conservation District, local agricultural chemical dealers, and chemical companies held
several meetings. The group reached a consensus to greatly reduce the use of atrazine and
cyanazine in the watershed for the 1992 cropping season. More than 90 percent of the
watershed's farmers voluntarily agreed to reduce or eliminate use of these products in 1992.
Teel said that he is doubtful that farmers will continue to restrict their use of atrazine to 1992
levels in the future. Unfortunately, economics are forcing Osceola's farmers to again consider
using atrazine. Participating farmers said that using alternative herbicides increased costs
about $10 an acre, while corn prices fell to $1.85 a bushel.
[For more Information, contact: Alan Teel, Field Specialist/Integrated Crop Management, Extension
Service, 1171/2 S. Main, Osceola, IA 50213. Phone: (515)342-3316. FAX: same. Or, Lisa Cooper, District
Conservationist, 709Furas, Suites, Osecola, IA50213. Phone:(515)342-2917.]
-------
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES is an occasional bulletin dealing with the condition of the environment and the control of
nonpoint sources of water pollution. NFS pollution comes from many sources and is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and
through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural pollutants and pollutants resulting from human activity,
finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and groundwater. NPS pollution is normally associated with agricul-
tural, silvicultural, mining, and urban runoff. Hydrologic modification is a form of NPS pollution that often adversely affects the biologi-
cal integrity of surface waters. • ;
NPS NEWS-NOTES is published under the authority of section 319(1) of the Clean Water Act by the Nonpoint Source Information
Exchange, (WH-553), Assessment and Watershed Protectipn Division, OWOW, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC 20460. FAX (FTS/202) 260-1517. Hal Wise;(Terrene Institute grantee), Editor;.Elaine Bloom (TetraTech contractor), As-
sociate Editor; Susan V. Alexander (EPA Region VI) and Anne Weinberg (EPA Assessment and Watershed Protection Division), Con-
tributing Editors. Corresponding Editors: Margherita Pryor (EPA Oceans and Coastal Protection Division), Sherri Fields (EPA Wetlands
Division), and John Reeder (EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water); Paula Monroe, Publisher. Unless otherwise attributed,
all material in this bulletin has been prepared by the editors and the views expressed are not statements of EPA policy unless specifi-
cally indentified as such and do not necessarily reflect the views of EPA. Mention of commercial products or publications does not
constitute endorsement, or recommendation for use, by EPA. For inquiries on editorial matters, call (FTS/202) 260-3665 or FAX
(FTS/202) 260-1517. For additions or changes to the mailing list, please use the COUPON on page 27 and mail or FAX it in. We are not
equipped to accept mailing list additions or changes over the phone.
* 1 9 9 2
THE YEAR OF
CLEAN
Rocyctod/Rocydable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contain* at toast 50% recycled fiber
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
NPS News-Notes (WH-553)
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Washington. DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
PRESORTED FIRST CLASS MAIL
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
G-35
------- |