EPA841-S-95-001
                                          January 1995
  A Phase I Inventory of Current
EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems
                 Compiled by

               Tetra Tech, Inc.
          10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
              Fairfax, VA 22030
        Douglas J. Norton, Project Officer
    Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
            Office of Water (4503F)
   United States Environmental Protection Agency
              401 M Street, SW
            Washington, DC 20460

-------
                                   Table of Contents
                                                                                  Page

Introduction	  1

       About the Inventory	  1

       Guidelines for Listing Projects in this Inventory  	  1

       Background: The Edgewater Consensus	  2

       Future of the Inventory   	  3



Part One: Large-Scale Ecosystem Protection Efforts  	  9

       Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System Project	  11
       Chesapeake Bay Program	  12
       Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale
             Assessments	  14
       Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project  	  16
       Colorado River Program	  18
       EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment	  19
       EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment	  20
       Great Lakes Program	  21
       Great Plains Program	  24
       Gulf of Maine Program   	  27
       Gulf of Mexico Program   	  28
       Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project   	  30
       Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative	  31
       Mid-Atlantic Highlands Project (MAHA)	  33
       Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)  	  34
       New England Resource Protection Project  	  36
       Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Management Research Initiative  	  37
       Prairie Potholes/Missouri  Coteau Ecoregion  Assessment	  38
       Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) Ecosystem Assessment	  39
       President's Forest Plan (Pacific Northwest)	  40
       Rio Grande Basin Landscape-Scale Assessment  	  42
       Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Watershed Project	  43
       San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin  Delta Estuary  	  44
       South Florida Geographic Initiative	  47
       Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)	   49
                                         in

-------
                         Table of Contents (cont)
                                                                         Page
 Region II Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries (cont)
       Long Island Sound, CT, NY	106
       New York City Water Supply Watersheds, NY	108
       New York-New Jersey Harbor, NJ, NY	HO
       Niagara River Area of Concern, NY  	HI
       Niagara River Toxics Management Plan, NY  	112
       Onondaga Lake, NY  	     114
       Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern, NY	116
       Peconic Bay, NY  	1 lg
       Rochester Embayment Area of Concern, NY  	120
       St. Lawrence River Area of Concern, NY  	122
       San Juan Bay, PR	124
       Swartswood Lake, NJ  	125

 Region III Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries  	127
       Anacostia River, DC, MD  	129
       Canaan Valley, WV	            131
       Christina River, DE,  PA	133
       Clinch Valley Watershed, VA	135
       Delaware Estuary, NJ, DE  	136
       Delaware Inland Bays, DE	           138
       Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Bays, MD  	           140
       Middle Fork River, WV	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  141
       National Capital Area (NCA) Municipal
             Solid Waste Initiative, DC, MD, VA	142
       Patuxent River Watershed, MD	143
       Pequea and Mill Creeks, PA	144
       Philadelphia Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, PA	146
       Pocono Habitat Demonstration Project, PA	147
       Prince William County Ecosystem Project, VA	148
       Silver Lake, DE  	149
       Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV  	150
       Upper Tennessee River Basin,  VA  	151
       Virginia Eastern Shore Coastal Waters, VA  	152

Region IV Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries 	155
       ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study, AL, FL, GA	157
       Albernarle-Parnlico Sound, NC	158
       Back Bay of Biloxi Ecosystem Assessment, MS	159
       Bayou Chico Ecological Assessment, FL . ,	160
       Bayou Grande Ecological Assessment, FL 	161
       Bayou Texar Ecological Assessment, FL 	162

-------
                         Table of Contents (cont)
                                                                          Page

 Region V Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries (cont)
       Lake Superior EMAP-Great Lakes Assessment, MI, MN, WI	205
       Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, MS, LA,
             AR, TN, KY, MO, IL  	206
       Maumee River Area of Concern, OH	207
       Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern, WI	209
       Mississippi River Gateway Project, IL, MO  	211
       Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative, IN	212
       Saginaw Bay, MI  	214
       Saginaw Bay  Urban Targeting Project, MI	215
       St. Mary's River, MI	216
       Southest Chicago Urban Environmental Initiative, IL	217
       Southeast Michigan Initiative, MI	218
       Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV 	.219

 Region VI Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries  	221
       Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer Project, OK	222
       Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary, LA	223
       Corpus Christi Bay, TX	225
       Galveston Bay Estuary, TX  	226
       Illinois River - Battle Branch, OK	228
       Jornada Long-Term Ecosystem Research Project, NM	 229
       Lake Pontchartrain Basin, LA	    230
       Lake Worth, TX  	,,] .........  . . 231
       Lower Mississippi Alluvial  Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, MS, LA,
             AR,  TN, KY, MO, IL	 232
       Tangipahoa River, LA	233
       Tensas River Basin Initiative, LA  	235

Region VII Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries	239
       Beeds Lake, IA	241
       Big Spring Basin, IA	242
       Centerville Reservoirs Project, IA	243
       Cheyenne Bottoms Wetland project, KS	244
       Clear Lake,  IA 	245
       Eastern Nebraska Saline Wetlands, NE  	 	246
       Elm Creek, NE	247
       Hillsdale  Reservoir, KS  	248
       Iowa Great Lakes, IA	249
      Lower  Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, MS, LA,
             AR, TN, KY, MO, IL	 250
                                  vn

-------
                                        Notice

This document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency review and has been
approved for publication.  Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and  policies  of the Environmental Protection Agency or of any  other organization
represented  in this document.   Mention of trade names  does not  constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This report should be cited as:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to
Protect Ecosystems. EPA841-S-95-001. Office of Water (4503F), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
To obtain copies, contact:

National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)
Phone: (513) 489-8190
Fax:  (513) 891-6685

-------
                              Table of Contents (cont)
                                                                               Page

      Region IX Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries (cont)
             Truckee River, CA, NV	302
             Verde River Advanced Identification (ADID) Project, AZ  	304
             West Maui Watershed, HI  	.306

      Region X Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries	309
             Bear River, ID, UT, WY  	310
             Chehalis River, WA   	311
             Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA	313
             Coeur D'Alerie Basin, ID	315
             Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins, OR	316
             Duck Creek, AK	317
             Grande Ronde River Basin Project, OR	318
             Klamath Basin, CA, OR	319
             Kootenay River, ID, MT, British Columbia  	321
             Lake Roosevelt, WA	322
             Middle Snake River, ID	323
             Pacific Northwestern Watershed Economic Valuation Project, WA	324
             Puget Sound Estuary, WA  	325
             Tillamook Bay, OR	326
             Willamette River Basin, OR	327
             Willapa Bay Watershed Project, WA	328
             Yakima River, WA	329
Part Three: Multisite Ecosystem Protection Efforts	333

      Biodiversity/Habitat Assessment Project	334
      Clean Lakes Program	336
      Ecosystem Management Strategy for Compliance and Enforcement	338
      EPA New England Regional Lead Initiative	339
      GATE Northwestern Riparian Zone  Assessment and Restoration Project  	340
      Gulf Ecological Management Sites  	342
      Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Project	343
      Mississippi River Compliance Initiative  	344
      Multimedia Project  	345
      Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC)	346
      Oak-Savanna Ecosystem Project 	347
      OECA/OC Watersheds Initiative	348
      Pacific Salmon Habitat Recovery Project  	349
      Rocky Mountain Headwaters Mining Waste Initiative 	350
                                         IX

-------
                              Table of Contents (cont)
                                                                               Page
Part One: Large-Scale Ecosystem Protection Efforts (cont)

      Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB)
             Landscape-Scale Assessment  	  50
      Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)	  52
      Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation on
             Ecosystem Management (ICEM)   	  53
Part Two: Regional Summaries of Local-Scale Ecosystem Protection Efforts  	  57

      New England Region Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries  	  63
             Blackstone River, MA	  64
             Buzzards Bay., MA  	  66
             Casco Bay Estuary Project, ME  	  67
             Green Spaces Healthy Places Project, MA  	  68
             Lake Champlain, NY, VT  	  69
             Lake Champlain Advance Planning Area, VT	  71
             Long Island Sound, NY, CT	  72
             Massachusetts Bays Program, MA, NH  	  74
             Massachusetts Bays Program/Mini-Bays  Project, MA  	  76
             Merrimack River, NH, MA   	  77
             Narragansett EJay, MA,  RI 	  79
             New Bedford Harbor Watershed Assessment Project, MA  	  80
             Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Ecological Risk Assessment, NH, ME	  82
             Waquoit Bay, MA	  83

      Region II Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries	  85
             Alcyon Lake, NJ	  87
             Barnegat Bay, NJ  	  88
             Buffalo River Area of Concern, NY  	  89
             Cranberry Lake, NJ	  90
             Deal Lake, NJ	  91
             Delaware Estuary, DE, NJ  	  92
             Eighteenmile Creek Area of Concern, NY  	  94
             Greenwood Lake, NJ, NY  	  95
             Hackensack Meadowlands District, NJ	  97
             Lake Champlain, NY, VT  	  99
             Lake La Plata, PR	101
             Lake Loiza, PR	102
             Lake Musconetcong, NJ	103
             Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, NY, Ontario  	104
                                        IV

-------
                                     Introduction
 About the Inventory

       This Inventory includes summaries of projects that involve EPA and its partners in place-
 based management and ecosystem protection—an approach intended to integrate environmental
 management with human needs, consider long-term ecosystem health, and highlight the positive
 correlations between economic prosperity and environmental well-being.  The  purpose of this
 document is to  let readers throughout EPA and outside the  Agency know  of the increasing
 amount and variety of ecologically oriented activities in which EPA is participating and the many
 places at which  these activities are occurring. The Inventory was prepared under the direction
 of EPA's Ecosystem Protection Task Force.

       The  Inventory covers  ongoing projects and was compiled from submittals by Regions,
 Headquarters Program Offices, and EPA Laboratories. Except for minor editorial changes, the
 summaries appear  exactly as submitted.  About half of these project summaries  were submitted
 originally to the Watershed Protection Approach 1993/94 Activity Report, and the others were
 submitted in response to  Task Force  requests issued Agency-wide.  The submittal process was
 voluntary and as a result  the Inventory is not comprehensive.

       The  Introduction includes a brief description of the Inventory, background information
 about  emerging  EPA policies concerning place-based management and ecosystem protection,
 criteria for projects listed, and thoughts on  revising and improving the Inventory over time.
 Following the Introduction, Part One summarizes EPA's largest ecologically  oriented projects;
 these are large-scale initiatives that cover areas of at least 100,000 square kilometers. Part Two,
 which constitutes most of the report, is  organized by EPA Region and includes summaries of
 ongoing, place-based projects  at the local scale (less than 100,000 square kilometers).  Part Three
 describes multi-site projects  and programs,  in which generally the same  ecosystem-oriented
 activity is carried  out at  a number of places distributed throughout the Region or nation.  A
 national map of  local-scale and large-scale project locations appears on page  5, and a Region-
 specific map accompanies each Regional projects chapter.  To allow each Regional chapter to
 stand alone, projects that extend across Regional boundaries are summarized under each Region
 in which they occur.
Guidelines for Listing Projects in This Inventory

       Focusing on ecosystems and place-based management is new to EPA.  Although many
projects with an ecosystem component have been initiated, few of them involve comprehensive
ecosystem assessment or management at this early stage. Thus, in developing this Inventory, the
Agency's Ecosystem Protection Task Force decided to  be more inclusive  than exclusive of
projects that are just beginning to apply the principles of a place-based,  ecosystem protection
approach.  Although meeting or planning to meet the listing guidelines was important, it was

-------
                         Table of Contents (cont)
                                                                           Page

Region IV Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries (cont)
       Cahaba River Basin Project, AL	163
       Carteret County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, NC  ... 164
       Central Dougherty Plain Wetlands  Advance
             Identification (ADID) Project, GA  	165
       Charleston Harbor Project, SC  	166
       Escambia River Watershed Project, FL  	167
       Hint Creek, AL	168
       Florida Bay Algal Bloom  Monitoring Project, FL	170
       Florida Everglades Mercury Ecological Risk  Assessment, FL	171
       Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, FL  	172
       Florida Keys Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, FL	173
       Huntsville Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, AL  	174
       Indian River Lagoon, FL  	175
       Land-of-Sky Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, NC  	176
       Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley  Wetland Conservation Plan, MS, LA,
             AR, TN, KY, MO, IL 	177
       Loxahatchee River Basin Wetland Planning Project, FL	178
       Mobile Bay Restoration Demonstrations, AL  	179
       Pearl River Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, MS  	180
       Pensacola Bay Watershed  Evaluation, FL	181
       Rookery Bay Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, ₯1.	182
       Sarasota Bay, FL	183
       Savannah River Basin, FL, GA, SC	184
       South Florida Wetlands Permitting  and Mitigation Strategy, FL   	186
       Tampa Bay, FL	188
       Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV  	189
       Weeks Bay Estuarine Research Project, AL  	190
       West Broward County Wetlands  Advance
             Identification (ADID) Project, FL	191
       West Chatham County  Wetlands Advance
             Identification (ADID) Project, GA  	192
       West Kentucky Coalfield Wetlands Advance
             Identification (ADID) Project, KY  	193

Region V Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries	195
      Ashtabula River Area of Concern, OH	196
      Big Darby Creek, OH  	198
      Cache River, IL  	200
      Clinton River Area of Concern, MI	201
      Lake Michigan, IL, IN, MI, WI   	203
                                   VI

-------
 long-term ecosystem health, and highlight the positive correlations between economic prosperity
 and environmental well-being.

        On March 5, 1994, several of EPA's senior managers and scientists met in Edgewater,
 Maryland, to develop a strategy for realizing that goal. The workgroup described a vision for
 reorienting the Agency toward a "place-driven" focus; that is, the work of the Agency would be
 driven by the environmental needs of communities and ecosystems. For any given "place," EPA
 would establish a process for determining long-term ecological, economic, and social needs and
 would reorient its work to help meet those needs.  Although this approach was already being
 demonstrated in a small number of places, the workgroup envisioned that, over  time, the entire
 country would benefit from the approach.

        The Edgewater Consensus workgroup agreed upon several actions, to be carried out in
 the near term,  that would advance EPA toward its goal.  Among other  plans,  the  workgroup
 decided to develop this Inventory:

        . .  . headquarters and  the regional personnel, supported by the Ecosystem
        Protection Workgroup, will conduct a "snapshot" review of the Agency's current
        efforts  to protect ecosystems.  As a part of the snapshot review, the Regional
       Administrators will inventory  and evaluate ecosystem projects at a variety of
       scales across their region.  Regions will work with other federal agencies, state
       and  local agencies, private organizations, and citizen groups  to identify places
       and set priorities.  This review will include a discussion of what other agencies,
       private organizations and state, local and tribal governments are doing. Available
       inventories of ecosystem projects and background materials will be provided to
       support this effort.

 Future of the Inventory

       This document represents the starting point for the Inventory  and several related EPA
 Regional and Headquarters activities.  As any ongoing inventory is never complete and always
 subject  to updates, there is a plan for  this Inventory to be open-ended and periodically revised
 to cover EPA's active place-based projects.  The design of the Inventory, however, might change
 based on how this Phase  I report is used and,  based  on its usage, whether a different format
 would appear to be more useful.

       An interactive, electronic format for the Inventory might be appropriate  as EPA moves
 toward widespread, regular use of its information systems. This Inventory report, for example,
 is currently available in hard copy or in electronic format on EPA's All-in-One Videotex (VTX)
utility.  Future updates of the Inventory might be exclusively electronic and distributed on disk
or publicly accessible on  VTX or EPA's various bulletin boards. Currently, however, VTX
cannot display the Inventory's maps. A software package such as PC Arc View II could be used
to integrate  the  Inventory's  maps and project summaries  into one interactive database.  The
geographic display or "view" capability would be useful to display an on-screen map of the

-------
                        Table of Contents (cont)
                                                                         Page

Region VII Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries (cont)
       Meramec River, MO	251
       Mississippi River Gateway Project, IL, MO	252
       Omaha Stretch of the Missouri River, IA, NE	253
       Papio Lakes Project, NE  	254
       Pine Creek, IA	255
       Platte River, NE  	256
       Salt Valley Lakes Project, NE	258
       Storm Lake Project, IA  	259
       Upper Big Mill Creek, IA   	260
       Upper Niangua River Watershed, MO	261
       Walnut Creek Prairie Restoration Project, IA  	262
       Walnut Creek Watershed Project, IA	263

Region VIII Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries	265
       Animcis River Basin Watershed Project, CO	266
       Bear River, ID, UT, WY  	268
       Blackfoot River, MT	269
       Bowman-Haley Reservoir, ND  	271
       Chalk Creek, UT	272
       Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA	273
       Clear Creek, CO	275
       Goodman Creek, ND	277
       Kootenay River, ID, MT, British Columbia   	278
      Little Bear River, UT	,	279
      Otter Creek, UT  	280
      Red River Watershed,  ND   	  	281
      Squaw Creek and Baldwin Creek, WY 	283
      Upper Arkansas River, CO	284
      Upper Clark Fork Basin, MT  	286

Region IX Local-Scale Ecosystem Project Summaries  	289
      Ala Wai Canal, HI  	290
      Elkhom Slough, CA  	291
      Klamath Basin, CA, OR	292
      Malibu Creek, CA	294
      Morro Bay, CA	295
      Oak Creek Watershed, AZ	296
      San Luis Rey River, CA   	297
      Santa Margarita River, CA	298
      Santa Monica Bay, CA 	300
                                  vm

-------
           ts
           o
           "o"
           a.
           15 c
           si
                   TO
W— O    O Q)    £
£  o 35    ^ o    
             « 2 in "5
             O 15 en
           o
           o_   ».
           C3 iflW (fl
                 3.2
                 c •-
          1
I •• T3 3
1 W 
-------
                                Table of Contents (cont)
                                                                                   Page

 Part Three: Multisite Ecosystem Protection Efforts (cont)

       Targeted Watersheds Project	351
       TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Case Studies Project	352
       Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Program	354
       Wetlands Advance Identification Program  	355
       Wetland Restoration  Research Project   	357
                                     List of Figures
Figure                                                                           Page

  1.  Large-Scale and Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects Map	  5
  2.  New England Region Ecosystem Projects Map	   62
  3.  Region II Ecosystem Projects Map	   84
  4.  Region III Ecosystem Projects Map  	126
  5.  Region IV Ecosystem Projects Map  	154
  6.  Region V Ecosystem Projects Map	194
  7.  Region VI Ecosystem Projects Map  	220
  8.  Region VII Ecosystem Projects Map	238
  9.  Region VIII Ecosystem Projects Map 	264
10.  Region IX Ecosystem Projects Map  	288
11.  Region X Ecosystem Projects Map	308
                                     List of Tables
Table                                                                            Page

 1.  List of Large-Scale Ecosystem Projects	  9
 2.  List of Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects in New England Region  	   63
 3.  List of Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects in Region II	   85
 4.  List of Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects in Region III 	127
 5.  List of Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects in Region IV 	156
 6.  List of Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects in Region V	195
 7.  List of Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects in Region VI 	221
 8.  List of Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects in Region VII	239
 9.  List of Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects in Region VIII	265
10.  List of Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects in Region IX 	289
11.  List of Local-Scale Ecosystem Projects in Region X	309
12.  List of Multi-Site Ecosystem Projects  	333

-------
               Part One:
Large-Scale Ecosystem Protection Efforts

-------
considered equally important to encourage and involve parties throughout the Agency who have
nominated sites and have shown an interest in supporting the ecosystem approach.

       Agency personnel were provided the  following guidelines about the kinds of projects
considered suitable for the Inventory:

       •      Place-based activity.  Above  all,  projects must focus on a specific place (or
              places) and the  environmental  characteristics, problems, and  management needs
              of that place.

       •      Ecosystem protection.  A significant element of the project should be the analysis
              of the ecosystem or major components of the ecosystem, or better yet, taking
              action to restore, enhance, protect, or improve the condition of the ecosystem.
              The best projects will focus on the functions of the whole system and its cross-
              media interrelationships although the project might take action on only a part of
              the whole.

       •      Currently active project. Because the Inventory is meant to reflect the current
              status  of EPA's  involvement in ecosystem protection and the places where this is
              occurring, it will be limited to  projects now active or about to become active.

       •      An  EP\ role.   EPA should have a defined role in the project, although this
              needn't be the lead role or even a "formal" role.  The teamwork element is more
              important than whether EPA leads the project.  EPA's involvement may  include
              technical expertise, financial support, regulatory  involvement, facilitation/advice,
              or other role.

       •      Stakeholder involvement.  At  least some  parties  outside  EPA that have an
              interest  in the place should be involved.  EPA's partners might include  other
              agencies on  the  local  to  international   level,  the  scientific  or  academic
              communities, private enterprise, citizens' groups, or individuals.

       •      Goals and assessments. Ecosystem-related goals (as compared to purely human-
              welfare-related goals) should be  identified.  Better yet, the project includes an
              assessment  that  indicates  some  aspect of ecosystem condition  and  long-term
              sustainability.
Background: The Edgewater Consensus

       The goal of EPA's ecosystem protection approach is to use a place-based approach to
improve the Agency's ability to protect, maintain, and  restore the ecological integrity of the
Nation's lands and waters, which includes the  health of humans as well as plant and animal
species. This approach will integrate environmental  management with human needs, consider

-------
                                     Part One:
                   Large-Scale Ecosystem Protection Efforts

       The following pages summarize the largest of EPA's ecosystem projects, each covering
over 100,000 square kilometers.  Many of these large-scale projects are known as geographic
initiatives.  EPA's investment in  these large-scale initiatives is considerable, often representing
millions of dollars of annual funding, dedicated staff, and a long-term commitment. In these
initiatives EPA has usually teamed  with several  partners, including other federal and  state
agencies, to make the project possible.

       Another common  characteristic of  the  large-scale projects is  the focus  on  social,
economic,  and ecological  concerns  surrounding  a large, complex, highly  beneficial, and
irreplaceable ecosystem.  As in the case of the Chesapeake Bay watershed or the Great Lakes,
the people of these areas identify with and value the ecosystem and its health and maintenance.
For this reason, the larger initiatives have great potential as a model for integrating human and
environmental  concerns in place-based management.

       The large-scale projects in the Inventory at  this time include:

             Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System Project
             Chesapeake Bay Program
             Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale
                    Assessments
             Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project
             Colorado River Program
             EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment
             EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment
             Great Lakes Program
             Great Plains Program
             Gulf of Maine Program
             Gulf of Mexico Program
             Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project
             Lower Mississippi  Delta Initiative
             Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program (MAHA)
             Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)
             New England Resource Protection Project
             Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Management Research Initiative
             Prairie Potholes/Missouri Coteau Ecoregion Assessment
             Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) Ecosystem Assessment
             President's Forest Plan  (Pacific Northwest)
            Rio Grande Basin Landscape-Scale Assessment
            Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Watershed Project
            San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary

-------
location and distribution of projects, while the relational database files could hold the project
summaries.  Users might wish to query  the system for information on  a specific project, a
geographic area of interest, an ecosystem type or project type, stakeholder involvement, or other
characteristic.

       Regions might find it useful to expand this national Inventory and develop more detailed
Regional inventories and databases on their ecosystem protection activities.  For example, Region
IX's  Water  Management Division  is  currently  working with  many  stakeholders  on  a
comprehensive,  computerized inventory  of watershed protection  projects.   More than 250
watershed projects are currently under way in this Region.  Most of these  involve EPA and are
focusing to some degree on ecosystem protection. Region IX plans to use  its inventory to assist
in setting geographic priorities, targeting available resources to support projects in priority areas,
and coordinating action with  state, local, and other federal participants.  In addition, Region  IX
has worked with project stakeholders to provide watershed management skills training based  on
in-depth case studies of selected watershed projects.

       Like the  Regions,  the Agency as a whole will also  need to  determine whether  a truly
comprehensive Inventory is  desirable.   For  example,  because they  are actions  related  to
ecosystem condition.,  should  every wetlands permit action, every Clean Lakes grant, or every
endangered species consultation be included?  Which national  or Regional programs need the
Inventory, and what data are most useful to them? How can ecological project data be integrated
with other EPA  databases currently in use? These and other design issues will be considered
over the coming year as the Inventory  is used  and EPA's Regional and national programs gain
experience in place-based management and ecosystem protection.

-------
           Atlantic  Coastal Plain Aquifer System  Project
 Size and location:  The project covers 246,000
 square kilometers (95,000 square miles)  in the
 following  states:  New  York,  New  Jersey,
 Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina.

 Nature of EPA involvement:
     •   Interagency Agreement, U.S. Geologi-
         cal Survey (USGS), Principal Investi-
         gator  Joseph  Bachman,  Conceptual
         Model Building and Database Support
         for Modeling Groundwater Systems in
         the Chesapeake Bay Region, 10/01/93-
         09/30/94, $80,000.
     •   Cooperative Agreement, University of
         Minnesota, Principal Investigator Otto
         Strack, Coastal  Aquifer Modeling in
         High Performance Computing, 10/017-
         94-09/30/96, $200,000.
     •   Cooperative Agreement, Indiana Uni-
         versity,  Principal  Investigator  Henk
         Haitjema,  Threedimensional Uncon-
         fined Aquifer Modeling in  High Per-
         formance Computing, Project Period:
         10/01/94-09/30/96, $200,000.
     •   Project Officer: Stephen Kraemer, U.S.
         EPA  Office  of  Research and Devel-
         opment, Robert S. Kerr Environmental
         Research Laboratory (ORD/RSKERL)-
         Ada.   The  Project Officer  has an
         In-house Research Project supporting
         this effort, including an on-site contrac-
         tor work assignment.
     •    High Performance Computing Contact:
         Joan Novak.,  U.S. EPA Office of Re-
         search and Development, Atmospheric
         Research  and  Exposure  Assessment
         Laboratory (ORD/AREALRTP).

Organization that initiated project:
     USEPA/ORD/AREAL-RTP, High
         Performance Computing Initiative

Major environmental problems: Coastal estuar-
ies  are threatened  by land use practices that
impact shallow ground water quantity  and quali-
ty.  The shallow ground-water system provides a
hidden and  slow-moving pathway for contami-
nants from source to discharge area. Both point
and nonpoint sources of toxics and nutrients have
a significant impact on the estuary ecosystems.
Overpumping of aquifers can lead to saltwater
intrusion along coastal areas.

Actions taken or proposed:   High-performance
computing  tools are needed to  support place-
based  decision making involving  large  eco-
systems.  An integrated, supra-regional scale
ground  water modeling system is being devel-
oped   on    massive   parallel   processing
supercomputers using analytic element solution
techniques  and  scientific  visualizations.    A
demonstration is planned for the Atlantic Coastal
Plain shallow  aquifer system.   The  tool  will
potentially be applicable to the analysis of salt-
water  intrusion,  nonpoint   source  pollution,
hazardous waste site risk analysis, point source
toxic loadings,  and wellhead protection.  Re-
search project reports and a demonstration of the
modeling system will result from the work.

Stakeholders:
     States (New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
     Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina)
     U.S. EPA
     USGS
     Chesapeake Bay Program

Contact:
     Stephen R. Kraemer
     U.S. EPA/RSKERL
     P.O. Box 1198
     Ada, OK  74821
     (405) 436-8549
     FAX: (405) 436-8703
     E-mail: kraemer@ad3100.ada.epa.gov
     ALL-IN-ONE: EPA8029 or
     KRAEMER.STEPHEN
                                             11

-------

-------
                   Chesapeake  Bay Program
 The  Exchange provides Chesapeake
 Bay communities with technical assis-
 tance teams, composed of experts from
 the United States, Canada, France, and
 the United  Kingdom.  The purpose of
 these efforts, which have focused  on
 three   regions—Virginia's   Eastern
 Shore,  Maryland's Chester River wa-
 tershed, and Pennsylvania's  Cumber-
 land County—is to stimulate voluntary
 action to achieve  local economic sus-
 tainability and the protection of com-
 munity character and ecosystem values.
 Habitat Restoration: A series of habitat
 restoration projects address  numerous
 problems.   The removal of blockages
 and construction  of fishways and fish
 elevators  to create fish  passages has
 reopened 280 kilometers (175 miles) of
 river to anadromous fish in the water-
 shed.  Oyster reefs have been created
 in  various areas  throughout  the bay.
 The return of submerged  aquatic vege-
 tation (SAV) is inseparably linked  to
 water quality improvement and nutrient
 reduction.   Areas  of the bay  where
 SAV  is now growing have  increased
 by  75  percent  since 1984.   Interstate
 fishery  management plans have been
 prepared and have assisted with the
 recovery of shellfish and finfish species
 such as the striped bass or rockfish.
 Federal Ecosystem Management:  In
 response to  the National  Performance
 Review and Chesapeake Bay Program
 goals,   an   agreement  was  reached
 among 23 federal agencies to take  a
 collaborative approach to fully imple-
 ment new national  directives  on eco-
 system management. The goals of the
 effort include promoting environmental
 restoration, preventing  environmental
 degradation,  promoting   sustainable
development,  reducing  costs,  and
maintaining the long-term health of the
Nation's ecological systems.
Stakeholders: Chesapeake Bay Program ecosys-
tem management involves all levels of govern-
ment, the private sector, scientists, landowners,
and citizens.  In the bay region these interests are
coupled with three  governors, 40 members  of
Congress, thousands of state legislators and local
elected officials, 13 federal agencies, 4 interstate
agencies, and more than 700 citizen groups that
play a role in the restoration effort. The formal
Bay  Program has  established  more  than  50
subcommittees and work groups to ensure that
all of the  interests are represented and that  the
goals  of the program are ultimately achieved.

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
                                     13

-------

-------
   Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic
                 Landscape-Scale Assessments
Contact:
   K. Bruce Jones
   U.S. EPA/EMSL-LV/MSD
   P.O. Box 93478
   Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
   (702) 798-2671
   FAX: (702) 798-2208
   E-mail: msdkbj@vegasl.las.epa.gov
                                15

-------
South Florida Geographic Initiative
Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB)
      Landscape-Scale Assessment
Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)
Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation  on  Ecosystem Management
      (ICEM)
                            10

-------
        Colorado Plateau  Ecosystem Partnership Project
    Southeastern Utah Association of
        Governments
    U.S. Bureau of Land Management
    U.S. EPA
    U.S. Forest Service
    Upper Colorado River Commission
    Western Area Power Administration
    Western Network

Contact:
    Doug Johnson
    U.S. EPA Region VIII (8PM-SI)
    999 18th Street
    Denver, CO 80202
    (303) 293-1469
    FAX: (303) 293-1647
                                      17

-------
                            Chesapeake Bay Program
 Size and location:   The  Chesapeake  Bay's
 watershed covers  166,000  square  kilometers
 (64,000 square miles) and encompasses parts of
 New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
 Virginia,  West Virginia, and  the District of
 Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay is the Nation's
 largest and most productive estuary. The ecosys-
 tem contains the 320-kilometer-long  (200-mile-
 long)  Chesapeake Bay  and 150 rivers, creeks,
 and streams, most of which flow through private-
 ly owned lands.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  The Chesapeake
 Bay Program is a cooperative effort of the states,
 the District of Columbia, and the federal govern-
 ment.  In  1975 Congress directed EPA to under-
 take  a comprehensive  investigation  into the
 causes of the Bay's decline. The research find-
 ings  and recommended  remedies  led to the
 signing of  the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
 EPA,  through the Chesapeake Bay  Program
 Office,  provides   leadership,   administrative,
 technical, financial, and information support to a
 network of regional committees, subcommittees,
 and work  groups that runs the Bay Program. The
 Administrator of  EPA  represents the federal
 government within the agreement.

 Organizations that initiated project: The Chesa-
 peake  Bay Agreement was  signed in  1983, in
 response to action by  the U.S. Congress, by the
 U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency;  the
 States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania;
 the District of Columbia; and the Chesapeake
 Bay Commission.  In  that compact, the partners
 agreed to  improve and protect water quality and
 living resources for the Chesapeake Bay estuar-
 ine system.

Major environmental problems:   The Chesa-
peake  Bay  Agreement  and its  amendments
include declarations of  intent to respond  to a
series of ecosystem problems.  These commit-
ments  focus  on nutrient enrichment  from all
sources (including air deposition);  population
growth and development; habitat loss and degra-
dation (including submerged aquatic vegetation);
toxic substances; and interstate fishery manage-
ment.
Actions taken or proposed:  The Bay's ecosys-
tem management approach relies on a network of
protective agencies and private groups, voluntary
actions, laws, and regulation.   The regional
framework  focuses on the integration of all the
component  parts  of the ecosystem, including the
biological,  physical,  economic,  natural,  and
cultural factors at play.  Several examples  of
existing efforts include:
    •    Nutrient Reduction:  The major initia-
         tive of the  Chesapeake Bay Program
         concerns nutrient reduction.  In 1987
         the  signatory jurisdictions agreed  to
         reduce nutrients entering the bay by 40
         percent  by  the  year 2000 and retain
         those levels into the next century.  The
         bay states and the District of Columbia
         have agreed to develop and implement
         tributary  watershed  specific nutrient
         reduction strategies in order to achieve
         nutrient  loading targets.  All of the
        jurisdictions  have  completed  draft
         "Tributary Strategies" and are at differ-
         ent stages in the process of developing
         the final strategies.
    •   Toxics Management: The Chesapeake
         Bay's Basinwide Toxics Reduction and
        Prevention Strategy focuses  on multi-
        jurisdictional efforts by directing re-
        duction and prevention actions toward
        regions   with  known  toxic  prob-
        lems—the  Patapsco,  Anacostia,  and
        Elizabeth Rivers—as  well  as areas
        where  significant potential exists for
        toxic impacts on living resources  and
        habitats.   Regional Action Plans are
        being developed for these three desig-
        nated "Regions  of Concern."
    •    Sustainable Development: In coopera-
        tion  with The  Countryside  Institute,
        The  Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay,
        and 30 other public agencies and  pri-
        vate groups, the Chesapeake  Bay Pro-
        gram has established the Cheasapeake
        Bay  Region International Countryside
        Stewardship Exchange to encourage
        public  and  private collaboration  on
        land  conservation  and  community
        development within the ecosystem.
                                              12

-------
                 EMAP  Northeastern Lake  Assessment
 Size and location:  Northeastern United States,
 including  the States of Maine,  Vermont, New
 Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode
 Island, New York, and New Jersey.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA (Office of
 Research and Development,  New England Re-
 gion, and  Region II) designed the study and is
 analyzing  the results.

 Organization that initiated project:
     EPA/ORD EMAP

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Acidification
     •   Eutrophication
     •   Nonpoint source pollution

Actions being taken or proposed:   EMAP
 monitoring teams measured a suite of indicators
 of ecosystem condition at a probability-based
 sample of lakes across the northeastern states in
 a monitoring study designed to assess the general
condition of lakes across the region. The follow-
ing data were collected on over 300 lakes in the
northeast from 1991 to 1994:
    •   Biological Indicators or Measurements
            Fish assemblages including exotic
                 species
            Riparian  breeding  bird  assem-
                 blages
            Zooplankton assemblages
            Benthic Macroinvertebrate assem-
                 blages including exotic  spe-
                 cies
            Sediment Diatom Assemblages
            Trophic State Measures - chloro-
                 phyll  a,  total  phosphorus,
                 transparency
            Aquatic  macrophytes  including
                 exotic species
    •   Chemical measures
            Fish tissue contaminants
            Water chemistry - nutrients,  sus-
            pended sediments, cations, anions,
            pH,  Acid Neutralizing  Capacity,
            temperature, Dissolved Oxygen
   •    Physical measures
            Lake riparian habitat
     •    Watershed measures
             Landcover - % agriculture,
                 % forests, % urban,
                 % wetlands, etc.
             Road density
             Human population density
             Ecoregions
             Geology
             Fish stocking and management
                 practices

Stakeholders:
     EPA New England Region and Region II
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire,
        Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Is-
        land, New York, New Jersey

Contact:
     Steve Paulsen
     U.S. EPA Environmental Research
        Laboratory
     200 SW 35th Street
    Corvallis, OR 97333
    (503) 754-4428
    FAX: (503) 754-4716
    E-mail: paulsen@heart.cor.epa.gov
                                            19

-------
     Chesapeake  Bay/Mid-Atlantic  Highlands/Mid-Atlantic
                         Landscape-Scale Assessments
 Size and location:   The project area includes
 southern New York, southern and western New
 Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland,
 Virginia, northeastern North Carolina, Delaware,
 and Washington, DC.

 Nature of EPA  involvement:   This  part  of
 EPA's Environmental  Monitoring  and Assess-
 ment Program (EMAP) will conduct assessments
 of status and trends of landscapes and medium-
 -sized  watersheds and  relate findings to condi-
 tions in a wide number of aquatic and terrestrial
 resources.   EMAP-Landscapes  is conducting
 research on landscape pattern indicators that are
 derived from remote sensing and other existing
 data.  Results from assessments will be useful in
 generating  alternatives for ecosystem manage-
 ment and in conducting ecological risk assess-
 ments. For example, research relating landscape
 status and trends to stream ecological condition
 will help determine the scales at  which ecologi-
 cal resources should be restored.  EMAP-Land-
 scapes proposes to use Landsat TM satellite data
 and 3-date Landsat MSS data to address land-
 scape change.

 Organization that initiated the project:
    U.S. EPA EMAP
Major environmental problems:   Degradation
and alteration of critical ecological components
and processes due to the magnitude and distribu-
tion of land uses have occurred over the Mid-
Atlantic region. These alterations  have affected
several important ecological resources within the
Mid-Atlantic region, including streams, wetlands,
forests, estuaries,  and breeding  birds and other
attributes  of biological diversity.  Landscape-
scale  processes that have  been  altered  include
fire, water flow and discharge, and extinction/-
colonization. These alterations have resulted in
declines in water quality and certain components
of biological  diversity  and have  increased  the
risk of pest outbreak and catastrophic flooding.
However,  the extent and  distribution of these
alterations across the Mid-Atlantic  region  are
currently unknown. Further, no information is
available on relative degrees of risk and scales of
impairment.

Actions taken or proposed: EMAP-Landscapes
is proposing two primary activities: (1) landscape
indicator development, which can be applied to
multiple-scale ecological assessments, and (2) an
assessment of status and trends in landscapes as
related  to  biological  diversity  and integrity,
watershed integrity (water quality, quantity, and
timing), and landscape resilience (the ability of
a landscape or watershed to maintain options for
ecological  goods  and  services  in the  face  of
combinations  of  anthropogenic  and   natural
disturbance). Landscape indicator research  has
already begun within the Mid-Atlantic region and
will   proceed   through FY96.     Starting   in
mid-FY95, EMAP-Landscapes will assess status
and trends in landscapes and watersheds over the
entire region.   Part of this assessment  will in-
clude relating individual ecological resources,
including forest, streams, estuaries, and a variety
of wildlife habitats,  with  landscape pattern at
multiple scales.  The outcome  of this assessment
should be  a fundamental understanding of  the
scales  at  which  landscape change influences
different   ecological   resources.      It   is
EMAP-Landscapes'  hypothesis  that different
resources will have different scaling relationships
with landscapes. This information will be key in
understanding  the range of  risks influencing
ecological resources, and in deriving approaches
to improve existing conditions.

Stakeholders:
     Desert Research Institute
     General public
     Individual States
     National Biological Survey
     Natural Resources Conservation Service
     Oak Ridge  National Lab
     Tennessee Valley Authority
     U.S. EPA EMAP
     U.S. EPA Office of Water
     U.S. EPA Region III
     U.S. Geological Survey
                                              14

-------
                               Great Lakes  Program
 Size and  location:  By area, the Great Lakes
 constitute the world's largest area of surface
 fresh water (246,000 square  kilometers/95,000
 square miles, 23 quadrillion liters/6 quadrillion
 gallons), holding 18 percent of the world's sup-
 ply).  The five Great Lakes and their drainage
 areas encompass all or parts of eight states (New
 York, Pennsylvania,  Ohio, Indiana, Michigan,
 Illinois, Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota)  and  the
 Province of Ontario.

 Nature  of EPA involvement: The EPA Great
 Lakes National Program  Office  (GLNPO)  has
 responsibility for  meeting the expanded Great
 Lakes toxics and nutrient monitoring and Control
 requirements  under section 118  of the Clean
 Water Act, as amended, including responsibilities
 specified in the Great Lakes  Critical Programs
 Act of 1990 (GLCPA) and U.S. commitments
 under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
 (GLWQA) of 1978, as amended; and responsibil-
 ities  under section 112 of the Clean  Air Act
 amendments.

 Organization that initiated project:  The Great
 Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) steers
 and coordinates a  consortium of local, state,
 federal, and nongovernmental organizations in
 ecosystem  management and priority setting. The
 Great Lakes 5-Year Strategy, developed jointly
 by GLNPO and its multistate, multiagency part-
 ners and built on  the  foundation of the Great
 Lakes Water Quality  Agreement  with  Canada,
 provides the agenda for Great  Lakes ecosystem
 management.

Major environmental problems:
    •    Contaminated fish and wildlife
    •    Contaminated bottom sediments
    •    Threatened habitats ("endangered"  or
         "threatened"  classification for 52 spe-
         cies of plants and animals within the
         region)
         Non-native species (More  than  130
         non-native species have been intro-
         duced 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 5-Year
 Strategy to jointly address the problems of the
 Great Lakes ecosystem. The strategy focuses on
 three overarching  goals:  reducing  releases  of
 toxicants  to  the  environment, protecting and
 restoring   habitat,   and  protecting   human/
 ecosystem species health.
      In  1989, in recognition of the vulnerability
 of the Great Lakes to bioaccumulative chemicals,
 EPA and the states began the Great Lakes Water
 Quality  Initiative, a precedent-setting, coopera-
 tive effort to establish common regulatory prac-
 tices for the Great Lakes waters. Proposed guid-
 ance for minimum water quality standards,  anti-
 degradation policies, and  implementing proce-
 dures was published in the Federal  Register in
 April 1993.
     Pursuant to a Great Lakes Pollution Preven-
 tion Action Plan, launched by EPA and the Great
 Lakes states in  1991, source reduction  projects
 are under way with the auto and printing indus-
 tries.  Under the National 33/50 Program, Great
 Lakes manufacturers have already surpassed the
 Agency's interim 33 percent reduction goal.
     In 1993, EPA and its partners  initiated a
 Virtual  Elimination  Pilot  Project  to   analyze
 opportunities  for achieving virtual  elimination
 through source reduction of targeted  pollutants.
 Two   pollutants,   polychlorinated   biphenyls
 (PCBs) and mercury, have thus far been selected
 for analysis.
     Sediment cleanups are being accomplished
 at numerous sites across the basin under EPA's
 regulatory  authority.   Examples  include  the
 December  1992 Gill Creek  cleanup of 5000
 cubic meters (6500 cubic  yards) of  PCB-con-
 taminated sediment (eliminating 20 percent of
 total annual PCB load to Lake Ontario through
 the Niagara  River);  the   1990-93  Waukegan
 Harbor Superfund removal of  over  1   million
 pounds  of  PCB-contaminated  sediment;   and
 multimillion-dollar consent decrees in northwest
 Indiana requiring sediment  characterization  and
cleanup.   As  a  follow-up to  the  completed
Assessment and  Remediation  of Contaminated
                                             21

-------
         Colorado Plateau  Ecosystem Partnership Project
Size and location: Region covered by western
Colorado,  southeastern  and  southern  Utah,
northern Arizona, and northwestern New Mexico.

Nature  of EPA involvement:  EPA is partici-
pating as  a partner v/ith other  federal agencies
and state, tribal, and local organizations (public
and private).

Organizations that initiated project:
     EPA  and the  National Park Service (NPS)

Major environmental problems:
     •    Conflicts between economic and envi-
         ronmental interests

Actions  taken or proposed:
     •    Execution of Interagency Agreement in
         August  1994 between EPA and NPS,
         Rocky Mountain Region.
    •    Colorado Plateau Forum Steering Com-
         mittee  -  Consortium of more  than 20
         entities   representing  federal,  state,
         local, and private interests that joined
        together to plan and host a Town Hall
        meeting on "The Future of the Colora-
        do  Plateau:  Choice or  Chance?"  in
        Moab, Utah, March  3-4,  1995.
    •   Meeting  of  interested researchers  in
        May 1994 to determine who is doing
        what type of research,  where, and how
        on the Colorado Plateau.  This resulted
        in the  expression of  interest  by the
        National  Biological  Survey (NBS)  -
        Social,  Economic,  and  Institutional
        Section  in  pursuing research  on the
        Colorado Plateau as  an ecosystem.
    •   Agreement with NBS  - Colorado Pla-
        teau Research Unit to  serve as lead in
        developing, storing, and making avail-
        able the ecological information.
    •   Commitment from NBS - Social, Eco-
        nomic,  and  Institutional Section to
        three complete fiscal years of research
        on the Colorado Plateau  at  $1.225
        million.
     •   Development of  a draft  discussion
         paper in the National Park Service on
         the principles of  ecosystem  manage-
         ment.
     •   Development of a draft vision/strategy
         for implementing  ecosystem  manage-
         ment in the Rocky Mountain Region.
     •   Development of a draft "cluster organi-
         zation report" for the Colorado Plateau
         Cluster, which incorporates some of
         the principles of  ecosystem manage-
         ment as well as  the elements of the
         NPS Restructuring Document.
     •   Commitment by NPS to fund a bibli-
         ography of gray literature on the Colo-
         rado Plateau with a value of $85,000.
     •   Commitment by  NPS and Northern
         Arizona University to fund  a needs
         assessment of Park Units on the Colo-
         rado Plateau, valued at approximately
         $50,000.
     •   Commitment by NPS to fund research
         on the Mexican Spotted Owl,  an indi-
         cator species on the Colorado Plateau,
         valued at $238,000.
         Commitment by NPS to  fund EPA's
         efforts to prepare audit procedures that
         can be executed by students to evaluate
         the effectiveness of pollution  preven-
         tion training.

Stakeholders:
     City of Farmington
     Colorado River Energy Distributors
         Association
     Economic Development District of
         Southwest Colorado
     Five County Association of Governments
     Grand Canyon River Guides
     Grand Canyon Trust
     Grand County Commission
     Hopi Tribe
    National Park Service
    Northern Arizona Council of Governments
    Northern Arizona University
    Northwest New Mexico Council of
         Governments
    San Juan Forum
                                            16

-------
                              Great  Lakes Program
         and restoration.
     •    CitySpace—developing   open  space
         policies   for  empty  Chicago  lots,
         through which lots will be redeveloped
         into parks and garden space  for resi-
         dents.
     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 nonna-
tive  species  include Coast Guard requirements
for mandatory  ballast water  exchange, EPA
regulation of chemical control, USFWS and state
testing  of control  techniques,  and   National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration educa-
tional efforts.

Stakeholders:
     23 Indian tribes
     Department of the Interior (National Park
         Service and National Biological  Sur-
         vey)
     Forest preserves
     Great Lakes Fisheries Commission
     Illinois
     Indiana
     Industry
    Labor
    Local citizens
    Local school districts
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric
         Administration
    New York
    Nongovernmental 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. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Wisconsin
Contact:
    James Giattina
    GLPNO (G-9J)
    77 West Jackson Blvd.
    Chicago, IL 60604-3590
    (312) 886-4040
    FAX: (312) 353-2018/886-2403
                                             23

-------
                           Colorado River Program
Size and location:  The Colorado River basin
covers about 632,000 square kilometers (244,000
square  miles)  in  seven   states  including
west-central Colorado,  eastern Utah,  western
Arizona, southwestern  Wyoming,  southeastern
Nevada and California, and western New Mexi-
co.

Nature of EPA involvement:
     •    Technical assistance
     •    Participation in Coordination Groups
     •    Approvals of salinity standards
     •    Funding in limited situations
     •    NPDES permits issued  with salinity
         limits

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Congress

Major environmental problems:
     •    Increasing salinity levels in the river
         and the effects on agricultural soils in
         Arizona,  California, and  Mexico and
         on municipal/industrial water supplies
         in Nevada, Arizona, and  California
     •    Loss of wetlands

Actions taken  or proposed:   Colorado  River
salinity standards, including a plan  of implemen-
tation 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 monitor-
ing locations and to meet commitments to Mexi-
co. 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
federal and state funding primarily in the upper
basin states. Because improved irrigation systems
for salinity control on agricultural  lands can dry
up existing irrigation-induced wetlands, mitiga-
tion of wetland losses is required for  Bureau  of
Reclamation salinity control projects.   The U.S.
Department of Agriculture manages a voluntary
wetland replacement program for its salinity
control program.
    Salinity control  activities are coordinated
through an Interagency Salinity Control Coordi-
nating  Committee; the  Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum, composed of representa-
tives of the seven basin states; and other commit-
tees.

Stakeholders:
    Citizens of Arizona, California, Colorado,
         Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
    Mexico
    State wildlife agencies
    U.S. Department of Agriculture
    U.S. Department of the 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
                                              18

-------
                               Great Plains  Program
         than 70 percent of short grass prairie
         remain, scattered in islands; less than
         10 percent of central fly way rainwater
         basin wetlands  remain.
     •   Devastating floods as a  result of struc-
         tural alteration  of stream channels and
         draining of wetlands.
     •   Declining ground water resources. The
         largest fresh water body in the world,
         the Ogalalla aquifer lying beneath the
         Great Plains, has lost  3-30 meters (10-
         100 feet) of depth to the water table in
         last 30 years from pumping for irriga-
         tion.
     •   Excessive use of pesticides and nutri-
         ents  (e.g.,  median  concentration  of
         atrazine  in  streams  exceeds  EPA's
         Maximum Contaminant  Level (MCL)).
     •   Loss of rural population and declining
         rural  economies - 50  percent  rural
         population decline  1940-1970; an addi-
         tional 80 percent drop 1970-1980 and
         remaining rural population are aging.
     •   Loss  of  natural areas,  wildlife, and
         other aesthetic values, making econom-
         ic potential for  tourism vulnerable.
     •   Threats from global climate change -
         Intergovernmental  Panel on  Climate
         Change  anticipates   that  by  2030,
         warming  trends in  Central North
         America  could  result in temperatures
         considerably higher  than  historical
         records.

Actions taken or proposed: Beyond the conduct
of its base programs, EPA  Region  VII has
invested its resources  in  four areas. Grants  or
cooperative agreements have been employed  to
stimulate a broad partnership base through these
activities:
     •   Policy and Partnership Development -
         Convening  federal,  state,  and  local
         agencies, academic organizations, and
         private stakeholders  in  science  and
         policy  forums  on  the  Great  Plains
         ecosystem  to promote  consensus on
         vision and strategy; grants to the West-
         ern Governors'  Association to  stimu-
         late state action and stakeholder buy-
 in; designation of a small, core  EPA
 staff to bring consistent, senior leader-
 ship to the effort. In the  future,  EPA
 plans to add a component to the  GPP
 that will evaluate existing public  poli-
 cies in  various places in the Plains to
 determine  whether legislative  or ad-
 ministrative changes are needed to be
 conducive  to sustainable human activi-
 ty.
 Science and Data - EPA has sponsored
 The Nature Conservancy in a rigorous
 program to identify species and habitat
 at risk,  resulting in the  designation of
 "action  areas," which will help priori-
 tize the place-driven work of the pro-
 gram.  Together with Ord, Region VII
 has  launched  a project  to  collect and
 integrate   environmental   and  other
 resource data from multiple public and
 private sources, and to make that infor-
 mation  accessible  to all stakeholders.
 This project supports a wide partner-
 ship  of international   and  domestic
 agencies, organized by  EPA to share
 data on the state of the Great  Plains.
 A first-cut "data atlas," developed by
 Region   VII's  Office  of  Integrated
 Environmental Analysis, demonstrates
 the power of integrating and geograph-
 ically displaying these data. An EPA-
 funded  agreement  with  the U.S. Geo-
 logical Survey (USGS) will further the
 ability to understand the dynamics of
 the hydrological systems of the  Plains.
 And, the Region is  working with its
 research partners to refine and in some
 cases develop models that will  enable
 better  assessment  of   environmental
 status and selection of management
 strategies.  EPA plans to  continue to
 foster the  development of  tools  and
 information that will support decision-
 making  at multiple levels.
Education and Outreach - Through a
 series of seed grants, EPA Region VII
is  encouraging development of  educa-
tional programs  designed  to enhance
public appreciation and awareness of
                                              25

-------
       EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment
Size and  location:   Mid-Atlantic  Highlands,
covering the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA (Office of
Research and Development and Region III) de-
signed the study, is  collecting the data, and  is
analyzing the results

Organization that initiated project:
    EPA/ORD EMAP and Region III

Major environmental problems:
    •   Acidification
    •   Habitat alteration
    •   Nonpoint sources of pollution

Actions being  taken  or proposed:   EMAP
monitoring teams measured a suite of indicators
of ecosystem condition at a probability-based
sample of streams across the mid-Atlantic states
in a monitoring study  designed to  assess the
general condition of streams across  the region.
This study collected the following information on
approximately 500 stream locations during 1993
to 1994:
    •   Biological Indicators or Measurements
             Fish assemblages including exotic
                 species
             Benthic Macroinvertebrate assem-
                 blages including exotic spe-
                 cies
             Periphyton Assemblages
             Sediment  microbial  respiration
    •   Chemical measures
             Fish tissue contaminants
             Water chemistry - nutrients, sus-
                 pended  sediments,   cations,
                 anions, pH, Acid Neutralizing
                 Capacity, temperature, Dis-
                 solved Oxygen
    •   Physical measures
             Stream physical habitat
             Riparian habitat
    •   Watershed measures
             Landcover - % agriculture, % for-
                 ests,  % urban,  % wetlands,
                 etc.
             Road density
             Human population density
             Ecoregions
             Geology
             Fish  stocking  and management
                 practices

Stakeholders:
    EPA Region III
    States of Delaware, Pennsylvania,
        Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Contacts:
    Steve Paulsen
    U.S. EPA Environmental Research
        Laboratory
    200 S.W. 35th Street
    Corvallis, OR 97333
    (503) 754-4428
    FAX: (503) 754-4716
    E-mail: paulsen@heart.cor.epa.gov

    Tom DeMoss
    U.S. EPA Region III
    Central Regional Lab
    Power Tech. Center RR 450
    201 Defense Highway
    Annapolis, MD 21401
    (410) 573-6839
    Fax: (410) 573-6888
    E-mail: demoss.tom@epamail.epa.gov
                                            20

-------
                            Gulf of  Maine Program
Size and location:   The Gulf of Maine is the
body of water bordered by Massachusetts, New
Hampshire,   Maine,  New   Brunswick,  Nova
Scotia, and extending seaward to Georges Bank
and Brown  Bank.  This  covers more than
130,000 square kilometers (50,000 square miles)
of water and is drained by an equally massive
watershed.

Nature  of EPA involvement:   EPA has been a
member of the Gulf of Maine Working  Group
for more than 5 years and has undertaken pro-
jects  to support the  program.  EPA's involve-
ment will increase in FY95, in response to the
$1.9 million Congress appropriated for the Gulf
of Maine Program.

Organizations that initiated project: The states
and provinces that border  the Gulf  of  Maine
initiated the project, and the program's governing
body (the  Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine
Environment) is still composed  principally of
state and provincial agencies.

Major environmental problems:  Given the size
of the waterbody,  it is no  surprise that major
environmental problems run the gamut from
toxics and bacterial  contamination to nutrient
enrichment, habitat destruction, and overfishing.
The problems on which the program has focused
most  to date include contaminants from point
sources, marine debris, and  the identification of
critical habitats.  In the  coming  years, the pro-
gram will  focus most on habitat protection.

Actions  taken or proposed:   The program has
undertaken a number of projects,  including  a
pilot multijurisdictional monitoring program,  a
marine debris control program in a few ports,
preparation  of an  inventory  of contaminant
loading from  point  sources, and identification of
critical habitats. The program has also conduct-
ed a number  of workshops on a variety of sub-
jects, ranging from aquaculture to public out-
reach.

Stakeholders:
    State, provincial, federal agencies
    Marine science institutions
    A  limited  number  of nongovernmental
         organizations

Contact:
    Jo-Ann Vizziello
    EPA New England Region (WQE)
    JFK Building
    Boston, MA 02203
    (617) 565-4872
    FAX: (617) 565-4940
                                             27

-------
                              Great Lakes  Program
Sediments program, GLNPO is supporting states
with contaminated sediment characterization and
assessment as the necessary first step in re-
mediating contaminated sediments.  Air toxics
monitoring stations have  been  established on
each of the Great Lakes to collect data on nutri-
ents, toxic metals,  and organic contaminants.
Two years of intensive monitoring of air, water,
sediments,  and biota  began in  1994  on Lake
Michigan.  From such work, EPA and its part-
ners will design load reduction strategies.
    EPA, Environment Canada, the states, and
the Province of Ontario  announced the Lake
Superior Binational Program in 1991, one aspect
of which is the designation of nine bioaccumulat-
ive 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
partners are promoting in Lakes  Ontario, Superi-
or, and Michigan 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 devel-
oped and implemented on a smaller "watershed"
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 protect habitat within the Great Lakes
consistent with a TNC report, The Conservation
of Biological Diversity in  the Great Lakes Eco-
system: Issues and Opportunities.   The report,
funded in part  by EPA,  identifies important
habitat  for  achieving  biological  diversity  and
ecological integrity in the Great Lakes ecosys-
tem.  GLNPO has funded some 70  habitat pro-
tection/restoration projects over the last 3 years.
Projects are under way at locations such as Ham-
ilton   Lake/Fish  Creek,  Kakagon/Bad  River
Sloughs, the Maumee River, Allouez Bay, Iron-
dequoit  Bay, Black  River,  St.  Louis  River,
Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay. These demonstra-
tions reflect a  variety of activities  including
on-the-ground restoration, public participation,
and education. GLNPO can provide information
regarding each  of  these  efforts upon request;
however, the following project summaries best
illustrate the watershed work GLNPO is current-
ly supporting:
    •    Hamilton  Lake/Fish  Creek  (Steuben
         County, Indiana)  combines wetland
         restorations  by USFWS,  agricultural
         land  treatment  practices  through the
         U.S. Department of Agriculture and its
         state and local partners, and actions of
         TNC.   Resultant actions will improve
         habitat for species of mussels (some
         endangered) and fish.
    •    Kakagon/Bad River Sloughs Watershed
         Demonstration Project  (involving the
         Bad River Band of the Chippewa Na-
         tion and TNC) centers around a 6500-
         hectare  (16,000-acre)  wetland com-
         plex—the largest undeveloped wetland
         complex on Lake Superior.  The pro-
         ject will protect and restore fish spawn-
         ing ground  and a waterfowl marsh
         inhabited  by numerous rare  species;
         model restoration and protection  for
         more  profoundly  disturbed sites; ex-
         plore sustainable development possibil-
         ities  for the watershed;  and demon-
         strate  possibilities   for  ecologically
         viable activities.
    The  Glacial  Lake  Chicago  Crescent,  a
multifaceted initiative in northeast  Illinois and
northwest   Indiana   emphasizing  sustainable
economic development, is another major project
that is currently under way.  This initiative in-
cludes:
    •    A Housing  and Urban  Development/
         EPA Demonstration Project to rehabili-
         tate vacant buildings for housing and
         reuse empty  lots for native  garden
         projects.
     •    TNC's  Mighty Acom  Project, which
         incorporates   in-the-field  education
         about  ecological  processes  including
         hands-on restoration  for children.
     •    Organization by  the Indiana Nature
         Conservancy, working with the Illinois
         Nature  Conservancy field office, of a
         volunteer stewardship network to en-
         courage public participation in steward-
         ship of northwest Indiana natural area
         sites  requiring ecological protection
                                               22

-------
                          Gulf of Mexico Program
Stakeholders:
    Agriculture
    Development interests
    Environmental organizations
    Fisheries
    Local and  state  governments  in  Florida,
        Alabama, Mississippi,  Louisiana, and
        Texas
    Manufacturing and mining
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
        istration/National  Marine   Fisheries
        Service
    Natural Resources Conservation 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

Contact:
    Douglas A. Lipka, Ph.D.
    EPA/GMP
    Building 1103, Room 202
    Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
    (601)  688-3726
    FAX:  (601) 688-2709
                                           29

-------
                              Great  Plains Program
Size and location:    The  Great  Plains  span
America's heartland arid encompass parts of 13
states (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Okla-
homa, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Minneso-
ta), 3 Canadian provinces (Manitoba, Saskatche-
wan, Alberta), 4 EPA Regions (V, VI, VII, and
VIII) and lands under the jurisdiction of over 60
Native American tribes. The area is bounded on
the west by the Rocky Mountains, on the east by
the Mississippi River valley  and eastern decidu-
ous  forests, and on the north and  south by the
former extent of grasslands.
     The Great Plains  ecosystem was once the
largest  grassland  on  earth, covering over  a
million  square  miles.   Today,  many linkages
continue to exist within this vast area—among
natural communities, people, cultural, historical
and  political traditions  and economy. There are
also common challenges—for environmental pro-
tection,   economic  development,   and   future
human well-being.

Nature  of EPA involvement:  EPA is involved
in the Great Plains region at two  scales.  The
first is on-the-ground, at the community level, as
a catalyst for programs;  that  integrate protection
of human health and the environment within the
Plains states through place-based environmental
management, common  sense, innovation,  sound
science,  and  partnerships.  Currently, EPA is
focusing efforts  on  two  priority  places—the
Platte River Watershed and the Omaha Stretch of
the Missouri River.  EPA is  also working at the
landscape scale in  partnership with  others to
define indicators, to monitor the health of eco-
systems, to develop tools  for sharing data and
information, and to facilitate forums that develop
strategies for sustainable development. Region
VII is the lead  Region  in concert with Regions
VI  and  VIII.  A Great Plains Program (GPP)
Office is located in Region VII.
     EPA is also a leader in the Great Plains
Initiative  (GPI),  a  broad-based   coalition  of
government agencies, other public organizations,
industry, and the public whose goal is to draw
attention to issues of biodiversity  and sustain-
ability in the Great Plains region and provide for
coordination of response in priority areas.
Organization that initiated project: EPA initiat-
ed its Great Plains Program to address the envi-
ronmental threats to people and places that were
recognized during the 1990 Comparative Risk
Assessment.  The Plains were selected as a geo-
graphic region because they offer an opportunity
to act before a crisis develops  and because they
offer a unique opportunity to  address an inter-
connected set of scientific and policy consider-
ations in the context of sustainable economy and
environment.
     The Western Governors have recognized the
importance of addressing sustainability of natural
resources and economy  throughout the  Great
Plains  region and organized the GPI to coopera-
tively develop new tools and management strate-
gies to  meet emerging  needs.  The Western
Governors' Association coordinates GPI activi-
ties  with state and provincial  governments  and
among the various GPI partners.
     The White House Interagency  Task Force
on  Ecosystem  Management has also recently
designated the Great Plains  as  one of three
regional "laboratories" in the country in which
policy makers, scientists, resource managers, and
private citizens will test new strategies for man-
aging and protecting the environment. The U.S.
Department  of Agriculture is  the lead  federal
agency for this component.  All three efforts are
complementary in scope and purpose.

Major environmental problems:
     •    Diminished  water quality  induced  by
         toxins from  industrial and agricultural
         sources and  sediments from poor land
         management practices.
     •    Loss of soil  productivity from erosion
         of topsoil, changes in pH from irriga-
         tion practices, and overgrazing.
     •    Loss of biodiversity  - 214 threatened
         or endangered species, more than a 50
         percent  decline of endemic songbird
         species, more than a 75 percent decline
         of  grassland nesting birds, epidemic
         diseases in waterfowl.
     •    Loss of contiguous natural landscapes -
         patches  not  large enough  to support
         native or migratory species; less than 1
         percent of native tall  grass and less
                                              24

-------
                     Lower Mississippi  Delta Initiative
 Size and location: The Lower Mississippi Delta
 Alluvial Plain spans 1100 kilometers (700 miles)
 from southern Illinois to the mouth of the Mis-
 sissippi River, a 219-county, 7-state area (Arkan-
 sas,  Illinois,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Missouri,
 Mississippi, and  Tennessee).  It  is one  of the
 largest watersheds in the world.

 Nature of EPA involvement:   Cosponsor of a
 Delta technical conference on agricultural/ envi-
 ronmental  issues, opportunities, and technology
 transfer in 1996  with  the  U.S. Department of
 Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Department of the In-
 terior - National Biological Survey (USDI-NBS),
 U.S.  Fish  and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).  State agencies,
 nonprofit conservation groups, and philanthropic
 organizations will also participate. EPA  serves
 on the Steering Committee - Lower Mississippi
 Valley  (LMV) Natural  Resource Partnership.
 EPA  Region VI has gained EPA Headquarters
 approval of a sustainable development proposal
 for the Delta  entitled  "Sustainable  Agriculture
 and Sustainable Environmental Quality in Impov-
 erished Rural Communities," which was selected
 as one of 12 projects by the President's Council
 on Economic Development.  Grant projects to
 address land and  water resources  data manage-
 ment and  networking, including  a geographic
 information system (GIS), are also in progress.

 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
         hardwoods to agriculture
     •   Loss of habitat and reduction in bio-
         diversity
     •   Nonpoint source pollution
     •  Toxic contamination
     •  Loss of  flood control  functions

Actions taken or proposed:  A delta-wide con-
ference is being planned through the leadership
of the National Biological Survey. It will focus
 on wetland restoration, water quality protection,
 and  agricultural  management 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 Ser-
 vice.  A delta technical forum is planned for
 January 1996 with many delta participants.
     An EPA Region VI proposal  entitled "Sus-
 tainable Development Strategy - Lower Missis-
 sippi Delta" was  selected under the President's
 Council  on Sustainable  Development.    This
 project will  specifically focus on empowerment
 within impoverished minority communities  to
 contribute  to  environmental  remediation and
 planning in the delta.
     For 1995,  The Nature  Conservancy  is
 developing a large data network plan (geographic
 information  system-based) for the delta region
 through partnerships  with existing state systems
 and the University of Arkansas.
     In  addition,  EPA  Region VI  is providing
 financial support  for  an  interagency  spatial
 information  workshop to be hosted in 1995 by
 the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Center
 and  the Lower Mississippi River  Conservation
 Committee in Memphis, Tennessee. Objectives
 of the workshop will  include state-by-state (AR,
 IL,  KY, LA,  MO,  MS,  TN) discussions  of
 ongoing  and planned  geographic information
 system (GIS) projects, development of an inter-
 state communication  network, and  planning for
 the integrated  collection, transfer,  sharing, and
 analysis of natural resource spatial data needed
 to address  environmental  issues and  to  make
 informed management decisions.
     EPA  Region VI  has  collaborated   with
 Region  IV  in  support of a July 1994 meeting
 between the Regional Administrators of Regions
 VI and IV to work jointly to fund data collection
 efforts and  encourage  the development  of a
 centralized GIS in the Lower Mississippi Delta.
 Development of a GIS-based model is vital for
 targeting bottomland  hardwood wetland restora-
 tion  zones  based  on pollution prevention and
habitat restoration.   A Regional  Applied Re-
search Effort (RARE), "Development of a Geo-
graphic  Information System  Data  Network for
Natural  Resources Conservation in the Lower
Mississippi  Alluvial Valley," will be submitted
                                              31

-------
                               Great Plains  Program
          the Great Plains resources and environ-
          mental threats to that ecosystem.  The
          EPA-sponsored  H2Omaha  Initiative
          will increase student awareness of the
          Missouri River by using the river and
          its Omaha area watershed as a living
          laboratory  for science education  in
          local school districts.  EPA  is  also
          working  with  the  National  Wildlife
          Federation to develop teaching tools
          about  Great  Plains natural resources.
          EPA plans to continue outreach activi-
          ties  including using  focus groups  to
          learn how citizens on the Plains think
          about  environmental  issues, assisting
          with state-led public  awareness cam-
          paigns, and sponsoring development of
          user-friendly data networks.
     •    Places  - Region VII is currently con-
          centrating  its  sustainable  ecosystem
          effort on  two visible and  threatened
          places:  the Central Platte  River and
          the  Omaha stretch  of  the  Missouri
          River system.  As one of many part-
          ners  and stakeholders, EPA is deliver-
          ing its expertise, tools, and resources to
          these place-based environmental initia-
          tives.  EPA Regions VI and VIII are
         participating, and in some cases lead-
         ing,  similar experiments in environ-
         mental  management focused on other
         places  in  the Great  Plains.   Future
         efforts include joining a select number
         of interdisciplinary  teams  to  provide
         EPA expertise and resources for carry-
         ing out place-based programs.

Stakeholders:
     13 Great Plains States
     Environment Canada
     International Coalition for Land and Water
         Stewardship
     National Association of Conservation
         Districts
     National Farmers' Union
     Provincial governments
     U.S. Department of Agriculture
     U.S. Department of Defense
     U.S. Department of the Interior
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     The Great Plains Agriculture Council
     The International Fish and Wildlife
         Association
     The Nature Conservancy
     The Western Governors' Association
     Tribal leaders

Contact:
     Kerry B. Herndon
     Great Plains Program Office
     EPA Region VII
     726 Minnesota Avenue
     Kansas City,  Kansas 66101
     (913) 551-7286
     FAX: (913) 551-7956
     E-mail: herndon.kerry@epamail.epa.gov
                                              26

-------
               Mid-Atlantic  Highlands Program (MAHA)
 Size and location:  The Highlands study  area
 encompasses  approximately   168,000   square
 kilometers (65,000 square miles) of oak-hickory
 forests and upland areas, which include six major
 watersheds  in the States of Pennsylvania, Mary-
 land, Virginia, and West Virginia. The  MAHA
 represents many unique terrestrial  and  aquatic
 ecosystems that  extend east to west from the
 Blue Ridge Mountains to the  Ohio River and
 north to south from the Pennsylvania-New York
 state boundary to the Virginia-North  Caroli-
 na/Tennessee state boundaries.

 Nature of EPA involvement:   EPA Region II,
 with EPA's Office of Research and Development
 (ORD) and  states, has  initiated  a multiyear pro-
 gram of data collection, analysis, and assessment
 on ecological condition of MAHA air, land, and
 water  resources, as well  as  identification of
 sensitive areas and species at risk.  Through goal
 setting, the use of environmental indicators, and
 interpretation and analysis of data, Region IV
 and ORD with state partners will be positioned
 to determine the relative risk of various threats to
 the ecosystems so that sound environmental man-
 agement decisions can be made.  The program
 will provide the tools to focus on  our new
 imperative—ecosystem management.

 Organization that initiated project:
     EPA Region III and Office  of Research and
         Development

 Major environmental problems:
     •    One of highest rates of acid deposition
         in   United  States  resulting in  acid
         streams
     •    Coal mining impacts such as erosion,
         silting, and acid damage
     •    Nonpoint source runoff  from agricul-
         ture and logging
     •    Landscape patterns of  change from
         construction of new resort communities
         and increase in population in general
     •    Habitat loss/change

Actions taken or proposed:  The MAHA prod-
ucts  are intended to support:
     •    Establishing  environmental priorities
         based on risk.
     •    Ranking problems according to severi-
         ty.
     •    Establishing in-stream goals for clean-
         up activities.
     •    Evaluating effectiveness of water quali-
         ty criteria and  best management prac-
         tices.
     •    Establishing optimum  environmental
         conditions  (reference conditions)  to
         serve as goals for preservation, restora-
         tion, and  remediation.
     •    Mapping  areas of special concern.
     •    Identifying  areas  conducive to joint
         action with states, other federal agen-
         cies, and  private organizations.

Stakeholders:
     MAHA Coordinating Council (EPA Chair)
         - consortium of 10 federal agencies to
         support a collective and more holistic
         advocacy for  the  management  and
         protection of MAHA's natural resourc-
         es
     States of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania
         and  West Virginia
     The Nature Conservancy

Contact:
     Thomas B. DeMoss
     (410) 573-5839
     FAX: (410) 573-6888
     Power Technology Center
     201 Defense Highway, Suite 200
     Annapolis, MD 21401
     E-mail: demoss.thomas@epamail.epa.gov
                                             33

-------
                            Gulf of Mexico  Program
Size and location: The Gulf of Mexico, an area
of  1.63  million  square  kilometers  (630,000
square miles), abuts five Gulf Coast states and
has  a watershed area  of 4.69  million square
kilometers (1.81  million  square  miles) in  the
United States. About two-thirds of the total area
of Mexico is also within the Gulf watershed area.

Nature of EPA involvement:
     •   Original program concept
     •   Lead agency  for program
     •   EPA is the  single largest source of
         funding for the program
     •   EPA has lead roles in a number of the
         program's committees, and a participa-
         tory role in the others.

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S.  EPA

Major environmental problems:
     •   Loss of coastal wetlands and seagrass
         beds
     •   Endangered commercial and recreation-
         al fisheries and shellfish beds
     •   Nutrients
     •   Toxic substances
     •   Pathogens
     •   Trash on beaches
     •   Impaired coastal habitats that support
         migratory birds, fish, and other living
         resources

Actions taken or proposed:
     Accomplishments  to date include:
     •   Developed  a  program  infrastructure
         and 5-year plan that ensures a common
         cooperative approach between all local,
         state, and federal agencies with legisla-
         tive or administrative responsibility for
         any portion of the environmental health
         of the Gulf. The plan has been signed
         by the Gulf state governors and coop-
         erating agency heads.
     •    Funded demonstrations to use wetlands
         for filtration of domestic, agricultural,
         and urban  wastewater  to reduce  im-
         pacts on shellfish-growing  waters in
         several locations.
     •    Organized biannual beach cleanups that
         remove as much as 1 ton of trash per
         mile.
     •    Facilitated restoration of 240 hectares
         (600 acres) of coastal habitat in coop-
         eration  with the Tampa Bay Estuary
         Program and the State of Florida.
     •    Developed technical background infor-
         mation  and  promoted  special  area
         designation under MARPOL Annex  V
         for the Gulf of Mexico  (Wider Carib-
         bean).

     Within the next 5 years, through an integrat-
ed effort that complements existing  local,  state,
and federal programs, the program has pledged
to:
     •    Significantly reduce the  rate of loss of
         coastal wetlands.
     •    Achieve an increase in Gulf  Coast
         seagrass beds.
     •    Enhance the  sustainability  of  Gulf
         commercial and recreational fisheries.
     •    Protect human health arid 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.
     •    Reduce critical shoreline erosion
     •    Improve and  expand  coastal habitats
         that support migratory birds, fish, and
         other living resources.

    Descriptions of two  specific projects that are
being carried out by the Gulf of Mexico Program
follow.
                                              28

-------
              Mid-Atlantic Integrated  Assessment (MAIA)
       A five-step process will be used to develop
  a State of the Region report. The first step will
  be to identify the management  questions that
  must be addressed to ensure that  the report is a
  useful planning tool.  MAIA can produce useful
  information only by applying data and methods
  that  address the  questions of concern  to the
  relevant audience (i.e., environmental and re-
  source  managers).   Identifying pertinent ques-
  tions will involve convening focus groups of
  stakeholders and ensuring that they interact with
  EMAP scientists who are experienced in translat-
  ing generic management questions into scientific
  questions that can be addressed via hypothesis
  testing.

  Step  1.   Identify  management questions and
  translate them into scientific questions.

  Step 2.   Identify, collect, and manage data from
  multiple  sources.

  Step 3.   Analyze  data  and develop  needed
  indicators and methods.

  Step 4.   Synthesize  and interpret results in a
 risk assessment framework.

 Step 5.   Present  results and  facilitate  their
 incorporation into management decisions.

 Stakeholders: The audience for MAIA includes
 a diverse group of stakeholders. ORD's Integrat-
 ed Ecosystem  Protection   Research Program
 (including EMAP), Region  III,  and the states
 (New  York, New  Jersey, Pennsylvania, West
 Virginia,  Maryland,  Delaware,  Virginia,  and
 North Carolina)  will directly utilize the  results.
 Other  interested agencies include EPA Regions
 II and IV; EPA policy and program  offices (e.g.,
 Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation; Office
 of Water;  Office of Administration and Resourc-
 es Management; Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
 and Toxic Substances); other federal agencies
 (e.g.,  U.S.  Department of Agriculture  Forest
 Service and Agricultural Research Service;  U.S.
Department  of the Interior  Bureau of Land
Management, National Biological Survey, and
Fish and Wildlife Service; Department of Com-
merce National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration); regional  and interstate programs
and authorities  (e.g., river basin commissions,
regional planning authorities); local agencies; and
academic and policy research institutions.  The
remaining stakeholders include  Congress, non-
governmental   environmental   organizations,
private entities, and the public.

Contact:
    Thomas B. DeMoss
    Power Technology Center
    201 Defense Highway, Suite 200
    Annapolis, MD 21401
    (410) 573-5839
    FAX: (410) 573-6888
    E-mail: demoss.thomas@epamail.epa.gov
                                             35

-------
             Interior  Columbia  Basin  Ecosystem  Project
 Size and location:  The Columbia River basin
 east of the Cascade Crest (includes Idaho, west-
 ern Montana, northern Nevada, and a corner of
 northwest Wyoming), plus the Upper Klamath
 basin in  southeast Oregon and northern Califor-
 nia.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  Full involvement;
 EPA staff  assigned to the interagency  Science
 Integration Team based at Walla Walla, WA.

 Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Forest Service, at the direction of
     President Clinton.

 Major environmental problems:  Much of the
 federal public land  within this region has been
 severely  degraded by  poor logging and grazing
 practices. However, the public lands are typical-
 ly in better shape than nonfederal lands and thus
 contain the last refuges of many of the Pacific
 Northwest's endangered ecosystems.   Unfortu-
 nately, even these remaining lands are seriously
 threatened by intense  pressure to maintain high
 levels of grazing and timber production.

Actions taken or proposed:  Interagency, inter
 disciplinary  teams  have  been established  to
 evaluate  the current health of eastside  ecosys-
 tems; to  determine what we want these ecosys-
 tems to look like in the future and how they may
 be used; to identify alternative ways of achieving
 those future goals; and, finally, to evaluate  the
 scientific, social, and economic effect of actions
 to achieve  those goals.   Ecosystems  on both
public  and  private lands  will be evaluated.
While  the  management  strategies  ultimately
adopted  will  apply  only to federal lands,  the
findings  and recommendations will hopefully
also  guide  the  management  of adjacent non-
federal lands.

Stakeholders:
    Participating federal agencies:
         Bureau of  Indian Affairs
         U.S. Forest Service
         Bureau of  Land Management
         National Marine Fisheries Service
         Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
             vice
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
         U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    County and local governments
    Tribal  governments

Contact:
    Dan  Robinson
    Walla Walla, WA
    (509) 522-4063
    Fax:  (509) 522-4025
                                             30

-------
      Pacific  Northwest  Ecosystem Management Research
                                        Initiative
 Size and location:  Pacific Northwest is defined
 as Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.  Project in-
 cludes regional-scale analyses as well as work in
 two case study watershed/ecoregions:  (1) Will-
 amette  River basin, in Oregon,  approximately
 29,400   square  kilometers,  and  (2)  southern
 portion of the Washington Coastal Ecoregion,
 which  includes  the  Quinault,  Chehalis, and
 Willapa watersheds and is about 10,500 square
 kilometers.

 Nature of EPA  involvement:   Ecological re-
 search  program  designed to contribute  to an
 "ecosystem approach" to environmental manage-
 ment.   To complement other federal research
 programs in the region, EPA's research focuses
 on nonforested lands and watersheds/ecoregions
 with multiple land uses.

 Organization that initiated project: EPA Office
 of Research and Development (ORD)  Environ-
 mental Research Laboratory-Corvallis.  Effort is
 part of  the follow-up to the President's  North-
 west Forest Conference and Forest Ecosystem
 Management Plan. ORD is also working closely
 with EPA Region 10.

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Threatened and endangered species, in
         particular several salmon stocks
     •    Declines in fisheries and forestry yields
     •    Declines in  biodiversity  and   water
         quality
     •    Limits on water quantity

Actions taken or  proposed:  This is a research
 program and does not directly involve  manage-
 ment actions or regulations. EPA does, however,
 intend to evaluate  the potential ecological conse-
 quences of management alternatives proposed by
 others.   EPA is  working  closely with  other
federal agencies to  coordinate research  in the
region, through the Interagency  Research and
Monitoring  Committee  established after the
President's Forest Conference.
Major projects included within the  Pacific North-
west Ecosystem Management Research Program
are as follows:
     •    Regional-scale  assessment   of  bio-
         diversity.
     •    Watershed-scale ecological assessments
         dealing with multiple valued endpoints
         and stressors  in  the  two case study
         watershed/ecoregions.
     •    Research on  riparian  area  functions,
         condition, and restoration.
     •    Effects of sedimentation and  biological
         stressors on estuarine ecosystems.
     •    Integrated ecological monitoring design
     •    Ecological/socioeconomic linkages.
     •    Technology information transfer.

Stakeholders:   EPA is working  closely with
state, tribal, and local governments in the  two
case study watershed/ecoregions, and  with state
governments for the  regional-scale analyses of
biodiversity.   Much of  the interaction with
stakeholders is coordinated through EPA Region
X.

Contact:
    Joan Baker
    U.S. EPA
    200 SW 35th Street
    Corvallis, OR 97333
    (503)754-4517
    FAX: (503) 754-4716
    E-mail: joan@mail.cor.epa.gov
                                             37

-------
                    Lower  Mississippi Delta Initiative
this year for approval.

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 nonfarm, nongovernment
        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
                                            32

-------
      Prairie Pothole  Region (PPR)  Ecosystem Assessment
Size and  location:   Portion  of PPR located
within State of North Dakota, with lower level of
effort in the portions of the PPR located in South
Dakota and Minnesota.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA's Wetlands
Research Program (WRP) is conducting several
studies  within  the PPR  aimed at evaluating
ecosystem function, assessing risk, and prioritiz-
ing restoration.  Specific projects include pesti-
cide exposure risk assessment, risk assessment
relative  to mallard production, determining  the
influence of landscape factors on wetland habitat,
evaluating the ability to restored farmed pothole
wetlands, and mapping priority  .areas for wetland
restoration so as to provide maximum habitat
benefit.

Organization that initiated project:
    EPA's Wetlands Research Program
    EPA Office of Research and Development -
        Environmental   Monitoring   and
        Assessment Program

Major environmental problems:
    •   Drainage
    •   Pesticide exposure
    •   Sedimentation
    •   Habitat loss
    •   Waterfowl population decline

Actions  taken or proposed:  Studies to support
the risk  assessments and to determine the influ-
ence of landscape factors on wetland habitat are
underway. Both include development and testing
of indicators. The work on restoration is being
planned; we  anticipate being in the field in  the
summer of 1996.

Stakeholders:
    Conservation groups, such as Ducks
        Unlimited
    EPA Region VIII
    National Biological Survey
    Natural  Resources Conservation Service
    State of North Dakota
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Various state agencies
Contacts:
    Mary E. Kentula
    U.S. EPA Environmental Research
        Laboratory
    200 SW 35th Street
    Corvallis, OR  97333
    (503) 754-4478
    FAX: (503) 754-1716
    E-mail: kentula.mary@heart.cor.epa.gov

    Spencer Peterson
    U.S. EPA Environmental Research Labora-
        tory
    200 SW 35th Street
    Corvallis, OR 97333
    (503) 754-4457
    FAX: (503) 754-4716
    E-mail: peterson @ heart .cor. epa. go v
                                            39

-------
            Mid-Atlantic  Integrated Assessment (MAIA)
Size and location:  The proposed study area is
the Mid-Atlantic  region of the eastern United
States and its watersheds, defined by  the land
and near coastal area that includes  all of EPA
Region III and parts of Regions II and IV. The
region extends from  southern New York into
northeastern  North Carolina.   The  region in-
cludes EPA Region III (i.e., Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia); the
Susquehanna and Allegheny River basins, which
extend into New York; the Delaware  River basin,
which extends into New Jersey; and the Chowan-
Roanoke  and  Neuse-Pamlico basins,  which
extend into North Carolina.  The Mid-Atlantic
region encompasses the area from the Mid-Appa-
lachian highlands to the estuaries.

Nature  of EPA involvement:  MAIA will be
conducted as a partnership between EMAP and
EPA  Region  III.   This partnership  will help
EMAP  focus its  research toward  developing
technology for addressing assessment questions
of  importance to  environmental  and  resource
managers. Region III will provide  EMAP with
client-based feedback about the utility of assess-
ment results. Region Ill's  interest in MAIA and
its continuing efforts in regional assessment will
help EMAP access additional data sources in the
region.

Organization that initiated project:  As a part-
nership, MAIA has parallel functions of research
and assessment.  EMAP will use MAIA as  a
forum for research to improve the tools scientists
use to monitor the environment.  Region III will
use MAIA's assessment results to guide environ-
mental management.  MAIA, therefore, will be
both  a  process-driven (research) and product-
driven (assessment) activity with the following
two objectives:

     (1)   Conduct ecological research at different
          spatial scales in the  mid-Atlantic re-
          gion.

The research conducted for MAIA will be a pilot
for investigating scale and integration assessment
issues of interest  to  other regions.   MAIA's
ecological research  will  address  fundamental
issues  pertaining  to  the sampling  design  and
ecological indicators  used to explain the condi-
tion of an ecosystem  and its component resourc-
es.  This research will produce improved, vali-
dated methods and more certain descriptions of
important ecological  processes, exposures, ef-
fects, and risks. These methods will be refined in
the context of MAIA to ensure they provide the
information necessary for managing ecological
risks. Specifically, attempts to assess ecological
condition at  the  scale  of interest  to  resource
managers (e.g., the watershed or ecoregion) will
suggest possible enhancements of EMAP.

     (2)  Produce assessments of the mid-Atlan-
         tic region across ecological resources
         and at different spatial scales.

MAIA  will produce a range  of assessments,
including those  focusing on  single resources,
single resources and  ancillary data, and multiple
resources.  The assessment will address different
spatial scales ranging from the state of the region
to  individual watershed assessments  (where
adequate data are available). These assessments
will allow  scientist and managers to draw  con-
clusions about the condition of  the ecological
resources in the mid-Atlantic region and to relate
the findings to appropriate management issues.
The findings will assist regional and state author-
ities with environmental planning and manage-
ment, improve our understanding of ecosystem
condition,  and enhance our ability to design
protective or remedial strategies at regional and
state levels.

Actions taken  or proposed:   The overall ap-
proach to MAIA will be to conduct research  in
the  context  of  design and  analysis  activities
necessary  to  produce  a  State  of the Region
report.  Not only will this lead to an assessment
of great benefit to Region III, but it  will also
provide a  conceptual framework for  focusing
EMAP research to ensure that it is relevant  to
EPA's  needs.  This synergistic  approach will
enable  MAIA to overcome the gaps in data and
methodology  that  limit  integrated ecosystem
assessment.
                                               34

-------
          President's Forest Plan (Pacific Northwest)
Contact:
   Ron Lee
   U.S. EPA Region X
   1200 Sixth Avenue
   Seattle, WA 98101
   (206) 553-4013
   FAX: (206) 553-1775
                                   41

-------
              New  England  Resource  Protection  Project
Size and location:  The States of New Hamp-
shire,  Connecticut, and Rhode Island.  In the
future, all of the New England states will  be
included.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA initiated the
project and is working with an interstate organi-
zation  to administer its implementation.  Re-
sources have been  provided in  the  form  of
funding and technical and  programmatic  staff
support.

Organization that initiated project:
    U.S. EPA - New England

Major environmental problems:
    •    Population growth
    •    Habitat loss and alteration
    •    Nonpoint sources of contamination
    •    Waterborne  and airborne  discharges
             and emissions
    •    Hazardous  waste sites

Actions taken or proposed:  The New England
Resource  Protection Project  is an  innovative
effort to protect New England's  most important
natural resources, including habitat, water supply,
agriculture,  forestry, and outdoor recreational
opportunities. The project began in the State of
New Hampshire,  where priority resource  areas
have  been  identified  and protection measures
developed.   Work is starting with Connecticut
and Rhode Island and eventually will expand to
all of New England.
    Specific measurable environmental  goals
will be developed once the priority resources are
selected, but examples of goals that might be
considered include reopening all of the shellfish
beds in Great Bay; working with landowners to
keep  intact  large tracts of  unfragmented  land;
ensuring that effective programs are in place to
protect the most important drinking water sup-
plies; and ensuring  that withdrawal  from  these
supplies does not threaten wildlife habitat.
    Following  selection of  priority resource
areas, EPA will work with municipal, state, and
federal governments, regional planning agencies,
environmental and  business organizations, and
others to protect the resources.
Stakeholders:
    Appalachian Mountain Club
    Audubon Society of NH
    Business and Industry. Association of NH
    New England Interstate Water Pollution
        Control Commission
    NH Department of Environmental Services
    NH Department of Resource and Economic
        Development
    NH Department of Fish and Game
    NH Department of Transportation
    NH Department of Agriculture
    NH Lakes Association
    NH Office of State Planning
    NH Rivers Council
    NH Timberland Owners Association
    Society for the Protection of NH  Forests
    The Nature Conservancy
    UNH Cooperative  Extension Program
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    U.S. Forest Service
    USDA  Natural  Resources  Conservation
        Service
    Various  regional  planning agencies  and
        watershed councils
    Local governments

Contact:
    Rosemary Monahan
    U.S. EPA - New England
    J.F. Kennedy Building
    Boston, MA  02203
    (617) 565-3518
    FAX: (617)565-4940
                                              36

-------
              Rio Grande/Rio  Bravo Watershed Project
Size and location:  The Rio Grande (called the
Rio Bravo in Mexico) stretches 2500 kilometers
(1551 miles) that border Texas and Mexico, and
its  watershed  encompasses  366,500  square
kilometers (141,506 square miles), 66 percent in
Mexico and 34 percent in Texas.

Nature of EPA involvement:
    •   Development of binational watershed
        planning framework
    •   Support  of state,  U.S.., and Mexican
        monitoring programs

Organizations that initiated project:
    U.S. EPA
    Texas Natural Resource Conservation
    Commission
    Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
    International Boundary and Water
        Commission

Major environmental problems:
    •   High levels of fecal contamination in
        river downstream of major Texas/
        Mexican cities
    •   Elevated levels of chlorine in the river
    •   Limited information on toxic substance
        impacts on the aquatic environment

Actions taken or proposed:
    •   Construction of wastev/ater treatment
        plant in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico
    •   Binational  toxics  study   completed
        September  1994
    •   Developing "Watershed Alliance" task
        force to coordinate  stakeholder in-
        volvement within  the Rio  Grande/Rio
        Bravo watershed.

Stakeholders:
    National, state, and local agencies
        responsible for water quality along the
        Texas/Mexico border
    Residents of the Texas/Mexico  border
Contact:
    Carl Young
    U.S. EPA Region VI
    1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
    Dallas, TX 75202-2733
    (214) 665-6645
                                            43

-------
   Prairie Potholes/Missouri  Coteau  Ecoregion Assessment
Size and location: Missouri Coteau Ecoregion
of North Dakota 4,000,000 hectares  (9,879,000
acres) (22 percent of the State of North Dakota).

Nature  of EPA  involvement:   The Wetland
Function Project at ERL-Duluth is coordinating
the application of two ecological risk  assessment
strategies to analyze  the effects of agricultural
stressors and best management practices (BMPs)
on  prairie pothole ecosystems.  Research efforts
are being supported through a combination of in-
house staff, contract staff, and interagency agree-
ments  with  the  National Biological  Survey
(NBS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and
the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).

Organization that initiated project:
    U.S. EPA Wetland Research Program
    ERL-Duluth in  collaboration  with ERL-
         Corvallis

Major environmental problems: Major environ-
mental problems in the Prairie Pothole  Region
include  wetland habitat loss and degradation,
leading to declines in regional waterfowl produc-
tion.  Agricultural stressors leading  to wetland
habitat  degradation include wetland drainage,
wetland  tillage, sedimentation, turbidity,  and
pesticides.

Actions taken or proposed: A series of ecosys-
tem-level experiments  are  being conducted to
assess the effects of agricultural stressors on the
ecological health of prairie pothole wetlands, as
well as the effectiveness  of best management
practices (BMPs) in protecting these ecosystems.
Data from the field experiments are  being used
to  update, calibrate,  and  validate  ecological
response models (vegetation succession, wetland
bioenergetics (food chain), and habitat-based
waterfowl  population models).  Stressor  and
response models  will be applied to a random
sample  of prairie potholes across the Missouri
Coteau Ecoregion of North  Dakota (Environmen-
tal  Monitoring and Assessment sites) to predict
the effects  of  historical,  present,   and  future
management  scenarios on regional  waterfowl
production.   In addition,  the relative  risk of
pesticides to wetland biota in North Dakota as a
whole is being assessed on a county-by-county
basis. Relative risk indices are being calculated
based upon  pesticide  loading rates, acute and
chronic toxicity, bioaccumulation, and biodegra-
dation potential.
    These two assessment strategies will provide
tools not only for analyzing existing problems,
but also for  examining reductions in ecological
risk associated with alternative future  manage-
ment scenarios.

Stakeholders:
    The U.S. EPA, ERL-Duluth has been col-
    laborating  with  NBS,  USGS, and U.S.
    ACOE during the experimental and assess-
    ment phases of these projects.  Assessment
    tools and results  will be communicated to
    appropriate management agencies (e.g., U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources Con-
    servation Service, and Agricultural Exten-
    sion Service) to ensure that implications of
    agricultural and wetland management activi-
    ties are  taken into account.

Contact:
    Naomi Detenbeck
    (218) 720-5617
    FAX: (218)720-5539
    E-Mail:
         detenbeck.naomi@epamail.epa.gov @ in
                                              38

-------
  San  Francisco  Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary
     The  North Bay includes  part  of Marin,
 Solano,  Sonoma,  and  Napa Counties  and is
 known for vast ranch lands, rich aquatic habitats,
 and some of the most: productive vineyards in the
 world. EPA Region IX is coordinating the North
 Bay Initiative, the purpose of which is to devel-
 op and implement a resource management plan
 for  North Bay watersheds that  will  improve
 coordination among various efforts and is consis-
 tent with the San Francisco Bay/Delta CCMP.
 Fourteen  local, state, and federal agencies have
 signed a  Memorandum of Agreement to work
 cooperatively with landowners and local govern-
 ments to  develop  the plan, which will address
 environmental restoration, incentives for continu-
 ing agriculture, and partnerships for determining
 sensible land uses.
     On December 15, 1994, four federal agen-
 cies  (EPA, U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service,
 National  Marine  Fisheries Service,  and  U.S.
 Bureau of Reclamation) announced a comprehen-
 sive package of actions under the Clean Water
 Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Central
 Valley Project  Improvement Act to protect the
 fish and  wildlife  resources of the  Bay/Delta
 estuary.   Previously, the four federal agencies
 and  the State of California signed  an  agreement
 to establish a comprehensive program for the
 management of the Bay/Delta estuary.  Under the
 agreement, the state and federal agencies will
 work toward adoption of mutually  acceptable
 water quality standards, coordinated implementa-
 tion of ESA  requirements and water project
 operations,  and development  of  a  long-term
 planning  process  for  water  management  in
 California.  The consensus-based  effort,  now
 known as the Bay/Delta Ecosystem Partnership,
 will  be led by an interagency staff drawn from
 the participating state and federal  agencies and
 an  advisory  council  representing  the State's
 urban, agricultural, and environmental interests.
     The Central Valley Agriculture  and Wet-
 lands Initiative is focused on localized outreach
 and planning to address agricultural and wetlands
 issues in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River
 Watersheds. Through integration with the other
 Bay/Delta estuary  activities, the Region has a
 significant opportunity to promote  and expand
these initiatives with other state and federal
agencies and stakeholders in the Central Valley.
This  approach will  help achieve  the goal  of
expanding  the focus of the long-term planning
process beyond  the impacts of water develop-
ment to address pollutants, wetlands preservation,
habitat loss, and other factors that  affect the
ecological  health of the watershed.   Specific
projects are focusing on pesticides use reduction
through  whole farming  system/integrated pest
management demonstration, selenium reduction
through better irrigation management and total
maximum  daily  load (TMDL) implementation,
and protection and management of vernal pool
resources through local planning and outreach.
     The   Long-Term   Management  Strategy
(LTMS) is  designed to provide a comprehensive
regional  plan for the  placement  of dredged
material for San Francisco Bay for the next 50
years.  Formed in January  1990, and led by a
four-agency, federal/state partnership, the LTMS
involves  over 30 participants  representing gov-
ernment agencies, environmental organizations,
ports, and fishermen's groups.  The overall goal
of LTMS is  to publish  a Management Plan  in
1996  that  guides the dredging,  disposal, and
beneficial  re-use of dredged  material in the
region.

Stakeholders:
    Bay Conservation and Development
         Commission
    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
    State Water Resources Control Board and
         Regional Boards #2 and #5
    The Nature Conservancy
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                             45

-------
             President's  Forest  Plan  (Pacific  Northwest)
Size and location: The President's Forest Plan
covers western Washington  and Oregon and
northern California.

Nature  of EPA  involvement:   Advocate  for
compliance with the Clean Water Act through
Watershed analysis, restoration project identifica-
tion,  monitoring,  ecosystem management  re-
search, geographic information system develop-
ment, and coordination with non-federal land
managers. Toward these goals, EPA has provid-
ed approximately $3 million for research and
$2 million for restoration activities.

Organization that initiated project:
    U.S. Government (President Clinton)

Major environmental problems:
    •    Court-ordered  injunctions  on  federal
         (U.S.  Forest  ServiceAJ.S.  Bureau  of
         Land Management) timber sales/harvest
         in western Washington, Oregon, north-
         ern California
    •    Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues
         - northern spotted  owl, marbled mur-
         relet—"old  growth" forest ecosystem
         provides critical habitat
    •    Pending petitions for  ESA listing  of
         other species  impacted by  forest har-
         vest (e.g., salmon, steelhead, bull trout)
    •    Regional economic impacts—signifi-
         cant reduction in  forest-related jobs,
         particularly  for  rural  communities
         whose  economic  base depends  on
         forest  industry

Actions taken or proposed:  A Final Environ-
mental Impact  Statement Record of Decision
(FEIS ROD)  and accompanying standards and
guidelines, filed in federal court on April  14,
1994, provides for coordinated land management
for lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service
and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within
the range of the northern spotted owl.
    This region-wide management direction will
provide overall  coordination across administra-
tive units, provinces, and  watersheds in Forest
Service and BLM lands, for the areas  and re-
sources covered by the recent final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIS) issued
in February 1994.
    This new management direction will apply
to projects that will be conducted after site-
specific environmental analysis. The coordinated
management  direction established by the ROD
will also be incorporated into all land and re-
source plans  within the range of the northern
spotted owl as they are completed or revised.
    For the Forest Service and BLM, this deci-
sion amends current land and resource manage-
ment plans with additional land allocations and
standards and guidelines.
    The President's Plan is divided  into two
main  sections:  aquatic and terrestrial.   The
aquatic conservation strategy is aimed at restor-
ing  and  maintaining the ecological  health  of
watersheds. The strategy is designed to provide
a scientific basis for protecting aquatic ecosys-
tems  and to   enable planning for sustainable
resource management. The goals of the terrestri-
al section of  the plan are (1) to maintain late-
successional and old growth species habitat and
ecosystems on federal land and (2) to maintain
biological diversity associated with native species
and ecosystems in accordance  with  laws and
regulations.

Stakeholders:
    Conservation groups
    Federal,  state, and local agencies
    Industrial and nonindustrial landowners
    Interagency  Steering  Committee  (ISC),
         composed of  U.S.  Department of the
         Interior, U.S.  Department of Agricul-
         ture, U.S. EPA, and National Oceanic
         and  Atmospheric Administration
    Regional Interagency Executive Committee
         (RIEC), composed of Forest Service,
         Bureau  of  Land  Management,  U.S.
         Fish and Wildlife Service,  National
         Marine Fisheries  Service,  Bureau  of
         Indian Affairs,  U.S.  EPA,  Natural
         Resources Conservation Service,  the
         States  of Washington, Oregon, and
         California, and three tribal  organiza-
         tions
    The public
                                              40

-------
                    South  Florida Geographic  Initiative
 Size and location: The South Florida Geograph-
 ic  Initiative encompasses  watersheds  in the
 southern terminus of the Florida peninsula. This
 region  includes  the  Kissimmee River,  Lake
 Okeechobee, the Everglades, Big Cypress, Flori-
 da Bay, and the Florida Keys;  it contains  3
 National Parks, one National Preserve, 2 Nation-
 al Marine Sanctuaries, and 12 National Wildlife
 Refuges. The watershed is also home to over 6
 million people.
     This initiative is linked with a number of
 smaller  place-based  projects,  including  the
 Florida Keys Wetlands Advance Identification
 Project, the Florida Everglades Mercury Ecologi-
 cal Assessment, and the Florida Keys National
 Marine Sanctuary.  All of  the related smaller
 projects are listed in Part Two: Regional Summa-
 ries, in the Region IV Chapter.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA is active in
 the South  Florida  Ecosystem in a  variety of
 ways:
     •    Conducting an investigation of mercury
         contamination in the watershed.
     •    Developing a Water Quality Protection
         Program for the Florida Keys National
         Marine  Sanctuary (FKNMS).
     •    Participating as a member in the Feder-
         al  Interagency Task Force, which ad-
         dresses   environmental  problems  in
         South Florida.
     •    Providing funding (more than $2 mil-
         lion in FY93-94) to the state and re-
         search agencies.
     •    Developing  a comprehensive   South
         Florida Wetlands Permitting and Miti-
         gation Strategy.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     U.S. Department of the  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 FKNMS
     •    Water supply conflicts among agri-
         cultural interests, natural resources, and
         an expanding urban population
     •    Nutrient enrichment of the Everglades
         by agricultural or urban drainage water
     •    Loss  of historic hydropatterns, water
         gradients,  and discharge
     •    Rapid regional population growth
     •    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 5-year
interagency agreement on South Florida Eco-
system  restoration  was signed by  six  federal
departments including EPA, creating  a task force
to further ecosystem restoration, protection,  and
maintenance.  The watershed 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 interagency
effort is the submission of an integrated plan for
ecosystem restoration, maintenance, and protec-
tion that details current achievements, ongoing
activities, 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 under
way to  address environmental problems in  the
South Florida watershed.  EPA has designed and
begun to carry out a comprehensive interagency
multidisciplinary  study to address the mercury
contamination issue and  identify sources and
solutions. EPA is working with National Ocean-
ic and Atmospheric Administration and the State
of Florida  to develop  and implement a water
quality protection program for the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary. 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,
                                              47

-------
          Rio Grande Basin Landscape-Scale  Assessment
Size and location: Site incorporates the southern
New Mexico, Arizona, and west Texas areas and
includes  the Jornada  Long-Term  Ecological
Research Site.

Nature of EPA involvement:   Joint research
between  Environmental  Monitoring Systems
Laboratory-Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) and the U.S.
Department  of  Agriculture's Agriculture  Re-
search Service  (USDA  ARS)  to  develop  a
landscape-scale assessment of vegetation commu-
nity  status and  change.   EMSL-LV  is funding
this  project  through  an  interagency  agreement
with  ARS  at  New  Mexico State  University.
ARS is matching the funding.

Organization that initiated the project:
     U.S. EPA EMAP

Major environmental problems:  Degradation
and alteration of critical ecological components
and processes due to the magnitude and distribu-
tion  of land uses  has occurred over the  south-
western United  States.   These  alterations have
affected several important ecological resources,
including  streams,  wetlands, and rangelands.
Landscape-scale processes that have been altered
include  fire, water  flow and  discharge,  and
extinction/colonization.  These  alterations have
resulted in  declines in  water  quality,  certain
components  of  biological diversity,  and  range-
land productivity and have increased the risk of
catastrophic  flooding.   Large-scale  alterations
have impacted the river system.  However, the
extent and distribution of these forms of alter-
ations across the southwestern United States are
currently unknown.  Further, no information  is
available on the  relative degrees of risk  and
scales of impairment.

Actions taken or proposed:  EMAP-Landscapes
has initiated development of large-scale land-
scape indicators.    Specifically, EMAP-Land-
scapes and  ARS  are developing  an AVHRR-
based indicator of status and changes in vegeta-
tion composition, principally through the  differ-
ential spectral  signatures  of  different  plants
exhibited within and among years.  The AVHRR
satellite is a relatively inexpensive source of data
that provides coverages  over large areas twice
daily. If successful, this approach could be used
to assess status and changes in the pattern of
vegetation communities over large areas and help
prioritize areas needing improvement.  Further,
these data could be used to identify areas under
greatest risk of decline.

Stakeholders:
    U.S. EPA EMAP
    U.S. EPA Region VIII
    U.S. EPA Office of Water
    New Mexico State University
    USDA ARS
    Rio Grande River Consortium
    Desert Research Institute
    Individual states
    The general public
    Other federal agencies, including U.S. Geo-
         logical   Survey, National  Biological
         Survey, and Natural Resources Conser-
         vation Service

Contact:
    K.  Bruce Jones
    U.S. EPA/EMSL-LV/MS
    P.O. Box 93478
    Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
    (702)798-2671
    FAX: (702) 798-2208
    E-mail: msdkbj@vegasl.las.epa.gov
                                             42

-------
              Southern Appalachians Assessment  (SAA)
 Size  and location:   Southern  Appalachians,
 which includes  parts of Georgia, Tennessee,
 North Carolina,  South Carolina, Alabama, and
 Virginia.

 Nature of EPA  involvement:  EPA is co-lead-
 ing, with the  U.S.  Forest Service (USFS), an
 ecological assessment of the region.

 Other agencies involved include:
     National Park Service
     Fish and Wildlife Service
     Natural Resource Conservation Service
     National Biological Survey
     Army Corps of Engineers
     Oak Ridge National Laboratories (DOE)
     Economic Development Administration
     U.S.  Geological Survey
     Appalachian Regional Commission
     The States of Georgia, North Carolina and
         Tennessee

 Organizations that initiated project:
     U.S.  EPA
     U.S.  Forest Service

 Major environmental problems:  The Southern
 Appalachians  are at risk  for environmental
 degradation  because  of their unique setting,
 including the immense biological wealth, pleas-
 ant  climate,   and unique cultural  resources.
 Some of the major  environmental  stressors or
 issues identified for the area include:
     •   Population growth, urbanization, and
         second-home  recreational  develop-
         ments
     •   Acid  and air toxic deposition
     •   Mine runoff and leaching to surface
         waters
     •  Erosion and siltation from  mining,
        logging and recreational developments
     •   Nonpoint source pollution runoff from
        agriculture  and  other  development
        activities
     •  The introductions of exotics

    Habitat  has  been diminished, as has the
quality of air, water,  and land. The consequenc-
es of these stresses  include  diminished  forest
health and a reduction in species diversity and
productivity.  Consequences  of special  note
include the disturbance to high-elevation bogs
and the loss of endemic species and species of
special concern, such as a number of freshwater
mussels. The rich Southern Appalachian culture
and  existing socioeconomic  structure,  which
have  developed  under an  economy  largely
dependent on the region's  natural resources, is
also at risk due to environmental stresses placed
on the region.

Actions taken or proposed:  EPA  and partici-
pating agencies are collecting data on the region
to determine what problems exist and to develop
a geographic information system program that is
user-friendly for the public.   The data will be
grouped into five areas: terrestrial, aquatic, air,
cultural, and landscape.
    To save time and avoid redundancy, the
project directors of the Southern  Appalachian
Assessment and the Southern Appalachian Man
and  the  Biosphere Reserve  Area  (SAMAB)
Landscape-Scale Assessment project have agreed
to follow EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) protocol,  which
will  allow the  more in-depth  SAMAB  Land-
scape-Scale Assessment project to utilize the
results of the Southern Appalachian Assessment.
The  description following  on  the  next  page
describes  in  detail the landscape  assessment
portion of the interagency project.

Stakeholders:  In addition to Region IV and the
states  mentioned  above,  other  stakeholders
include: EPA  Region III;  EPA Office of Air
Quality  Planning  and Standards; U.S. Forest
Service; representatives from  industry, special
interest groups, and academia.

Contact:
    Cory Berish
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3555 ext. 6770
    FAX: (404) 347-1043
    E-mail: Berish.cory@epamail.epa.gov
                                             49

-------
 San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta  Estuary
Size and location:  The San  Francisco Bay/
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary covers the
4100-square-kilometer (1600-square-mile) water-
shed of the Bay and Delta and 107,000 square
kilometers (41,300 square miles) of the Sacra-
mento and San Joaquin River valleys  in  the
Central Valley.

Nature of EPA involvement: The San Francisco
Bay/Delta estuary has. been a priority watershed
for Region IX for a number of years.  Funding
has  been  contributed   through sections  319
nonpoint source, 104(b)(3) wetlands, and 604(b)
planning grants, San Francisco Estuary Project
(SFEP),  Geographic  Initiative,  and other base
funding. A large amount of staff and managerial
time  has been committed to projects in this
watershed including technical assistance, partici-
pation  in  multiple  workgroups,  management
leadership, and  facilitation and organizational
assistance.

Organizations that initiated project:
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    State of California
    Other federal agencies
    Multiple local agencies

Major environmental problems:
    •    Destruction or fragmentation  of wet-
         lands and riparian forest resulting from
         agricultural conversion and urban  ex-
         pansion
    •    Diversion of fresh water and loss  of
         low-salinity habitat
    •    Alteration of aquatic habitats related to
         water supply systems including dams,
         reservoirs,  pumping  facilities,  and
         canals
    •    Discharge of pollutants such as pesti-
         cides, fertilizers, oil and grease, metals,
         nutrients, and sediments from farms,
         ranches, and cities

Actions taken  or proposed: The San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary is the
largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas
and drains over 40 percent of the water in Cali-
fornia.   The  estuary supports  more than 120
species of fish and is a waterfowl migration and
wintering area of international importance. As a
result of water diversion and other human-in-
duced impacts, the estuary's ability to support a
diverse  ecosystem  has  declined.   While  the
problems  in  the  estuary  are  great, they  are
matched by opportunities  of  equal  magnitude.
EPA and other state, federal, and local agencies
have been developing an integrated ecosystem-
based approach to restoring the ecological health
of the estuary.  EPA has  contributed to these
efforts through the  National Estuary Program,
Water Quality Standards and Ecosystem Partner-
ship,  a Regional  Wetlands  and  Agricultural
Initiative,  Nonpoint Source  Grants,  and  the
Long-Term Management Strategy for Dredged
Material Disposal.
    In  1987, Congress established the SFEP
under the  National Estuary Program.  In  1993,
SFEP participants completed a 5-year planning
process with a blueprint for the restoration of the
estuary—the  Comprehensive Conservation and
Management  Plan (CCMP).  Responsibility for
implementation of the CCMP is being overseen
by  a  broad-based  committee,  with primary
leadership from the state's San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
    In 1992, the SFEP  established a network of
demonstration projects for  watershed protection
designed to link environmental  protection with
economic  prosperity.   These  projects  bring
together  scientists,   regulators,  farmers,  and
citizen activities to develop strategies for accom-
modating  human  activities   while  improving
resource protection.  Projects include mapping
the distribution of  native  fish  and streamside
forests, innovative livestock  management, sus-
tainable  agriculture,   farmland  preservation,
wetland restoration, and  citizen  monitoring.
Furthermore,  the San Francisco  Estuarine Insti-
tute has been formed to implement the Regional
Monitoring Strategy to better characterize eco-
system processes and  to  measure the perfor-
mance of CCMP.  As the project moves into its
implementation phase, geographic subcommittees
have been  formed to tailor  CCMP actions  to
address  priority  problems in the  North Bay,
South Bay, and Delta.
                                              44

-------
  Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve
        Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale Assessment
Contact:
   K. Bruce Jones
   U.S. EPA/EMSL-LV/MS
   P.O. Box 93478
   Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
   (702)-798-2671
   FAX: (702)-798-2208
   E-mail: msdkbj@vegasl.las.epa.gov
                               51

-------
 San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin  Delta Estuary
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    Yolo County Resource Conservation District

Contacts:
    Patrick Wright, Chief
    Bay/Delta Section (W-2-4)
    (415) 744-1989

    Maria Rea, Chief
    Northern California and Hav/aii
    Watersheds Section (W-3-1)
    (415) 744-2005

    U.S. EPA Region IX
    75 Hawthorne St
    San  Francisco, CA 94105-3901
    FAX: (415) 744-1078
                                        46

-------
     Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency  Cooperation on
     	      Ecosystem  Management  (ICEM)
 Size and location The collection of states differs
 due to how the participating agencies delineate
 boundaries. Agencies cooperate in a given loca-
 tion  when there is  a specific problem to be
 addressed.  (States   generally   included  are
 Minnesota,   Wyoming,   Michigan,    Illinois,
 Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio.)

 Nature  of EPA  involvement:   EPA provides
 support staff to coordinate interagency technical
 workgroups formed by 22 participating agencies
 (research,  education,  mapping,  information
 systems, landscape design, and monitoring and
 assessment).  Region V arranged a listserv func-
 tion through Research Triangle Park to  support
 communications for all workgroups.

 Organization that initiated project:  Midwest
 Federal  Environmental Roundtable (an  annual
 meeting of regional federal and state agencies)

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Loss of biodiversity
     •   Protection  of savanna and grassland
         ecosystems
     •   Classification and  mapping systems
         that identify potential for restoration
         and protection
     •   Coordination  on  interjurisdictional
         issues
     •    Budgeting for activity in mutual areas
         of concern

Actions taken or proposed: Listserv established,
attempting to create one for senior managers of
signatory agencies; beginning to create a process
for  more  senior  management  involvement;
research  workgroup provided to  Great  Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) a ranking of
research needs for oak savanna recovery;  pro-
posed to inventory and create a data  base for
regional terrestrial ecosystems research beginning
with savanna types and use the same system that
the University  of Chicago has for aquatic  re-
search, allowing the systems  to be  integrated;
initiated two upcoming training sessions, one on
conflict resolution and the  other on biodiversity
conservation; provided a preliminary inventory of
 multiownership landscape management projects
 in the region; facilitated the acceptance and use
 of  the  U.S.  Forest  Service (USFS) National
 Hierarchy of Ecological Units and related map-
 ping effort (to subsection level) for the region.

 Stakeholders:
     Formal signatories:
         Argonne Lab (Department of Energy)
         Bureau of Land Management (2
             parts)
         Department of the Interior
         Indiana Department of Natural Re-
             sources
         Michigan Department of Natural Re-
             sources
         Minnesota Department of Natural
             Resources
         Missouri Department of Conservation
         National Oceanic  and Atmospheric
             Administration
         National Park Service
         Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
             vice
         U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers
         U.S. EPA
         U.S. Forest Service (3 parts)
         U.S. Geological Service
         Wisconsin Department of Natural
            Resources
    Workgroups include members from uni-
         versities and nongovernmental orga-
         nizations

Contact:
    Janette Marsh
    U.S. EPA Region V
    77 West Jackson (ME-19J)
    Chicago, IL  60604
    (312)886-4856
    FAX: (312) 353-5374
    E-mail: marsh.janette@epamail.epa.gov
                                            53

-------
                  South Florida Geographic  Initiative
and the ecosystem  as a whole.  The  State of
Florida and the federal government are working
with private interests to rectify the phosphorus
enrichment issue that the  Everglades faces. A
South Florida wetlands conservation plan will be
developed through the Wetlands Permitting and
Mitigation Strategy to address problems associat-
ed with historic wetland losses and rapid popula-
tion growth.

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 the Interior
    U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency

Contact:
    Daniel Scheldt
    U.S. EPA  Region IV
    345 Courtland Street,  NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3555 ext. 6552
    (706) 546-2294
                                            48

-------
            Part Two:
Regional Summaries of Local-Scale
   Ecosystem Protection Efforts

-------
   Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere  Reserve
            Area (SAMAB)  Landscape-Scale  Assessment
Size and  location:  Site  incorporates  what is
know as the SAMAB area, which includes the
six-state area of Tennessee, southwest Virginia,
northern  Georgia, northern Alabama,  western
South Carolina,  and western North Carolina.
The project area is considered regional.

Nature of EPA involvement:  Conduct  research
on landscape indicators and conduct assessments
of status and trends of landscapes and medium-
sized watersheds and relate findings to conditions
in  a  wide number  of aquatic  and terrestrial
resources.  The majority  of this work will be
conducted and cost-shared by  the  Tennessee
Valley Authority. Results from the Mid-Atlantic
Landscape project will be applied to this project.
Similar to the Mid-Atlantic project, results gener-
ated from assessments will be  useful in gen-
erating alternatives for ecosystem  management
and in conducting ecological risk assessments.

Organization that initialled the project:
     U.S. EPA EMAP

Major environmental problems:  Degradation
and alteration of critical ecological components
and processes due to the magnitude and distribu-
tion of  land  uses   have  occurred over the
SAMAB Region. These alterations have affected
several important ecological resources within the
SAMAB  Region, including streams, wetlands,
forests, estuaries, and breeding birds and  other
attributes  of biological diversity.   Landscape-
scale processes that have been  altered  include
fire, water  flow  and  discharge,  and  extinc-
tion/colonization. These alterations  have resulted
in declines in water quality and  certain compo-
nents of biological diversity and have increased
the risk of pest outbreak and catastrophic flood-
ing.  However, the extent and  distribution of
these forms  of alternations  across  the SAMAB
region are currently  unknown.   Further,  no
information is  available on  the relative degrees
of risk and scales of impairment.

Actions taken or proposed: EMAP-Landscapes
is proposing two primary  activities:
     •    Landscape indicator development that
        can be applied to  multiple-scale eco-
        logical assessments

    •   An assessment of status and trends in
        landscapes as related to:
          -   biological diversity and  integrity
          -   watershed integrity (water quality,
             quantity, and timing)
          -   landscape resilience (the ability of
             a landscape or watershed to main-
             tain options for ecological  goods
             and services in the face of combi-
             nations  of  anthropogenic  and
             natural disturbance).
    EMAP-Landscapes  will assess status  and
trends  in landscapes and watersheds over the
entire region.  This activity will be conducted in
conjunction with EPA Region IV s regional eco-
logical risk assessment.  Part of this assessment
will  include relating individual ecological re-
sources, including forest, streams, estuaries, and
a variety of wildlife habitats, with landscape
pattern at multiple scales. The outcome of this
assessment should be a fundamental understand-
ing of the  scales  at which landscape change
influence different  ecological  resources.  It is
EMAP-Landscapes'  hypothesis  that   different
resources will have different scaling relationships
with landscapes. This information will be key in
understanding  the range of risks  influencing
ecological resources, and in deriving approaches
to improve  existing conditions.  Completion of
this project depends on availability of land cover
data.

Stakeholders:
    General public
    Individual States
    National Biological Survey
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    SAMAB partners
    Tennessee Valley Authority
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    U.S. EPA Office of Water
    U.S. EPA EMAP
    U.S. Geological Survey
                                              50

-------
                                        Part Two:
      Regional Summaries of Local-Scale Ecosystem Protection Efforts

       Whereas EPA's large-scale projects are more widely known, its local-scale projects are
more abundant and considerably more diverse. The places where these projects occur range from
a  few hectares to thousands  of  square kilometers in area.   Many  of the  projects focus on
watersheds of various scales as the natural unit of interest.  Other projects are based on areas
bounded  by  other  types  of ecological boundaries,  and a  few are based  on jurisdictional
boundaries.  The activities within these projects might include ecological assessment, research,
monitoring, economic valuation, planning,  or environmental management.

       These local-scale projects might or might not have the ecological complexity of the larger
regional  initiatives.   There are, however, usually  fewer stakeholders  concerned with the area.
This could indicate that it  is easier to involve all major interests in the place-based approach on
the local scale.

       The following 10 chapters include summaries of all 10  Regions' local-scale projects, and
a Regional projects  map  accompanies each  chapter.   Projects  that extend across Regional
boundaries are repeated under each Region in which they occur.

       The local-scale projects  in the Inventory  at this time, sorted by EPA Region, include:
       New England Region Projects:
              Blackstone River, MA
              Buzzards Bay, MA
              Casco Bay Estuary Project, ME
              Green Spaces Healthy Places
                 Project, MA
              Lake Champlain, NY, VT
              Lake Champlain Advance
                 Planning Area, VT
              Long Island Sound, NY, CT
              Massachusetts Bays Program, MA,
                 NH
              Massachusetts Bays Program/
                 Mini-Bays Project, MA
              Merrimack River, NH, MA
              Narragansett Bay, MA, RI
              New Bedford Harbor Watershed
                Assessment Project, MA
              Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
                Ecological Risk Assessment, NH,
                ME
              Waquoit Bay, MA

      Region II Projects:
             Alcyon Lake, NJ
 Barnegat Bay, NJ
 Buffalo River Area of Concern, NY
 Cranberry Lake, NJ
 Deal Lake, NJ
 Delaware Estuary, DE, NJ
 Eighteenmile Creek Area of
   Concern, NY
 Greenwood Lake, NJ, NY
 Hackensack Meadowlands
   District, NJ
 Lake Champlain, NY, VT
 Lake La Plata, PR
 Lake Loiza, PR
 Lake Musconetcong, NJ
 Lake Ontario  Toxics Management
   Plan, NY, Ontario
 Long Island Sound, CT, NY
 New York City Water Supply
   Watersheds, NY
 New York-New Jersey Harbor,
   NJ, NY
Niagara River Area of Concern,
   NY
Niagara River Toxics
   Management Plan, NY
                                           57

-------
      Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)
Size and location:  The area of concern is the
Southern Appalachian  Mountains  within  the
boundaries  of Alabama, Georgia,  Kentucky,
North  Carolina,  South Carolina,  Tennessee,
Virginia, and West  Virginia.

Nature of EPA involvement: SAMI is a multi-
organizational alliance of state and federal gov-
ernment agencies, industries, academia, environ-
mental  organizations, and  other  stakeholders
across the region. As a member of this partner-
ship, EPA  Region IV provides direction  and
technical assistance to the Initiative through its
involvement on  the  SAMI  Governing  Body,
committees, and  subcommittees. In addition to
in-kind  services,  EPA  has also  contributed
$225,000 annually  since FY93 from EPA's 105
Air Grants Program.

Organization that initiated project: The Federal
Land Managers for Shenandoah National Park,
Great Smoky  Mountains National  Park,  and
James River Face Wilderness Area made adverse
impact determinations in reviews  of proposed
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air
permits  for major new sources  of air pollution.
It  was these adverse impact findings on PSD
permits  that spurred  the voluntary creation of
SAMI.

Major environmental problems:
    •    Research  and monitoring in national
         parks  and  wilderness areas  of the
         Southern  Appalachian Mountains have
         documented adverse air pollution  ef-
         fects  on visibility, streams,  soils, and
         vegetation.
    •    Air pollutants such as  sulfur and nitro-
         gen oxides, ozone,  and volatile organic
         compounds,  adversely affecting park
         and wilderness resources, come largely
         from existing  mobile and  stationary
         sources both near and distant.
    •    The precise amount that each  source
         contributes to the regional air pollution
         problem is not clear.

Actions taken or proposed:  Through a coopera-
tive effort,  SAMI will identify  and recommend
reasonable  measures to remedy existing and
prevent  future  adverse  effects  from  human-
induced air pollution on the air-quality-related
values of the Southern Appalachians, weighing
the environmental and socioeconomic implica-
tions of any recommendations. This goal will be
realized through the development of an integrat-
ed assessment framework, which will be used to
evaluate the impact of the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments as well as other  emission  management
options.

Stakeholders:  In addition to Region IV and the
states  mentioned  above,   other  stakeholders
include:
    EPA Region III
    National Park Service
    Office of Air  Quality Planning and Stan-
        dards
    U.S. Forest Service
    Representatives from industry, special
        interest groups, and academia

Contact:
    Susan Martin
    EPA Region IV - APTMD
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3555 ext. 4185
    FAX: (404) 347-2130
                                             52

-------
 Region IV Projects (corit):
         West Chatham County Wetlands
            Advance Identification (ADID)
            Project, GA
         West Kentucky Coalfield Wetlands
            Advance Identification (ADID)
            Project, KY

 Region V Projects:
         Ashtabula River Area of Concern,
            OH
         Big Darby Creek, OH
         Cache River, IL
         Clinton River Area of Concern,
            MI
         Lake  Michigan, IL, IN, MI, WI
         Lake  Superior EMAP-Great Lakes
            Assessment, MI, MN, WI
         Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley
            Wetland Conservation Plan, MS,
            LA, AR, TN, KY, MO, IL
         Maumee River Area of Concern,
            OH
         Milwaukee Estuary Area of
            Concern, WI
         Mississippi River Gateway
            Project, IL, MO
        Northwest Indiana Environmental
            Initiative, IN
        Sagiriaw Bay, MI
        Saginaw Bay Urban Targeting
            Project, MI
        St.  Mary's River, MI
        Southeast Chicago Urban
           Environmental Initiative, IL
        Southeast Michigan Initiative, MI
        Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV

Region VI Projects:
        Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer
           Project, OK
        Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary, LA
        Corpus Christi Bay, TX
        Galveston Bay Estuary, TX
        Illinois River - Battle  Branch, OK
        Jornada Long-Term Ecosystem
           Research Project, NM
        Lake Pontchartrain Basin, LA
        Lake Worth, TX
         Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley
            Wetland Conservation Plan, MS,
            LA, AR, TN, KY, MO, IL
         Tangipahoa River, LA
         Tensas River Basin Initiative, LA

 Region VII Projects:
         Beeds Lake, IA
         Big Spring Basin, IA
         Centerville Reservoirs Project, IA
         Cheyenne Bottoms Wetland
            Project, KS
         Clear Lake, IA
         Eastern Nebraska Saline Wetlands,
            NE
         Elm Creek, NE
         Hillsdale Reservoir, KS
         Iowa Great Lakes,  IA
         Lower Mississippi  Alluvial  Valley
            Wetland Conservation Plan, IL,
            LA,  MS, AR, KY, TN, MO
         Meramec River,  MO
         Mississippi River Gateway
            Project, IL, MO
         Omaha Stretch of the Missouri
            River, IA, NE
        Papio Lakes Project, NE
        Pine Creek, IA
        Platte River, NE
        Salt Valley Lakes Project, NE
        Storm Lake Project, IA
        Upper Big Mill Creek, IA
        Upper Niangua River Watershed,
           MO
        Walnut Creek Prairie Restoration
           Project, IA
        Walnut Creek Watershed Project,
           IA

Region VIII Projects:
        Animas River Basin Watershed
           Project, CO
        Bear River, ID, UT, WY
        Blackfoot River,  MT
        Bowman-Haley Reservoir, ND
        Chalk Creek, UT
        Clark Fork-Pend  Oreille Watershed,
           ID, MT, WA
        Clear Creek, CO
        Goodman Creek,  ND
                                         59

-------

-------

-------

-------
                       New England  Region Projects

        Example projects submitted by the New England Region include the 14 projects listed
 below, plus its large-scale initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the
 multisite projects (see Part III).  The map at left indicates the location  and distribution of the
 large-scale and local-scale projects in this Region.

        The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of
 partners involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on watersheds, but these range
 from inland lakes and rivers to coastal watersheds, estuaries, and sounds. Nutrient enrichment,
 habitat degradation, ocean pollution, human and environmental health hazards, and chemical and
 pathogenic contaminants are reported among the problems these projects seek to address. Actions
 taken  include developing partnerships with a  variety  of local, state,  and  federal agencies,
 industries, private citizens' groups, and other organizations. Depending upon the environmental
 problems present, these multiorganizational  teams might identify and assess important  or
 degraded habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources,
 and options for pollution prevention; propose development or revision of water quality standards;
 develop outreach and educational programs; or jointly develop management plans. Many of the
 local-scale projects also will  enhance as well as benefit from the large-scale initiatives in  the
 Region, which include the New  England Resource Protection Project, the Gulf of  Maine
 Initiative, and the  Environmental Monitoring  and  Assessment Program  (EMAP) Northeastern
 Lake Assessment.

       New England Region projects in the Inventory at this  time include:

       Blackstone River, MA
       Buzzards Bay, MA
       Casco Bay Estuary Project, ME
       Green Spaces Healthy Places  Project, MA
       Lake Champlain, NY, VT*
       Lake Champlain Advance Planning Area, VT
       Long Island Sound, NY, CT*
       Massachusetts Bays Program, MA, NH
       Massachusetts Bays Program/Mini-Bays Project, MA
       Merrimack River, NH, MA
       Narragansett Bay, MA, RI
       New Bedford Harbor Watershed Assessment Project, MA
       Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Ecological  Risk Assessment, NH, ME
       Waquoit Bay, MA
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region.  Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.


                                           63

-------
 Region II Projects (cont):
         Onondaga Lake, NY
         Oswego River Harbor Area of
            Concern, NY
         Peconic Bay, NY
         Rochester Embayment Area of
            Concern, NY
         St. Lawrence River Area of
            Concern, NY
         San Juan Bay, PR
         Swartswood Lake, NJ

 Region III Projects:
         Anacostia River, DC, MD
         Canaan Valley, WV
         Christina River, DE, PA
         Clinch Valley Watershed, VA
         Delaware Estuary, NJ, DE
         Delaware Inland Bays, DE
         Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Bays,
            MD
         Middle Fork River, WV
         National Capital Area (NCA)
            Municipal Solid Waste Initiative,
            DC, MD, VA
        Patuxent River Watershed, MD
        Pequea and Mill Creeks, PA
        Philadelphia Municipal Solid
           Waste Initiative, PA
        Pocono Habitat E>emonstration
           Project, PA
        Prince William County Ecosystem
           Project, VA
        Silver Lake, DE
        Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV
        Upper Tennessee River Basin, VA
        Virginia Eastern Shore Coastal
           Waters, VA

Region IV Projects:
        ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study,
        AL, FL, GA
        Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, NC
        Back Bay of Biloxi Ecosystem
           Assessment, MS
        Bayou Chico Ecological Assessment,
           FL
        Bayou Grande Ecological
           Assessment, FL
        Bayou Texar Ecological Assessment,
           FL
 Cahaba River Basin Project, AL
 Carteret County Wetlands Advance
    Identification (ADID) Project,
    NC
 Central Dougherty Plain Wetlands
    Advance Identification (ADID)
    Project, GA
 Charleston Harbor Project, SC
 Escambia River Watershed Project,
    FL
 Flint Creek, AL
 Florida Bay Algal Bloom
    Monitoring Project, FL
 Florida Everglades Mercury
    Ecological Risk
    Assessment, FL
 Florida Keys National Marine
    Sanctuary, FL
 Florida Keys Wetlands Advance
    Identification (ADID) Project, FL
 Huntsville  Wetlands Advance
    Identification (ADID) Project,
    AL
 Indian River Lagoon, FL
 Land-of-Sky Municipal Solid Waste
    Initiative, NC
 Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley
    Wetland Conservation Plan, IL,
    LA, MS, AR,  KY, TN, MO
 Loxahatchee River Basin Wetland
    Planning Project, FL
 Mobile Bay Restoration
    Demonstrations, AL
 Pearl River Wetlands Advance
    Identification (ADID) Project,
    MS
 Pensacola Bay Watershed
    Evaluation, FL
 Rookery Bay Wetlands Advance
    Identification (ADID) Project, FL
 Sarasota Bay, FL
 Savannah River Basin, FL, GA, SC
 South Florida Wetlands Permitting
    and Mitigation Strategy, FL
Tampa Bay, FL
Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV
Weeks Bay Estuarine Research
   Project,  AL
West Broward County Wetlands
   Advance Identification (ADID)
   Project,  FL
                                         58

-------
                            Blackstone  River
Contact:
    Gerald C. Potamis
    U.S. EPA New England Region (WMN)
    JFK Federal Building
    Boston, MA 02203
    (617) 565-3575
    FAX: (617) 565-4940
                                      65

-------
                                        Figure  2:
A  Phase  I  Inventory  of Current EPA  Efforts  to  Protect  Ecosystems
                            Region 1  Project Locations
 Scale 1:4,000,000
 Albers Equal Area Projection
 Sources: US EPA (various)
 Compiled January 1995, MRf00014-1/10
 Area boundaries and reference point locations are approximate.
                                                                Area included  in 1 or more of
                                                                the  large-scale projects
                                                                (see Part 1  project summaries)
•   Reference point for local-scale project

A/   State  Boundary
                   Columbia
                Lake Roosevelt, WA
                Middle Snake River, ID
                Pacific Northwestern Watershed
                   Economic Valuation Project, WA
                Puget Sound Estuary, WA
                Tillamook Bay, OR
                Willamette River Basin, OR
                Willapa Bay Watershed Project,
                   WA
                Yakima River, WA
                                              60

-------
                          Casco  Bay  Estuary Project
 Size and location: Casco Bay covers 593 square
 kilometers (229 square miles) and its watershed
 covers  2251  square kilometers  (985  square
 miles).  The bay  extends from Cape Elizabeth,
 Maine, to Phippsburg, Maine.  Portland, Maine's
 largest city, borders Casco Bay.

 Nature  of EPA  involvement:  In  accordance
 with  the  National Estuary Program, EPA  has
 provided funding and technical and programmat-
 ic support and  has participated in  various com-
 mittees of the Casco Bay Estuary Project.

 Organization that initiated project:
     Maine Department  of Environmental Pro-
     tection

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Water quality  impacts  from   storm
         water  and combined sewer overflows
     •   Habitat impacts from development
     •   Water quality  and human  health im-
         pacts  from individual wastewater sys-
         tems (septic systems)
     •   Living resource impacts from existing
         sediment 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 with  recommendations for priority correc-
tive actions to restore and maintain the estuarine
resources is due in September  1995.  To date, a
series of  implementation and  demonstration
projects have been undertaken, including:
    •   The Agricultural Stabilization   and
        Conservation Service distributed over
        $200,000 in cost-share funds in Casco
        Bay watershed  to address agricultural
        nonpoint source pollution.
    •   A public education campaign provided
        information  on  the  need  to restore
        eroding stream banks along the Pleas-
        ant River.  Volunteers  performed the
        restoration work.
     •    A training program for municipal offi-
         cials was developed to provide
         information on nonpoint source pollu-
         tion and best management practices.
     •    Administrative structures to ensure the
         inspection arid maintenance of septic
         systems are being evaluated.
     •    A storm water management plan for a
         town center is under development to
         demonstrate storm water control plan-
         ning in areas 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 New England  Region (WQE)
     JFK Federal Bldg.
     Boston, MA 02203
     (617) 565-9461
     FAX: (617) 565-4940

     State:
    Patricia Harrington
    Casco Bay Estuary Project
    312 Canco Road
    Portland,  ME 04103
    (207) 828-1043
    FAX: (207) 828-4001
                                             67

-------
                                  Blackstone River
Size and location:   The Blackstone River  is
located in south-central Massachusetts and flows
from Worcester, Massachusetts, to the Seekonk
River in  Pawtaucket, Rhode Island.  The Black-
stone has a total  length of 77 kilometers (48
miles)  with a drainage area of  1400 square
kilometers (540 square miles).  The river is the
second largest freshwater tributary  to the Nar-
ragansett Bay.  The Blackstone  River is  an
important natural, recreational,  and  cultural
resource  to  both Rhode Island and  Massachu-
setts. In  1986, the  U.S. Congress established the
Blackstone  River  Valley  National Heritage
Corridor  along portions of the river  in both
Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding and technical assistance to the States of
Massachusetts and Rhode  Island to develop a
wet- and dry-weather total maximum daily load
(TMDL)  for  toxics consistent throughout the
mainstem of the Blackstone River. EPA also has
undertaken extensive  water quality sampling in
the watershed  with the states.

Organization that  initiated project:
     U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
     based on recommendations from Massachu-
     setts 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  effluent water quality criteria and anti-
degradation provisions in their state water quality
standards.   Strict  water-quality-based  permits
have been issued to major wastewater discharg-
ers and combined sewer overflow strategies are
being implemented. The following actions have
been taken or  are currently under way:
     •    Historic  analysis  of existing  water
         quality data.
     •    Collection of dry-weather data.
     •    Calibration  of a  dissolved  oxygen
         model to include  impacts  from phos-
         phorus and nitrogen.
     •    Calibration of trace metals model for
         the development of a daily load TMDL
         and waste load allocation (WLA).
     •    Collection of wet-weather data to de-
         termine annual wet weather loads to
         Narragansett Bay as well as intermedi-
         ate locations  along the river, and the
         identification  of water quality hot spots
         to target best  management practices.

     In addition to the above, the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs has
initiated  a  technical assistance program that is
providing  pollution prevention  assistance  to
industries to assist them in reducing the use of
toxic materials.  The assistance is provided by a
nonregulatory state office and consists of various
activities   including  multimedia  evaluations,
economic  evaluations,  educational  materials,
seminars and workshops, and identification of
alternative  chemicals and process technologies.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as part of its
Section 22  Planning Assistance  to States Pro-
gram,  has  funded  a study  to  investigate the
feasibility  of  restoring anadromous  fish  and
enhancing  waterfowl habitat along the Black-
stone River.
     The State of Rhode Island has completed a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan for  Narragansett Bay that includes recom-
mendations for the Blackstone. The Common-
wealth of Massachusetts is including the Black-
stone in its Watershed 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
                                              64

-------
                                    Lake  Champlain
  Size and location: Lake Champlain is located in
  the northeastern United States. Its basin includes
  portions of Vermont, northeastern New York,
  and the Province of Quebec, Canada.  The lake
  is  177  kilometers (110 miles) long and 19 kilo-
  meters  (12 miles) wide at its widest.  The total
  area of the basin is over 21,000 square kilome-
  ters (8200 square miles).

  Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
  funding and technical support for the study  of
  Lake Champlain.  Furthermore, EPA chairs the
  Lake Champlain Management Conference and
  participates in a number of its committees.

  Organization that initiated project:
      U.S. Congress

 Major environmental problems:
          Toxics in lake sediments, with elevated
          levels  in  Malletts  and  Cumberland
          Bays and Burlington Harbor
      •    Eutrophication, caused by both  point
          and  nonpoirit sources,  affects  water
          quality and  causes increased   plant
         growth in the bays
     •   Phosphorus, especially  from nonpoint
         sources
     •   Consumption  advisories  due  to  con-
         taminated 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 Commission performed a Level B
Study.
     In   1988,  New  York,  Vermont, and  the
Province of Quebec signed  a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on Environmental Coop-
eration on the Management of Lake Champlain.
Important accomplishments include the creation
of Citizen Advisory Committees to advise agen-
cies  on public concerns and opinions about lake
management and facilitating the  adoption of
consistent phosphorus standards in the lake. The
MOU was renewed in 1992.
     In  1989,  EPA  awarded  a  Clean Lakes
Program grant for a Phase I diagnostic/feasibility
 study,  which is nearing completion, under  the
 joint  administration  of the New  York  State
 Department of Environmental 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 pollu-
 tion,  and then evaluate solutions and recommen-
 dations for  the  most  feasible  procedures  to
 restore and protect lake water quality.
     The Lake Champlain Management Confer-
 ence  was  established under Title 3 of the Great
 Lakes Critical Program Act of 1990, the Lake
 Champlain Special Designation  Act of  1990.
 Comprising 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 Program Office
 funded through the  conference has been estab-
 lished  in  Grand  Isle,  Vermont,  and  funding
 provides  for  education,  research,  monitoring,
 planning, and demonstration projects.

Stakeholders:
    Academic Institutions
    Anglers
    Audubon Society
    Businesses
    Environmental groups
    Farmers
    Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce
    Lake Champlain Committee
    Lake Champlain Research Consortium
    Lake George Commission
    Local  citizens
    Local  watershed groups
    National Park Service
    States  of Vermont and New York
    Tourists
    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
                                             69

-------
                                    Buzzards Bay
Size and location: Buzzards Bay is located in
southeastern Massachusetts. It has a surface area
of 591 square kilometers (228 square miles) and
a watershed area of 1119 square kilometers (432
square miles).

Nature of EPA involvement:  In accordance
with the National  Estuary Program,  EPA has
provided funding and technical and programmat-
ic support and has  participated in various com-
mittees in the Buzzards Bay Program.

Organizations that initiated project:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Massachusetts Executive Office of
         Environmental 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 Conserva-
tion  and Management  Plan that  recommends
priority corrective actions to restore and maintain
the estuarine  resources has  been developed.
Actions accomplished include:
     •    Development of nitrogen loading limits
         for localized embay me nts.
     •    Establishment of a tri-town nitrogen
         management district.
     •    Creation of a toxic use reduction pro-
        gram for the highly industrialized New
         Bedford area.
     •   Establishment of  a boat "no discharge
        area" for  the  waters in the towns  of
        Wareham and Westport.
    •   Completion of two storm water reme-
        diation projects and partial completion
        of four others.
    •   Establishment of  a Mutual Aid Com-
        pact for Oil Spill Containment among
        the 12 municipalities surrounding Buz-
        zards Bay.
    •   Establishment  of a  tri-town  health
        district.
Stakeholders:
    Anglers
    Boaters
    Citizens
    Coastal property owners
    Environmental organizations
    Industry
    Local governments
    Massachusetts Executive Office of
         Environmental Affairs
    Naturalists
    Tourists
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contacts:
    EPA:
    Bruce Rosinoff
    U.S. EPA New England Region (WQE)
    JFK Federal Bldg
    Boston, MA 02203
    (617) 565-9448
    FAX:  (617)565-3962

    State:
    Joseph E.  Costa
    Buzzards Bay Project
    2 Spring Street
    Marion, MA 02738
    (508) 748-3600
    FAX: (508) 748-3962
                                             66

-------
              Lake Champlain Advance  Planning Area
Size  and  location: Northwestern  Vermont—
Chittenden, Franklin, Grand Isle, and Addison
Counties. This project covers about 2600 square
kilometers (1000 square miles)  (260,000 hect-
ares/650,000 acres) in northwestern Vermont of
the 20,700-square-kilometer (8,000-square-mile)
Lake Champlain basin.

Nature  of EPA involvement:   Designed  and
implemented field sampling protocols and accu-
racy  assessment of Landsat Thematic Mapper-
derived  land use/land cover map. EPA is sup-
porting the state wetlands program implementa-
tion to identify and protect the most valuable and
threatened wetlands in the study  area.
Organization that initiated project:
    Wetland Protection  Section,  EPA
         England Region
New
Major environmental problems:  The wetlands
of the 26 towns composing this area were previ-
ously identified as under the greatest threat from
direct and cumulative development impacts. This
project will better protect the hydrologic, habitat,
and  biodiversity functions  and values  of this
region's aquatic environment.  These wetlands
provide the  full gamut  of hydrological  and
biological functions and human-centered values.
Approximately  one-third  of endangered  and
threatened plants and one-half of the animals are
dependent on Lake Champlain basin wetlands.

Action taken  or proposed:   The  project has
completed an accuracy assessment of land use/
cover map for study  area. Two University of
Vermont  graduate  students  have  completed
theses using this data set.  A  104(b)(3) wetlands
grant was given to the state to implement this
project beginning in fall  1994.  Goals  include
determining  and better  protecting the  most
valuable  and threatened wetlands of this study
area. Documentation and technology transfer of
the  methodology  may  encourage  application
throughout the entire  Lake Champlain  basin.
Compilation  of existing  wetland and  critical
habitat information and determining an optional
inventory methodology for the entire basin have
been identified  as  the top  priority for  these
resources.  An extensive public outreach effort
will be mounted once study products are avail-
able to involve  people in the planning  process.
Local, regional, state and federal agencies will be
encouraged to utilize this information and streng-
then protection of valuable and threatened aquat-
ic resources.

Stakeholders:
    Citizens
    EPA New England Region
    Lake Champlain Basin Program
    Local municipalities
    Regional Planning Authorities
    State of Vermont Wetlands Program
    USFWS Cooperative Research Unit
    Vermont School of Natural Resources

Contact:
    Greg Hellyer
    U.S. EPA New England Region (WWP425)
    JFK Federal Building
    Boston, MA  02203
    (617) 565-4427
    FAX: (617) 565-4940
    EPA Mail:  EPA91161
    E-mail: hellyer.greg@epamail.epa.gov
                                             71

-------
                  Green Spaces  Healthy  Places Project
Size  and  location:  31-block area within  the
Roxbury/North  Dorchester  area  of  Boston,
Massachusetts.

Nature of EPA involvement: Provide technical
assistance  to a National  Service Corporation
team and a community development organization
for the following:
•   Creation of lead-safe  zones.  Priority areas
    are identified with input from the neighbor-
    hood community organizations.
•   Reduction  of indoor environmental health
    risks to Public Housing Authority residents
•   Building capacity  for environmental  ac-
    countability at the community level.
•   Demonstration  of  energy efficiency  and
    water conservation.

Organizations that initiated project:  EPA New
England  and  City  Year, a  community  out-
reach/service organization, entered into a cooper-
ative   agreement   to  secure  a  grant  from
Americorps.

Major environmental problems:   Density of
listed hazardous waste  sites  (54  within a  3.9-
square kilometer/1.5-square mile area); lead and
hazardous  waste  in  soil  within  the 31-block
project  area;  pest  management;  and  energy
inefficiencies due to infrastructure and lifestyle.

Actions being taken or proposed:
     •    The  fall  component—green  spaces
         development: to clear two  vacant  lots
         and transform them into a resource for
         and with the community. One lot  will
         be a community garden,  and the other
         could  become   a   community
         composting center
     •    Indoor health hazards, energy conser-
         vation—healthy  places   development:
         Energy  audits in targeted  buildings.
         Based on  the  findings  the team  will
         retrofit  lights,  water, and  insulation.
         Conduct indoor health hazards audits
         and appropriate environmentally sound
         remediation in a public housing devel-
         opment  in Roxbury.
Stakeholders:
    Americorps
    City Year
    Community residents
    Corporate partners

Contact:
    Lois K. Adams
    Urban Ecosystems Coordinator
    EPA New England Region - RRA
    JFK Federal Building
    Boston, MA 02130
    (617) 565-4891
    FAX: (617) 565-3335
                                              68

-------
                              Long Island  Sound
    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.
    Sound Keeper
    Sound Waters
    State  University of  New  York at Stony
        Brook
    University of Connecticut
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Geological Survey
    USDA Natural  Resources  Conservation
        Service (NRCS)
    Westchester County Department of
        Environmental 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
                                           73

-------
                             Lake Champlain
Contacts:
    EPA:
    Lee Steppacher
    U.S. EPA New England Region
    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) 372-3214
    FAX: (802) 372-6131

    NY:
    Jim Connolly
    NYSDEC
    Rt.  86
    Ray Brook, NY 12977
    (508)897-1211
    FAX: (508) 897-1394
                                       70

-------
                     Massachusetts  Bays Program
Contacts:
    EPA:
    Matthew Liebman, Ph.D.
    U.S. EPA New England Region (WQE)
    JFK Federal Building
    Boston, MA 02203
    (617) 565-4866
    FAX:(617) 565-4940

    State:
    Diane Gould, Ph.D.
    Massachusetts Bays Program
    100 Cambridge Street
    20th Floor
    Boston, MA 02202
    (617) 727-9530, ext. 406
    FAX: (617) 727-2754
                                       75

-------
                                 Long Island Sound
 Size and location:  Long Island Sound is 177
 kilometers (110 miles) long and 34 kilometers
 (21 miles) wide. The  Sound stretches from the
 Battery in Manhattan to the Race at the eastern
 end of Long Island.

 Nature of EPA involvement: Program  coordi-
 nation and oversight;  participation  in manage-
 ment conference committees and technical work
 groups; and funding assistance.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     New  York State  Department of Environ-
         mental Conservation
     Connecticut Department of Environmental
         Protection
     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
         habitat loss and degraded water quality

 Actions taken or proposed:  The Long  Island
 Sound Study (LISS) was selected for inclusion in
 the National Estuary Program in  1987. A Man-
 agement Conference v/as  convened, and  the
 members of the Management Conference devel-
 oped a Comprehensive Conservation and Man-
 agement Plan (CCMP) for the Sound that recom-
 mends 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 both the CCMP  and  a special implemen-
 tation agreement on September 26, 1994.
     The Management Conference is implement-
 ing a phased agreement to reduce nitrogen loads
 to Long  Island  Sound.  In  1990,  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  geographic  areas at  1990
levels.  This "no net increase" policy is being
 implemented by the States of Connecticut 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
         discharge permits to surface waters to
         reduce the allowable concentrations of
         toxic  pollutants from  the  previous
         permitted values.
     •   Implementing  combined  sewer  over-
         flow  abatement programs in  areas
         affecting  Long Island Sound  to  dec-
         rease  pathogen contamination   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
         activities  related to the cleanup  and
         protection of the Sound and providing
         support for activities 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
    Interstate Sanitation Commission (NY/NJ/
        CT)
    Long Island Sound Foundation
    Long Island Sound Keeper
    Long Island Sound Taskforce
    Long Island Sound Watershed Alliance
    National Audubon Society
                                             72

-------
                                  Merrimack River
 Size and location: The Merrimack River has a
 13,000-square-kilometer  (5,010-square-mile)
 watershed located in New Hampshire and Massa-
 chusetts.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has been an
 active participant, as well as the primary funding
 source, for the project.  The project is an exam-
 ple of  "holistic" watershed management and
 provides an  opportunity for the Agency  to ex-
 plore  how to  address environmental  problems
 from that viewpoint.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     U.S. EPA
     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: In an effort to reach
 out to  stakeholders or user groups in the water-
 shed and to better define the issues, the Merri-
 mack River Watershed Consortium was held in
 February 1992.  As a result of the Consortium,
 a Management Committee and four issue-orient-
 ed  subcommittees were formed.  The  Manage-
 ment Committee  and  subcommittees  include
 federal, state, regional, and local interest group
 representatives.   The  subcommittee issues are
 water quality, instream flow,  information man-
 agement/geographic information  system  (GIS),
 and resource use and value.
     On June 7-8, 1993, the first annual Merri-
 mack River Watershed Management Conference,
 "Solutions for the Future . .  . Actions for the
 Present,"  was  held.   More  than  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
pursuing  a variety of priority projects determined
 by the subcommittees and Management Commit-
 tee.  These  include a resource use and value
 inventory of the watershed, water quality assess-
 ment, hydrologic analysis, communication strate-
 gy, two pilot subwatershed studies, hydrographic
 coding of the watershed, and the development of
 GIS base maps.
     Projects selected for action in fiscal year
 1994  included  the  formation  of  a watershed
 advisory  group, the development  of a citizen
 environmental  monitoring  network,  resource
 assessment, information access  network, busi-
 ness/government forum, and biomonitoring. The
 second annual Watershed Management Confer-
 ence  was held in  June of 1994.  In addition,
 internal EPA workgroups are pursuing projects
 related to doing a better job of ecosystem man-
 agement  by integrating internal  data bases,
 targeting  compliance  efforts  and  inspections
 based  on where critical resources  are  located,
 addressing combined  sewer overflow  issues
 through  increased   public   participation,  and
 locating waste sites as  an aid in local planning
 and priority setting.
    The  project will receive a final  year  of
 funding in  1995.   The emphasis  will  be on
 implementation projects and outreach and educa-
 tion,  sharing tools  developed and the lessons
 learned in doing "holistic"  watershed manage-
 ment.   A watershed management plan with
 recommendations for further work  will be pre-
 pared in  1995  and  will  assist  in  guiding the
 effort in the absence of further EPA funding.

Stakeholders:
    Environmental organizations
    Industry and business
    Local governments
    Massachusetts
    National Park Service
    New Hampshire
    Regional planning agencies
    U.S. EPA
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    U.S. Forest Service
    U.S. Geological  Survey
    USDA  Natural  Resources  Conservation
        Service
    Universities
                                             77

-------
                        Massachusetts Bays  Program
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 embayments along the entire
eastern coast of Massachusetts.  The bays en-
compass  a surface area of approximately  5200
square kilometers (2000 square miles), with a
contributing  watershed area  of  about  16,000
square kilometers  (6300  square  miles).   The
watershed consists of significant portions of both
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  and, in
particular, includes almost half of Massachusetts'
351 cities and towns.

Nature of EPA involvement:  As part of the
National  Estuary Program,  the Massachusetts
Bays Program (MBP) receives $5 million over 5
years from EPA. The MBP has received funding
from  other EPA  funding  sources such as the
Action Plan  Demonstration Program. EPA also
provides  full-time technical  and  programmatic
assistance to the MBP.

Organization that initiated project:  The Massa-
chusetts Bays  Program (MBP) is a joint feder-
al/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
         sediments
    •    Bioaccumulation and effects of chem-
         ical contamination
    •    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,  the  MBP
began development of a Comprehensive Conser-
vation 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 final draft CCMP
will be released in May 1995 for public review.
Final publication of the CCMP is scheduled for
September 1995.
The  CCMP and  accompanying annual  work
plans serve to direct numerous program activities
including:
    •    Establishment and staffing of govern-
         ing committees, such as those for Poli-
         cy, Management,  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 next
         project summary).
    •    Protection  of living  resources  from
         chemical contamination through source
         reduction.
    •    Numerous   education  and   outreach
         efforts (e.g., teacher training, publica-
         tion of a  coastal access guide and
         watershed map).
    •    Protection and restoration of harvest-
         able 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
                                             74

-------
                                  Narragansett Bay
 Size  and  location:   Narragansett  Bay  is  an
 estuary covering 381  square kilometers  (147
 square  miles) of water  surface.  Its watershed
 comprises  4292 square kilometers (1657 square
 miles),  61  percent of which is in Massachusetts
 and 39  percent of which is in Rhode Island.

 Nature of EPA  involvement:   In  accordance
 with  the National Estuary Program, EPA  has
 provided funding and technical and programmat-
 ic support  and has participated in various com-
 mittees in the program.

 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
         commercial and recreational uses

Actions taken or proposed:   The Narragansett
Bay was selected for inclusion in the National
Estuary Program  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 problems listed above are prioritiz-
ed and will 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) Manage-
        ment 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 sew-
         age disposal  system  regulations  and
         industrial pre-treatment regulations.

Stakeholders:
    Environmental advocacy groups
    Federal, state, and local government agen-
         cies
    Industry
    Land development interests
    Local citizens
    Marine trade organizations
    Universities

Contacts:
    EPA:
    JoAnne H.  Sulak
    U.S. EPA New England Region (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, RI 02908
                                             79

-------
         Massachusetts Bays Program/Mini-Bays  Project
Size and location:   The  Mini-Bays Project
includes the following three areas:

         Wellfleet Harbor on Cape Cod (24.6
         square kilometers/9.5 square  miles)
     •    Fore River Estuary, just south of Bos-
         ton in  Braintree,  Quincy, and  Wey-
         mouth (13 square  kilometers/5 square
         miles)
     •    Plum Island Sound and Rivers System
         on  the  north  shore  of  Boston  (18
         square kilometers/7 square miles)

Nature of EPA involvement: As a subsidiary of
the Massachusetts Bays Program  (MBP),  the
Mini-Bays  Project receives  $50,000  per year
from EPA and limited staff support.

Organization that initiated project:
     Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP)

Major environmental problems:
     •    Wellfleet Harbor: pathogens and exces-
         sive nutrients, which threaten a nation-
         ally known oyster population
     •    Fore River  Estuary:  chemical  and
         pathogenic contaminants, the control of
         which could improve shellfish beds in
         a historically industrialized area
     •    Plum Island Sound: pathogen contam-
         ination  from existing and future  de-
         velopment, which  endangers the  na-
         tionally famous Ipswich clam

Actions  taken or proposed:   With  a  5-year
funding commitment from the MBP, each Mini-
Bays project has developed a plan of action, has
created management and advisory  committees,
and  has  actively begun identifying  pollution
sources. Additional effort has included and will
include the development and implementation 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 volun-
teer monitoring program and reseeding  of oyster
beds in Wellfleet Harbor.
Stakeholders:
    Academic community
    Business and industry
    Commercial and recreational users such as
        anglers, whale watchers, boaters,
        swimmers
    Environmental groups
    Federal, state,  regional, and local  govern-
        ments
    Shipping industry
    Tourists
    Waste disposal industry

Contacts:
    EPA:
    Matthew Liebman, Ph.D.
    U.S. EPA New England Region (WQE)
    JFK Federal Building
    Boston,  MA 02203
    (617) 565-4866
    FAX:  (617) 565-4940

    State:
    Diane Gould, Ph.D.
    Massachusetts Bays Program
    100 Cambridge Street
    20th Floor
    Boston,  MA 02202
    (617) 727-9530, ext. 406
    FAX:  (617) 727-2754
                                            76

-------
    New Bedford Harbor Watershed Assessment Project
Contacts:
   Dr. Jonathan H. Garber (401) 782-3154
   Dr. William G. Nelson (401) 782-3053
   FAX: (401) 782-3030
   U.S. EPA
   ERL-Narragansett
   27 Tarzwell Drive
   Narragansett, RI 02882
                                  81

-------
                               Merrimack River
    Utilities
    Watershed organizations

Contacts:
    EPA:
    Trish Garrigan
    U.S. EPA New England Region (WSS)
    John F. Kennedy Bldg.
    Boston, MA 02203
    (617) 565-2987
    FAX:  (617) 565-4940
Regional:
Carolyn Jenkins
New England  Interstate
    Control Commission
255 Ballardvale St.
Wilmington, MA 01887
(508) 658-0500
FAX: (508) 658-5509
    State (MA):
    Andrew Gottlieb
    Office of Watershed Management
    Bureau of Resource Protection
    Dept. of Environmental Protection
    40 Institute Road
    North Grafton, MA 01536
    (508) 792-7470
    FAX: (508) 839-3469

    State (NH):
    Chris Simmers
    New Hampshire Dept.
        of Environmental Services
    P.O. Box 95
    Concord,  NH 03301
    (603) 271-2961
    FAX: (603) 271-2867
                          Water  Pollution
                                          78

-------
                                       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
  approximately 52 square kilometers (20 square
  miles); 6.5 square kilometers (2.5 square miles)
  of this area is surface water.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
  funding for  the Waquoit  Bay  project  and is
  assisting in conducting an ecological risk assess-
  ment on the bay.

  Organizations that initiated project:
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric
          Administration
      National Science Foundation
      U.S. EPA

 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
 Ecosystems Research  Project was  initiated to
 determine the relationship between land use and
 water quality.  Land uses and nutrient loadings
 were  characterized;  physical,  chemical,  and
 biological processes occurring  in the bay  and
 surrounding subwatersheds were determined; and
 a geographic information system and a variety of
 models were developed to understand the links
 between land use and impacts observed in Wa-
 quoit 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 specific
 enough to make predictions about  Waquoit Bay
 and general enough to be used in  other embay-
 ments depending on the parameters selected.  It
 is important 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
     Citizens for the Protection of Waquoit Bay
     Massachusetts Department of
          Environmental Protection
     Massachusetts Executive Office of Environ-
          mental Affairs
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
          istration
     National Science Foundation
     Towns of Falmouth and Mashpee
     Universities
         Boston University
         Hampshire College
         Smith College
         University of Southern California
     U.S. EPA
     U.S. Geological Survey
     Waquoit Bay  National Estuarine Research
         Reserve
     Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Contacts:
     EPA:
     JoAnne H. Sulak
     U.S. EPA New England Region (WQP)
    JFK Federal Building
    Boston, MA 02203
    (617)565-3523
    FAX:  (617) 565-4940

    State:
    Christine Gault
    Waquoit Bay National Estuarine 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  x515
   FAX: (508) 548-7295
                                             83

-------
      New Bedford Harbor  Watershed  Assessment  Project
Size and location: The Acushnet (New Bedford
Harbor) and Slocums Rivers Basin are sub-basins
of the Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts,  watershed.
The total study area is about 288 square kilome-
ters.  The embayment-only (i.e., water surface)
areas of the New Bedford and  Slocums Rivers
are 73.3 square kilometers and  5.5 square kilo-
meters, respectively.

Nature of EPA Involvement:  The overall goal
of this project is to conduct research that will
improve our ability to understand, quantify, and
predict the cumulative effects of multiple anthro-
pogenic stresses on the productivity and sustain-
ability of coastal marine ecosystems.  Ultimately,
this research will provide a generic management
tool that can be used to make decisions support-
ing  specific regulatory programs (e.g.,  Super-
fund) in the context of watershed-level ecological
effects. This research will utilize an integrated
information and data assessment approach geo-
graphic information system (GIS) to  produce
quantitative characterizations of waste streams
and  other anthropogenic activities that act  as
cumulative stressors in the marine environment.
Corresponding  characterization  of  ecological
responses will provide a better understanding of
the cause-effect relationships between categories
of major stressor and ecological effects.  The
intent of this research is to provide an ability to
predict the outcome of regulatory management
decisions on watershed-level measurable changes
in coastal water bodies.
     The initial phase  of this  work, approxi-
mately 2 years  in  duration, involves a compara-
tive study that focuses on an "impacted" water-
shed (more appropriately termed a  sub-basin),
New Bedford Harbor (New Bedford,  MA), and
an  "unimpacted"  watershed,  Slocums  River
(Dartmouth, MA).  New Bedford Harbor was
selected because this system is about to undergo
significant stressor and ecological changes as a
result of Superfund  remediation at this site.  In
addition, an upgrade of the sewage system in the
near future will alter this waste stream.  This will
allow a unique opportunity to field-verify labora-
tory models and predictions.  The Slocums River
estuary was selected as a  reference site because
it has  similar physiographic characteristics  to
NBH, is uncontaminated, and is in close proxim-
ity.  This will provide a point of comparison for
assessing  the degree of recovery  achieved  in
New Bedford as a  result of  alteration of the
various stressor waste streams.
     This research will be accomplished through
three tasks. First, the current physical, chemical,
and biological features of each sub-basin will be
characterized. Secondly, the current anthropo-
genic sources and ecological  condition of each
sub-basin  will be characterized.  Next, system-
level stress-response relationships will be  deter-
mined  and predictions of environmental  alter-
ations  (i.e., remediation) on ecological changes
and recovery will be made. Verification of this
process will  occur  through cooperative efforts
initiated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
New England Division  (COE-NED), and EPA
New England Region.

Organizations that initiated project:
     Ecosystem Research Branch, U.S. EPA
     Environmental   Research    Laboratory-
         Narragansett

Major  environmental problems:
     •    Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
     •    Metals
     •    Wastewater effluent

Actions taken or proposed:  Phased remediation
and restoration through dredging and disposal of
harbor  sediments  contaminated with PCBs and
metals.

Stakeholders:
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
     U.S. EPA: New England Region  and
         Superfund
     State  of Massachusetts
     Cities  of New  Bedford and Fairhaven,
        Massachusetts
     Local citizens and environmental groups
     Fishing industry
                                              80

-------
                                 Region  II Projects


         Example projects submitted by Region  II include the 26 projects listed below plus its
  large-scale initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite
  projects (see Part III).  The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale
  and local-scale projects in this Region.

         The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of
  partners involved with EPA, and in their goals.  Many are  based on watersheds but these vary
  among lakes, rivers, and estuaries/sounds.  Several projects are  based on "Area of Concern-
  designation, which involves the U.S./Canada boundary's important or sensitive areas   Some
  others are Clean Lakes Program projects (see Part III). Other projects  are based on large lakes
  and their watersheds, tropical lakes (in Puerto Rico), waste  sites, and wetlands in an urbanizing
  area. Eutrophication and algae blooms, toxics, heavy metals,  sediment, storm water/urban runoff
  wetlands  and   habitat  loss,  urban/suburban  nonpoint   sources,  dredging  destruction  of
  aquatic/terrestrial habitat, loss of diversity, loss of recreational/water  supply uses exotic species
  wildlife deformities, pathogens, hypoxia, and loss of shellfish and  other harvests are reported
  among the problems this Region's projects seek to address. Actions taken include developing
  partnerships with a variety of local, state and federal agencies, industries,  private citizens' groups
  and other  organizations.    Depending  upon  the environmental  problems  present   these
  multiorgamzational teams might develop  information systems such  as  geographic information
  system (CIS); install erosion control;  install or improve waste management; identify and assess
  important or degraded  habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor  and analyze  loading rates
 pollutant sources, and options for pollution prevention; propose development or revision of water
 quality standards; develop outreach and educational programs; or jointly develop  local land
 management plans including sensitive area plans.  Several large-scale initiatives also partly lie
 within  Region II, including the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment
 (MAHA), the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA),  the  Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer
 System Project, the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Mid-Atlantic
 Highlands Stream Assessment, the Great Lakes Program, and the Chesapeake Bay/MAIA/MAHA
 Landscape-Scale Assessment

        Region II projects in the Inventory at this time include:

        Alcyon Lake, NJ
        Barnegat Bay, NJ
        Buffalo River Area of Concern, NY
        Cranberry Lake,  NJ
       Deal Lake, NJ
       Delaware Estuary, DE, NJ*
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region.  Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.
                                           85

-------
   Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Ecological Risk  Assessment
Size and location: The ecological risk assess-
ment involves the Portsmouth Harbor/Piscataqua
River/Great Bay Estuairy in the States of New
Hampshire and Maine.

Nature of EPA involvement:   The EPA Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory (ERL) in Nar-
ragansett and the Navy Environmental Research
Lab (NCCOSC) Navy Interagency Agreement
(IAG) jointly conduct ecological risk assessment.

Organization that initiated project:
    Navy NCCOSC, San Diego Lab

Major  environmental problems:   Ecological
risks associated with Naval activities on Seavey
Island in Portsmouth Harbor.  This is a RCRA
and CERCLA site.

Actions taken or proposed:   A full-scale eco-
logical  risk  assessment was designed and con-
ducted  jointly  by ERL-Narragansett and the
Navy Environmental Research Lab (NCCOSC)
in San Diego, CA. The final report of this study
is in review.

Stakeholders:
    EPA New England Region
    Northern Division Naval Facilities
    Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, NH
    States of New Hampshire and  Maine

Contact:
    Gerald Pesch
    U.S. EPA
    Environmental Research Laboratory
    27 Tarzwell Drive
    Narragansett, RI
    (401) 782-3007
    FAX: (401) 782-3030
                                          82

-------
                                     Alcyon Lake
Size and location: Alcyon Lake is located in the
Borough of Pitman, Gloucester County, New
Jersey.  The lake is 5.5 hectares  (13.5 acres) in
size, with a watershed of 10 square kilometers
(4 square miles). The lake is 244  meters (800
feet) downstream of the LiPari landfill, a Super-
fund site.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA. has provided
funding,  grants  management,  and   technical
assistance for this project. EPA has also coordi-
nated activities on Alcyon Lake with the  nearby
LiPari 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
         treatment plant (closed  in  1972)
    •    Sediments, organics, and heavy metals
         from urban storm water runoff
    •    Siltation: nutrients and pesticides from
         agricultural sources

Actions taken or proposed:   New Jersey re-
ceived  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  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
the lake's water resources.
    Through the National Demonstration  Pro-
gram for lake water quality established under the
Clean  Water  Act  and  using earmarked  and
competitive  Clean  Lakes funding,  a watershed
master plan will be developed and implemented.
Actions to be taken might include:
    •   Development of a geographic informa-
        tion system (an interactive land man-
        agement  data  base  that  uses  water
        quality modeling to determine methods
        of mitigating sediment loadings).
    •   Installation of erosion control devices.
    •    Establishment of a Watershed Action
         Committee to technically review pro-
         posed activities.
    •    Design of a storm water conveyance
         system.
    •    Development of environmental ordi-
         nances and  land management  guide-
         lines.

    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 re-
mediation, and actions will include dredging  and
restoration of the wetlands and dredging of the
lake sediments, which will deal with the in  situ
toxics.
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:
    Bud Cann
    Water Monitoring Management
    NJ Department of Environmental Protection
    (CN427)
    Trenton, NJ 08625
    (609) 292-0427
    FAX: (609) 633-1095
                                              87

-------
                                      Figure 3:
A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA  Efforts to Protect  Ecosystems
                          Region 2 Project Locations
   Scale 1:4,000,000
   Albers Equal Area Projection
   Sources: US EPA (various)
   Compiled January 1995, MRfOOOl4-2/10
   Area boundaries and reference point locations are approximate.
Area included in  1 or more of
the  large-scale projects
(see Part 1 project summaries)

Reference point for local-scale project


State Boundary

-------
                      Buffalo River Area of  Concern
Size and location:  The Buffalo River Area of
Concern (AOC) is located in the City of Buffalo
in western New York State and extends approxi-
mately 10 kilometers  (6 miles) from the  mouth
of the river to the east.  The river discharges into
Lake Erie near the head of the Niagara River.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA's role is to
integrate AOC issues into the Lake Ontario
Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) and the
Niagara River Toxics  Management Plan (TMP).
EPA also provided funding to the  New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC)  for  actions aimed at  improving
ecosystem health by reducing toxic contamina-
tion.

Organizations that initiated the project:
    U.S. EPA
    New York State  Department of Environ-
         mental Conservation (NYSDEC)

Major environmental problems:
    •    PCBs, chlordane, and PAHs are im-
         pairing fishing and aquatic life
    •    Navigational dredging of the river and
         bulkheading and the alterations of the
         shoreline have degraded fish and wild-
         life  habitat
    •    Metals and cyanides in the sediment

Actions taken or proposed:  The Buffalo River
AOC  is one of 43 AOCs that have been desig-
nated by the U.S. 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 environ-
mental cleanup.  RAP development began in
1987.  The RAP was completed  in 1989 as a
working  document.    A  Remedial  Advisory
Committee was formed in 1990 to assist
NYSDEC in  RAP  implementation.   Actions
taken to date  include:
    •    A flow-activated sampling station was
         established  by NYSDEC  to  collect
         samples during   high-flow  events.
         Measurements were also made at an-
         other station at the upper  end  of the
         AOC.
    •   EPA has developed a sediment dynam-
        ics model of the Buffalo River under
        the Assessment  and Remediation of
        Contaminated  Sediments  Program.
        This model will allow the prediction of
        sediment scour and deposition under a
        variety of flow conditions in the AOC.
    •   A remedial waste removal action is
        under way  at the Bern Metal site, and
        remedial construction action is under
        way at the  Madison Wire site.
    •   NYSDEC  has  developed a plan to
        assess existing habitat conditions in the
        Buffalo River and to identify potential
        habitat improvements.  Field work has
        been initiated to compile data on exist-
        ing habitat  conditions in the AOC and
        the  immediate  upstream  watershed.
        Faculty and students from New  York
        State University have conducted physi-
        cal 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)  264-5352
    FAX: (212) 264-2194
                                             89

-------
       Eighteenmile Creek Area of Concern, NY
       Greenwood Lake, NJ, NY
       Hackensack Meadow! ands District, NJ
       Lake Champlain, NY, VT*
       Lake La Plata, PR
       Lake Loiza, PR
       Lake Muscorietcong, NJ
       Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, NY, Ontario
       Long Island iSound, CT, NY*
       New York City Water Supply Watersheds, NY
       New York-New Jersey Harbor, NJ, NY
       Niagara River Area of Concern, NY
       Niagara River Toxics Management Plan, NY
       Onondaga Lake, NY
       Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern, NY
       Peconic Bay, NY
       Rochester Embayment Area of Concern, NY
       St. Lawrence River Area of Concern, NY
       San Juan Bay, PR
       Swartswood Lake,  NJ
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.
                                          86

-------
                                       Deal  Lake
Size and  location:  Deal  Lake is located in
eastern Monmouth County, New  Jersey.   The
lake is 58 hectares (143 acres) with a watershed
of 496 hectares (1,228 acres).

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding,  grants management,  and  technical
assistance.

Organization that initiated project:  Deal Lake
Commission (a substate agency under the Land
Use Planning Law of New Jersey), in conjunc-
tion with the neighboring towns.

Major environmental problems:
    •    Upstream   and   urban  development
         causing  increased  nutrient and sedi-
         ment loads
    •    Filling in of some shallower areas of
         the lake
    •    Accelerated weed growth
    •    Algal blooms,  which  produce  odor
         problems when  rotting
    •    Bacteria  levels  that exceed  bathing
         criteria

Actions taken  or proposed:    A state-funded
diagnostic/feasibility study  was completed in
1983.  It developed a three-step approach:
    (1)  The  upgrading  or  development ordi-
         nances and zoning requirements deal-
         ing with soil  erosion control,  storm
         water quality management, and proper
         watershed/land use management.
    (2)  The identification of all existing sourc-
         es of erosion and implementation of
         the ordinances or avoidance of devel-
         opment.
    (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 pro-
jects, the identification of sensitive environmen-
tal areas, and the development of environmental
ordinances and rezoning.  The Deal Lake Com-
mission 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 Program Phase II Restoration/ Implemen-
tation grant  for Deal Lake.  This  project will
implement in-lake restoration work as well as
critical  watershed  management  activities to
control nonpoint  source pollution  to the lake.
Permits are  being obtained for  construction of
sedimentation basins funded through the Clean
Lakes Program, and a preliminary  draft  of the
sensitive land management 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 Environmental Protection
    (CN427)
    Trenton, NJ 08625
    (609) 292-0427
    FAX: (609) 633-1095
                                              91

-------
                                    Barnegat Bay
Size and  location:   Barnegat Bay is  a 194-
square-kilometer (75-square-mile) estuarine sys-
tem, with Ocean County, New Jersey, as the
northern boundary and New Jersey Route 72 as
the southern boundary.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding and technical assistance.

Organizations that initiated project:
     New  Jersey Department of Environmental
         Protection (NJDEP)
     Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders
     Bay Area Municipalities

Major environmental problem:
Degraded  water quality caused by:
     •    Nonpoint source loadings caused by
         development on land and the activities
         associated  with  development  (e.g.,
         vehicle use, lawn and garden  mainte-
         nance, septic 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 on the bay.  As a result of that study, a
draft Watershed Management Plan for Barnegat
Bay was completed by the New Jersey  Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in
April 1992.  The watershed management plan is
being reviewed with all  of the  municipalities
within the watershed to solicit their support and
to make changes in local zoning and subdivision
regulations, where needed, to effectively imple-
ment the management plan watershed-wide.
     In support of this effort,  Clean Water Act
funds are  being used to demonstrate best man-
agement practices (BMPs), determine the effec-
tiveness of BMPs, and perform intensive moni-
toring.
Stakeholders:
    Boroughs of Barnegat Light,  Bay  Head,
             Beachwood,  Harvey  Cedars, Is-
             land  Heights,  Lavallette,  Mant-
             oloking, Ocean Gate, Pine Beach,
             Point  Pleasant,  Point  Pleasant
             Beach, Seaside  Heights, Seaside
             Park,  Ship Bottom, South Toms
             River, and Surf City
    New Jersey Department of Environmental
        Protection
    Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders
    Townships of Barnegat,  Berkeley,  Brick,
             Dover,  Lacey,   Long   Beach,
             Ocean, and Strafford

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

-------
                              Delaware Estuary
    Private organizations
    The States of Delaware,  New Jersey, and
        Pennsylvania
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Contacts:
    Marria O'Malley Walsh/Robert Tudor
    U.S. EPA Region III
    841 Chestnut Building
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    (410) 573-6838 (Marria)
    (215) 597-9977 (Robert)
    FAX: (215) 597-1850
                                           93

-------
                                  Cranberry Lake
Size and location:  Cranberry Lake is located in
Byram Township, New Jersey. The lake is 77
hectares  (190 acres) in size, with  a mean depth
of 2.1 meters (6.9 feet) and a maximum depth of
4.6 meters (15.1 feet).   The watershed is 733
hectares  (1814 acres), including the lake.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
funding,   grants  management,  and  technical
assistance.

Organization that initiated project:
    Byram Township, New Jersey

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  re-
ceived a  Clean Lakes Program Phase II Restora-
tion/Implementation 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 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
    Water Monitoring Management
    NJ Department of Environmental Protection
    (CN427)
    Trenton, NJ 08625
    (609) 292-0427
    FAX: (609) 633-1095
                                             90

-------
                                 Greenwood Lake
Size and location:   Greenwood Lake is located
in  Orange County,  New York,  and  Passaic
County, New Jersey.  The lake is 776 hectares
(1,920 acres) in size, 15.5 kilometers (9.6 miles)
long, and 1.9 kilometers (1.2 miles) wide, with
a mean depth of 5 meters (17 feet) and a maxi-
mum depth of 17 meters  (57 feet).  The water-
shed is 96 square kilometers (37  square miles),
exclusive  of the lake.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding,   grants management,  and  technical
assistance.

Organization  that initiated the project:
     U.S.  Congress

Major environmental problems:
     •    Massive weed growth in parts of the
         lake
     •    Floating stumps that form a hazard to
         navigation
     •    Anoxic  conditions in  the  summer
         months
     •    Erosion  from  development,  causing
         sedimentation at river  mouths
     •    Taste and odor problems
     •    Nonpoint stormwater runoff
     •    Septic and  point source discharges
     •    Internal phosphorus cycling

Actions taken or proposed:   In  1980, New
Jersey received 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  procedures to restore  and  protect
lake water quality.  A management plan was
developed. This plan recommended:
    •   Weed harvesting.
    •   Lake drawdown.
    •   Construction of storm  water quality
        management structures.
    •   Septic  management district develop-
        ment.
     •    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
         Transportation
     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
     West Milford, NJ

Contacts:
     NJ:
     Bud Cann
     Water  Monitoring Management
     NJDEP (CN-427)
     Trenton, NJ 08625-0427
     (609) 292-0427
     FAX: (609) 633-1095

     NY:
     Dr.  Jay Bloomfield
     Division of Water
     NYSDEC
    50 Wolf Road
    Albany, NY  12233-3502
    (518)457-7470
    FAX: (518)457-1088
                                            95

-------
                                 Delaware Estuary
Size and location:  This project focuses on the
tidal portion of the Delaware River between the
falls at Trenton, New Jersey, arid the mouth of
the Delaware Bay  (between Cape  May,  New
Jersey, and Cape  Henlopen, Delaware).  The
project area, however, encompasses the entire
river basin.

Nature  of EPA involvement:   In  accordance
with the National Estuary Program, EPA has
provided funding to the Program. EPA (Regions
II and III) also provides technical and program-
matic support by the commitment of four full-
time employees.   Additional management and
staff support is provided on an as-need basis.

Organizations that initiated project: The States
of  Pennsylvania,  New Jersey,  and Delaware
petitioned EPA for  inclusion of the Delaware
Estuary in the National Estuary  Program.

Major environmental problems:
     •    Toxics in sediments, fish, and birds
     •    Loss  of diversity and  loss and  frag-
         mentation of certain habitat types
     •    Nonpoint source pollution
     •    Water use: supply, quality, and alloca-
         tion

Actions  taken or proposed:    The Delaware
Estuary was selected for inclusion in the Nation-
al Estuary Program in 1988.  A Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan is currently
being developed for the Delaware Estuary that
advocates a  watershed  protection approach  in
implementing the action plans. It will provide a
basinwide  perspective in managing land use,
toxics, habitat protection, and water use issues.
     One project already under way  is the  map-
ping of habitat for priority species throughout the
estuary.  The maps will be designed for use by
local governments to help them protect  habitat
through improved planning  procedures.    Land
uses and practices  appropriate  for  such areas,
coordination of interstate management plans, and
inclusion of the important species in Environ-
mental Impact  Statements will  be proposed.
Interstate fish advisories will be coordinated, and
loading limits for selected toxicants (total maxi-
mum 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 also developing a nonpoint
source 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  restoration of urban stream corridors.
The program  is  proposing development of  a
long-term environmental policy plan that would
integrate environmental concerns into decision-
making by  all sectors  of society  to achieve
sustainable development.
     Other activities include:
     •    Examining   potential  water  supply
         shortages in certain areas of the Dela-
         ware  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 sup-
         ply planning to  address water quantity
         and quality planning.
     •    Addressing  toxics   loadings  from
         ground water and nonpoint sources.
     •    Developing  a  regional  information
         management service that will facilitate
         sharing of information.
     •    Continuing and expanding the ongoing
         public participation program.
     •    Coordinating and  expanding the moni-
         toring program of the three states.

Stakeholders:
     Anglers
     Business and industry
     Commercial fishing
     Environmental groups
     Local and regional agencies
     Local citizens
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
         istration
                                              92

-------
                    Hackensack Meadowlands  District
Size and Location:  The Hackensack Meadow-
lands  District (HMD) is a 83-square-kilometer
(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
wetlands  (approximately  3400  hectares/8500
acres) and are under substantial developmental
pressure. In spite of a long history of pollution
and  degradation,  the  Meadowlands support
significant  wildlife  populations,  particularly
migrating and wintering waterfowl.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provid-
ed some support funding as well as serving as
co-lead  agency for developing an Environmen-
tal Impact Statement.

Organization that initiated project:
    Hackensack Meadowlands Development
         Commission

Major environmental problems:
    •    Development pressure
    •    Significant land, water and air contami-
         nation requiring remediation.

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 Memoran-
dum 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 Environmen-
tal  Impact Statement on  the  SAMP and the
development of appropriate regulatory products
(e.g.,  Clean Water  Act  (CWA)  section  404
wetlands general permits and/or an abbreviated
permit process and advance CWA section 404(c)
actions). The goals of the SAMP, derived from
the MOU, are (1) to provide for natural resource
protection and reasonable economic growth and
(2) to  provide  a  program  of environmental
benefits for the district. The completed SAMP
will  facilitate  compliance  with all  applicable
environmental statutes and regulations.
    The SAMP is  described in detail in the
Environmental Impact Statement, which should
be available for public review in early 1995. The
plan contains the following elements: (1) desig-
nation of a maximum of 340 hectares (840 acres)
of wetlands for development arid transportation
improvements  (770  hectares/1900  acres  total
designated for development) with over (1400
hectares/3400 acres) of  wetlands designated for
enhancement/restoration. (2) Permanent protec-
tion of the remaining 3070 hectares (7600 acres)
of wetlands  in the  district  not  proposed for
development via deed  restrictions, transfer of
development  rights, outright  purchase,   etc.
Property owners whose wetland  properties are
designated for preservation could be compensat-
ed for any loss of development rights through
several  financial mechanisms  outlined in the
SAMP. (3) A $1 billion  program of environmen-
tal cleanup,  enhancement, and  management in
one of the most polluted areas  of New Jersey.
(4) Regulatory products, which include a pro-
posed general permit for section 404 activities in
certain specified areas,  streamlined permit pro-
cesses for all other SAMP-consistent  projects,
and a mitigation agreement, along with several
proposed mitigation banks, to increase regulatory
certainty and facilitate  the implementability of
section  404  requirements   under the  SAMP.
Finally,  because the SAMP has been developed
for the lower watershed, and includes all future
development in the Meadowlands, it has  been
possible to perform a comprehensive and cumu-
lative impacts analysis for this  highly impacted
but still  significant ecological resource.

Stakeholders:
    Hackensack Meadowlands  Development
        Commission
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric
        Administration
    New Jersey Department of Environmental
        Protection  and Energy
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                             97

-------
                    Eighteenmile 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.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  EiPA's role is to
  integrate AOC issues  into the Lake Ontario
  Lakewide Management Plan  (LaMP) and  the
  Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP).
  EPA also provided funding to the New York
  State Department of Environmental Conservation
  (NYSDEC)  for actions  aimed at  improving
  ecosystem health by reducing  toxic contamina-
  tion.

  Organizations that initiated project:
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      New York State Department  of Environ-
          mental 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 U.S. and/or Canadian govern-
 ments 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 Action
 Committee has  been formed to assist NYSDEC
 in RAP development.  Meanwhile,  some pro-
jects that had been planned on a Lake Ontario-
 wide basis are resulting in actions that impact the
 Eighteenmile  Creek  AOC.  For example, NY-
 SDEC is developing pollution  prevention regula-
tions to require implementation of 'Toxic Chem-
ical Reduction Plans" for facilities that generate
certain amounts/types of hazardous  wastes or
toxic chemicals.  Some industries in the Eightee-
nmile Creek AOC have already taken the initia-
tive to institute pollution prevention practices.
Stakeholders:
    New York State Department of  Environ-
        mental Conservation
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact:
    Alice Yeh
    U.S. EPA Region II
    26 Federal Plaza
    New York, NY 10278
    (212) 264-1865
    FAX: (212) 264-2194
                                           94

-------
                                  Lake  Champlain
Size and location:  Lake Champlain is located in
the northeastern United States. Its basin includes
portions  of Vermont, northeastern New York,
and the Province of Quebec, Canada. The lake
is 177 kilometers  (110 miles) long and 19 kilo-
meters (12 miles) wide at its widest.  The total
area of the basin is over 21,000 square kilome-
ters (8200 square miles).

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding and technical support for the study  of
Lake Champlain.   Furthermore, EPA chairs the
Lake Champlain Management Conference and
participates in a number of its committees.

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Congress

Major environmental problems:
     •    Toxics in lake sediments, with elevated
         levels 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
     •    Phosphorus, especially from nonpoint
         sources
     •    Consumption advisories  due to con-
         taminated 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 Commission performed a Level  B
Study.
     In  1988,  New  York,  Vermont, and the
Province of Quebec signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on Environmental Coop-
eration on the Management of Lake Champlain.
Important accomplishments include the creation
of Citizen Advisory Committees to advise agen-
cies on public concerns and opinions about lake
management and the facilitating the adoption of
consistent phosphorus standards in the lake. The
MOU was renewed in 1992.
     In  1989,  EPA  awarded  a Clean  Lakes
Program grant for a Phase I diagnostic/feasibility
study,  which is nearing completion, under the
joint  administration  of the New  York  State
Department of Environmental 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 pollu-
tion, and then evaluate solutions and recommen-
dations for  the most  feasible procedures to
restore and protect lake water quality.
    The Lake Champlain Management Confer-
ence was established under Title 3 of the Great
Lakes  Critical Program Act of 1990, the Lake
Champlain Special Designation Act of  1990.
Comprising 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 Program Office
funded through the conference has been estab-
lished  in  Grand  Isle,  Vermont,  and  funding
provides  for  education, research,  monitoring,
planning, and demonstration projects.

Stakeholders:
    Academic Institutions
    Anglers
    Audubon Society
    Businesses
    Environmental groups
    Farmers
    Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce
    Lake Champlain Committee
    Lake Champlain Research Consortium
    Lake George Commission
    Local citizens
    Local watershed groups
    National Park Service
    States of Vermont and New York
    Tourists
    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

-------
                       Greenwood Lake
EPA:
Theresa Faber
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8708
FAX: (212) 264-2194
                                 96

-------
                                    Lake La Plata
Size and  location:  Lake La Plata is  a 4.9-
square-kilometer (1.9-square-mile)  lake located
in the municipality of Toa Alta, near San Juan,
Puerto Rico.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding,   grants  management,  and  technical
assistance.

Organization that initiated project:
     Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board

Major environmental problems:
     *    Nonpoint source pollution from agri-
         cultural  practices  and  urban develop-
         ment
     •    Extreme sedimentation rates reducing
         storage capacity of the reservoir
     •    Increased  nutrient rates  accelerating
         eutrophication
     •    Oxygen depletion  below  4-5  meters
         (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, examined the watershed to deter-
mine the sources of pollution, and then evaluated
solutions  and recommendations  for the most
feasible procedures to restore and  protect lake
water quality.  The overall restoration  plan that
was developed addressed water hyacinth harvest-
ing, 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 recommenda-
tions into  action.   Phase  II projects implement
in-lake restoration work as well as critical water-
shed management activities to control nonpoint
source pollution to a lake. The Phase II projects
include  a  farmer education and  agricultural
inspection program and the construction 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 Environmental Quality Board
    Puerto Rico Department of Health
    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
                                              101

-------
                Hackensack Meadowlands District
Contact:
   Mary Anne Thiesing
   U.S. EPA Region II
   Water Management Division
   New York, NY 10278
   Phone: (212) 264-8793
   Fax: (212) 264-4690
                                   98

-------
                               Lake  Musconetcong
Size and  location:   Lake  Musconetcong  is
located in Sussex County, New Jersey. The lake
is 133 hectares (329 acres) in size, with a mean
depth of 1.5 meters (4.8 feet) and a maximum
depth of 3 meters (10 feet).  The watershed
covers 5600  hectares  (14,000  acres).   Lake
Musconetcong is upstream of  Lake Hopatcong,
the  largest lake in New Jersey at 1085 hectares
(2686 acres) and is part of its watershed.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
funding,  grants management,  and  technical
assistance.

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  restor-
ation and management plan developed as a result
of the Phase I Clean Lakes project recommended
the following:
     •   Decrease nutrient inputs  from  water-
         shed sources.
     •   Reduce the influx of storm water re-
         lated sediment loading.
     •   Control the growth of aquatic vegeta-
         tion and mat algae.
     •   Deepen the lake.

     Funding was provided for localized dredg-
 ing, 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 prac-
 tices.
Stakeholders:
    Borough of Netcong
    Lake  Musconetcong  Regional  Planning
         Board
    New Jersey  Department of Environmental
         Protection
    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
    Water Monitoring Management
    NJ  Department Environmental Protection
    (CN427)
    Trenton, NJ 08625
    (609) 292-0427
                                              103

-------
                              Lake  Champlain
Contacts:
    EPA:
    Lee Steppacher
    New England Region
    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 Fid.
    Grand Isle,  VT 05458
    (802) 372-3214
    FAX: (802) 372-6131

    NY:
    Jim Connolly
    NYSDEC
    Rt. 86
    Ray Brook, NY 12977
    (508) 897-1211
    FAX: (508) 897-1394
                                         100

-------
             Lake Ontario Toxics Management  Plan
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) 264-1865
    FAX: (212) 264-2194
                                       105

-------
                                       Lake Loiza
Size and location:  The Lake Loiza watershed
covers 536 square kilometers (207 square miles)
(41,000 hectares/101,380 acres) and is located in
the mountains of east-central  Puerto  Rico.  It
originates in the Espino Ward in the town of San
Lorenzo and  flows  to the Atlantic Ocean  at
Loiza Aldea.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding and technical assistance.

Organizations that initiated project:
     Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
     Soil Conservation Service
     U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and
         Conservation Service
     Cooperative Extension Sendee
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 Agri-
cultural Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Unit Pro-
ject Plan was submitted to and approved by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture as  part of its
Water Quality  Initiative to  fund  agricultural
nonpoint source  projects.  A  4-year accelerated
technical  and financial  assistance  program  is
being carried out on approximately 36,050 acres
of agricultural  land  that  will  be  adequately
treated or benefitted by the application of agri-
cultural best management practices (BMPs). The
Loiza Lake project will reduce orisite soil erosion
on 4,050 acres of cropland and 26,000 acres of
pasture land to an  acceptable level and reduce
offsite agricultural sedimentation 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 effective-
ness,  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 Guaynabo
    Municipality of Loiza
    Municipality of San Lorenzo
    Municipality of Trujillo Alto
    Puerto Rico Association of Conservation
         Districts
    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
                                              102

-------
                            Long Island Sound
   National Oceanic and 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.
   Sound Keeper
   Sound Waters
   State University of New York  at Stony
        Brook
   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   U.S. Geological Survey
   University of Connecticut
   Westchester County Department of
        Environmental Facilities
   Westchester County Department of
        Planning
    USD A Natural Resources  Conservation
        Service (NRCS)

Contact:
    Mark Tedesco
    Long Island Sound Office
    Stamford Government Center
    Stamford, CT 0(5904
    (203)  977-1541
    FAX: (203) 977-1546
                                           107

-------
                Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
 Size and location:  Lake Ontario  lies  at the
 downstream end of the chain of Great Lakes.  It
 is the  smallest of the Great Lakes in terms of
 surface  area  (19,000  square  kilometers/7340
 square miles, 7.8 percent of the total Great Lakes
 surface area).  It  has a land drainage area of
 64,000 square kilometers (24,720 square miles
 12.2 percent of the Great Lakes drainage area).
 It is the second deepest lake with a 86-meter
 (282-foot) average depth and an 244-meter (800-
 foot)  maximum depth,  but its  volume (1,651
 cubic kilometers/393 cubic miles) surpasses only
 that of Lake Erie.

 Nature of EPA involvement:   Active role in
 expanding focus of actions from toxic chemicals
 to  ecosystem impacts  (e.g., fish and wildlife
 population degradation  and habitat loss)  by
 incorporating the Lake Ontario  Toxics Manage-
 ment Plan into the Lake wide Management Plan
 (see below).

 Organizations that initiated the project:
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    New York State Department of Environ-
         mental Conservation (NYSDEC)
    Environment Canada (EC)
    Ontario Ministry of Environment and
         Energy (MOEE)

 Major  environmental problems:
    •    Restrictions on fish and wildlife con-
         sumption due to  PCBs, dioxin,  DDT,
         and mirex
    •    Degradation of fish and  wildlife  popu-
         lations,  as  well  as bird and animal
         deformities  or  reproductive problems
         due to PCBs, dioxin, DDT,  & dieldrin
    •    Drinking water taste  and odor  prob-
         lems due to algae or bacteria

Actions taken or proposed:  Under the  Great
 Lakes  Water Quality  Agreement between  the
 United States and Canada, a Lakewide Manage-
 ment Plan (LaMP) for Critical Pollutants is being
 developed for Lake Ontario.  The primary goal
 of the  LaMP is to reduce  both point and non-
 point 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 Man-
agement Plan (LOTMP) to reduce toxics load-
ings 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   unregistered  pesticides.
        About 77 farmers  and agribusinesses
        participated, resulting in the collection
        of approximately 3400 kilograms (7500
        pounds)  of toxic contaminants.  The
        Clean Sweep project is being extended
        to neighboring counties and  to  the
        Great Lakes  basinwide to make  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 opportunities for  implement-
        ing pollution prevention techniques.  In
        the 1994 fiscal year, of the 223,000
        kilograms (491,000 pounds) of pollut-
        ants  that had  been emitted by seven
        facilities (estimated through their per-
        mits and waste reports), approximately
        97,000 kilograms (212,800 pounds) (43
        percent) were eliminated as a results of
        the  facilities  implementing the tech-
        niques identified in the inspections.
    •    EPA has completed  Assessment and
        Remediation  of  Contaminated  Sedi-
        ments Program demonstration projects
        designed to evaluate  and demonstrate
        numerous remedial treatment technolo-
        gies  for  the control  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 Buf-
        falo River.   The remedial treatment
        technology was successful in removing
        over  80  percent of  the  polynuclear
        aromatic hydrocarbons present  in the
        sediment sample.
                                             104

-------
           New York City Water Supply Watersheds
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) 264-3529
                                     109

-------
                                  Long Island Sound
  Size and location:  Long Island Sound is 177
  kilometers (110 miles) long  and 34 kilometers
  (21 miles) wide.  The  Sound stretches from the
  Battery in Manhattan to the Race at the eastern
  end of Long Island.

  Nature of EPA involvement: Program  coordi-
  nation and oversight;  participation  in manage-
  ment conference committees and technical work
  groups; and funding assistance.

  Organizations that initiated project:
      New York State  Department of Environ-
          mental Conservation
      Connecticut Department  of Environmental
          Protection
      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
          habitat loss and degraded water quality

 Actions taken or proposed:   The Long  Island
 Sound Study (LISS) was selected for inclusion in
 the National Estuary Program in 1987.  A Man-
 agement  Conference  was  convened, and the
 members of the Management Conference  devel-
 oped a Comprehensive  Conservation and Man-
 agement Plan (CCMP) for the Sound that recom-
 mends 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 both the CCMP and a special implemen-
 tation agreement on September 26, 1994.
     The Management Conference is implement-
 ing a phased agreement to reduce nitrogen loads
 to Long Island  Sound.   In  1990,  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  geographic  areas  at  1990
levels.  This "no net increase" policy is being
 implemented by the States of Connecticut 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
         discharge permits to surface waters to
         reduce the allowable concentrations of
         toxic  pollutants  from  the   previous
         permitted values.
     •   Implementing  combined sewer over-
         flow  abatement  programs  in areas
         affecting Long Island  Sound to dec-
         rease  pathogen  contamination  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
         activities related to the cleanup and
         protection of the Sound and providing
         support for activities 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
    Interstate Sanitation Commission (NY/NJ/
        CT)
    Long Island Sound Foundation
    Long Island Sound Keeper
    Long Island Sound Taskforce
    Long  Island Sound  Watershed  Alliance
        National Audubon Society
                                             106

-------
                      Niagara  River Area of Concern
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.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's role is to
integrate AOC  issues into the Lake Ontario
Lakewide  Management Plan (LaMP) and the
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP).
EPA also  provided funding to the  New  York
State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC)  for  actions  aimed at   improving
ecosystem health by reducing toxic  contamina-
tion.

Organizations that initiated project:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     New  York State  Department of Environ-
        mental Conservation (NYSDEC)

Major environmental problems:
     •   Impairment of habitat and  survival of
        aquatic life by PCBs, mirex, chlordane,
        dioxin, hexachloroberizene, polynuclear
        aromatic 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 desig-
nated by the U.S. 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.  RAP development  began in
1989,  and  the final draft was completed in
March 1993.  A Remedial Advisory  Committee
will be formed to  assist NYSDEC in RAP imple-
mentation. Actions that have been taken to date
include:
    •   Upstream (Fort Erie) and downstream
        (Niagara-on-the-Lake)  water  quality
        monitoring to estimate pollutant  load-
        ings is ongoing.
    •   Scheduled remedial actions at Occiden-
        tal  Chemical's Buffalo  Avenue and
        Durez sites, DuPont's Necco Park and
        Buffalo Avenue sites, Bell Aerospace,
        and CECOS International have resulted
        in an estimated 25 percent reduction in
        loadings from waste sites in the Niaga-
        ra River basin.
    •   Remedial  actions  on Gill Creek were
        completed in  1992.
    •   NYSDEC is developing pollution pre-
        vention regulations  to require imple-
        mentation of  Toxic Chemical Reduc-
        tion Plans  for facilities  that generate
        certain  amounts/types  of  hazardous
        wastes or toxic chemicals.  Many in-
        dustries have already taken  the initia-
        tive to  institute pollution prevention
        practices.

    Additional actions  taken in this AOC  are
included in the summary of projects undertaken
for the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan,
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)  264-5352
    FAX:  (212) 264-2914
                                            111

-------
               New York  City Water Supply Watersheds
  Size and 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 (Schohane, Cannonsville,
  Pepacton, Ashokan, Neversink,  and  Rondout
  Reservoirs) lie west of the Hudson River, cover-
  ing an area of approximately 5200 square kilo-
  meters  (2000 square miles). The Kensico and
  West Branch  Reservoirs of the Catskill/Delaware
  systems (plus the independent Croton system) lie
  east of the Hudson River.

  Nature  of EPA involvement: EPA, under the
  Safe Drinking Water Act, formalized the New
  York City Department of Environmental Protec-
  tion's Watershed Protection Program as one of
  the conditions for allowing New York  drinking
  water supply to remain unfiltered.  One goal is to
  reduce microbial contamination. EPA has provid-
  ed oversight  of the Watershed Protection Pro-
 gram, technical assistance, and grants for rebuild-
 ing treatment  facilities.

 Organization  that initiated project:
     New York City

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Nonpoint  source contamination from
         residential  and commercial  develop-
         ment
     •    Runoff from dairy farming operations
     •    Discharges from  wastewater treatment
         plants

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 Determina-
tion, which is effective until a further Determina-
tion is made  or until  December  15, 1996, re-
quires New York City to comply with more than
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 regu-
         lations.
         Partnership programs  with  watershed
         communities and the farm community.
     •   Kensico  Reservoir coliform  remedi-
         ation.
         Upgrading of New York City-owned
         and non-city-owned sewage treatment
         facilities.
     •   Septic  tank  review,  inspection,  and
         remediation.
     •   Enhanced enforcement of water quality
         regulations.
     •   Land acquisition.
     •   Stream corridor protection.
     The New York City Department of Environ-
mental Protection is undertaking these  actions
either directly 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,
        Environmental 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/Huguenot  and Highland
        Herald Publisher

-------
               Niagara River  Toxics Management Plan
     tion and environmental releases, waste mini-
     mization  achievements  to  date,  potential
     waste minimization opportunities, and facili-
     ty 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. EPA
    U.S. Geological Survey

Contact:
    Ellen Heath
    U.S. EPA Region II
    26 Federal Plaza
    New York, NY 10278
    (212) 264-5352
    FAX: (212) 264-2194
                                        113

-------
                        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  Point 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 80-kilometer (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 4.8
  kilometers  (3 miles)  offshore and the  Hudson
  River to the limit of anadromous fish spawning
  are considered within the study  area.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  In accordance
 with the  National Estuary Program,  EPA has
 provided funding and technical arid programmat-
 ic  support and  has participated in  various com-
 mittees in the program.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     New Jersey Department  of Environmental
         Protection
     New York State Department of
         Environmental Conservation

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Floatable debris
     •   Pathogenic contamination
     •   Toxic contamination
         Nutrient and organic enrichment
     •   Habitat loss arid degradation

Actions taken or proposed: The New York-New
Jersey Harbor was selected for inclusion in the
National Estuary Program in 1988.  A Compre-
hensive Conservation and  Management  Plan
(CCMP) that  recommends  priority corrective
actions to  restore and maintain the  resources of
the Harbor is being developed.  The draft CCMP
is expected to be released to the public in 1994.
The final CCMP is due to EPA  and the  gover-
nors 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 Water Quality Standard
         for copper.
     •   Wasteload allocations for toxic metals.

 Stakeholders:
     Citizens' groups
     Interstate Sanitation Commission
     Local  governments,  including New York
         City
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin
         istration
     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 the 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
                                             10

-------
                                 Onondaga  Lake
     •    Expand the hydrodynamic model for
         the lake outlet to include the lake and
         Seneca River.

     Implementation of the plan will involve the
targeted  use  of  existing  regulatory programs
within  the  geographic  confines  of Onondaga
Lake.  As  a  result  of  regulatory programs,  a
number of  administrative  orders, court  orders,
and  pending lawsuits are directed at the many
sources of pollution in the lake. Very important
among these actions is the court order addressing
the Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment
Plant (METRO) and combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) on the lake.

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
                                           115

-------
               Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
Size and location:  The Niagara River is a 60-
kilometer (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 Ontar-
io.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has had an
active role in tracking implementation of Niagara
River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP)  and
reporting progress to the public.  EPA also has
provided funding to the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
for NRTMP actions aimed at improving ecosys-
tem health by reducing toxic contamination.

Organizations that initiated project:
    U.S. EPA
    New York  State Department  of Environ-
         mental Conservation  (NYSDEC)
    Environment Canada (EC)
    Ontario Ministry of Environment and
         Energy (MOEE)

Major environmental problems:
    •    Impairment of habitat and survival of
         aquatic life  by  polychlorinated   bi-
         phenyls  (PCBs),  mirex,   chlordane,
         dioxin, hexachlorobenzene, polynuclear
         aromatic 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, NYSDE-
C,  and  MOEE initiating  the  Niagara  River
Toxics Management Plan (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 loadings (from the United
         States to the  Niagara River) of the 10
         persistent toxic chemicals  targeted for
         significant  reductions by the NRTMP.
In 1993, the U.S. Department of Jus-
tice  lodged  a settlement in  Federal
Court that 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  com-
pleted on  schedule,  and treatment of
the toxic  chemicals has been con-
firmed.
Over  5800 cubic meters (7600  cubic
yards) of highly contaminated sediment
was removed from Gill Creek, elimi-
nating,  among  other  pollutants,  an
estimated  0.2-kg-per-day  (0.4-pound-
per-day) load of PCBs  to the Niagara
River. This magnitude of loading is
approximately  20 percent of the load-
ing 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 ambitious clean-up  sched-
ules for them.  In June 1994, the agen-
cies reported that remediations 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  22,000 cubic meters
(29,000 cubic  yards) of contaminated
sediments were removed from Bloody
Run Creek,  also associated with lea-
chate from  the  Hyde Park landfill.
Substances removed  included chloro-
benzene, hexachlorobenzene, and low
levels of dioxin.  The creek was  re-
lined  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 target-
ed  facilities  that  discharge   either
NRTMP priority toxics or toxics that
are highly bioaccumulative.   EPA's
reports include descriptions of facility
manufacturing processes, waste genera
                                              12

-------
              Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern
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) 264-1865
    FAX: (212) 264-2194
                                        17

-------
                                  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 11.9 square kilometers (4.6 square
miles). The lake receives water from a drainage
basin of  648 square  kilometers  (248  square
miles), located almost entirely within Onondaga
County.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding and technical assistance and has partici-
pated in the Onondaga Lake Management Con-
ference.

Organisation that initiated project:
     U.S. Congress

Major environmental problems:
     •    Excessive nutrient loading from a large
         municipal discharge causing eutrophic
         and low-oxygen conditions
     •    Combined sewer overflows of untreat-
         ed sewage and debris, generating bac-
         teria 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 salinity,  reduced plant
         life, unsuitable substrate, and the pres-
         ence of mercury, which  have adversely
         affected aquatic organisms.
     •    Sediment loading from  the Tully Val-
         ley  Mudboils

Actions taken or proposed:   In  1989 Congress
appropriated  funds for EPA to convene a man-
agement conference for Onondaga Lake. Subse-
quently, the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act
of 1990 called for the establishment of a man-
agement conference for the restoration, conserva-
tion,  and  management of Onondaga Lake  and
called for the development of a  comprehensive
restoration, conservation, and management plan
for Onondaga  Lake that  recommends priority
corrective action and compliance schedules for
the  cleanup  of the lake.  The  Management
Conference consists  of all federal, state, local,
public, and private interests. Management Con-
ference projects include:
    •    Developing a eutrophication model for
         the Seneca River.
    •    Developing a lake productivity model.
    •    Developing a hydrodynamic model for
         the lake outlet.
    •    Funding studies on the release of nutri-
         ents  and toxic substances from lake
         sediments under  changing dissolved
         oxygen levels.
    •    Establishing a long-term baseline water
         quality program.
    •    Drafting  an urban/suburban nonpoint
         source pollution plan.
    •    Drafting  a  fish and wildlife manage-
         ment plan.
    •    Developing a demonstration project of
         manipulated littoral zone habitat struc-
         tures  that indicated that  fencing  and
         wave breaks could  significantly in-
         crease plant survival,  growth,  and
         diversity and that these habitats also
         increase 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
         monitoring program.
    •    Implement  the rural  nonpoint  source
         pollution plan.
    •    Develop a public  education plan.
    •    Conduct pilot projects to implement
         flow  modification and sediment load
         reduction in the Tully Valley Mudboil
         area.
    •    Implement  a large-scale  macrophyte
         planting project.
    •    Reconnect fragmented wetlands area to
         Onondaga  Lake  to provide vital  fish
         spawning and young-of-the-year  fish
         nursery areas.
    •    Study the role of vegetation in mercury
         cycling.
                                              114

-------
                                    Peconic Bay
    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
    Soil Conservation Service
    The Nature Conservancy
    Town of Brookhaven Division  of
        Environmental 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 E)rug Administration
    U.S. Geological Survey

Contacts:
    EPA:
    Rick Balla
    U.S. EPA Region II
    26 Federal Plaza
    New York, NY 10278
    (212) 264-567
    FAX: (212) 264-2194

    Local:
    Vito Minei, P.E.
    Office of Ecology
    Suffolk County
    Department of County Center
    Riverhead, NY 11401-3397
    (516) 852-2077
    FAX: (516) 852-2092
                                           119

-------
                Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern
Size and location: The Oswego River Harbor
Area of Concern (AOC) is located on the south-
eastern shore of Lake Ontario and is centered in
the City of Oswego, New York.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA's role is to
integrate AOC issues into the Lake  Ontario
Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) and  the
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP).
EPA also provided  funding to the  New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC)  for  actions aimed at  improving
ecosystem  health  by reducing toxic  contami-
nation.

Organizations  that initiated the project:
    New York State Department of Environ-
         mental Conservation (NYSDEC)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Major environmental problems:
    •    Restrictions on fish and wildlife con-
         sumption primarily due  to PCBs and
         dioxin
    •    Loss  of  fish and  wildlife  habitats
         caused by  periodic extreme low-flow
         conditions  below  the Varick Dam,
         contributing to the degradation of fish
         populations
    •    Eutrophication  and   reported  algal
         blooms, which have been attributed to
         excess  phosphorus   from   municipal
         discharges, combined sewer overflows
         (CSOs), and agricultural runoff
    •    Pollutants of concern from identified
         sources in the basin are polychlorinated
         biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, phosphorus,
         mercury, mirex/photo-mirex, and octa-
         chlorostyrene

Actions taken or proposed: The Oswego River
Harbor AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been
designated by the U.S. and/or Canadian govern-
ments in the Great LaJces  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 1987.  The  Stage I Report, which describes
the nature and extent of problems, was complet-
ed in 1990. The Stage II Report was completed
in 1991  and  includes a  remedial strategy to
restore water quality  in  the lower  river and
harbor and to eliminate adverse impacts to Lake
Ontario from pollutants carried by the Oswego
River. A Remedial Advisory Committee (RAC)
was then formed to represent all stakeholders and
assist  NYSDEC in RAP implementation.  Ac-
tions that have been taken to implement the
recommendations of the Stage II Report include:
    •    Under a recent settlement and enforce-
         ment  action,  Bristol Myers Squib in
         East Syracuse agreed to implement a
         $30 million upgrade of its pretreatment
         facilities and to conduct site investiga-
         tions  and pollution prevention  activi-
         ties.
    •    EPA and NYSDEC are jointly oversee-
         ing the  implementation  of eight Ap-
         proved Pretreatment Programs  in the
         Oswego Basin.
    •    Modeling of Onondaga Lake and Three
         Rivers (Oswego, Seneca, and Oneida)
         is well under way and is to be used to
         determine loadings, additional upgrade
         needs, and CSO needs.
    •    Implementation of remedial actions  is
         under way at the Clothier and Quanta
         Resources  hazardous   waste   sites.
         Clothier involves drum and soil con-
         tamination removal.  Quanta involves
         additional  monitoring  to  determine
         whether interim remedial measures are
         effective  and sufficient.   Remedial
         Investigation/Feasibility Studies are in
         progress at seven other sites, including
         Onondaga Lake and Ley Creek PCB
         sites,  as prerequisites to remedial ac-
         tion.
    •    NYSDEC is working  with Niagara
         Mohawk and other hydroelectric utili-
         ties to allow restricted fish passage at
         Oswego River facilities and to resolve
         minimum flow  problems at Varick
         Bypass.  Estimated completion is 1995.
                                             16

-------
              Rochester Embayment Area of Concern
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 Subco-
        mmittees
    Monroe County  Department for Planning
        and Development
    New York State Department of Environ-
        mental Conservation
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact:
    Alice Yeh
    U.S. EPA Region II
    26 Federal Plaza
    New York, NY 10278
    (212) 264-1865
    FAX: (212) 264-2194
                                          121

-------
                                     Peconic Bay
Size and location:  The surface area of Peconic
Bay is about 520 square kilometers (200 square
miles).  The estuary lies between the twin forks
of eastern Long Island, New York.

Nature of EPA  involvement:   EPA  represen-
tatives serve as chairs of the Policy and Manage-
ment  Committees  and provide technical  and
administrative support to the Technical Advisory
Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee,  and
Local Government Committee.  EPA also pro-
vides  financial support, including  grants under
the National Estuary Program, and  the Near
Coastal Water and Wetlands Programs.

Organization that initiated project:
Suffolk County Department of Health Services

Major environmental problems:
    •    Nuisance algal bloom that  destroyed
         the once-important scallop fishery and
         has impacted other  shellfish,  finfish,
         and their nursery 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 Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan (CCMP) that  will
recommend priority  corrective actions to restore
and maintain the estuarine resources is being
developed for the bay. Actions that have been
taken in the bay  include:
    •    Freezing the nitrogen load from sew-
         age treatment plants at current levels.
    •    Remediating nonpoint source nutrient
         pollution from a  local duck farm.
    •    Replanting scallops to recovering areas.
    •    Planting grass buffer strips  to control
         pathogen  contamination due to road
         runoff.
    •    Remediating wetland habitats.
     •    Constructing boat pump-out facilities.
     •    Adopting a total nitrogen surface water
         quality guideline for the western  area
         of the Bay.
Stakeholders:
    Accabonic Protection Committee
    ACT NOW I/Promoting Community
    Awareness
    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 Bay men'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
         Administration
    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
    Seafood Harvesters Association  of New
         York
    Shelter Island Baymen's Association
    Shinnecock Marlin & Tuna Club
                                              118

-------
                St.  Lawrence River Area  of Concern
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) 264-1865
    FAX: (212) 264-2194
                                         123

-------
               Rochester  Embayment Area  of Concern
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 between Bogus Point (Town of
Greece) and Nine Mile Point (Tov/n of Webster).
The southern boundary includes approximately
10 kilometers (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 12,500 square  kilometers
(4828 square miles) in area.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA's role is to
integrate AOC issues  into the Lake  Ontario
Lakewide Management  Plan  (LaMP)  and the
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP).
EPA also provided funding to the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC)  for  actions aimed at  improving
ecosystem health by reducing  toxic contamina-
tion.

Organizations that initiated project:
     Monroe  County  Department  of Planning
         and Development (MCDPD)
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     New York State Department of Environ-
         mental Conservation  (NYSDEC)

Major environmental problems:
     •    Restrictions  on fish and wildlife con-
         sumption
     •    Degradation of fish and wildlife popu-
         lations and loss of habitat
     •    Bird and animal deformities or repro-
         duction 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; polychlorinated biphenyls and chlordane
from past use; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
from coal gas production;  heavy metals and
cyanide from industrial  dischargers;  coliform,
ammonia,  phosphorus, 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  U.S. 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 develop-
ment began in 1988. The Stage I Report, which
describes the nature and extent of the problems,
has been completed, and the Stage II Report,
which identifies remedial actions and implemen-
tation methods, is under way. Actions that have
been taken to implement the recommendations of
the Stage II Report  include:
        A Combined Sewer Overflow  (CSO)
        Abatement Program has been  imple-
        mented  to construct underground stor-
        age  tunnels to intercept CSOs  before
        they  enter the Embayment and the
        Genesee River.   The  tunnel system
        conveys the wastewater in the com-
        bined sewers to the Van Lare Wastew-
        ater Treatment Facility before it enters
        the lake. The number of annual over-
        flows at 30 previous overflow locations
        has been dramatically  decreased from
        60 to 2  or less.
    •   The  Irondequoit Bay Oxygen Supple-
        mentation Project is a water quality/ha-
        bitat enhancement project whose goal
        is to improve the control of phosphorus
        by both chemical processes (increased
        oxygen, which  enhances  the natural
        system of adsorption/precipitation 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 accelerate natural
        ecosystem recovery and cause an im-
        mediate improvement in fisheries habi-
        tat.
    •   NYSDEC is developing pollution pre-
        vention  regulations to require imple-
        mentation  of Toxic Chemical Reduc-
        tion Plans for facilities that
                                            120

-------
                                Swartswood Lake
Size and location:  Swartswood Lake is located
in a state park in Sussex County, New Jersey.
The lake is 204 hectares (504 acres) in size, with
a mean depth of 6.7 meters (22 feet) and a maxi-
mum depth of 128 meters (42 feet).  The water-
shed covers 4,523  hectares (11,196 acres),  in-
cluding  the lake.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
funding  grants management, and technical  assis-
tance.

Organization that initiated 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:
    •   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
    NJ Department of Environmental Protection
    (CN427)
    Trenton, NJ 08625
    (609) 292-0427
    FAX: (609) 633-1095
                                            125

-------
                  St.  Lawrence  River Area of Concern
 Size and location: The St. Lawrence River Area
 of Concern (AOC) begins above the dams at the
 Massena 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.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's role is to
 integrate AOC  issues into  the  Lake Ontario
 Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) and the
 Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP).
 EPA  also provided funding to  the  New York
 State Department of Environmental Conservation
 (NYSDEC)  for actions  aimed  at  improving
 ecosystem health by reducing toxic contamina-
 tion.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     New York State Department of Environ-
         mental Conservation (NYSDEC)
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Restrictions on fish  and  wildlife con-
         sumption  caused  mainly  by PCBs,
         mercury, mirex, and dioxin
    •    Loss  of  fish  and  wildlife  habitats
         caused by physical  disturbances  and
         contaminated sediments

Actions taken or proposed:  The St. Lawrence
 River AOC is one of 43 AOCs  that have been
 designated by the  U.S.  and/or Canadian gov-
 ernments 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, completed in 1990,
identified use impairments,  their  causes, and
sources.  The Stage II Report was completed in
 1991 and includes the development of remedial
strategies to (1)  restore water quality and  use
impairments of the tributary rivers and St.Lawre-
nce 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 appointed to repre-
sent 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 Ad-
        ministrative   Order,  B ALCOA  has
        agreed to remediate all  sites  on its
        approximately  1400-hectare   (3460-
        acre) plant at an estimated cost of up
        to $150 million, for approximately 8
        years.  A secure landfill is to be com-
        pleted by  1995 at a cost  of $36  mil-
        lion.
    •   EPA  released a  proposed remedial
        project to remove 32,600 cubic  meters
        (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 special-
        ly prepared upland  site on  Reynolds
        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  from Massena in-
        dustries  has  been achieved by  the
        installation of wastewater  treatment
        systems, implementation of best man-
        agement 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  contami-
        nated storm water and process  water
        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 manage-
        ment and agricultural methods, have
        been recommended.
                                            122

-------
                               Region III Projects

       Example projects submitted by Region III include the 18 projects listed below, plus its
 large-scale  initiatives  (see Part I) and  place-based  activities related to many of the multisite
 projects  (see Part III). The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale
 and local-scale projects in this Region.

       The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of
 partners  involved with EPA, and in their goals.  Many are based on watersheds of inland rivers
 and streams, but others involve estuaries/coastal waters, solid waste handling areas, an interstate
 joint planning area,  and a  habitat protection initiative.  Urban and agricultural nonpoint source
 problems, habitat fragmentation and loss, contaminated  sediments, nutrient enrichment, toxics,
 threats to water supply/recreational uses and aquatic communities, off-road vehicles in sensitive
 areas, acid mine drainage,  dams, point sources,  toxic effects on  wildlife, eutrophication, loss of
 seafood harvests, conflicting land uses, streambank degradation,  and urban growth pressures  are
 reported among the  problems these projects seek to  address. Actions taken include developing
 partnerships with  a variety  of  local, state, and federal agencies,  industries,  private citizens'
 groups, and other organizations.  Depending upon  the environmental problems present, these
 multiorganizational  teams  might identify and assess  important or degraded habitats; sponsor
 needed research; monitor and analyze loading rates,  pollutant sources, and options for pollution
 prevention;  propose development or revision  of water quality standards; develop  outreach and
 educational programs; or jointly develop  management plans. Many of the local-scale projects
 also will enhance as well as benefit from the large-scale initiatives in the Region, which include
 the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment (MAHA), the Mid-Atlantic
 Integrated  Assessment (MAIA), the Atlantic Coastal  Plain  Aquifer  System  Project,  the
 Environmental Monitoring and  Assessment Program (EMAP) Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream
 Assessment, and the Chesapeake Bay/MAIA/MAHA Landscape-Scale Assessment.

       Region III projects  in the Inventory at this time include:

       Anacostia River, DC., MD
       Canaan Valley, WV
       Christina River, DE, PA
       Clinch Valley Watershed, VA
       Delaware Estuary, NJ, DE*
       Delaware Inland Bays, DE
       Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Bays, MD
       Middle Fork  River, WV
       National Capital Area (NCA) Municipal  Solid Waste Initiative, DC, MD, VA
       Patuxent River Watershed, MD
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region.  Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.


                                           127

-------
                                     San Juan Bay
  Size and location: Two hundred square kilome-
  ters (75 square miles) of land comprise this
  bay-canal-lagoon system on the northern coast of
  Puerto Rico, which extends from Punta Vacia
  Talega on the east to Isla de Cabras on the west.

  Nature  of EPA involvement:   In  accordance
  with the National Estuary Program, EPA has
  provided funding and  technical and program-
  matic support and has  participated in various
  committees in the Program.

  Organization that initiated project:
      The Puerto  Rico  Environmental  Quality
          Board

 Major environmental problems:
      •    Heavy metals
      •    High levels of arsenic, cadmium, chro-
          mium, cyanide, mercury, nickel, thalli-
          um, and zinc
     •    Violations of Puerto Rico water quality
          standards for  copper,  lead, mercury,
          selenium, and  zinc
     •    Contaminated  sediments
          High levels of oxygen-depleting nutri-
          ent loads
     •    Low dissolved oxygen levels
     •    Repeated fish kills
     •    Pathogens, including coliform
     •    Floatables from garbage dumping
     •    Hindered coral growth
     •   Mangrove destruction
     •   Nonpermitted 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 Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP) that will recom-
mend priority  corrective actions to restore  and
maintain the estuarine resources is being devel-
oped for San Juan Estuary.
 Stakeholders:
     Municipality of Toa Baja
     Municipality of Cataho
     Municipality of Guaynabo
     Municipality of San Juan
     Municipality of Carolina
     Municipality of Loiza
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric
         Administration
     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
     University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant
         Program

Contact:
    Tere Rodriguez
    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
                                             124

-------
Size and location:  The Anacostia River flows
from Montgomery and Prince George's Counties
in Maryland to the District of Columbia, where
it empties into the Potomac River and eventually
the Chesapeake Bay.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding and technical assistance for study of the
Anacostia River watershed. In the  future, EPA
will place additional emphasis on enforcement in
the watershed.

Organizations that initiated project:
     State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince
         George's Counties in  Maryland, and
         the 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 organiza-
tions. The White House Task Force on Ecosys-
tem Management has included this river among
its  seven priority areas for study.  The Chesa-
peake  Executive Council has   designated the
Anacostia as one of three Regions of Concern
for toxic pollution.  EPA has targeted the Ana-
costia in its fiscal year 1995 budget as one of
four priority ecosystems for Ecosystem Manage-
ment. American Rivers has made the Anacostia
River one of its top 10 priorities. The Anacostia
Watershed  Restoration Committee  has outlined
six goals, which serve as the strategic framework
for the restoration of the Anacostia River.
     On July  14, 1994, an agreement on ecosys-
tem management in the Chesapeake  Bay was
signed between EPA and 25  other federal agen-
cies. Under this agreement the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is developing  a Biennial Federal
Workplan  that provides a  framework for  all
federal  landowners  to apply  their  technical
resources to  contribute  to  restoration of the
Anacostia River through specific commitments
including 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 concept in an
urban environment.  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 preven-
tion of toxic pollutants. The plan may include
remediation measures for  sediment, 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 pur-
poses of implementing 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 expects to provide
additional support for this effort  in fiscal year
1995.
    In  fiscal year 1995, EPA will place addi-
tional emphasis on enforcement activities in the
Anacostia watershed. EPA will identify facilities
with significant adverse environmental impacts in
the watershed. EPA will schedule inspections at
selected facilities and determine environmental
compliance.   EPA will administer appropriate
enforcement response to facilities in violation of
environmental regulations.  In addition, EPA is
revising the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System permit for the District of Colum-
bia's  Blue Plains  facility  to  conform with the
National Combined Sewer Overflow Policy.
    Other activities include a U.S. Arboretum-
led effort to develop a federal tributary strategy
for landholders 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.
                                              129

-------
                                       Figure 4:
 A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA  Efforts  to  Protect Ecosystems
                           Region 3 Project  Locations
Scale 1:4,500,000
Albers Equal Area Projection
Sources: US EPA (various)
Compiled January 1995, MRf00014-3/lO
Area boundaries and reference point locations are approximate
EZJI  Area included in 1  or more of
     the large-scale projects
     (see Part 1  project summaries)

 •   Reference point for local-scale project

/V   State Boundary

-------
                                    Canaan Valley
Size and location:  Canaan Valley covers 142
square kilometers (55 square miles) and is locat-
ed in Tucker County, West Virginia.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA  is a key
player in the Canaan Valley Task Force and also
provides funding for various projects and studies
in the valley.

Organization that initiated project:
     The Canaan Valley Task Force

Major environmental problems: Second-home
development  and off-road  vehicle (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 environ-
mental 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 Ca-
naan Valley Task Force coalesces diverse, often
competing interests into a working federal, state,
local, and public partnership to  address a com-
prehensive range of issues.  The dialogue facili-
tates 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
         geographic information system applica-
         tions.
     •    Advance identification of wetlands.
     •    Suspension of Nationwide Permits for
         surface mining, minor road crossings,
         and  headwater and isolated wetlands.
     •    Increased  wetlands  surveillance  and
         enforcement.
    •    Vigorous  public  outreach including
         numerous  open public meetings  and
        development  of  fact  sheets  and  an
        informational  brochure.
    •   A wastewater assimilation study of the
        Blackwater River.
    •   Two-year assistance to Tucker County
         for nontraditional means of wastewater
         treatment.
     •    Studies of impacts from ORVs involv-
         ing water quality and vegetative com-
         munities.
     •    A study of the economic impact of the
         proposed  Canaan  Valley  National
         Wildlife Refuge.
     •    An assessment of the  headwater  wet-
         lands of the valley.
     •    A  U.S.  Geological Survey (USGS)
         ground water study and development
         of a conceptual  ground water  flow
         model.
     •    A USGS surface water study and de-
         velopment of a surface water model.

     Due in large  part to the activities  of the
Task Force, the Monongahela Power Company,
the largest landowner in the northern half of the
valley where most of the  sensitive wetlands are
located, has prohibited the use of ORVs on its
property, thereby reducing impacts on the  wet-
lands ecosystem from  this  activity.   The Task
Force has also helped in 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  enhanced.

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
                                             131

-------
        Pequea and Mill Creeks, PA
        Philadelphia Municipal  Solid Waste Initiative, PA
        Pocono Habitat Demonstration Project, PA
        Prince William County  Ecosystem Project, VA
        Silver Lake, DE
        Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV*
        Upper Tennessee River Basin,  VA
        Virginia Eastern Shore Coastal Waters, VA
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.
                                             128

-------
                                    Christina River
 Size and location:  The Christina River water-
 shed encompasses more than 2590 square kilo-
 meters  (1000 square miles)  and drains portions
 of southeastern  Pennsylvania, Delaware,  and a
 small portion of Maryland.  The watershed lies
 within the Delaware River basin.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is a member
 of the management committee,  the monitoring
 and modeling  workgroup,  and  the  nonpoint
 source workgroup.  EPA is  providing technical
 assistance as well as financial assistance through
 various types of grants.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     Delaware Department of Natural Resources
          and Environmental Control
     Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
          Resources

 Major environmental problems:
     •     Nutrient problems caused by point and
          nonpoint sources
     •     Toxic pollutants
     •     Threats to water supplies, major recre-
          ational areas, and  aquatic  life  from
          urban and agricultural runoff as well as
          major point sources, including several
          hazardous  waste sites

 Actions taken or proposed:  Through a coordi-
 nated 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 proposed short- and  long-
 term monitoring  strategies have been developed.
 The monitoring plan and proposed 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 mon-
 itoring program was initiated October 1, 1994.
    The  approved  plan calls for 3 years  of
 monitoring in order to develop sufficient data to
calibrate and verify the Water Quality Analysis
Simulation Program water quality model.   The
last 2 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
that will develop a workplan to address these
problems has been established. 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 the water-
shed—the Red  Clay Creek  watershed (between
Pennsylvania and Delaware).  Studies of ground
water quality and quantity were conducted by the
U.S. Geological Survey (ground water supplies
70 to 80 percent of base flow year-round). The
effects of ground water pumping, septic systems,
and  recharge  by wastewater 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 generally good, but there are warning signs
of potential threats to ground water quality.

Stakeholders:
    Brandywine Conservancy
    Brandywine 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
    Natural  Resources Conservation Service
    New Castle County
    Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
        Resources
    Red Clay Valley Association
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    U.S. Geological Survey
    White Clay Creek Watershed Association
                                             133

-------
                                Anacostia  River
Stakeholders:
    American Rivers
    Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee
    Anacostia Watershed Society
    Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes  Norton,
        District of Columbia
    Friends of the Anacostia
    Georgetown  University  Law Center  and
        Legal Defense Fund Maryland
    Montgomery and Prince George's Counties,
        Maryland
    Washington Council of Governments
    Sierra Club
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Arbo-
        retum)
    U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
    The National Park Service
Contacts:
    Jon Capacasa
    US EPA Region III (3DAOO)
    841 Chestnut Building
    Philadelphia, PA  19107
    (215) 597-6529
    FAX: (215) 597-8255

    Dominique Lueckenhoff
    US EPA Region III (3CBOO)
    841 Chestnut Building
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    (215) 597-8228
    FAX: (215) 580-2023
                                           130

-------
                           Clinch Valley Watershed
Size and location:  This project focuses on the
Clinch and Powell Rivers, located in southwest-
ern Virginia.  Their watersheds cover approxi-
mately 9840  square kilometers  (3800  square
miles).

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has partici-
pated in the project by coordinating a watershed-
based ecological risk assessment as a case study
of the risk assessment process for broad, water-
shed-based problems.

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. EPA

Major environmental problems: Several endan-
gered and threatened species of mussels and fish,
threatened by:
     •   Agricultural nonpoint source pollution
     •   Construction
     •   Dams
     •   Mining
     •   Residential nonpoint source pollution

Actions taken or proposed:  EPA is applying the
risk assessment methodology to predict potential
outcomes and risks of management options and
to identify sites in the watershed that  are  at
higher risk of loss and might require protection.

Stakeholders:
     Farmers
     Mining interests
     The Nature Conservancy
     Residents
     Tennessee Valley Authority
     U.S. EPA
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Contacts:
     John Miller
     U.S. EPA
     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
         Response
     (703) 603-8846
Suzanne Marcy
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
(202) 260-0689
                                              135

-------
                                   Canaan Valley
    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
         Association
    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

-------
                              Delaware Estuary
    Private organizations
    The States of Delaware, New Jersey, and
        Pennsylvania
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Contacts:
    Mania O'Malley Walsh/Robert Tudor
    U.S. EPA Region III
    841 Chestnut Building
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    (410) 573-6838 (Marria)
    (215) 597-9977 (Robert)
    FAX:  (215) 597-1850
                                          137

-------
                              Christina River
Contact:
    Thomas Henry
    U.S. EPA Region III (3WMI2)
    841 Chestnut Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    (215) 597-9927
    FAX: (215) 597-3359
                                       134

-------
                           Delaware  Inland Bays
Stakeholders:
    Delaware Department of Agriculture
    Delaware Department of Natural Resources
        and Environmental Control
    Farmers
    Landowners and environmentalists
    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
                                           139

-------
                                   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 Delaware Bay  (between Cape  May,  New
 Jersey, and Cape  Henlopen, Delaware).  The
 project area,  however, encompasses the  entire
 river basin.

 Nature of EPA involvement:   In  accordance
 with the National  Estuary Program,  EPA has
 provided funding to the Program. EPA (Regions
 II and III) also provides technical and program-
 matic support by the commitment of four full-
 time employees.  Additional management and
 staff support is provided on an as-needed basis.

 Organizations that initiated project:  The States
 of Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and Delaware
 petitioned  EPA for inclusion of the Delaware
 Estuary in the National Estuary Program.

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Toxics in sediments, fish, and birds
     •   Loss of  diversity and loss and frag-
         mentation of certain habitat types
     •   Nonpoint  source pollution
     •   Water use: supply, quality,  and alloca-
         tion

 Actions  taken or  proposed:   The  Delaware
 Estuary was selected for inclusion in the Nation-
 al Estuary Program in  1988.  A Comprehensive
 Conservation and Management Plan is currently
 being developed for the Delaware Estuary that
 advocates a watershed protection approach in
 implementing  the action plans. It will provide a
 basinwide  perspective  in managing  land  use,
 toxics, habitat  protection, and water use issues.
     One project already under way is the map-
 ping of habitat for priority species throughout the
 estuary.  The maps  will be designed  for use by
 local governments  to help them protect habitat
 through improved  planning procedures.  Land
 uses and practices appropriate  for such  areas,
 coordination of interstate management plans, and
 inclusion of the important  species; in Environ-
mental Impact Statements  will  be  proposed.
Interstate fish advisories will be coordinated, and
loading limits for selected toxicants (total maxi-
 mum 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 also developing a nonpoint
 source 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  restoration of urban stream corridors.
 The  program  is proposing development of  a
 long-term environmental policy plan that would
 integrate  environmental concerns into decision-
 making by all sectors  of society  to  achieve
 sustainable development.
     Other activities include:
     •    Examining   potential  water  supply
          shortages in certain areas of the Dela-
          ware basin (such as the Potomac-Rari-
          tan-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 sup-
          ply planning to address water quantity
          and quality planning.
     •    Addressing   toxics   loadings   from
         ground water and nonpoint sources.
     •   Developing   a   regional  information
         management service that will facilitate
         sharing of information.
     •    Continuing and expanding the ongoing
         public participation program.
     •   Coordinating and expanding the moni-
        toring program of the three states.

Stakeholders:
     Anglers
     Business and industry
     Commercial fishing
    Environmental groups
    Local and regional agencies
    Local citizens
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
        istration
                                              136

-------
                                Middle  Fork  River
Size and location:   The  Middle Fork  River
Watershed encompasses 391  square kilometers
(151 square miles) in the  hills of central West
Virginia.

Nature  of EPA involvement:  EPA helped to
initiate  the project, and has provided financial
and technical assistance. EPA is also a member
of the Middle Fork River Policy Steering Com-
mittee.

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. EPA

Major environmental problems:   Acid mine
drainage from abandoned mines severely impacts
drinking water  sources, aquatic life  including a
trout fishery, aesthetics, and recreational activi-
ties.

Actions taken or proposed: Critical areas have
been defined based on  acid loads.  A steering
committee reviews restoration  plans  for sites
such as  anoxic limestone trenches and  wetlands.
An engineered wetland has been installed. The
project has helped generate additional state  and
federal funds for mine reclamation activities.  It
has helped the  state develop a restoration fund,
which will be used on a  priority basis for  re-
claiming mined areas.
     Six ground water monitoring stations were
installed near Cassity, West Virginia. Two were
placed  outside  the  impacted area to collect
background data. The sites, which are monitored
twice a  year, include naturally occurring springs
and water. Additional 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 monitoring will  help  assess
the effectiveness of the anoxic limestone  drains
that are being installed.

Stakeholders:
     Recreationalists
     USDA  Natural  Resources  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
         Committee

Contact:
    Henry Zygmunt
    U.S. EPA Region III (3WM11)
    841 Chestnut Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    (215) 597-3429
    FAX:  (215) 597-3359
                                              141

-------
                               Delaware  Inland Bays
 Size and location:  The Delaware Inland Bays
 Estuary program addresses the water quality and
 environmental problems of three interconnected
 watersheds (the Indian River, the Rehoboth, and
 the Little Assawoman Bays) in Sussex County,
 Delaware. The drainage  area is approximately
 775 square kilometers (300 square miles), with a
 water surface area of 83  square kilometers (32
 square miles).

 Nature of EPA  involvement:  In accordance
 with the  National Estuary  Program,  EPA has
 provided  funding  and technical and  program-
 matic support and has participated in  various
 committees in the  program.

 Organization that initiated project:
    Delaware Department of Natural Resources
         and Environmental Control

Major environmental problems:
    •    Habitat  loss/modification due  to ero-
         sion,  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 resolv-
ing the problems.   These efforts include:
    (1)  A  Public  Education and   Outreach
         Program, which  explains  the benefits
         of  the  estuary,   and  the  methods  of
         preservation.
    (2)  An  Agricultural  Source  Action Plan,
         which proposes  management of agri-
         cultural wastes and fertilizers.
    (3)   A  Habitat  Protection  Action  Plan,
         which proposes  various  methods  to
         control the  loss of significant  habitat
         and the preservation of existing aquatic
         and  terrestrial ranges.
    (4)   An  Industrial, Municipal and  Septic
         System Action Plan, which proposes  a
         pollution  control strategy and a long
         term capital expenditure program for
         wastewater treatment.
     (5)  A Land Use Action Plan, which evalu-
         ates  current  land-use  practices  and
         proposed mitigation measures.

     In March 1990  the Inland Bays Recovery
Initiative was  launched.  This 2-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  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 Wat-
         er-Use  Plan for managing use of the
         bays' waters.
         Development, by the  University of
         Delaware Sea Grant Marine Advisory
         Service, of the Inland Bays  Citizen
         Monitoring Program, which is monitor-
         ing 30 to 50 sites using more than 50
         volunteers.
    •    Use of  a  geographic information sys-
         tem to provide topographical and other
         information useful  in planning water
         and wetland programs and in issuing
         permits.
    •    Identification, by the Natural Resources
         Conservation  Service,  of  areas  in
         which to focus water quality treatment
         technologies as part of a national Hy-
        drologic Unit  Area project.   Results
        will be  used to further refine existing
        agricultural best management practices.
    •   Assistance to  landowners  for  imple-
        menting  conservation  practices  that
        include  building structures for water
        control  and waste management,  tree
        planting, buffer stripping, and manag-
        ing  wetlands.  This assistance is pro-
        vided through the Indian River Water-
        shed Protection Plan.
                                              :38

-------
                          Patuxent  River Watershed
Size  and  location:   Approximately  238,360
hectares (590,000  acres)  in  Maryland, in the
suburban Washington/Baltimore corridor (Mont-
gomery,   Howard,   Anne   Arundel,  Prince
George's,  Charles,  Calvert,  and  St.  Mary's
Counties), in the watershed of Chesapeake Bay.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA's Office of
Policy,  Planning  and Evaluation (OPPE) has
been funding development of integrated ecosys-
tem and economic models of the watershed for
the purpose of policy analysis.  The models are
designed to be useful in  a cost-benefit and
sustainability framework.  The ecosystem model
is a dynamic process-based simulation model that
covers the natural ecosystems of the watershed.
The  model makes predictions about the future
condition  of the ecosystems of the watershed.
These predictions include the type of ecosystem
or habitat that  will occur in actual geographic
locations within the watershed, as well ecosystem
process type  information such as productivity.
The  model is based on a spatial grid cell format
and  also uses geographic information  systems
(CIS).  The  economic models  are still  under
development (also in a spatial, CIS framework)
and  include a model of human land use change
(e.g.  agricultural to  residential,  low-density  to
high-density  residential,  etc.) and models  of
agricultural management practices.  Feedback
loops  between  the  ecosystem   and  economic
models are being developed.

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S.  EPA,  Office of Policy, Planning and
         Evaluation (OPPE)

Major environmental problems: The models will
be designed to evaluate the ecological and eco-
nomic effects and benefits  of various  environ-
mental problems.  These  include agricultural
runoff  of nutrients, wetland  protection and
restoration,  county  level  zoning,  residential
development, watershed sustainability.

Actions taken or proposed:  None yet.
Stakeholders:
    Interested parties will include  OPPE for
    analysis of benefits of Farm Bill,  Chesa-
    peake Bay Program, and EPA's Office of
    Water

Contact:
    Michael Brody
    (202) 260-2783
    FAX: (202) 260-1935
    E-mail: brody.michael@epamail.epa.gov

    Mary Jo  Kealy
    (202) 260-5728

    U.S. EPA OPPE
    401 M Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
                                              143

-------
                      Maryland's Atlantic  Coastal 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  As-
  sawoman Bays and are within Worcester County,
  Maryland, extending between the Delaware and
  Virginia state lines.  The bays' watershed en-
  compasses  484 square kilometers  (187 square
  miles).

  Nature  of EPA involvement:  The bays were
  described in the EPA Region III Near Coastal
  Waters Strategy as a priority coastal watershed.
  As a result, the Region has provided grant funds
  to the state to initiate planning  and assessment
  activities in the watershed.

 Organizations 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 runoff,   and  increased
         nutrient loadings  to  ground  water  via
         septic systems
     •    Water quality degradation
     •    Losses of habitat and living resources
     •    Conflicting land uses
     •    Excessive   anthropogenic   pollutant
         sources
     •    Loss of  wetlands and  shallow water
         habitat from dredging and filling activ-
         ities
     •    Closure of shellfishing grounds
     •    Excessive loadings  of  fecal  coliform
         bacteria,  sediments,  and nutrients pri-
         marily 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 principal 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 by
 the  Maryland Department of the  Environment
 with funding provided by EPA.
     A more  in-depth evaluation  of the bays'
 watershed performed 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 loadings 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 that will become the focus
 for follow-up pollution  abatement and control
 activities.
     The Maryland  Department of the Environ-
 ment has completed a report that contains esti-
 mated  loadings 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
                                             140

-------
                           Pequea  and  Mill Creeks
developed within the watershed. The local town-
ship officials of the boroughs, LCCD, and PDA
are inventorying the existing sources of contami-
nation within these Wellhead  Protection Areas
and PSC Engineers (consultant for the boroughs)
is  developing ordinances to protect the pubic
wells from contamination.
    EPA is currently pursuing  a Geographic
Information Systems initiative in the Pequea and
Mill Creeks watershed.
    This watershed is in the top 10 percent  of
the Pennsylvania nonpoint source priority water-
sheds, is on the Pennsylvania 303(d) list, and is
a  priority for the Chesapeake  Bay  Program,
Ground Water Protection Program, and Public
Drinking  Water Supervision Program.

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
         Resources
    Pennsylvania Fish Commission
    Pennsylvania Game Commission
    Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Geological Survey
    USDA Farm  Service Agency
    USDA  Natural  Resources  Conservation
         Service
Contact:
    Henry Zygmunt
    U.S. EPA Region III (3WM11)
    841 Chestnut Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    (215) 597-3429
    FAX:  (215) 597-3359
                                             145

-------
               National Capital Area  (NCA) Municipal
                              Solid Waste  Initiative
 Size and location:  The NCA project includes
 Baltimore City and surrounding counties with a
 total population of 2,399,000; Washington, DC,
 and the surrounding counties with a population
 of 3,267,000;  and Richmond, Virginia, and the
 surrounding  counties  with  a  population  of
 893,000.  Total  population for all three NCA
 cities and the surrounding counties is 6,559,000.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA and  the
 Institute  for Local Self-Reliance are Partners in
 a Cooperative Agreement.

 Organization that initiated project:
    The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR)

 Major environmental problems:   The  NCA
 region is estimated to generate over 11,000,000
 tons of municipal solid waste per year.

 Action taken  or proposed:  The goal  of  the
 project is to stimulate economic  development,
 create  new jobs, and launch scrap-based busi-
 nesses and  manufacturing enterprises in  Wash-
 ington, DC, Baltimore, Maryland, and Richmond,
 Virginia.  Secondary materials generated in  the
 cities will be utilized by scrap-based enterprises
 and manufacturers in the region, diverting wastes
 from disposal.  Scrap-based  use of recyclable
 materials reduces  city  disposal costs,  creates
 local markets, provides jobs in each of the NCA
 cities, and increases regional economic activity.
 The project will also document that diversion of
 materials  from the landfill reduces the amount of
 greenhouse  gasses generated.

Stakeholders:
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Richmond, Virginia
    Washington, DC
    U.S.  EPA

Contact:
    Deborah Gallman, 5306W
    U.S.  EPA
    (202) 260-4683
    FAX: (202) 260-4196
                                           142

-------
                Pocono Habitat Demonstration Project
Size and location:  The Pocono Project focuses
on county-level activities, with additional imple-
mentation of actions within several watersheds.
These watersheds include the Tobyhanna water-
shed, which covers 485 square kilometers (187
square miles), and the McMichaels Creek water-
shed, which covers 293 square kilometers (113
square miles), both located within Monroe Coun-
ty, Pennsylvania.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
technical assistance, limited funding, facilitation,
and coordination.

Organization that initiated project:
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Major environmental problem:
    Development pressures

Actions taken  or proposed: Growth and devel-
opment in this biologically diverse area threaten
to cause degradation  and/or  loss  of valuable
upland and  wetland ecosystems, which would
increase the likelihood for adverse impacts on
water quality.   This  demonstration  project  is
aimed  at proactively bringing  to  the forefront
issues related  to growth  and development that
might 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 stake-
         holders.
    •    Development  of a project proposal and
         workplan.
    •    Through consensus, development of a
         vision statement.
    •    Identification  of goals and objectives.

    Several research actions have been complet-
ed, including:
    •    Inventory of biological  diversity as
         described by the U.S.  Fish and Wild-
         life  Service  Gap  Analysis  process
         (Cornell University  and  New  York
         Fish  and Wildlife Cooperative  Re-
         search Unit).
    •    Evaluation of different conservation/-
         development options for Monroe Coun-
         ty (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 Compre-
         hensive Plan.
    •    Workshops  for developers on  open
         space design.
    •    Outreach to specific developers and
         township officials.
    •    Establishment of stream reference sites
         for biological  monitoring.

Stakeholders:
    Brodhead Watershed Association
    Economic Development Council of North-
         east Pennsylvania
    Monroe County Conservation District
    Monroe County Planning Commission
    Penn State Extension
    Pennsylvania  Department of Natural Re-
         sources
    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 Dowell
    U.S. EPA Region III (3ES43)
    841 Chestnut Building
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    (215) 597-0355
    FAX: (215) 597-7906
                                             147

-------
                              Pequea and Mill Creeks
  Size and location:  The Pequea and Mill Creeks
  watersheds are located in southeastern Pennsyl-
  vania  in Lancaster and  Chester Counties.  The
  watersheds total 54,540 hectares (135,000 acres).
  Land  use  in  the watershed is predominantly
  agricultural; 63 percent of the land is devoted to
  cropland and 13 percent to pasture.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
  financial and technical assistance.

  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
                                          O*
  irrigation, boating, fishing, water 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,   livestock  water,  and
 barn/milkhouse water. According to the Pennsyl-
 vania Department of Environmental Resources
 (PaDER), 93.6 stream kilometers (58.5 stream
 miles) within the watershed have been degraded
 by agricultural nonpoirit sources  of pollution.
     This initiative will implement a comprehen-
 sive surface and ground water watershed pro-
 gram including the establishment of total maxi-
 mum 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
 watershed initiative.    These committees have
 been met  regularly for several years. The U.S.
 Department of Agriculture (USDA), EPA, U.S
 Geological Survey (USGS), PaDER, the Pennsyl-
 vania Department  of  Agriculture  (PDA),  the
Lancaster County Conservation District (LCCD),
several private consultants, and the Pennsylvania
  Fish and Game Commission are all members of
  these committees.
      The Pequea and Mill Creeks watershed was
  chosen as a Hydrologic  Unit Area by the U.S.
  Department of Agriculture (USDA) in February
  1991.  Under this designation, USDA provides
  technical and  financial assistance to farmers in
  the watershed for the implementation of best
  management practices.   USDA has  provided
  assistance to farmers in the watershed over the
  past 3  years,  with the  goals  of significantly
  reducing nutrient, bacteria, and pesticide contam-
  ination to surface and ground waters and control-
  ling sedimentation from runoff and erosion.
     In  addition,  the Pequea-Mill watershed is
  being used in a cooperative computer modeling
  effort among the PaDER-Bureau of Land and
  Water Conservation, Penn State University, and
  Natural Resources Conservation Service state
  offices in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Data
 from the watershed will be used in the  develop-
 ment of the National Agricultural Pesticide Risk
 Assessment.
     USGS is conducting a number of studies. A
 ground  water  survey was  initiated  in   1991.
 USGS  began a watershed-wide  baseline  Water
 Quality  Characterization  Project in July  1992.
 The purpose of this long-term study is  to docu-
 ment 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 agricultural
 practices and land use changes, and determine
 water quality changes due to increased livestock
 production by  comparing the  data to  water
 quality  data  collected in the basin in earlier
 years.
     The Pennsylvania Fish and  Boat Commis-
 sion is conducting a biological assessment in the
 Muddy Run basin. The purpose of the study is to
 compare  existing   fish  and  benthic  macro-
 invertebrate populations   to populations   after
 implementation of stream fencing for livestock
 exclusion and other conservation practices. Data
 for the  preproject  condition were collected in
 1991. A follow-up assessment will be conducted
in 1996.
     A  Wellhead  Protection  project  for two
public  water supply wellfields  is  also  being
                                             144

-------
                                      Silver  Lake
Size and location:  Silver Lake is located just
north of  downtown  Dover, Delaware.   The
surface  area  of the lake is  67 hectares  (167
acres), and the lake drains approximately  7700
hectares (19,000 acres).

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
financial and technical assistance.

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, examined the watershed to deter-
mine the sources of pollution, arid then evaluated
solutions  and  recommendations  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 action.  Phase
II projects implement in-lake restoration work, as
well as critical watershed management activities,
to control nonpoint source pollution to a lake. A
seven-part plan has been initiated by the partici-
pating stakeholders, arid the project is coordinat-
ed  by  the  Delaware Department  of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control. The plan
includes:
     •    Development of a nature preserve.
     •    Modification of lake use   for  bank
         stabilization.
     •    Working with property owners to in-
         stall vegetative cover, riprap, etc. for
         shoreline erosion control.
     •    Retrofit  storm water control  ponds
         entering Silver Lake to include water
         quality enhancements.
     •    Enforcement of construction  runoff
         regulations.
    •    Installation of agricultural  best man-
         agement practices.
    •    Public education.
    •    Follow-up monitoring.

    Storm water detention basins will be modi-
fied 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
    Natural Resources Conservation Service

Contact:
    Christine Reichgott
    U.S. EPA Region III (3WM11)
    841 Chestnut Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    (215) 597-3364
                                              149

-------
           Philadelphia  Municipal Solid Waste Initiative
Size and location:   The City of Philadelphia,
with a population of 1.7 million, is one of six
U.S. cities with a population of over 1  million
people.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA and the City
of Philadelphia are Partners in a Cooperative
Agreement.

Organization that initiated the project:
    The City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Major environmental problems:   The City of
Philadelphia estimates that 173,623 metric tons
(190,985 tons) of municipal solid  waste were
generated in the last year.

Action taken or proposed:   The goal of the
project is to divert much of the city's municipal
solid waste from  landfilling to extend landfill
life. Another goal  of the project is to attract
manufacturers  and  processors to  utilize  the
secondary materials generated in the city.  This
will create new jobs arid ancillary businesses,
causing economic growth for the entire city.

Stakeholders:
    Philadelphia
    U.S. EPA

Contact:
    Deborah Gallman (S306W)
    U.S. EPA
    401 M street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
    (202) 260-4683
    (202) 260-4196
                                            146

-------
                        Upper Tennessee River Basin
Size and location: The Upper Tennessee River
basin  contains the Clinch, Powell, and Holston
River basins in southwest Virginia.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA participates
in a Nature Conservancy-led working group and
has provided funding for an interagency agree-
ment and Clean Water Act section 104(b)(3) and
section 319 grants for watershed restoration.

Organization that initiated project:
    The Nature Conservancy

Major environmental problems:
    •    Treated and  untreated  point sources
         (untreated point  sources are the more
         significant problem)
    •    Nonpoint sources  from  agriculture,
         urban runoff, and coal mining
    •    Threats to habitat of endangered  spe-
         cies
Actions taken or proposed:  The Nature Con-
servancy launched its Clinch Valley Bioreserve
in 1988 and brought other stakeholders together
to plan restoration and protection activities.  The
Virginia Division of Soil and Water has adopted
many subwatersheds as high priorities for non-
point source pollution controls.  The Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality placed a
ban on halogen-based sewage treatment systems
in endangered species waters.   More stringent
water quality standards have also been adopted
for other  pollutants.  The Nature Conservancy
has completed a 5-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 prac-
tices are being addressed through the implemen-
tation of appropriate best management practices
(BMPs). To prevent cattle  from reaching the
streams and to buffer the nonpoint source load-
ing from fields, alternative drinking water sourc-
es for cattle, fencing,  buffer strips adjacent to
sinkholes and cave entrances, rotational grazing,
and  permanent  vegetation  cover on critically
eroded  sites will be  installed.  Conservation
planning, septic tank installation, and the remov-
al of trash will also occur. Hydrogeologic studies
will be conducted to define, to the extent practi-
cal, ground  water drainage patterns and spring
discharge sites for future karst BMP implementa-
tion. 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  Con-
         servation
     Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
         University

Contact:
     Victoria Binetti
     U.S. EPA Region  III (3WM50)
     841 Chestnut Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     (215)597-6511
                                               151

-------
              Prince  William  County Ecosystem  Project
 Size and location:  Prince William County  is
 located in northern Virginia, southwest of Wash-
 ington, DC.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
 funding (approximately $100,000 to  date), has
 participated in the Project Steering Committee,
 and is  an NNEMS Fellow.

 Major environmental problems:  Urban growth,
 increased  impervious  surface,  and associated
 environmental degradation. The county's popula-
 tion  grew  more  than 40  percent during the
 1980s. Now at 1/4 million residents, the county
 continues to exhibit steady growth,

 Organization  that initiated project:
    EPA  in cooperation with the county gov-
         ernment

Actions taken or proposed:
    •    Pollution prevention
    •    Watershed resource inventories
    •    Protection and restoration of wetlands
         and stream resources
    •    Implementation of innovative storm-
         water  best  management  practices
         (BMPs)
    •    Watershed Management Plan
    •    Monitoring

Stakeholders:
    5 federal  agencies
    5 state agencies
    3 local agencies
    2 universities
    Local citizens

Contacts:
    Art Springarn, EPA Region III
    (215) 597-3360

    Fran  Eargle, EPA Headquarters
    (202) 260-1954
                                           148

-------

-------
                                 Tri-State  Initiative
 Size and location:  Covering 600,000 hectares
 (1.5 million acres) and including 368,000 people,
 the Tri-State Initiative is located where the states
 of Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky meet and
 includes the counties of Boyd and Greenup
 (Kentucky), Lawrence and Scioto  (Ohio), and
 Wayne and Cabell (West Virginia).

 Nature of EPA  involvement:  To assist in  a
 collective effort to define, remediate, and prevent
 environmental threats  in the tri-state area.

 Organization that initiated the project:
    U.S. EPA

 Major environmental problems: This area was
 selected  because  of   the  following  high
 risk/priority indicators:  pollutants released into
 the environment; known/suspected environmental
 problems; local meteorological  conditions; and
 the level of public concern expressed to EPA.

Actions taken or proposed:   The Air Quality,
 Risk Analysis, Pollution Prevention, Geographic
 Information System (GIS), and Public Relations
 workgroups are currently working on the follow-
 ing projects:  Industry and Community Discus-
 sions, Risk Screening/GIS Mapping, Air Toxics
 Study, Pollution Prevention, and a Surface Water
 Study.  Teams on  the inactive status include
 Groundwater, Waste, and Compliance.

Stakeholders:
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
         Registry
    EPA Regions III, IV and V
    Kentucky Department  of  Environmental
         Protection
    Kentucky Partners
    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
    Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission
    Portsmouth Local Air Quality Agency
    West Virginia  Division  of Environmental
         Protection
Contact:
    Richard Schleyer
    U.S. EPA Region V
    Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17JO)
    (312)353-5089
    FAX: (312) 353-8289
                                             150

-------
                              Region IV Projects

       Example projects submitted by Region IV include the 33 projects listed below, plus its
large-scale initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the  multisite
projects (see Part III).  The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale
and local-scale projects in this Region.

       The Region's projects vary considerably in size, in the types of ecosystems considered,
in the type of partners involved with EPA, and in their goals. The projects submitted range from
research projects assessing ecological risks at a specific site to established  watershed projects
such as the Savannah River and Flint Creek projects.  Many are  based on large nver basins,
small- to moderate-size streams, wetlands Advance Identification areas, and several bayous, bays,
and estuaries.  Other projects involve waste sites and ecological  monitoring, assessment, and
research sites.

       The Savannah and Flint Creek projects were selected as Watershed Protection Approach
(WPA) projects and follow the principles of the WPA, such as involving stakeholders, addressing
a broad array of environmental problems, and applying integrated solutions in priority areas.  For
example  the Savannah River watershed is a very large, interstate river basin encompassing over
 10 000 square  miles.  The Region is currently seeking the issues that are most important to the
stakeholders within  the watershed.   Solutions to  these issues  will be developed by  using the
authorities, expertise,  and resources of the stakeholders.

        Agricultural  runoff,  eutrophication, water  flow alteration,  wetland loss or degradation,
 sedimentation,  aquatic and terrestrial habitat  loss or degradation, threats to sensitive areas,
 declines  in fisheries,  toxics  and heavy  metals, pathogens, contaminated sediments,  industrial
 wastes urban  runoff, hypoxia, industrial discharges, seagrass die-off,  forestry nonpomt source
 impacts  and airborne pollutants are reported among the problems these projects seek to address.
 Actions'taken  include developing partnerships with a variety of local, state, and federal agencies
 industries private citizens' groups, and other organizations. Depending upon the environmental
 problems present, these multiorganizational  teams  might identify  and  assess important  or
 degraded habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources,
 and options for pollution prevention; propose development or revision of water quality  standards;
 develop  outreach and educational programs; or jointly develop management plans.

        Many of the local-scale projects also will enhance as well as benefit from the large-scale
 initiatives in  the Region, which include the Southern Appalachian  Man and the  Biosphere
 (SAMAB) Initiative,  the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative,  the SAMAB Landscape-
 Scale Assessment, the Gulf of Mexico Program, the South Florida Ecosystem Initiative, and the
 Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative, as well as parts of the  Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
 (MAIA).
                                            155

-------
                  Virginia  Eastern Shore Coastal Waters
 Size and location:  A portion of the Virginia
 eastern shore coastal  waters  lies within The
 Nature Conservancy's  Virginia Coast Reserve.
 The Reserve encompasses 162 square kilometers
 (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.

 Nature  of EPA  involvement:    The Virginia
 eastern shore coastal waters were described  in
 the EPA  Region III Near Coastal Waters Strate-
 gy as  a priority coastal watershed. As a result,
 the Region has provided grant funds to assist
 The Nature Conservancy in developing conserva-
 tion plans to protect the nearshore waters from
 pollution related to land use practices.

 Organization that initiated project:
     The  Nature Conservancy - Virginia Coast
          Reserve

 Major environmental problems:
     •     Development pressures
     •     Nonpoint source pollution from farms
     •     Failed septic tanks
     •     Point  source  loadings from seafood
          processing plants

 Actions  taken or proposed:   Under an EPA
 grant,  The Nature Conservancy  has begun work
 with a local  landowner and a multidisciplinary
 group  of  university researchers to  develop and
 implement a  model  protection  initiative tor
 farmland that encompasses several subwatersheds
 to Hog Island Bay.  The initiative has prioriti/ed
 the threats to the subwatersheds via  an ecological
 risk assessment  and is working  with the land-
 owner  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 Conservan-
cy, with  the assistance of  an  EPA  grant, is
undertaking a model waterfront village protection
initiative to address key threats  associated with
development of Virginia Eastern Shore seaside
 towns and villages.  The Conservancy plans  to
 develop a  sustainable  development  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, businesses,
 and government.
     The Nature Conservancy has also sponsored
 studies,  including  the  Broadwater  Macrosite
 Model Watershed Protection Initiative of load-
 ings of nutrients  to both ground and surface
 waters at selected sites on the Chesapeake Bay.
 A citizen-run  water monitoring project  Water
 Quality  Monitoring  Initiative  monitors  both
 ground and surface water in the v/atershed.

 Stakeholders:
    Accomack-Northampton Planning District
         Commission
    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
                                              52

-------
                    ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study
Size  and location:  The  Apalachicola/Chatta-
hoochee/Flint River basins and Alabama/Coosa
/Tallapoosa River basins (ACF/ACT) comprehen-
sive study encompasses six major river basins in
the States of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA  is involved
in an advisory capacity on the overall manage-
ment coordination committee and is an active
participant in the Water Quality Taskforce, along
with providing monitoring and assessment assis-
tance.

Organization that initiated project: The Mobile
District  of the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) and the States of Alabama, Georgia, and
Florida are cooperative partners in this effort to
resolve the present and future water quality and
quantity problems and to develop a management
plan to best use the waters for the overall benefit
of all parties.

Major environmental problems:   The major
environmental problems being  addressed are
eutrophication due to point and nonpoint source
nutrient loadings to  the reservoirs,  water flow
requirements for aquatic habitat, protection of the
fisheries,  protection of  the  environmentally
sensitive Apalachicola Bay system, assurance of
safe drinking water,  and others.

Actions taken or proposed:  Alternative manage-
ment strategies will be developed to evaluate the
impacts of increased treatment for point source
discharges and alternative flow release options
from the many COE  and other power generation
dams.

Stakeholders:
     Alabama
     Army COE
     Florida
     Georgia
     Local governments
     U.S. EPA
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     U.S. Geological Survey
Contacts:
    Mike Eubanks
    Mobile COE
    Inland Environment
    Mobile, AL

    Jim Greenfield
    Water Division
    EPA Region IV
    Atlanta, GA  30365
    (404) 347-2126  ext.6597
    FAX:  347-3269
                                            157

-------
                                      Figure  5:
A Phase I Inventory  of Current EPA Efforts  to  Protect Ecosystems
                          Region 4 Project  Locations
 Scale 1:8,750,000
 Alters Equal Area Projection
 Sources: US EPA (various)
 Compiled January 1995, MRfOO014-4/10
 Area boundaries and reference point locations are approximate.
     Area included in 1 or more of
     the  large-scale projects
     (see Part 1 project summaries)

     Reference point for local-scale project
A/   State Boundary

-------
              Back Bay of Biloxi Ecosystem Assessment
Size  and location:  The Back Bay of Biloxi,
covering 8 square kilometers, borders Harrison,
Stone, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA Region IV
provided funding of $250,000 to document water
quality and determine effects of pollution sources
on ecosystem  health.   The  Gulf of  Mexico
Program  contributed  $75,000 for chemistry
analyses.   EPA's Gulf Breeze Environmental
Research Lab and EMAP-Louisianian Province
contributed equipment and time to aid in charac-
terization of the bay.

Organizations that initiated project:
     Mississippi  Department of Environmental
        Quality, Jackson, MS
     Gulf  Coast  Research  Lab,  University of
        Southern Mississippi, Ocean Springs,
        MS

Major environmental problems:
     •   Low dissolved oxygen
     •   High bacteria and nutrient levels
     •   33 industrial facilities (seafood proces-
        sors,  shipyards,  marinas, petroleum
        facilities, and metal processing  and
        chemical industries)

Actions taken or proposed:  The research project
("Ecosystem  Health  Demonstration   Project:
Near-Shore Gulf of Mexico") is still ongoing and
includes not only ecological parameters but also
human pathogens. The Environmental Monitor-
ing and Assessment Program  (EMAP) design,
with more intensive sampling, is being used
along with selected biomarkers. The research is
part  of an overall program to  develop a set of
ecological assessment procedures to describe the
condition of Gulf Coast estuaries, to identify and
characterize  ecological  problems  caused  by
contaminants, and to determine  the causes of
observed problems.

Stakeholders:
     Food  and Drug  Administration
     Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources
     Mississippi  Department of Environmental
        Quality
    U.S. EPA EMAP-Louisianian Province
    U.S. EPA Gulf of Mexico Program
    U.S. EPA Region IV

Contact:
    Michael A.  Lewis
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Environmental Research Laboratory
    1 Sabine Island Drive
    Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299
    (904) 934-9382
    FAX: (904) 934-2403
                                             59

-------
          Region IV projects in the Inventory at this time include:
          ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study, AL, FL, GA
          Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, NC
          Back Bay of Biloxi Eicosystem Assessment, MS
          Bayou Chico Ecological Assessment, FL
          Bayou Grande Ecological  Assessment, FL
          Bayou Texar Ecological Assessment, FL
          Cahaba River Basin Project, AL
          Carteret County Wetlands  Advance Identification (ADID) Project  NC
                                         Advance Identification
         Escambia River Watershed Project, FL
         Flint Creek, AL
         Florida Bay Algal Bloom Monitoring Project  FL
         Florida Everglades Mercury Ecological Risk Assessment FL
         Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, FL
         Florida Keys Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project FL
         Huntsville Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project  AL
         Indian River Lagoon, FL                               '
         Land-of-Sky Municipal Solid Waste Initiative  NC
         Lower
                                 Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS,

        Loxahatchee River Basin Wetland Planning Project, FL
        Mobile Bay Restoration Demonstrations, AL
        Pearl River Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project MS
        Pensacola Bay Watershed Evaluation, FL
        Rookery Bay Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project  FL
        Sarasota Bay, FL                                      J
        Savannah River Basin, FL, GA, SC
        South Florida Wetlands Permitting and Mitigation Strategy FL
        Tampa Bay, FL
        Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV*
        Weeks Bay Estuarine Research Project, AL
        West Broward County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project  FL
        West Chatham County Wetlands Advance Identification  ADID  Project  GA
       West Kentucky Coalfield  Wetlands Advance Identification (AD ID) Pr$c? KY
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Repinn  Pr •  ,  ,K
summarized under each Region in which they occur                 J     * CXtend aCr°SS ReSional boundaries are
                                         156

-------
                 Bayou Grande Ecological  Assessment
Size and location:  Escambia County, Florida.
Bayou Grande is 4.3 square kilometers.

Nature of EPA involvement: Multi-year ecolog-
ical evaluation  to  determine  ecological status,
sensitive ecological assessment techniques, and
risk assessment methodology.

Organization that initiated project:
    U.S. EPA, Environmental Research  Lab -
        Gulf Breeze, FL

Major environmental problems: Toxic contami-
nation of sediments due to Superfund site  on
naval base.

Actions taken or proposed:  Ground water moni-
toring

Stakeholders:
    City of Pensacola
    Florida Department of Environmental Pro-
        tection
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    U.S. Navy

Contact:
    Michael A. Lewis
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Environmental Research Laboratory
    1 Sabine Island Drive
    Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299
    (904) 934-9382
    FAX: (904) 934-2403

-------
                           Albemarle-Pamlico Sound
 Size and location:   The  Albemarle-Pamlico
 Estuary  is composed  of seven sounds  with
 several rivers, which in  turn drain more than
 77,700 square kilometers  (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  southeastern  Virginia
 compose  the watershed.

 Nature of EPA involvement:   In  accordance
 with the  National  Estuary Program, EPA  has
 provided funding and technical and programmat-
 ic support and has  participated  in various com-
 mittees in the Program.

 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 correc-
tive actions to  restore and maintain the estuarine
resources was  officially accepted by the Gover-
nor of North Carolina and EPA in  November
1994.  The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study
Management Conference proposes to  coordinate
implementation of the CCMP through a Coordi-
nating Council and five  regional councils orga-
nized within watersheds.  The CCMP calls upon
local  governments and citizens  to protect the
estuary through stronger state and local land use
policies, land  stewardship,  best  management
practices, and public education.  The CCMP
stresses:
    •   Voluntary programs with strong incen-
        tives  for  implementing  the  various
        recommendations  in the CCMP.
     •    Land and water use plans.
         Improved wetland and habitat protec-
         tion.

     During development of the CCMP, several
demonstration projects were undertaken to show
the viability of final recommendations for resto-
ration  of the estuary.  These demonstration
projects included habitat restoration, storm water
management,  animal  waste  management,  and
fishery by-catch reduction.

Stakeholders:
     Businesses
     Commercial fishing
     Farmers
     General public
     Recreational users,  including  anglers  and
         boaters

Contact:
     Guy Stefanski
     Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study
     NC  Dept.  of  Environment,  Health,  and
         Natural  Resources
     P.O. Box 27687
     Raleigh, NC 27611
     (919) 715-4084
    FAX: (919) 733-1616
                                            158

-------
                         Cahaba River  Basin Project
Size and location: The Cahaba River is approxi-
mately 306 kilometers (190 miles) long from its
headwaters in St. Clair County, Alabama, to its
confluence with the Alabama River in  Dallas
County.  It drains an area of approximately 4725
kilometers (1825 square miles).

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA will provide
assistance to  the Alabama Department of Envi-
ronmental Management  (ADEM) in  developing
a basin management plan for activities that will
address  the aquatic resource problems and pro-
tect human health.

Organization that Initiated Project:
    U.S. EPA

Major environmental   problems:    Problems
identified include low dissolved  oxygen levels
below point source discharges, increased chemi-
cal concentrations  (ammonia,  nutrients,  and
chlorine) due to low streamflow,  eutrophication
and resulting algal blooms, habitat degradation
due to sediments and eutrophication,  high bacte-
ria levels inhibiting recreational activities, toxics
such  as  metals,  insecticides,  and  herbicides,
fisheries   health and diversity problems, and
water quality problems due to hydromodification.

Actions proposed:  The  basin management plan
will  involve    (1) the  identification of  basin
problems/critical  issues  and  available  data;
(2) the appropriate sampling, analysis, and plan-
ning  to  identify and  prioritize  the  problems/
critical issues; (3) the identification of manage-
ment strategies for addressing the basin problems
and the integrated solutions; (4) the implementa-
tion of the management plan and the solutions
identified;  and (5)  the follow-up  monitoring
program  to determine the effectiveness  of the
implementation plan.

Stakeholders:  Full  stakeholder involvement is
anticipated throughout the process. Stakeholders
include EPA, ADEM, Jefferson County, Shelby
County, St. Clair County Dallas  County, Perry
County,  Bibb County,  Cahaba River Society,
U.S.  Fish and Wildlife  of Alabama, Jefferson
County Health  Department, Sierra Club, Ala-
bama  Conservancy,  Birmingham  Audubon,
Alabama Attorney General's Office, Geological
Survey  of  Alabama, Alabama  Department of
Economic  and Community  Affairs,  affected
municipalities/industries.

Contacts:
    Mary Kay Lynch
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3555, ext. 6607

    John Kroske
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3555, ext. 6595

    Grace Deatrick
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3555, ext. 6558
                                             163

-------
                   Bayou Chico Ecological Assessment
 Size and location:  Escambia County, Florida.
 Bayou Chico is 0.8 square kilometer.

 Nature of  EPA  involvement:   Cooperative
 agreement with North Texas State University to
 conduct an ecological  evaluation and to deter-
 mine sensitive assessment  techniques and risk
 assessment  methodology.  Intramural research
 consists of multiyear ecological evaluation.

 Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. EPA, Environmental Research  Lab -
        Gulf Breeze, FL

 Major environmental problems:  Nutrient en-
 richment and contaminated  sediment caused by
 urban runoff and extensive industrial activities.

Actions taken or proposed:  None to date.

Stakeholders:
    City of Pensacola
    Florida Department of Environmental
        Protection
    Florida Northwest Water Management
        District
    U.S. EPA Region IV

Contact:
    Michael A. Lewis
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Environmental Research Laboratory
    1 Sabine Island Drive
    Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299
    (904) 934-9382
    FAX: (904) 934-2403
                                          160

-------
            Central Dougherty Plain  Wetlands Advance
                        Identification (ADID) Project
Size  and location:  161,600 hectares (400,000
acres) around Albany, Georgia (Baker, Calhoun,
Dougherty, Lee and Terrell Counties).

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is coordinat-
ing this multiagency planning effort and provid-
ing major funding through a cooperative agree-
ment with  the Georgia Department  of Natural
Resources.  EPA also provided funds to the U.S.
Geological  Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service for assistance on this project.

Organization that initiated project:  EPA initiat-
ed this  project  in cooperation  with the  U.S.
Army Corps  of  Engineers in  response to con-
cerns over unpermitted filling activities in the
area, which contains extensive bottomland hard-
woods and limesink wetlands.

Major environmental problems:  Urban growth,
silvicultural conversion, and agricultural activi-
ties threaten bottomland hardwood and limesink
wetlands in the Albany area. Water quality and
quantity  are  prime concerns  due  to the  karst
terrain with complex surface and ground water-
interconnections.  The area lies distant from any
regulatory agency offices, and unpermitted tilling
of wetlands has occurred.

Actions taken  or proposed:   A multiagency
project  team, including  representatives  from
federal and state government, as well as technical
advisors from local government and academia, is
developing a geographic  information  system
(GIS) database with information on project area
wetland  types,   soils,  geologic  characteristics.
landscape positions, and functional  assessment
field  scores.   Limited  field  testing is  being
conducted to fill data gaps in  wildlife usage of
the area.  Maps and a technical document will be
produced designating the suitability of project
area  wetlands for filling  based on  the functions
provided by the  wetlands.  These products  will
be available  to  government agencies and the
general public for use in preliminary planning for
project area wetlands. Citizens are being educat-
ed about local wetlands through public meetings.
informational mailings, television appearances by
project team  members,  and development  and
distribution of a wetlands brochure.

Stakeholders:
    Government agencies  that regulate natural
    resources,  landowners,  land  developers,
    environmental groups, environmental con-
    sultants, real estate agents, farmers, foresters
    and hunters.

Contact:
    Veronica Fasselt
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3871 ext. 6509
    FAX: (404) 347-1798
                                              65

-------
                  Bayou Texar Ecological Assessment
Size and location:  Escambia County, Florida.
Bayou Texar is 1.4 square kilometers.

Nature of EPA involvement: Multi-year ecolog-
ical  evaluation to determine ecological  status;
sensitive ecological monitoring techniques and
risk assessment methodology.

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. EPA, Environmental  Research Lab -
         Gulf Breeze, FL

Major environmental problems:
Urban runoff, urban development, and Superfund
site contribute to excessive sedimentation, nutri-
ent enrichment, and sediment contamination.

Actions taken or proposed:  Dredging

Stakeholders:
    City of Pensacola
    Florida Department of Environmental
        Protection
    U.S. EPA Region IV

Contact:
    Michael A. Lewis
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Environmental Research Laboratory
    1 Sabine Island Drive
    Gulf Breeze,  FL  32561-5299
    (904) 934-9382
    FAX: (904) 934-2403
                                          162

-------
                  Escambia  River Watershed Project
Size and location:  Escambia County, Florida.
Escambia Bay is 93 square kilometers.  It also
has the fifth largest watershed in Florida.

Nature of EPA involvement: Multiyear investi-
gations to assess rare and endangered mussels,
determine ecological  status, develop sensitive
ecological techniques, and develop  risk assess-
ment methodology for watersheds.

Organization that initiated project:
    U.S. EPA,  Environmental Research  Lab -
         Gulf Breeze, FL

Major environmental problems: Many industri-
al discharges and considerable agricultural runoff
have reduced quality of water and sediment.

Actions taken or proposed:  None to date.

Stakeholders:
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    Florida Department of Environmental Pro-
         tection
    Florida Northwest Water Management Dis-
         trict

Contact:
    Michael A. Lewis
    U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency
    Environmental Research Laboratory
     1 Sabine Island Drive
    Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299
    (904) 934-9382
    FAX: (904) 934-2403
                                            167

-------
                  Carteret County Wetlands  Advance
                        Identification (ADID) Project
Site Size and Location:  Area encompassed is
entirety of Carteret County, on the North Caroli-
na coast.

Nature of EPA involvement:  ADID's are EPA-
led initiatives in cooperation with state and/or
local government or agency.  EPA acts  to assist
the state or local sponsor in gathering scientific
data on wetlands in a defined geographic area,
and  coordinates  the project activities of  the
various agencies  involved. EPA also produces
the Technical Summary Document describing the
project findings and regulatory implications. The
data are used by federal government agencies as
regulatory guidance under Section 404 of  the
Clean Water Act, and by the  state/local  sponsor
as they see fit for their own programs as long as
they are consistent with federal policy.  In this
project the NC Division of Coastal Management
plans to use  results to facilitate development of
a state  Wetland Conservation Plan, and County
can incorporate information into future Land Use
Plans.

Organization that initiated project:  NC  Divi-
sion of Coastal Management requested that EPA
initiate an ADID with their cooperation  in Cart-
eret County.

Major  environmental problems:  Historic wet-
land loss through agricultural  conversion and
residential and urban development. Ongoing loss
of pocosins,  a unique local wetland type.  Need
for protection of fish and shellfish habitat.

Actions taken or proposed:  Project  is  in final
stages.   All  field data have been gathered and
analysis is nearing completion.  Carteret County
and segments of regulated community are utiliz-
ing selected draft designation  maps for develop-
ment planning.

Stakeholders:   EPA, Corps,  North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management, Carteret Coun-
ty.  Various other federal and  state agencies also
interested in  results.
Contact:
    Rosalind Moore
    U.S. EPA, Region IV
    Wetlands Planning Unit
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3871, ext. 6511
    FAX: (404) 347-1798
                                            164

-------
                                    Flint Creek
    Tennessee Valley Resource Conservation &
        Development
    U.S. Agriculture Stabilization and Conserva-
        tion 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
                                            169

-------
                           Charleston  Harbor Project
 Size and location:  Charleston Harbor is located
 near and  around Charleston, South  Carolina.
 The project areas consist of Charleston estuary
 and the Ashley,  Warido, and Cooper Rivers
 encompassing 808,000 hectares (2 million acres)
 of land area.

 EPA  involvement:    The Charleston  Harbor
 Project is  based  on EPA's  National Estuary
 Program guidance. EPA Region IV has provided
 both technical and management assistance along
 with monitoring support.

 Organization that initiated project: The Char-
 leston Harbor Project evolved from a grass-roots
 effort of the concerned citizens in the Charleston
 area.  Their efforts resulted in 1991  funding
 approval for a special  area management  plan
 implemented through the South Carolina Coastal
 Council and initial funding from the National
 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

 Major environmental problems:   Charleston
 Harbor is an important commercial port and is
 also a very rich estuary with over 20,000 hect-
 ares (50,000 acres)  of  coastal  marshes.   The
 rapid  urbanization  and  consequent   nutrient
 enrichment of the estuary are the most probable
 causes of future degradation.  Also, Charleston
 Harbor has many water-based industrial  and
 commercial activities that could lead to localized
 contaminated toxic "hot spots."

Actions taken  or  proposed: Four major tasks
 are being undertaken  to identify pollution causes
 and subsequent management strategies: (1) Water
 Quality Modeling and Nutrient Dynamics Pro-
ject, (2) Water Quality  Management and Best
Management Practices Project,  (3) Biological
Habitat Project and,  (4)  Land Planning  and
Cultural Resource Projects.

Stakeholders:
    Charleston local  government
    Industry representatives and water users
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
        istration
    South Carolina Department of Health  and
        Environmental Conservation
    South Carolina Coastal Council
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. EPA
    U.S. Geological Survey

Contact:
    J. Heyward Robinson
    Project Director
    Charleston Harbor Project
    4130 Faber Place, Suite 302
    Charleston, SC 29405
    (803) 747-4323
    FAX:  (803) 744-5847
                                            166

-------
   Florida Everglades Mercury  Ecological Risk Assessment
Size and location:  Receptor region is 10,000
square kilometers (about 60 km x 160 km south
of Lake  Okeechobee  to  Florida Bay  and the
Keys).  The actual study area for atmospheric
mercury  fluxes would be larger (regional  and
global).

Nature of EPA involvement:   Development and
initiation  of  a  multidiscipliriary,  multimedia
interagency study to address  the extensive con-
tamination of Everglades  biota with mercury of
unknown origin. Comprehensive eco-risk assess-
ment  of  mercury contamination in water, sedi-
ment, and biota (especially fish).  Three major
candidate stressor areas are agricultural,  indus-
trial, and hydroperiod (hydrologic and hydraulic
changes).

Organizations initiating project:
    U.S. EPA (Region IV  and the Office of
         Research and Development)
    U.S. Department of  the  Interior (National
    Biological Survey, National Park Service,
         Fish and Wildlife Service)
    Florida International  University
    Florida Department of Environmental  Pro-
         tection
    South Florida Water Management District
    Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commis-
         sion

    For the  atmospheric component,  EPA's
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory (AREAL, Region  IV), Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), Environment Canada,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Florida State University, the University of Michi-
gan, and other representatives from industry.

Major  environmental problems:    Elevated
mercury levels in top carnivores, fish, water, and
sediments.

Actions  taken or proposed:   Development and
application of ultra-trace level analytical methods
for mercury;  implementation  of a multimedia
biogeochemical cycling study for mercury in the
Everglades  ecosystem;   understanding of  the
relative contributions of mercury sources (atmo-
spheric  emissions  from South  Florida  urban
areas, drainage water from agricultural  lands,
natural Everglades peat mercury pool, etc.) to the
Everglades  ecosystem  and the  environmental
conditions that result in the bioaccumulation of
methylmercury; understanding potential interre-
lationships between Everglades phosphorus and
mercury bioaccumulation; ecological risk assess-
ment  model  for  the  Everglades  ecosystem;
understanding of the  appropriateness and effec-
tiveness of potential  remediation or regulatory
strategies.
    EPA's Regional  Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (REMAP) has provided
valuable exposure information. Biogeochemical
modeling and  connections to atmospheric and
water models  and monitoring data is needed.
The latest atmospheric initiative  should address
three basic questions:
    •    What are the sources of mercury to the
         atmosphere in South Florida (anthropo-
         genic, natural background, and local)?
    •    What are  the spatial  and  temporal
         distributions of mercury deposition in
         South Florida (speciation of deposited
         mercury; phase separation/distribution
         of deposited mercury)?
     •    What are the mechanisms of transfor-
         mation  and source-receptor relation-
         ships that help to explain the  deposi-
         tion gradient (fate fluxes, and removal
         mechanisms, such as washout, evasion,
         impaction,  transformation  leading to
         enhanced  removal,  explore  source-
         receptor, regional transport modeling)?

Contacts:
     Larry Burns
     U.S. EPA
     Office of Research and Development
     Athens, GA

     Dan Scheidt
     U.S. EPA Region IV
     345 Courtland Street,  NE
     Atlanta, GA 30365
     (404) 347-3555  x6552 and
     (706) 546-2294
                                              171

-------
                                        Flint  Creek
  Size and location:  Flint Creek has a  117,000-
  hectare (290,000-acre) watershed that is located
  in north-central Alabama and drains to Wheeler
  Reservoir in the Tennessee River.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has partici-
  pated in the project by providing approximately
  $1.5 million in section 319 funds,  through the
  Alabama Department of Environmental Manage-
  ment, during FY92-95.  EPA has also provided
  technical support with a part-time project coordi-
  nator and staff participation on the four project
  committees.

  Organization that initiated project:
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Alabama Department of Environmental
          Management*
      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 in-strearn  debris  and
         litter

Actions taken or proposed:  The Flint  Creek
Watershed Project was initiated in 1992 with an
organizational meeting with  stakeholders.  Pro-
ject objectives  were  determined and resource
commitments were  obtained at this  meeting.
Several subsequent meetings  of the major stake-
holders and subcommittee members have resulted
in the following  actions:
     •    Hired a Project Leader.
     •    Developed  watershed  maps and  an
         inventory of land uses  in  the water-
         shed.
    •   Compiled existing water quality data
        and collected additional water quality
        data.
    •   Conducted two fish health studies and
        several biological assessments.
        Initiated an  Agriculture Stabilization
        and Conservation Service Water Quali-
          ty Initiative  Project  in  Crowdabout
          Creek.
          Developed a volunteer  monitoring
          program.
          Initiated  work on  development of  a
          total  maximum daily load model.
          Developed three outdoor laboratories.
     •    Formed   a  watershed  Conservancy
          District and elected 11 directors from
          the 3-county area.
          Developed a  geographic  information
          system for the watershed.
          Approved grants for best management
          practices to control waste on dairy and
          swine farms.
          Assisted   area  farmers  with  animal
          waste lagoon pumpout.
          Developed a  Self-Enviro-assist  pro-
          gram.
     •     Implemented a sociological survey to
         assess  community attitudes and mea-
         sure attitude changes over time.
     •    Developed several educational activi-
         ties and  environmental literature for
         school and community distribution.

Stakeholders:
     Alabama A & M  Cooperative Extension
         Service
     Alabama Department of Agriculture  and
         Industries
    Alabama  Department  of  Environmental
         Management
    Alabama Department of Public Health
    Alabama Forestry Commission
    Alabama Geological Survey
    Alabama Soil and Water Conservation
        Committee
    Auburn  University  Cooperative  Extension
        Service
    Cullman County Soil & Water Conservation
        District
    Lawrence County Soil & Water Conserva-
        tion District
    Morgan County Litter Control Office
    Morgan County Soil & Water Conservation
        District
   Soil  Conservation Service
   Tennessee Valley Authority
                                            168

-------
          Florida  Keys Wetlands Advance  Identification
                                  (ADID) Project
Size and  location:   26,260 hectares  (65,000
acres); study area is the Keys archipelago from
North Key Largo to Key West.

Nature of EPA involvement: Awarded grants to
the local sponsor (Monroe County) and to  the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
to assist in their participation; funded Interagency
Agreements (lAGs)  with the Fish and Wildlife
Service and National  Aeronautics  and Space
Administration (NASA) for their participation;
EPA project officer spends one-third full time
serving as coordinator.

Organizations that initiated project:
    EPA and U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers

Major environmental  problems:  Cumulative
effects of numerous small-scale wetland fills,
wetland habitat loss  of endangered species

Actions taken or  proposed:    A  geographic
information system (GIS) is in place; digital land
cover has been acquired; a functional assessment
model has been developed; and wetland delinea-
tion, classification,  and  assessment are under
way.   Project  goals are to incorporate ADID
findings into the  county land use plan; to write
a general permit  for areas  that  are suitable  for
fill; and to coordinate future wetland mitigation
banks among  federal, state, and local officials.
The results of this ADID should be incorporated
into federal, state, and local regulatory efforts, as
well as local planning processes and PE&O.

Stakeholders:
    County/State residents;  local  developers,
    property  owners,  political leaders,  and
    environmental activists; citizens at all levels
    of government; federal and county regula-
    tors; state and county planners
Contact:
    Dr. Peter Kalla
    U.S.  EPA, Region IV
    WMD-WOWB-WPS-WPU
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3871 ext. 6508
    FAX: (404) 347-1798
    E-mail: kalla.peter@epamail.epa.gov
                                            173

-------
  Size and location:  Florida Bay is a lagoonal
  estuary bordered on the  north  by the Florida
  mainland and on the  southeast  by the Florida
  Keys.  It is approximately 2200 square kilome-
  ters. The bay is shallow, with an average depth
  of 1 meter.

  Nature of EPA involvement:   Provide  image
  processing support  to  determine the  ability of
  NALC triplicates to identify algal blooms in the
  Florida Bay and to discover the earliest possible
  date of their occurrence.  The EPA has funded
  $75,000 and five people are involved.

  Organization that initiated project:  EPA Gulf
  Coast Program Office

 Major environmental problems:   Algal blooms
 causing a deterioration in water quality in Florida
 Bay  with major impacts  on fisheries-related
 industries  and recreation.

 Actions taken or proposed:   Phase I  of image
 processing support  involved the  analysis of an
 NALC  triplicate of  the  Florida  Bay  area to
 determine  whether algal blooms could be detect-
 ed from the images.   Initial results (without the
 benefit  of  ground truthing) indicated anomalous
 high near infrared (IR) reflectance, which might
 indicate the presence of algal blooms.  A pro-
 posed Phase  II would incorporate ground truth
 data with  results obtained from  the  Phase  I
 effort.

 Stakeholders:
    Florida Department of Environmental
         Protection
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
         istration
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact:
    Gordon E. Howard
    U.S. EPA -  Environmental  Photographic
        Interpretation Center
    Vint Hill Farms Station
    Warrenton, VA
    (703)  341-7506
                                             170

-------
                              Indian River Lagoon
Size and location:  The  Indian River Lagoon
(IRL) comprises more than a third of Florida's
east coast  and extends  250  kilometers  (155
miles) from Ponce de Leon Inlet in the north to
Jupiter Inlet in the south.  The IRL basin spans
about  5900 square  kilometers (2280 square
miles) and includes three  major watersheds.

Nature  of EPA  involvement:   In  accordance
with the National Estuary  Program,  EPA has
provided funding, and technical and programmat-
ic support and has participated in various  com-
mittees  in the program.

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
         mosquito impoundments
     •    Storm water runoff
     •    Undesirable freshwater discharges
     •    Increased suspended matter loadings
         and sedimentation
     •    Increased nutrient loadings
     •    Population  increase resulting in  unde-
         sirable watershed alterations
     •    Loss of seagrass beds
     •    Loss of emergent wetlands
     •    Lack of consistency in environmental
         protection rules and criteria

Actions taken or proposed: The IRL was select-
 ed for inclusion in the National Estuary Program
 (NEP)  by  EPA  in  1990.  IRL NEP activities
 have focused on the  development of a Compre-
 hensive Conservation and Management  Plan
 (CCMP) to identify and promote the restoration
 of water quality and resources  in  the area.
 Emphasis has been placed on assessing nonpoint
 sources of runoff, determining  environmental
 requirements  needed  for submerged aquatic
 vegetation, reconnecting  and acquiring mosquito
 impoundments, and promotion of IRL steward-
 ship. As part of the development of the CCMP,
 several demonstration projects are being under-
taken to show the viability of final recommenda-
tions for restoration of the estuary. These dem-
onstrations  include  habitat restoration,  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 Street, NE
     Atlanta, GA 30365
     (404) 347-3555, ext. 2060
     FAX:  (404) 347-1797
                                              175

-------
              Huntsville Wetlands  Advance Identification
                                   (ADID)  Project
 Size and Location:  Project area covers 2424
 hectares (6000 wetland acres) around Huntsville,
 Alabama.

 Nature of EPA involvement: ADIDs are EPA-
 led initiatives in cooperation with a state and/or
 local government or agency. EPA acts to assist
 the state or local sponsor in gathering scientific
 data on wetlands in a defined geographic  area
 and  coordinates  the  project activities of  the
 various agencies  involved.  EPA also produces
 the Technical Summary Document describing the
 project findings and regulatory implications.  The
 data are used by federal government agencies as
 regulatory  guidance under  section  404 of  the
 Clean Water Act, and by the state/local sponsor
 as  it sees fit for its own programs as long as its
 uses are consistent with federal  policy.  In this
 project the City of Huntsville may use the find-
 ings to enact a future wetland ordinance.

 Organization that initiated project:  The City of
 Huntsville requested that EPA initiate an ADID
 with its cooperation in the Huntsville area.

 Major environmental problems:  Wetland loss
 through unpermitted filling and wetland degrada-
 tion from agricultural practices causing erosion
 and sedimentation are the greatest threats in this
 area.

Actions taken or proposed:   Project  is  near
completion.  All  data have  been gathered and
wetlands designated regarding  suitability  for
filling.  Approximately 98 percent of wetlands
designated unsuitable for development  in draft
Technical Summary  Document.  Corps of Engi-
neers  considering  exertion of  discretionary
authority over NW 26 permitting in ADID area.

Stakeholders:
     Primarily  EPA, Corps  of Engineers,  and
    City of Huntsville.  Also U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Madison County, Alabama
    Department of Environmental Management.
Contact:
    Rosalind Moore
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    Wetlands Planning Unit
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA  30365
    (404) 347-3871, ext. 6511
    FAX: (404) 347-1798
                                            174

-------
                    Lower Mississippi Alluvial  Valley
                         Wetland Conservation  Plan
Size and location:  1120-kilometer  (700-mile)
stretch from Cairo, Illinois, south to the Gulf of
Mexico; historical alluvial plain of the Mississip-
pi River.

Nature of EPA involvement: Currently, provid-
ing  funding assistance to multiple state agencies
within the Lower Mississippi Valley, as well as
federal interagency projects addressing forestry
and resource planning issues.  EPA and several
regional sponsors will be coordinating the devel-
opment of a regional wetlands conservation plan.

Organization  that initiated project:   Multiple
federal agencies,  including EPA, U.S. Geological
Survey  (USGS), National  Biological Survey
(NBS), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)  and  U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service
(FWS) are initiating ecosystem-scale  planning
and research efforts in the region.

Major environmental problems:
     •    Nonpoint source  pollution in surface
         waters
     •    Extensive forested wetlands loss
     •    Impacted fisheries and wildlife habitats
     •    Extensive hydrological modifications

Actions taken or proposed:   This  multistate,
multiregion initiative focuses on  wetland resto-
ration/reforestation and  reduction of  nonpoint
source water pollution  throughout the Lower
Mississippi River Alluvial  Plain.  A regional
sponsor will coordinate state and federal efforts
by  developing  and implementing a  regional
wetlands conservation plan.   Establishing net-
works among interest groups  and data sharing
through the use of a geographic information sys-
tem will be emphasized,  as well as prioritization
of wetland restoration/acquisition sites.

Stakeholders:
     Natural resource state agencies from  MS,
     LA, TN,  AR, KY, MO, arid IL, agricultural
     community,  forestry community, landown-
     ers, hunting  and outdoor recreation groups,
     environmental  organizations,  sustainable
     economy  organizations,   federal  natural
    resource and public health agencies, includ-
    ing EPA, National Biological Survey, U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resourc-
    es Conservation Service, U.S. Geological
    Service, U.S. Forest Service, Agency for
    Toxic  Substances and  Disease Registry
    (ATSDR).

Contacts:
    Jennifer Derby/Eric Hughes
    EPA Region IV
    345  Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3871  ext. 6510 and ext. 6517

    Beverly Ethridge/Jay Gamble/Jack Hill
    EPA Region VI
    1445 Ross Avenue
    Dallas, TX 75202-2733
    (214) 665-2263
                                             177

-------
           Land-of-Sky  Municipal Solid Waste Initiative
Size and location:  The Land-of-Sky Regional
Council has jurisdiction over solid waste activi-
ties in  a four-county area (Buncombe, Transyl-
vania, Henderson, and Madison Counties) with a
population of 286,579.

Nature  of EPA  involvement:   Land-of-Sky
Regional Council  and EPA are Partners in a
Cooperative Agreement.

Organization that initiated project:
    Land-of-Sky Regional Council, Asheville,
         North Carolina

Major environmental problems: The Land-of-
Sky Regional Council four-county area generates
about 1 million tons of municipal solid waste per
year.

Action taken  or proposed:  The  goal of  the
project is to reduce  the amount  of  waste  the
four-county area will landfill.  The project will
focus on  retention of existing businesses and
attraction of new businesses to utilize the Reg-
ion's recycled materials.   The project will also
focus on the number of jobs retained  or created
in each county. Diversion of the materials from
the landfill will also extend landfill life allowing
resources to be devoted to other priority projects.

Stakeholders:  Stakeholders   are Buncombe,
Transylvania, Henderson, and Madison Counties
and EPA.

Contact:
    Deborah Gallman, (5306W)
    U.S. EPA
    401  M Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
    (202) 260-4683
    FAX: (202) 260-4196
                                            176

-------
                Mobile Bay  Restoration Demonstrations
Size and location:  The  Mobile Bay estuarine
drainage area covers 102,900 kilometers (39,725
square miles) in nine  South Alabama counties.
The surface area of the bay is about 1300 square
kilometers  (500 square miles).

Nature of EPA involvement: Funding assistance
for all Gulf of Mexico  Program activities associ-
ated with this initiative, providing technical input
via steering committees,  meetings, and  work-
shops, and  promotions of the Mobile Bay Resto-
ration Demonstrations  to other federal and state
agencies.

Organizations that initiated project:   Gulf of
Mexico Program in conjunction with U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Alabama Depart-
ment  of Environmental Management (ADEM),
U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers, Alabama Depart-
ment   of Economic  and  Community Affairs
(ADECA),   Natural   Resources  Conservation
Service,  National  Marine  Fisheries Society,
National Aeronautics and  Space Administration,
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency Region
IV.

Major environmental problems:
    •    Rapid growth in population
    •    Heavy shipping
    •    Damaged wetlands
    •    Loss of submerged seagrass beds
    •    Reduced water quality
    •    Closing of numerous oyster reefs

Actions taken or proposed:  The Gulf of Mexico
Program coordinated state  and federal restoration
demonstrations  in Mobile Bay to  provide  an
ecosystems  approach to watershed environmental
management.  The program  was instrumental in
initiating the following projects within the Mo-
bile watershed ecosystems:
    •   Implementation  of activities in  con-
        junction with USFWS and ADEM that
        demonstrate how water quality can  be
        improved by  restoring salt marsh and
        seagrass habitats, which act  as  water
        filters for nearby oyster reefs.
    •    Implementation of a program with the
        Alabama Department of Public Health
         and the Mobile County Health Depart-
         ment to monitor and control nonpoint
         sources  of pollution  affecting water
         quality for coastal waters.  One project
         involves  constructing  a  wetland to
         filter  fertilizer and   pesticide-laden
         runoff from a golf course.
     •    Development and implementation of a
         citizen  monitoring support program—
         Bay Watch—to use citizen volunteers
         to gather information to target and fol-
         lowup on pollution control activities in
         the  Mobile Bay watershed, in coop-
         eration with ADEM.
     •    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:
     ADECA
     ADEM
     Agriculture
     Citizens using the bay  for food and recre-
         ation
     Development
     Fisheries
     Local and state governments in Alabama
     Manufacturing and mining
     National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
         tion
     National Oceanic  and Atmospheric
         Administration/National Marine Fisher-
         ies  Service
     Natural Resources Conservation Service
     Tourism
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     U.S. Food and Drug Administration

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
                                            179

-------
       Loxahatchee River  Basin  Wetland  Planning  Project
Size and Location: Project area covers approxi-
mately 11,300 hectares (28,000 acres) in Martin
and Palm Beach Counties, Florida.

Nature of EPA involvement: Project is an EPA-
led initiative in cooperation with  a county gov-
ernment and a regional planning  council.  EPA
will assist the local sponsors in gathering scien-
tific data on wetlands in the project area and will
coordinate  the project activities of the various
agencies involved. The data are expected to be
used by federal agencies as  regulatory guidance
under section 404 of the Clean Water  Act, and
by  the  local  sponsors for  activities  such as
creating zoning  ordinances  and mitigation site
selection.   This project is  very  similar to an
Advance Identification (ADID) project except
that designations of suitability for fill will not be
made per se but will likely be  replaced with
designations of qualitative ecological value,

Organization  that  initiated project:    Local
environmental group made  initial request, with
subsequent support from local governments and
other natural resource entities.

Major environmental problems:  Concern over
water quality and quantity in Loxahatchee River
basin, intensified by  the fact that the river has
been designated  as a National Wild and Scenic
River and is the only one so designated in the
state.  Increasing encroachment by development
into remaining wetlands is a primary concern.

Actions taken or proposed:   Project is  in initial
stage. Core participants have been identified and
goals  set.   Data gathering  not yet under  way.
Next major task is formulation of wetland func-
tional assessment method to  analyze wetlands in
the field.

Stakeholders:
    EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, Martin and Palm
    Beach Counties, South Florida Water Man-
    agement District, Florida Department  of
    Environmental Protection, Treasure Coast
    Regional Planning Council.
Contact:
    Rosalind Moore
    U.S. EPA, Region IV
    Wetlands Planning Unit
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3871, ext. 6511
    FAX: (404) 347-1798
                                             178

-------
                 Pensacola Bay Watershed Evaluation
 Size and location:  Escambia and Santa Rosa
 Counties, Florida. Pensacola Bay is 133 square
 kilometers in area.

 Nature of EPA  involvement:  Multiyear wa-
 tershed evaluation to determine ecological status,
 sensitive ecological monitoring techniques, and
 risk assessment methodology.

 Organization that initiated project:
    U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab -
        Gulf Breeze, FL

 Major environmental problems:   Point source
 discharges, urban runoff, and agricultural runoff
 have impacted the bay.

Actions taken or proposed:  None to date.

Stakeholders:
    Cities  of Pensacola and  Gulf  Breeze,
        Florida
    Florida Northwest Water Management
        District
    State  of Florida  Department  of Environ-
        mental Protection
    U.S. EPA Region IV

Contact:
    Michael A. Lewis
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Environmental Research  Laboratory
    1  Sabine Island Drive
    Gulf Breeze,  FL 32561-5299
    (904) 934-9382
    FAX: (904) 934-2403
                                          181

-------
           Pearl  River Wetlands  Advance Identification
                                 (ADID) Project
Size and location: Size of area is 340 square
kilometers/130  square miles  (33,500 hectares/
83,000 acres)  total;  23,400  hectares (58,000
acres) of wetlands near Jackson, Mississippi.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has been the
initiating force  in this project. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the state, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service have provided technical
assistance.

Organization that initiated project:
    U.S. EPA

Major environmental problem:  Bottomland
hardwood wetlands are at risk  from urban expan-
sion from the Jackson metro area.

Actions taken  or proposed: Area  has  been
remotely assessed and land use/land cover maps
generated.   Area has  also  been  hydrogeo-
morphically classified and assessed.

Stakeholders:
    EPA, Corps of  Engineers, U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife,  and state agencies, as well as
    regulated public, will know where wetland
    areas are located.

Contact:
    Bill Ainslie
    EPA Region IV
    Wetlands Planning Unit
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3555 ext. 6589
    FAX: (404) 347-3269
                                           180

-------
                                     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 watershed of approximately 389 square
kilometers  (150  square miles)  of land area and
135 square  kilometers (52 square miles) of water
surface extending from Anna Maria Key south to
Casey Key on the southwest coast of Florida.

Nature of EPA  involvement:   In  accordance
with  the National Estuary Program,  EPA has
provided funding and technical  and programmat-
ic support and has participated in various com-
mittees in the program.

Organizations that initiated project:  This is a
cooperative project stimulated  by local govern-
ments and communities and Mote Marine Labo-
ratory.  Sarasota Bay was  selected for inclusion
in the National Estuary Program (NEP) by EPA
in 1988. The Sarasota Bay NEP is sponsored by
the Southwest Florida Water Management Dis-
trict, Manatee County, Sarasota County, the City
of Sarasota, and  EPA.

Major environmental problems:
     •   Excessive nitrogen loads due to inad-
         equate  wastewater treatment
     •   Storm water runoff
     •   Loss of natural habitat (freshwater and
         saltwater  wetlands   and  submerged
         aquatic vegetation)

Actions taken or proposed:  The NEP provides
funds to develop a Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP) for Sarasota Bay
that will recommend priority corrective actions to
restore  and maintain the estuarine  resources.
During the  CCMP development, several demon-
stration projects are being undertaken to illustrate
how the final recommendations for bay restora-
tion will be implemented. These demonstrations
include 11  habitat-related  projects and 2 storm
water  management  projects.    The  intertidal
habitat restoration projects will restore 32 hect-
ares (80 acres) of habitat lost since 1950.  Imple-
mentation of the storm water projects will reduce
the quantity an  improve  the  quality  of storm
water discharge  in specific basins,  as well as
providing valuable information 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 strategy of
the Sarasota Bay NEP into community decisions
that might  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
in the CCMP.   These plans address wastewater/
nitrogen loading reduction, storm water manage-
ment, freshwater and saltwater wetlands restora-
tion and protection, fisheries and other living
resources, sustainable recreational use,  and bay
management (governance). 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 take  the lead for
implementation  activities,   how  much  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, snork-
         elers,  boaters, and anglers
     Scientists
     Tourists

Contact:
     Hudson Slay
     U.S. EPA Region IV
     345 Courtland Street, NE
     Atlanta, GA 30365
     (404) 347-3555 ext. 2059
     FAX: (404) 347-1797
                                              183

-------
          Rookery  Bay  Wetlands Advance  Identification
                                  (ADID)  Project
Size and location:   43,600 hectares (108,000
acres) in Collier County, Florida.

Nature  of EPA involvement:  EPA is coordi-
nating  this  multiagency  planning effort  and
providing  major funding  through  cooperative
agreements with  state and local agencies and a
local nonprofit organization.

Organization that initiated project:  EPA initiat-
ed this project in cooperation with the Corps at
the request of the state and a variety of environ-
mental organizations.

Major  environmental problems:  Rapid  urban
growth in  the Rookery Bay watershed is threat-
ening the  water quality  in Rookery Bay  and
degrading  the habitat for threatened and endan-
gered species, such as the Florida  panther and
red-cockaded woodpecker.  The misconception
that melaleuca-infestecl wetlands and hydric pine
flatwoods have no functional value is widespread
in the area.

Actions taken or proposed:  A  multi-agency
project  team, including  representatives  from
federal, state, and local government and a non-
profit  environmental  group  is developing  a
geographic information system (GIS) data base
with information on project area wetland types,
soils, sub-basin boundaries, and impact areas for
major drainage canals. Limited field testing  is
being conducted to  fill data gaps in wildlife
usage of the area, document hydrology in hydric
pine flatwoods, and assess impacts of drainage
canals   on  wetland hydrology.   Maps and  a
technical document will be produced designating
the suitability of project area wetlands for filling
based on the functions provided by the wetlands.
These products will be available to government
agencies and the general  public for use in pre-
liminary planning  for project  area  wetlands.
Citizens are being educated about local wetlands
through public meetings, informational mailings,
and development and distribution of a Rookery
Bay Watershed poster.
Stakeholders:
    Government agencies  that regulate natural
    resources,  landowners,  land  developers,
    environmental groups, environmental con-
    sultants, real estate agents, citrus/vegetable
    growers, and recreational and  commercial
    fish/shellfish industries.

Contact:
    Veronica Fasselt
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3871 ext. 6509
    FAX: (404) 347-1798
                                             182

-------
                             Savannah River Basin
     City of Beaufort, South Carolina
     Duke Power
     Federal Paper Board Corporation
     Fort Howard Company
     Georgia Conservancy
     Georgia Department of Natural Resources
     Georgia Environmental Protection
     Lower Savannah Council of Governments
     National Park Service
     Natural Resources Conservation Service
     Savannah Area Chamber  of Commerce
     Savannah River Forum
     Sierra Club
     South Carolina Coastal Council
     South Carolina Department of Health and
         Environmental Control
     South Carolina Department of Natural
         Resources
     South Carolina Electric and Gas
     South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium
     Southeastern Power Administration
     Southern Environmental Law Center
     Stone Savannah River Company
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
     U.S. Department  of Energy  -  Savannah
         River Site
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     U.S. Geological Survey
     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
                                            85

-------
                              Savannah  River  Basin
Size and location: The Savannah River basin is
a   25,900-square-kilometer/10,000-square-mile
watershed  located in  the  southeastern  United
States and  includes portions of North Carolina,
South Carolina, and  Georgia.   The Savannah
River, which  is  the  boundary between  South
Carolina and  Georgia, is  formed at Hartwell
Reservoir by the confluence of the Seneca and
Tugaloo Rivers and flows southeast to the Atlan-
tic Ocean at the port city of Savannah, Georgia.
Above the  junction of the Seneca and Tugaloo
Rivers, the major headwater  streams  of the
Seneca River are the Keowee River and Twelve
Mile  Creek.  The Tugaloo River is formed by
the union of the Tallulah and Chattooga Rivers.
These headwater streams originate on the south-
ern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains in North
Carolina and Georgia.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA is providing
leadership  and  coordination  support for  this
project. EPA has also provided financial support
for watershed demonstration projects and  has
also provided staff support for projects such as
water quality field sampling and modeling.

Organization that initiated project:
    U.S. EPA

Major environmental problems:
    •    Impaired fisheries due to poor  water
         quality
    •    Low  dissolved  oxygen  (DO) in  Sa-
         vannah River and Estuary
    •    Savannah River Site (listed  as a Sup-
         erfund  site  in  1989)  discharges  and
         releases
    •    Negative water  quality  impacts  on
         public drinking water supplies
    •    Nonpoint source impacts from forestry,
         agriculture, and urban land use
    •    Salinity in estuary—impacts on pub-
         lic/private drinking  water  supplies,
         fisheries,  wetlands
    •    Sedimentation in the estuary causing
         navigation  problems  and  increased
         dredging
    •    Modification and physical changes in
        the estuary
     •   Point source discharge effects
     •   Dam release impacts—e.g., fish kills,
         cold water releases, low DO releases
     •   Development  impacts—e.g., develop-
         ment near urban  areas, river  access
         projects, wetland losses, possible future
         harbor development
     •   Habitat   alteration/destruction—e.g.,
         dredging,  salinity impacts,  sedimenta-
         tion, hydropower releases, development
     •   Commercial shipping impacts on har-
         bor water quality
     •   Water quality  impact of drought man-
         agement plans—e.g., low-flow scenari-
         os
     •   Urban storm water runoff
     •   Ground water quantity limitations due
         to saltwater intrusion  and  drawdown
         and the potential interaction with sur-
         face water

Actions taken or proposed: EPA began working
in 1992 with the water quality agencies of Geor-
gia and South Carolina to reach consensus on the
nature and scope of this  project. A multiagency/
organization  meeting with stakeholders  in the
basin to plan and  organize a comprehensive and
integrated watershed project followed.  Actions
are under way  to develop a Watershed Assess-
ment Report  that  includes input on priority
actions from all basin stakeholders.  An organi-
zational structure  has been developed to manage
the project  and  includes equal representation
from major stakeholders. Additionally, resource-
based subcommittees will provide the technical
support for this project.  There is a great deal of
interest in coordinated management of the natural
resources of the Savannah River basin, and the
many stakeholders in the basin are committed to
participation in project  management, planning,
and implementation. The Watershed Assessment
Report will be a guide for  implementation  of
priority actions by basin stakeholders.

Stakeholders:
    Augusta Canal  Authority
    Augusta Chamber of Commerce
    Central Savannah  Regional  Development
         Center
                                             184

-------
              South Florida Wetlands Permitting and
                             Mitigation Strategy
Stakeholders:
    Florida Department of Community Affairs
    Florida Department of Environmental Pro-
        tection
    Florida Game and Freshwater Fish  Com-
        mission
    Local governments
    National and local environmental groups
    Native American tribes
    South Florida agricultural, urban, and other
        interests
    South Florida Water Management District
    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:
    Rhonda Evans
    U.S. EPA  Region IV
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3871 ext. 6514
                                        187

-------
                 South  Florida Wetlands Permitting  and
                                 Mitigation Strategy
  Size and location:   Wetland habitats, which
  cover a significant portion of the land area, are
  scattered throughout South Florida,  a 41,000-
  square-kilometer (16,000-square- mile) watershed
  located at the southern terminus  of the Florida
  peninsula.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA Region IV
  and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
  are leading the effort to develop a  Comprehen-
  sive South  Florida Wetlands Permitting  and
  Mitigation  Strategy, as recommended by  the
  Federal Interagency Working Group in its 1994
  Annual Report.   The  strategy will provide a
  forum for focusing federal and state activities in
  South Florida, and it will identify  mechanisms
  for improving decision-making processes. It will
  include the  development of a Wetlands Conser-
  vation Plan by September 1996.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     U.S. EPA Region IV
     U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Historic wetland losses combined with
          major hydrologic  alterations  of  the
          ecosystem
     •    Invasion of exotic plan I: species
     •    Rapid population growth and concomi-
         tant development subjects  the remain-
         ing wetlands to removal or alteration
     •    Loss  of  native species  of flora and
         fauna
     •    Land use  designations  that  conflict
         with  the  long-term  viability of  the
         wetland  habitats
     •    Individual permits issued on a case-by-
         case basis without a complete assess-
         ment of  the cumulative impacts

Actions taken or proposed:
    •    Several meetings between federal and
         state agencies  and the South Florida
         Water Management District have been
         held to develop the scope of the pro-
        ject and to coordinate the numerous
  related  activities occurring  in  South
  Florida.
  The draft "Scope of Work"  identifies
  eight tasks  to be  developed: (1) the
  formation of a  Steering Committee;
  (2) geographic   information  system
  (CIS) networking to develop the CIS
  coordination required to complete the
  tasks and to share  data among  the
  agencies CIS data; (3) the development
  and use of land cover classification and
  other map products;  (4) development
  of a functional assessment methodolo-
  gy for assessing the wetlands and other
  habitats of South Florida; (5) identifi-
 cation of important natural  areas, in-
 cluding wetlands, buffer areas, transi-
 tional zones and uplands, critical to the
 continued functioning of adjacent wet-
 lands; (6) identification of areas where
 intense development pressures require
 further  detailed  assessments to  be
 performed as  quickly   as   possible;
 (7)  the identification  of areas that pro-
 vide   opportunity  for   preservation,
 restoration, and enhancement; and (8)
 development of an implementation plan
 that will identify the specific activities,
 actions, responsible agencies, and time-
 lines for implementing the strategy.
 A Steering Committee will be formed
 in February 1995 to prepare the strat-
 egy and identify cooperative efforts to
 be completed by each  member agency.
 This group will be composed of tribal,
 federal, state, Water Management Dis-
 trict,  and local agencies.  This group
 will define  the  scope of the initial
 product due by September 1996; pro-
 vide  for updates, maintenance,  and
 expansion of the project;  and provide
 advice and guidance on accomplishing
 other Working  Group recommenda-
tions.
                                             186

-------
                                Tri-State  Initiative
Size and location:  Covering 600,000 hectares
(1.5 million acres) and including 368,000 people,
the Tri-State Initiative is located where the states
of Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky meet and
includes the counties  of Boyd  and  Greenup
(Kentucky),  Lawrence  and Scioto  (Ohio), and
Wayne and Cabell (West  Virginia).

Nature  of EPA involvement:   To  assist in a
collective effort to define,  remediate, and prevent
environmental threats in the tri-state area.

Organization that initiated the project:
     U.S. EPA

Major environmental problems:  This area was
selected   because  of   the   following  high
risk/priority  indicators:  pollutants released into
the environment; known/suspected environmental
problems;  local meteorological conditions; and
the level of public concern expressed to EPA.

Actions taken or proposed:  The Air Quality,
Risk Analysis, Pollution Prevention, Geographic
Information  System (GIS), and Public Relations
workgroups are currently working on the follow-
ing projects:  Industry and Community  Discus-
sions, Risk Screening/GIS Mapping, Air Toxics
Study, Pollution Prevention, and a Surface Water
Study.  Teams on  the inactive  status  include
Groundwater, Waste, and Compliance.

Stakeholders:
     Agency for Toxic  Substances and  Disease
        Registry
     EPA Regions III, IV and V
     Kentucky  Department  of Environmental
        Protection
     Kentucky Partners
     Ohio  Environmental  Protection Agency
     Ohio  River Valley Sanitation Commission
     Portsmouth Local Air Quality Agency
     West  Virginia  Division of Environmental
        Protection
Contact:
    Richard Schleyer
    U.S. EPA Region V
    Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17JO)
    (312)353-5089
    FAX: (312) 353-8289
                                             189

-------
                                        Tampa Bay
  Size and location:   The Tampa Bay National
  Estuary Program (NEP) study area encompasses
  both the 1031-square-kilometer (398-square-mile)
  bay and its 5960-square-kilometer (2300-square-
  mile) watershed.  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  sev-
  enth longest in the United States.

  Nature of EPA  involvement:   In accordance
  with  the  National Estuary Program,  EPA  has
  provided funding and technical and programmat-
  ic support and has participated in various com-
  mittees in the program.

  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  in the  National Estuary Program in
  1990.

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Growth and development causing habi-
         tat  destruction,  shoreline  hardening,
         and increased anthropogenic impacts
         Pollutant loadings from both point and
         nonpoint sources
     •   Loss and degradation of primary  habi-
         tats within and around the bay such as
         tidal marshes, mangroves,  seagrasses,
         nonvegetated 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  Management Plan for Tampa Bay that will
recommend priority corrective actions to restore
and maintain the estuarine  resources.  The Tam-
pa Bay NEP intends to approach bay restoration
and measures of success by linking water quality
standards to the environmental  needs of bay
habitats and the  aquatic communities they  sup-
 port. Scientists will monitor representative plant
 and  animal  species  from each  of the bay's
 communities 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  that  will define  the  environmental re-
 quirements of key species.  By moving beyond
 water quality as the end result in bay restoration
 to standards that  measure success based on the
 health of the bay's living resources, scientists
 hope to encourage more resource-based initia-
 tives in environmental management.

 Stakeholders:
     Anglers
     Businesses
     Local citizens
     Recreational  users, including anglers,
         divers, snorkelers, and boaters
     Tourists

Contact:
     Dean Ullock
     U.S. EPA Region IV
     345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3555 ext. 2063
                                             188

-------
              West Broward County Wetlands Advance
                        Identification  (ADID)  Project
 Size  and location:  Project  encompasses 78
 square kilometers (30 square miles) in Broward
 County, southeastern Florida.

 Nature of EPA involvement: ADIDs are EPA-
 led initiatives in cooperation with a state and/or
 local government or agency. EPA acts to assist
 the state or local sponsor in gathering scientific
 data on wetlands  in a defined geographic  area
 and  coordinates the project activities of the
 various agencies involved.  EPA also produces
 the Technical Summary Document describing the
 project  findings and  regulatory  implications.
 This project was one of the first to be undertaken
 in the Region and initially  was performed only
 by EPA  and the  Corps.   Assistance by other
 federal and local agencies has grown significant-
 ly in  latter half of project period.  The data are
 to be used by federal  government agencies as
 regulatory guidance under  section 404 of the
 Clean Water Act.

 Organization that initiated  project:
    U.S EPA

 Major environmental  problems:   Continued
 urban encroachment into the eastern boundary of
 the Everglades and associated concern for quality
 of public health and wildlife habitat.

Actions taken  or proposed:   Project is near
 completion.  All data have been gathered  and
 wetlands  designated regarding  suitability  for
 filling.   Approximately half of  project area
 designated as suitable for development in draft
 Technical Summary Document due to drainage,
 habitat fragmentation, and other factors.

Stakeholders:
    Primarily EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
    neers, Broward County,  U.S.  Fish and
    Wildlife Service,  Florida  Department of
    Environmental  Management  and  other
    agencies.
Contact:
    Rosalind Moore
    U.S. EPA Region IV
    Wetlands Planning Unit
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA  30365
    (404)347-3871, ext. 6511
    FAX: (404) 347-1798
                                           191

-------
                Weeks Bay Estuarine  Research Project
 Size  and location:   Weeks  Bay is located in
 Baldwin  County,  Alabama, and  covers  694
 hectares (1718 acres).

 Nature  of  EPA involvement:    Cooperative
 research with Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
 (Mississippi) to determine ecological status and
 establish baseline parameters for a Gulf Coast
 reference site.

 Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. EPA,  Environmental Research Lab -
         Gulf Breeze, FL

 Major environmental problems:  Agricultural
 runoff during periods of high rainfall and wet-
 land development are impacting area.

Actions taken or proposed:  Protection of ripari-
 an zone to buffer pesticide input.

Stakeholders:
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
         istration
    State of Alabama
    U.S. EPA Region IV

Contact:
    Michael A. Lewis
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Environmental Research Laboratory
    1 Sabine Island Drive
    Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299
    (904) 934-9382
    FAX: (904)  934-2403
                                          190

-------
            West Kentucky Coalfield Wetlands Advance
                       Identification (ADID) Project
Size and location:  Hopkins, Muhlenburg,  and
Ohio Counties, Kentucky.  Project  covers ap-
proximately 5300 square kilometers/2040 square
miles (20,600 hectares/75,720 acres) of wetlands.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA Advanced
Identification  Project.  EPA  staff  have  been
intimately involved with the design, implementa-
tion, and  writing of the report.

Organizations that initiated the project:
    U.S.  EPA
    Kentucky Environmental Protection Cabinet

Major environmental problems:  Coal mining
and agriculture

Actions taken  or proposed: Area wetlands have
been hydrogeomorphically  classified  and  as-
sessed.    Recommendations  for designation of
areas as "unsuitable for fill" will depend on a
site's overall level of function and its status as a
"target reference" site for restoration.

Stakeholders:
    Agricultural Interests
    Coal  Mining Industry
    Kentucky Environmental Protection Cabinet
    U.S.  EPA

Contact:
    Bill Ainslie
    U.S.  EPA Region IV
    Wetlands  Planning  Unit
    345 Courtland Street,  NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3555 ext. 6589
    FAX:(404) 347-3269
                                          193

-------
              West  Chatham  County  Wetlands Advance
                        Identification  (ADID)  Project
 Size  and location:   18,000  hectares  (45,000
 acres) northwest of Savannah,  Georgia.

 Nature of EPA involvement: Awarded  grant to
 the local sponsor, Chatham  County - Savannah
 Metropolitan Planning Commission (MFC), to
 assist  in  its  participation; funded Interagency
 Agreements  (lAGs)  with Fish and  Wildlife
 Service and  Natural  Resources  Conservation
 Service for  their  participation;  EPA  project
 officer  spends one-third  time  serving as coor-
 dinator.

 Organization that initiated project:  U.S. EPA,
 at the request of MPC

 Major  environmental  problems:   Exurban
 expansion of Savannah into flatwoods wetlands

 Actions taken or proposed:  Year-long field
 studies of ground water and wildlife use/habitat
 have  been completed; geographic  information
 system (GIS) models for delineation and assess-
 ment  have been constructed; and model cover-
 ages and parameters have been  derived.  Project
 goals  are  elucidation of  flatwoods hydrology,
 separation of marginally  hydric soils into wet
 and dry phases, remote delineation, and function-
 al assessment.  This ADID should serve as an
 example for similar areas in  the South Atlantic
 Coastal Plain. The results should be incorporat-
 ed into  federal regulatory and local  planning
 processes, as well as local PE&O.

Stakeholders:
    City/County  residents,  local  developers,
    property  owners,  political leaders,  and
    environmental activists; county planners and
    federal regulators
Contact:
    Dr. Peter Kalla
    U.S. EPA, Region IV
    WMD-WOWB-WPS-WPU
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3871 ext. 6508
    FAX: (404) 347-1798
    E-mail: kalla.peter@epamail.epa.gov
                                          192

-------
                                 Region V Projects

        Example projects submitted by Region V include the  17 projects listed below, plus its
 large-scale initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related  to  many of the multisite
 projects (see Part III). The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale
 and local-scale projects in  this Region.

        The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of
 partners involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on river basins, and several are
 Areas of Concern, which involve the U.S./Canada boundary's important or sensitive areas.  Many
 projects are  oriented toward  the environmental effects  of urbanization.   Urban  runoff and
 sedimentation,  solid  waste disposal, toxics and  contaminated sediments, declining  wildlife
 populations,  fish consumption  advisories,  urban  development pressures, agricultural runoff,
 pathogens, hypoxia, point  source discharges, atmospheric deposition, habitat loss, and loss of
 outdoor recreational uses  are  reported among the problems these projects seek to address.
 Actions taken include developing partnerships with a variety of local, state, and federal agencies,
 industries, private citizens'  groups, and other organizations. Depending upon the environmental
 problems  present,  these multiorganizational  teams might  identify  and assess important  or
 degraded habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources,
 and options for pollution prevention; propose development or revision of water quality standards;
 develop outreach and educational programs; or jointly develop management plans. Many  of the
 local-scale projects  also will enhance as  well  as benefit from the large-scale initiatives  in the
 Region, which include the  Great Lakes Program, the ICEM Upper Midwest Initiative,  and the
 EMAP Lake  Superior Assessment.

        Region V projects in the Inventory at this time include:

        Ashtabula River Area of Concern, OH
        Big Darby Creek, OH
        Cache River, IL
        Clinton River Area of Concern, MI
        Lake Michigan, IL,  IN, MI, WI
        Lake Superior EMAP - Great Lakes Assessment, MI, MN, WI
        Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland  Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS  AR   KY
              TN, MO*
        Maumee River Area of Concern, OH
        Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern, WI
       Mississippi River Gateway Project, IL, MO*
       Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative, IN
       Saginaw Bay, MI
       Saginaw Bay Urban  Targeting Project, MI
       St. Mary's River, MI
       Southeast Chicago Urban Environmental Initiative, IL
       Southeast Michigan Initiative, MI
       Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV*
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region.  Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.


                                           195

-------
                                       Figure  6:
A Phase I Inventory  of Current EPA Efforts  to  Protect Ecosystems
                          Region 5 Project  Locations
Scale 1:8,750,000
Albers Equal Area Projection
Sources: US EPA (various)
Compiled January 1995, MR#00014-5/10
Area boundaries and reference point locations are approximate
     Area included in 1 or more of
     the large-scale projects
     (see Part 1  project summaries)

     Reference point for local-scale project
/V   State Boundary

-------
                   Ashtahula River Area of Concern
to contaminated sediments and will, if necessary,
assess potential risks and  potential remedial
alternatives associated with this risks.

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
                                           197

-------
                      Ashtabula River  Area  of Concern
 Size and location:  The Ashtabula River Area of
 Concern (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 Lake Erie. One of the tributar-
 ies, Fields Brook (Brook), is a Superfund  site.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  Region 5  is inter-
 ested in and committed to trying an alternative
 remediation approach at Ashtabula; specifically,
 a public-private partnership of agencies and local
 entities.  By using a broader base of interests and
 resources including multiple statutory authorities
 of U.S.  EPA,  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
 and Ohio  Environmental  Protection Agency
 (Ohio EPA), a more  cost-effective remediation
 can occur. U.S. EPA is facilitating the partner-
 ship, which  includes local industries, govern-
 ment, and the Remedial Action Plan Committee.
 Working with  Superfund program  activities  is
 also critical to partnership success.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     U.S. Congress
     U.S. EPA
     Ohio EPA

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Contaminated sediments (contaminants
         of  concern   include  polychlorinated
         biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic
         hydrocarbons (PAHs), hexachloroben-
         zene,  hexachlorobutadiene, and  to  a
         lesser degree some metals)
     •    Degraded fish and wildlife populations
     •    Consumption  of  unhealthy  fish and
         wildlife
     •    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 U.S. and/or Canadian govern-
ments 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 Coun-
cil,  composed 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, which devises a plan for implementing
 remediation, is in its conceptual stages.  Recent-
 ly,  the Advisory Council decided to initiate  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 partnership would combine
 sediment projects in the AOC; the authorities of
 different agencies; different potential  funding
 sources; and the goals of the RAP, citizens, and
 agencies to  save time,  money,  and effort in
 developing  a solution.  Already a partnership
 charter has been signed  by stakeholders,  agen-
 cies, and industrial firms; and more than half a
 million dollars has been committed by EPA, the
 Ohio  EPA,  and  the  Corps  to investigate
 multiparty remediation plans. The funds will be
 used to study locations  for and to  design  a
 disposal facility to hold contaminated sediments.
 It is hoped that a consensus-based plan focusing
 on the entire watershed can be used to remediate
 the area instead of Superfund.  While Superfund
 is continuing studies of the river contamination
 at this  time, 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
 contaminated Brook are continuing and include:
         A  Record of Decision in 1986, which
         directs  design  of the Fields Brook
         Sediment cleanup.
     •    A Remedial Investigation and Feasibil-
         ity  Study  to be completed in  1995
         describing contamination and possible
         remedial alternatives  for  sources  of
         contamination  along  the Brook  to
         ensure that the Brook is not recontami-
         nated.

In addition, an  ecological assessment  of the
floodplain  and wetland  area  surrounding the
Brook  is being conducted and should be com-
pleted in early 1995.
     Superfund activities in the river are  assess-
ing how wildlife and humans might be exposed

-------
                                 Big Darby Creek
vey is in its third year of measuring discharge
rates and suspended solids from three in-stream
gauging stations to identify long-term  trends.
Nutrients and pesticides have been monitored
during storm events.  The Ohio EPA has evalu-
ated the ecological condition of the stream since
1979. Biological sampling in 1992 and 1993, in
general, revealed improvements in community
index scores since  1979.  The removal  of two
dams has permitted the upstream  migration  of
some species.   Only one darn remains  on the
mainstem.

Stakeholders:
    Watershed  residents
    Darby  Creek Association
    Little Darby Creek Preservation Association
    Operation Future Association
    Big Darby  Partners
    Local governments, agencies, and officials
         (townships, towns, cities, and counties)
    Soil and Water Conservation Districts
    General public
    Private corporations
    The Nature Conservancy
    In Defense of Endangered Species
    Rivers Unlimited
    Columbus  and Franklin  County Metropoli-
         tan Park District (Metro Park)
    Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission
    Ohio Department of Natural Resources
    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
    Ohio State  University
    Ohio State  University Extension Service
    U.S. Department of Agriculture
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Geological Survey
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service
    USDA Farm Service Agency
    USDA Natural  Resources   Conservation
         Service

Contacts:
    Tom Davenport
     U.S. EPA  Region V
     77 West Jackson Blvd.
     Chicago, IL 60604
     (312) 886-0209
     FAX:  (312) 886-7804
Susan Cormier, Ph.D. (Eco-Risk)
U.S. EPA, EMSL, EMRD
26 West Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH  45268
(513)569-7995
FAX: (513) 569-7609
E-mail:
     cormier.susan@epamail.epa.gov
                                             199

-------
                                   Big Darby Creek
 Size and location: The Big Darby Creek water-
 shed is located in west-central Ohio. The water-
 shed drains 1443 square kilometers (557 square
 miles).

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
 funding through sections  104(b)(3) and 319 of
 the Clean  Water Act  and has  participated in
 conducting an ecological risk assessment for the
 watershed.

 Organizations that initiated project:   Citizen
 action groups, such as the Darby Creek  Associ-
 ation, along with the Ohio Department of Natural
 Resources  and Ohio Environmental Protection
 Agency (Ohio EPA) worked to  designate por-
 tions of the Big and Little Darby Creeks as a
 State and Federal Scenic River.  The  Nature
 Conservancy has raised local and national aware-
 ness of the  Big Darby Creek watershed and has
 helped to recruit and coordinate stakeholders into
 the Darby  Partners.   The  stakeholders  have
 initiated ecologically important projects in the
 watershed including the projects  involving the
 U.S. EPA.
     The  projects funded  through section 319
 were initiated by  the  Union  Soil  and Water
 Conservation District, Franklin Soil and Water
 Conservation District, Natural Resources Conser-
 vation  Service,  Ohio  Department  of Natural
 Resources, and Ohio State University.  The Risk
 Assessment  project was initiated by  the Ohio
 EPA in response to a request for proposals from
 the Office of Water.

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Point and nonpoint  source  stressors
         associated with agricultural  and  resi-
         dential land uses
     •    Projections of increased stress from the
         conversion of agricultural land to urban
         and suburban development

Actions taken or proposed:  The Ohio Depart-
 ment of  Natural  Resources and The  Nature
 Conservancy, along with other stakeholders, have
 identified the Big Darby Creek as a high-priority
area for protection of biological diversity and are
trying to develop a long-term management and
protection plan for the river and riparian areas.
 The U.S. EPA through the Office of Water and
 Office of Research and Development, and the
 Ohio EPA are jointly leading an ecological risk
 assessment case study.  The intent of the case
 study is to clearly identify  risks to Big  Darby
 Creek so that managers can guide  development
 and land use in a manner that (1) attains state
 criteria for designated uses for the Eastern Corn
 Belt Plains ecoregion throughout the entire Big
 Darby  Creek watershed; (2) maintains excep-
 tional warm-water criteria for stream  segments
 having that designation between 1990 and 1995;
 and (3) allows native species to continue to exist
 in the watershed.
     To achieve short-term improvements in both
 agricultural and suburban areas, the U.S. EPA is
 providing  grants  through  section  319  of  the
 Clean Water Act.   One project supported the
 compilation of a geographic  information system
 data base that is used to identify erodible lands
 and the benefits of conservation practices.   In
 other programs,  residents  and county officials
 were taught new technologies and conservation
 practices along with basic information about the
 ecology of  the  watershed.  Several agricultural
 projects involved the installation and monitoring
 of best management practices.
     Another grant,  under  section 104(b)(3) of
 the  Clean Water Act, funded a study  of  storm
 water in rapidly growing areas of the watershed
 and  supported activities to  reduce the effects of
 urban pollution  through compliance, best man-
 agement practices, and education.
     In conjunction with these projects, matching
 funding and assistance has come from the City
 of Columbus,   Ohio  Department  of  Natural
 Resources, Ohio State  University,  The Nature
 Conservancy, Franklin Soil and Water Conserva-
 tion  District, and the Natural Resources Conser-
 vation Service.    A conservation tillage and in-
 creased critical  area seedings project, sponsored
 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has been
 established for the watershed.  The project has a
 goal of reducing sediment by 45,450 metric tons
 (50,000 U.S. tons).   As of  the end of FY94,
sediment reduction to the stream is estimated at
26,200 metric tons (28,800 U.S. tons).  Gross
erosion has been reduced by 371,000 metric tons
(408,000 U.S. tons).  The U.S. Geological Sur-
                                              198

-------
                      Clinton River Area  of Concern
Size and location:  The Clinton River is located
in southeastern Michigan, just north of Detroit.
The river flows 130 kilometers (80 miles) from
its headwaters to Lake St. Clair near Mt. Clem-
ens 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) consists
of the main branch of the Clinton River down-
stream  of Red Run  (a  major tributary of the
Clinton River) to the  mouth (27 kilometers/17
miles) and the spillway (3.2 kilometers/2 miles).

Nature of  EPA  involvement:  EPA  provides
funding for the Clinton River Area of Concern,
and also participates in its advisory committee.

Organizations that initiated project:
     Michigan Department of Natural Resources
     U.S. EPA

Major environmental problems:
     •   Degradation of benthos
     •   Degradation of  fish populations  and
         habitat
     •   Contaminated sediments (contaminants
         include  PCBs, heavy metals, cyanide,
         ammonia, oil and grease, and phenol)
     •   High fecal coliform bacteria levels
     •   Low dissolved oxygen levels
     •   Increased sedimentation  (due to the
         naturally occurring problems of low
         flow and the  decreased  slope of the
         river)
     •   Municipal and industrial discharges
     •   Nonpoint sources of contaminants from
         urban storm water, agricultural runoff,
         combined  sewer  overflows (CSOs),
         ground water contamination, and atmo-
         spheric  deposition

 Actions taken or proposed:  The Clinton River
 AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been desig-
 nated by the U.S. 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 II  of the RAP, which
 identifies  proposed remedial actions and  their
 method of implementation, is targeted for com-
pletion by April 1996.  The RAP includes 23
recommendations; of these, 6 are for specified
actions and 14 call for investigations to provide
information for further decision-making.  Three
programs called for in the RAP are under way:
nonpoint source and erosion control, air quality
and monitoring, and watershed-funded clearing-
house.
     In addition, a variety of other activities have
been taken or are under  way including:

     •    Navigational channel dredging to in-
         crease flow  rate  substantially  during
         high-flow periods only.
     •    Sediment deposits dredged from behind
         the spillway weir.
     •    A   reconnaissance/feasibility   study,
         which is being done by the U.S. Army
         Corps of Engineers, to redesign the
         weir to allow  fish to pass over.  The
         design study  will follow in the  near
         future.
     •   Current  development of a spill re-
         sponse plan for  Red Run Drain  (por-
         tion  of the Red Run  that has  been
         placed underground).
     •   Clean-up  activities proceeding  at four
         Superfund sites.
     •   Reissuance of National  Pollutant Dis-
         charge Elimination System permits for
         three  waste water  treatment  plants,
         including provisions for treatment or
         elimination of CSOs, by the Michigan
         Department  of  Natural  Resources
         (MDNR).
     •   Upgrading of wastewater treatment
         plants by nine  towns  in  the AOC,
         reducing discharge of both convention-
         al and toxic  pollutants and bacterial
         contamination.
     •   Biological surveys  and reports  com-
         pleted under nonpoint source  surveil-
          lance for seven tributaries.
     •    Installation of a bottom draw structure
          at the  Lake  Orion dam, resulting  in
          cooler water discharges to Paint Creek,
          a  tributary  to the Clinton River,  in-
          creasing  suitable trout  water  through
          the summer.
                                              201

-------
                                      Cache River
 Size and location: The Cache River is located
 in southern Illinois and is a tributary of the Ohio
 River.    Its  watershed  covers  approximately
 191,500 hectares (474,000 acres), most of which
 is agricultural land and the  Shawnee National
 Forest.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
 funding for  a watershed Resource  Planning
 Initiative, cosponsored by The Nature Conserv-
 ancy and the  Natural Resources  Conservation
 Service. EPA has also been involved in funding
 waste treatment  plants for  local  towns  and a
 solid waste study for  the region.

 Organization that initiated project:
     The Nature Conservancy

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Sediment and chemical pollution from
         farming practices
     •   Illegal dumping

 Actions  taken  or proposed:  The Nature  Con-
 servancy first began  buying  land in  the Cache
 River watershed in the late 1960s. Since  then,
 the Cache River State Natural Area has  been
 established by the Illinois Department of Conser-
 vation (IDOC), and numerous federal, state, and
 local  parties have formed the Cache River Con-
 sortium  to address restoration activities in the
 watershed.  EPA has funded a water  resource
 planning initiative to identify and obtain land
 easements in critical areas. EPA is also funding
 wastewater treatment plants in local towns and a
 solid waste initiative study.
    The  Consortium  is developing  plans  to
 address major  resource concerns  in the water-
 shed,  including erosion,  open  dumping, and
 water quality.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
 neers  is  embarking on a $1.3  million, 3-year
 study to examine the feasibility  of installing  a
 number of water and sediment control  structures.
 This study is  being cost-shared  by 50 percent
 with IDOC.  Efforts  in the watershed also in-
clude scientific research by  Southern Illinois
University, reforestation  and  wetland creation,
and recent implementation of a  water quality
monitoring program.
Stakeholders:
     Ducks Unlimited
     Illinois Department of Conservation
     Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
     Illinois Natural Preserves Commission
     Illinois State Water Survey
     Natural Resources Conservation Service
     Shawnee National Forest
     Southern Illinois University
     The Nature Conservancy
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Contact:
     Ernie Lopez
     U.S. EPA Region V (WQW-16J)
     77 West Jackson Blvd.
     Chicago, IL  60604
     (312)886-3017
     FAX: (312) 886-7804
                                             200

-------
                                   Lake Michigan
Size and location:   Lake Michigan is  494
kilometers (307 miles) long arid 189 kilometers
(118 miles) wide, covering 57,750 square kilo-
meters (22,300 square miles) of area.  Another
118,100 square kilometers (45,600 square miles)
of land drain, into the  lake, and the watershed
extends across the  States of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Nature of EPA involvement: In the Great Lakes
Critical Programs Act of 1990, Congress desig-
nated U.S.  EPA as the lead agency responsible
for the Lake Michigan  Lakewide Management
Plan (LaMP). Therefore, EPA Region V Water
Division chairs the  multi-agency  workgroup
charged with developing and implementing the
LaMP.   EPA  staff participate in  technical
workgroups and ensure public participation in the
LaMP process.  EPA, along with the states and
other federal agencies, also provides funding for
the LaMP  implementation projects in the  Lake
Michigan watershed.

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Congress

Major environmental problems:
     Toxic pollutants

Actions  taken or proposed:  Under  the Great
 Lakes Water Quality  Agreement between the
 United States and Canada, a LaMP for  Critical
 Pollutants  has been  developed for Lake Michi-
 gan.  A draft LaMP was published in  1992, and
 revisions were made based on the public  com-
 ments received. A second draft was published in
 the Federal Register in late  1994.   The final
 LaMP will be published in 1995. The goal  of
 the LaMP  is to reduce toxic pollutants to restore
 the beneficial uses of Lake Michigan and prevent
 any further degradation of the lake system from
 the release of toxic pollutants.
      Several activities have already been initiated
 directly 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 Wisconsin.
    •    Urban "clean  sweep"  in  northwest
        Indiana.
    •    Pollution  prevention  technical assis-
        tance and education projects in Mil-
        waukee, Wisconsin; Chicago, Illinois;
        and western Michigan.
    •    Development of a mass balance model
        for Lake Michigan.
    •    Assessment of potential pollutant loads
        to Lake Michigan from contaminated
        sediments.
    •    Development of the Great  Lakes En-
        virofacts data management system to
        provide access to loadings and ambient
        data  as  well as  programmatic  data
        bases.

    A number of other projects are  planned or
will be implemented based on  results  of the
monitoring study or  further review  of  existing
information. These include:
    •   Continue sediment remediation at high-
        priority sites, and  use  results of the
        Assessment and Remediation  of Con-
        taminated Sediments (ARCS)  study to
        select appropriate remediation  technol-
        ogies.
    •   Continue to identify pollution preven-
        tion needs and opportunities for LaMP
        pollutants.
    •   Develop  and  monitor  chemical and
        biological  indicators  of  ecological
         health to track progress toward restora-
         tion of beneficial uses.

Stakeholders:
    Chippewa/Ottawa Fishery Treaty
         Management Authority
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Indiana Department of Environmental
         Management
    Industry
    Local citizens
    Local governments
                                               203

-------
                       Clinton River  Area of  Concern
          Implementation  of best  management
          practices to control and prevent non-
          point sources of pollution to Gallagher
          Creek, a tributary to the Clinton River,
          with focus  on storm water control and
          ordinance standards.
          Development of a training video  and
          manual for the  Clinton  River Early
          Warning System  (CREWS),  a volun-
          tary network  of  residents who help
          detect spills by observing water condi-
          tions such  as  odor and color and re-
          porting changes to the fire department
          These  activities  were funded by  the
          Clinton River Watershed Council using
          a Public Participation Grant from  the
          state.
     •    Ongoing citizen cleanups  and  a River
          Watch   program  (for reporting  of
          spills).
          MDNR  obligation  of $120,000  to
         conduct  remedial investigations  to
         identify the sources  of PCBs  to  the
         Clinton River.

Stakeholders:
     Clinton River Remedial Action Plan Public
         Advisory 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 organizations, and local
         corporations)
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact:
     Callie Bolattino
     U.S. EPA Region V (GLNPO)
    77 West Jackson Blvd.
    Chicago, IL 60604-3507
    (312) 353-3490
    FAX: (312) 353-2018
                                            202

-------
         Lake Superior EMAP  - Great Lakes Assessment
Size and location: South shore of Lake Superior
from Duluth, Minnesota, to Sault Ste.  Marie,
Michigan.  Nearshore samples include areas of
the lake from shoreline to a depth of 100 meters.

Nature of EPA involvement:  The Great Lakes
Environmental  Monitoring  and  Assessment
Program  (EMAP)  at   EPA's  Environmental
Research Laboratory-Duluth (ERL-D) is  coordi-
nating the research to develop and test indicators
of trophic status and biological integrity in Great
Lakes systems.  Research efforts on Lake Supe-
rior are being supported through a combination
of in-house and contract staff using  the  labora-
tory's  82-foot research  vessel.   These  efforts
include collaboration with EPA's Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO), the National
Biological Survey  (NBS),  and the National
Oceanic   and   Atmospheric   Administration
(NOAA).

Organizations that initiated project:
     U.S. EPA EMAP-Great Lakes
     U.S. EPA ERL-Duluth

Major  environmental  problems:   The Great
Lakes aquatic communities continue to  be ex-
posed to a multiplicity  of physical, biological,
and chemical stresses. The major environmental
stresses include loss of biodiversity due  to over-
fishing and fish stocking, degradation and loss of
tributary and nearshore habitat, impacts of persis-
tent toxic contaminants, and eutrophication in
localized areas. Because Lake Superior is gener-
 ally considered to be the healthiest of the Great
 Lakes, additional international concern has been
 expressed over the sustainability of this condi-
 tion.  It is also the  least studied and understood
 of the Great Lakes.

 Actions taken or proposed: A series of ecosys-
 tem-level measurements are being taken to assess
 the effects of stressors  on the ecological health
 of Lake Superior.  In addition to improving our
 knowledge of the  condition of the lake, data
 from the field experiments will be used to devel-
 op, update, calibrate,  and validate ecological
 response  models (diatom succession,  aquatic
 bioenergetics, and top-predator population  mod-
els).   Stressor  and response models  will  be
applied to the data collected to predict the effects
of historical, present,  and future  management
scenarios.

Stakeholders: U.S. EPA ERL has been collabo-
rating with the NBS, NOAA, GLNPO, and the
International Joint Commission (IJC) during the
planning, experimental, and assessment phases of
these projects.  Assessment tools and results will
be communicated  to appropriate management
agencies and programs (e.g., GLNPO, Regions,
states,  and other federal  agencies) to  assist in
developing fish and contaminant management
approaches.

Contact:
     Stephen Lozano
     (218) 720-5594
     FAX:  (218) 720-5539
     E-mail:
         lozano.stephen@epamail.epa.gov@in
                                              205

-------
                                 Lake Michigan
    Michigan Department of Natural Resources
    Nonprofit organizations
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Department of Agriculture
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sendee
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Contact:
    Gary Kohlhepp
    U.S. EPA Region V
    77 West Jackson Blvd.
    Chicago, IL 60604
    (312) 886-4680
    FAX: (312) 886-7804
                                        204

-------
                     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 south-
western corner of Lake Erie.

Nature of EPA involvement:   EPA provides
funding for the Maumee River Area of Concern
and also participates in its advisory committee.

Organization that initiated project:
    Ohio  Environmental  Protection  Agency
        (Ohio EPA)

Major environmental problems:
    •   Degradation of fish and wildlife popu-
        lations
    •   Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
    •   Degradation of benthos
    •   Eutrophication or undesirable algae
    •   Impaired drinking water
    •   Beach closings
    •   Historical discharges from wastewater
        treatment facilities
    •   Industrial dischargers
    •   Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and
        urban runoff
    •   Agricultural runoff
    •   Dredge disposal
    •   Contaminated sediments
    •   Contamination from abandoned hazard-
        ous waste sites

Actions taken or proposed: The Maumee River
AOC is one of 43  AOCs  that have been desig-
nated by the U.S. 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.  In October 1990  the Stage I
report of the RAP, which describes the nature
and  extent of  the problems,  was completed.
Stage II activities, which focus on identifying
remedial actions and implementation methods,
are being conducted.
    Data collection efforts have begun in the
mainstream Maumee and tributaries to assess the
extent of contaminated sediments and degraded
fish and benthos communities  and to evaluate
water quality.  The agricultural committee has
developed a  management 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  basinwide intensive
        surveys (1992-ongoing).
    •   Intensive investigation of landfill sour-
        ces, pathways, and  impacts  on  the
        AOC.
    •   Development  of  public  involvement
        activities (e.g., workgroups, cleanups,
        evening socials,  and Maumee River-
        related events).
    •   Evaluation of hazardous  waste  sites
        under   the  Superfund   Accelerated
        Cleanup Model.
    •   Sediment screening of Ottawa River.
    •   Reduction of combined sewer overflow
        (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 tribu-
        taries by Ohio EPA.
    •   Development, with  local area  high
        schools, of education and monitoring
        programs.
    •   Completion of a 5-year upgrade to the
        Perrysburg wastewater treatment plant
        (WWTP), doubling its treatment capac-
        ity.
    •   Education of local land users on pollu-
        tion prevention methods for nonpoint
        source  pollution by  U.S.  EPA, Ohio
        EPA,  Ohio  Department  of  Natural
        Resources  (ODNR),  and Natural  Re-
        sources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Joint development of a long-term dredged mate-
rials management plan among U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Ohio  EPA,  City  of Toledo, U.S.
EPA,  Toledo Port Authority, ODNR, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and NRCS.

Future actions planned for this area include:
    •   Upgrade various municipal WWTPs at
        an expense of $27 million.
                                            207

-------
               Lower Mississippi Alluvial  Valley Wetland
                                  Conservation  Plan
  Size and location:  1120-kilometer (700-mile)
  stretch from Cairo, Illinois, south to the Gulf of
  Mexico; historical alluvial plain of the Mississip-
  pi River.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  Currently, provid-
  ing funding assistance to  multiple state agencies
  within the Lower Mississippi  Valley, as well as
  federal interagency projects addressing forestry
  and resource planning issues.  EPA and several
  regional  sponsors will be coordinating the devel-
  opment of a regional wetlands conservation plan.

  Organizations that initiated project: Multiple
  federal agencies, including EPA, U.S. Geological
  Survey  (USGS), National  Biological  Survey
  (NBS), Natural Resources Conservation Service
  (NRCS)  and  U.S. Fish  and  Wildlife Service
  (FWS) are initiating  ecosystem-scale planning
 and research efforts in the region.

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Nonpoint source pollution  in surface
          waters
     •    Extensive forested wetlands loss
     •    Impacted fisheries and wildlife habitats
     •    Extensive hydrological modifications

 Actions taken  or proposed:   This multistate,
 multiregion initiative  focuses on  wetland resto-
 ration/reforestation  and reduction of nonpoint
 source water pollution  throughout  the Lower
 Mississippi River Alluvial Plain.  A regional
 sponsor will coordinate state and federal efforts
 by  developing   and implementing  a regional
 wetlands  conservation plan.   Establishing  net-
 works among interest groups and data sharing
 through the use  of a geographic information sys-
 tem will be emphasized, as well as prioritization
 of wetland restoration/acquisition  sites.

Stakeholders:
    Natural resource  state agencies  from MS,
    LA, TN, AR, KY, MO, and IL, agricultural
    community, forestry community,  landown-
    ers, hunting and outdoor recreation groups,
    environmental  organizations,  sustainable
    economy  organizations,   federal  natural
     resource and public health agencies, includ-
     ing EPA, National Biological Survey, U.S.
     Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resourc-
     es Conservation Service, U.S. Geological
     Service,  U.S.  Forest Service, Agency for
     Toxic  Substances  and  Disease Registry
     (ATSDR).

Contacts:
     Jennifer Derby/Eric Hughes
     EPA Region IV
     345 Courtland Street, NE
     Atlanta, GA 30365
     (404) 347-3871 ext. 6510 and ext. 6517

    Beverly Ethridge/Jay Gamble/Jack Hill
    EPA Region VI
     1445 Ross Avenue
    Dallas, TX 75202-2733
    (214)665-2263
                                            206

-------
                  Milwaukee  Estuary Area of Concern
Size and location: The Milwaukee Estuary Area
of Concern (AOC) is in the City of Milwaukee.
It includes the nearshore waters of Lake Michi-
gan, Milwaukee Harbor, and  portions of the
Milwaukee,   Menomonee,  and  Kinnickinnic
rivers.   Twenty-two square miles of land  drain
directly to the AOC. This 57-square-kilometer
(22-square-mile) drainage area covers less than
3 percent of all the land draining to the estuary.
(The AOC encompasses only a small portion of
the entire watershed.)

Nature of EPA involvement:   EPA provides
funding for the Milwaukee Estuary Area of
Concern and also participates in its advisory
committee.

Organization that initiated project:
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Major environmental problems:
    •    Degraded fish and wildlife habitat
    •    Degraded benthos, plankton, fish, and
         wildlife communities
    •    Eutrophication
    •    Tumors and other deformities in  fish
    •    Beach  closings  and other restrictions
         on full-body contact with surface wa-
         ters
    •    Combined sewer overflows
    •    Contaminated sediments
    •    Hydromodification
    •    Storm water runoff
    •    Sewage treatment plant effluent
    •    Industrial process and noncontact cool-
         ing water discharges

Actions taken  or proposed:   The Milwaukee
Estuary AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been
designated by the International Joint Commission
(a  U.S.-Canadian  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 environmental
cleanup. The Wisconsin Department of Natural
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
watersheds that are tributaries to the AOC as
priority watersheds under the state's Priority
Watershed Program. Designation as such has led
to development  of nonpoint source pollution
control plans for all six of the watersheds.
    Development of the plans has enabled the
implementation of practices that control discharg-
es of pollutants from  rural  and urban sources.
Nearly 150 rural landowners have signed agree-
ments to share the $1.4 million cost to imple-
ment controls. In addition,  32 public and non-
profit  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
implementation of the nonpoint source pollution
controls in 1994.  Implementation will reduce
soil erosion from farmland,  construction  sites,
and stream banks.   It also will reduce the dis-
charge of livestock waste and household hazard-
ous 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 several decades to treat railroad ties
with a creosote and fuel oil mixture.  An investi-
gation of  the site indicated the presence of
several organic compounds in ground water, soil,
and   Lower   Menomoinee   River   sediment.
Among  the  compounds, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) 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
1524-meter (5,000-foot)  reach  of the Little
Menomonee River. Activities to be conducted as
part of a full remedial action will involve reloca-
tion of the Little Menomonee River, removal and
treatment of contaminated  soil  and sediment,
                                             209

-------
                    Maumee  River Area of Concern
    •    Correct CSOs at an estimated invest-
         ment of $420 million.
    •    Abate agricultural and urban nonpoint
         sources.
    •    Address contaminated sediment prob-
         lems in Swan Creek, Ottawa River, and
         Maumee River.
    •    Preserve Maumee Bay  from further
         filling.
    •    Preserve and restore lost wetlands.
    •    Conduct river investigations  to docu-
         ment impacts on the environment and
         potential problems  associated  with
         landfill runoff.
         Complete Stage  II RAP.

Stakeholders:
    Local residents
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    Ohio Department of Natural Resources
    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
    Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of
         Governments
    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
                                          208

-------
                    Mississippi River Gateway  Project
Size and location:  The project area encompass-
es three counties in Illinois (Madison  and St.
Clair)  and Missouri (St. Louis).   The project
focuses mainly on the western portions of Madi-
son  and St.  Clair  Counties of Illinois at  the
present time.

Nature of EPA involvement:   EPA has been
involved with the  local community as  well  as
with federal, state,  and local agencies to address
the human health  and environmental problems
associated  with hazardous and solid  wastes,
flooding, chemical  disposal, arid lead contamina-
tion in the community.   These problems  are
being  addressed through  pollution  prevention
efforts, cleanup  of trash and waste associated
with the lack of garbage pick-up, and compliance
assistance/enforcement   programs.    Concerns
related  to environmental justice are being  ad-
dressed by working with the local community
leaders.  EPA is also initiating efforts with local
environmental groups to begin restoring lost or
degraded habitats and providing environmental
education.

Organization that initiated project:  This effort
was begun by EPA Region V but is supported by
EPA Region VII, the U.S. Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development,  the Illinois Envi-
ronmental  Protection  Agency,  the Missouri
Department of Health,  and the Illinois  Depart-
ment of Public Health.

Major  environmental problems:   The major
environmental problems  are listed above. Some
of these are related to the economic situation of
the community. East St. Louis, Illinois,  had lost
much of its tax base and was unable to  provide
some of the basic services to its residents, e.g.,
garbage pickup, adequate wastewater treatment,
safe housing, etc.   By  working with the other
agencies, EPA has  begun  to address the com-
munity's needs.

Actions taken or proposed: Pollution prevention
activities have begun to be implemented in  the
Greater St. Louis area to achieve reductions in
pollutants of greatest risk. For instance, an effort
has been undertaken to  reduce human exposure
to environmental and household lead.  EPA is in
the  process of determining whether minority or
low-income populations in the initiative area are
disproportionatly exposed to  hazardous  waste,
hazardous substances or other hazardous  activi-
ties. EPA is working to develop a community-
based public involvement program that encourag-
es dialogue among governments, industry, com-
munity groups, and others. EPA is also develop-
ing  a program to address the issue of lost and
degraded habitats and the use of high quality
habitats in environmental  education.

Stakeholders:  Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency,  Illinois Department of Public Health,
Missouri Department of Health, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, EPA Re-
gions V  and VII, local community groups and
local industry.  EPA  expects that as the initiative
grows,  additional agencies  will  assist  in this
project.

Contacts:
    Linda Hamsing  (Karen  Lumino)
    EPA Region V
    (312) 886-0981

    Doug Elders
    EPA Region VII
    (913)551-7393
                                             21

-------
                   Milwaukee  Estuary Area  of Concern
 collection and treatment of contaminated ground
 water, and isolation of untreated soil and sedi-
 ment.  The remedial action is expected to take
 up to 4 years to implement at a cost of $26 mil-
 lion.  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 existing  sewers,  the
 construction  of tunnels to  store  wet-weather
 flows for subsequent treatment, and expansion of
 the  MMSD's two wastewater treatment plants.
 Reduction in the number of overflow events and
 improvement in  treatment plant  effluent  will
 significantly   reduce   the  discharge    of
 oxygen-consuming matter,  solids, pathogens, and
 toxic substances to the  AOC.
     Recently funded projects include:
     •    Milwaukee  Metropolitan   Sewerage
          District's 1-day clean sweeps: an inter-
          im effort to collect household hazard-
          ous wastes until  a  permanent storage
          facility becomes operational (potential-
         ly in 1996).
     •   Milwaukee Estuary Sediment CIS Devel-
         opment: The University of Wisconsin-
         Milwaukee is preparing a  study to pro-
         vide a visual representation of the sedi-
         ment characteristics in the AOC.
     •   North   Avenue  Dam Impoundment
         Restoration: This project will  help  to
         stabilize  exposed  sediment,  restore
         stream  banks,  and  enhance fish and
         wildlife habitat.
     •    Milwaukee River PCB Mass Balance:
         This study will help  to pinpoint major
         sources of PCBs in the watershed.

     Future actions that are  planned for the AOC
include:
     •    Implement programs and practices  to
         control urban and  rural nonpoint sourc-
         es of pollution.
     •   Control pollutants discharged from the
         Milwaukee storm sewer system.
     •   Remediate the Moss-American Super-
         fund site.
     •   Characterize sediments  in streams that
         are tributaries  of the AOC (e.g., Lin-
         coln  and  Cedar creeks, Milwaukee
         River) and control releases of associat-
         ed contaminants.
     •   Characterize sediments in the AOC and
         implement actions to minimize the ad-
         verse effects of associated contaminants.
     •   Restore stream banks and create vege-
         tative buffer zones.
     •   Aerate a portion of the  Menomonee
         River.
     •   Establish a household hazardous waste
         collection 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 Estuary  Area of Concern
     Milwaukee River Revitalization Council
     Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning
         Commission
     Technical Advisory  Committee
     U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency
     Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Contacts:
     Marsha Jones
     WDNR - Southeast  District
     P.O. Box 12436
     Milwaukee, WI 53212
     (414) 263-8708
     FAX: (414) 263-8483

     Steve Jann
     U.S. EPA Region V
    77 West Jackson Blvd.
    Chicago, IL 60604-3590
    (312) 886-2446
    FAX: (312) 886-7804
                                            210

-------
           Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative
Stakeholders:
    Citizens' Advisory for Remediation of the
        Environment (CARE) Committee
    Indiana Department of Environmental
        Management
    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) 886-0168
                                        213

-------
             Northwest Indiana Environmental  Initiative
 Size and location:   The  Northwest Indiana
 Environmental Initiative centers on  the Grand
 Calumet  River watershed, approximately  24
 kilometers (15 miles)  southest  of Chicago and
 encompasses parts of Lake and Porter Counties
 in northwest Indiana.  Municipalities include the
 City of Hammond, the City of East Chicago, the
 City of Gary,  and the City of Whiting.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  Through a com-
 parative risk analysis, EPA Region V determined
 this area to have the greatest risk  to human
 health and the environment in  the region.  Fol-
 lowing the analysis, EPA launched the Northwest
 Indiana Environmental Initiative,  of  which the
 Grand  Calumet  River/Indiana Harbor  Canal
 (GCR/IHC) Area of Concern (AOC)  is a major
 part.

 Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Major environmental problems:
     •     Historically low compliance with feder-
          al and state environmental statutes
     •     Four to eight million cubic meters (five
          to ten million cubic yards) of contami-
          nated river and harbor sediments (pol-
          lutants include  chromium,  lead,  and
          polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
     •     Toxics
     •     Five  Superfund sites
     •     Ground water contaminated with 57 to
          114  million  liters  (15 to 30 million
          gallons) of free-phase hydrocarbons
     •    Municipal and industrial discharges
     •    Combined sewer overflows
     •    Contaminated ground  water
     •    Storm water runoff

Actions taken  or proposed:  EPA is working
closely with the Indiana Department of Environ-
mental Management (IDEM) on  a  watershed
basis in  northwest Indiana.  EPA and IDEM
have developed a strategy for the area and have
federal and state workgroups implementing  this
strategy.  EPA actions include a Memorandum of
Understanding  with the U.S. Army  Corps of
Engineers to develop a sediment dredging pro-
ject,  targeted  enforcement  against  watershed
 noncompliers, pollution prevention projects and
 workshops,  multimedia site  evaluations  and
 cleanups, natural resource damage assessments,
 and an area ground water workgroup developing
 a map of the extensive ground water contamina-
 tion.
     Because of water quality problems and other
 threats to  human  health and the environment,
 EPA and IDEM have focused the Initiative on
 the Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor (GCR/-
 IHC) Area of Concern (AOC). The GCR/IHC
 AOC is  one of 43 AOCs that have been desig-
 nated by the U.S. and/or Canadian governments
 in the Great Lakes region.  A Remedial Action
 Plan (RAP) is  being developed for this AOC.
 The RAP will provide EPA and IDEM with a
 long-term  course of action for environmental
 cleanup for the Grand Calumet River and Indiana
 Harbor.   The  RAP  is addressing  controlling
 nonpoint sources of pollution, remediating con-
 taminated sediments, and restoring habitat.
      The  Initiative's  successes include court-
 enforceable agreements with facilities at the head
 of the Grand Calumet to clean up wastewater
 discharges  to meet  permitted  limits and  re-
 mediate  contaminated  sediments  in an 8-kilo-
 meter stretch of the river. The agencies secured
 a  $55  million  agreement covering  cleanup,
 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
 continue 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 pollution prevention are promot-
 ed 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 dispos-
 al/treatment of sediments. EPA has been work-
 ing with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a
draft Environmental Impact Statement required
for the dredging of the canal.
                                            212

-------
                Saginaw Bay Urban Targeting  Project
Size and location: Bay City, Michigan

Nature of EPA involvement:  This project will
demonstrate the use of geographic information
systems (GIS) to develop and implement urban
storm water management practices, as well as
develop a model urban storm water management
plan.

Organization that initiated project:
    EPA  Region  V, GIS  Management  and
        Water Offices

Major environmental problems:   Urban runoff
is a major concern in most urban  and suburban
areas because of its potential to deliver pollutants
to nearby resource areas. The challenge in urban
areas is to determine effective management plans
to prevent or reduce impacts of urban pollution.

Actions taken or proposed:
    •   Data  base development  - collection,
        preparation, and assembly of  digital
        data layers for Bay City, MI required
        by model (Source  Loading and Man-
        agement Model (SLAMM)).
    •   Integration of SLAMM with applicable
        data layers.
    •   Identification of urban stormsheds and
        loading rates for Bay City and recom-
        mendation for management strategies.
    •   Final report on process, model,  and
        techniques used in implementing the
        project.

Stakeholders:
    There are several ongoing efforts supported
    by  state  and federal  funds  that  address
    pollutant loading to Saginaw Bay and its
    tributaries.  These projects involve working
    with municipalities to review current  land
    management practices, storm  water permit-
    ting programs, and nonpoint source program
    implementation.
Contact:
    Rick Webster EMSL-LV
    U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Sys-
        tems Laboratory
    (702) 798-2199
    FAX: (702) 798-2692
                                            215

-------
                                      Saginaw  Bay
 Size and location: The Saginaw Bay watershed
 encompasses  over  20.JOO  square  kilometers
 (8000 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,  including the
 Saginaw River, Cass River, Flint  River, Shia-
 wasee River, and Tittabawasee River, provide a
 source of  freshwater to the  bay.   Within the
 watershed lie the jurisdictions of 22 counties and
 numerous townships.

 Nature of EPA  involvement: EPA provides
 funding for the Saginaw Bay  Area  of Concern
 and also participates  in its advisory committee.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     Michigan Department of Natural Resources
     U.S. EPA

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Fish consumption  advisories due to
         contamination  with  polychorinated
         biphenyls (PCBs)
     •   Eutrophication due to nutrient enrich-
         ment
     •   Widespread   destruction  of  aquatic
         habitat from sediment
     •   Alteration of  aquatic and terrestrial
         habitat from altered watershed hydrolo-
         gy

Actions taken or proposed:  Saginaw Bay is one
 of 43 Areas of Concern (AOC) that have been
 designated  by the  U.S. and/or Canadian govern-
 ments 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 environmental cleanup of the Saginaw
 River and Bay. Through the RAP process  and
 the Saginaw Bay National Watershed Initiative,
 the State of Michigan, along with other partners,
 has identified priority activities to be undertaken
to restore  and protect the Saginaw Bay  water-
 shed.  The overall goal for the v/atershed is to
 "develop a comprehensive water quality/resource
management  effort  utilizing the  resources  of
federal, state, and local units of government, as
well as interested  organizations and citizens, to
 identify   water  quality/resource   management
 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
          erosion areas.
     •    An aggressive public  education cam-
          paign.
     •    Wetland  restoration efforts to support
          wildlife habitat.
     •    Implementation of urban  and agricul-
          tural best  management  practices  to
          prevent erosion.

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
         Administration
     Natural Resources Conservation Service
     Saginaw Basin Alliance
     Saginaw Bay Watershed Council
     Saginaw Valley State University
     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
                                             214

-------
       Southeast Chicago  Urban Environmental Initiative
Size and location:  The Southeast Chicago area
is a 168-square-kilometer (65-square-mile) area
of the industrial southeast portion of Chicago and
adjacent suburbs. This area was chosen because
of its  concentration  of  severe  environmental
problems, dense  population, and  environmental
justice concerns.  Approximately 400,(X)0 people
live in this area.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA is working
on several fronts to address environmental  prob-
lems within the community. Through the  Envi-
ronmental Equity Office, EPA is working with
the community on Lead Abatement Training.  A
joint project between EPA and HUD on sustain-
able development is being initiated.  The goal of
this program  is to  address  sustainable develop-
ment of communities  in economically and social-
ly disadvantaged neighborhoods. Pollution pre-
vention is being implemented in the community
through a grant with the  Universities  of Illinois
and Michigan.

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. EPA

Major environmental problems: The area was
heavily industrialized and is littered with  many
abandoned plants arid factories.  There are also
several waste disposal facilities in the designated
area,  and there are many sites where "midnight
dumping"  has occurred.   A variety  of studies
have  identified the Southeast Chicago area as an
area subject to potentially high health risks from
exposure to environmental contaminants   One
 study  documented in a September 1989  report
 entitled  Estimation  and  Evaluation  of Cancel-
 Risks Attributed to  Air  Pollution in Southeast
 Chicago  identified  subareas  with  particularly
 high risks, and identified  that the greatest portion
 of these risk came from  coke ovens.  However,
 scattered throughout the area are several small
 but high-quality pieces of habitat.

 Actions taken or proposed:   A  coalition of
 government  agencies has been established to
 address  environmental   problems  in  the area.
 Over the next one to two years, the coalition will
 focus on six specific areas: lead, "Brownfields,"
"Fly Dumping," natural resources, enforcement,
and public outreach/education.
     As indicated  above EPA  has begun  an
environmental education program on lead abate-
ment within the community.  The actions with
HUD and the Chicago  Housing Authority are
being implemented in public housing at a dem-
onstration  project.   Pollution  prevention  by
industries in the initiative is being implemented
through the educational program developed by
the Universities of Illinois and Michigan.
     The Agency  for  Toxic  Substances  and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) has completed free
medical screening  for residents of the Altgeld
Gardens area.  EPA, ATSDR and the Illinois
Department of Public Health (IDPH) in May of
1994, began testing the ambient air and indoor
air in  Southeast  Chicago for metals, volatile
organic compounds and semi- volatiles.  This data
will be used by ATSDR to complete a health
assessment of the area.  Actions plans  are being
developed for lead, "Brownfields,"  "Fly Dump-
ing," natural resources, enforcement and public
outreach. An Environmental Justice Pilot Project
is planned for the Summer of 1995. The prima-
ry objective of the pilot project is to familiarize
teachers in Southeast Chicago with environmen-
tal issues.

Stakeholders:
     Agency for Toxic Substances  and Disease
         Registry
     Cook County  Department of Environmental
         Control
     City of Chicago Departments of Health and
         the Environment
     Illinois Environmental Protection  Agency
     Illinois Department of Public Health
     Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
         Greater Chicago
     Office of Illinois Attorney General
     U.S. EPA

 Contact:
     Willie Harris/Shirley Dorsey
     U.S. EPA Region V
     Environmental Sciences Division
     77 West Jackson Street
     Chicago, IL 60604  (312) 353-2306
                                              217

-------
                                   St. Mary's River
 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 Peninsu-
 la.

 Nature  of EPA involvement:  EPA  provides
 funding  for the St.  Mary's River Area of Con
 cern and also participates on its advisory  corn-
 rnittee.

 Organizations  that initiated project:
      Ontario  Ministry of Environment and
          Energy
      Michigan Department of Natural Resources
      U.S. EPA

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Pollutant discharges from paper and
          steel industries
     •    Discharges  from  publicly owned treat
          ment  works
     •    Super-fund site—Cannelton Site, fonnei
          tannery
     •    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  U.S.
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.
Stage I of the RAP, which identified use impair-
ments, their causes, and sources, was completed
in March 1992, and  Stage II development is
under  way.   Stage  II focuses on identifying
remedial  actions and their methods of implemen-
tation.

Activities already under way include:
    •    Sewer separation  in  the City  of Sault
         Ste.  Marie, Michigan.
    •    Improved treatment by Algoma Steel
         to enhance 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 also planned.

Stakeholders:
     Environment Canada
     Michigan Department of Natural Resources
     Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
     Ontario Ministry of the Environment and
         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
                                            216

-------
                                Tri-State Initiative
Size and location:  Covering 600,000 hectares
(1.5 million acres) and including 368,000 people,
the Tri-State Initiative is located where the states
of Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky meet and
includes  the  counties of  Boyd  and  Greenup
(Kentucky),  Lawrence and Scioto (Ohio),  and
Wayne and Cabell (West Virginia).

Nature of EPA  involvement:   To assist in a
collective effort to define, remediate and prevent
environmental threats in the tri-state area.

Organization that initiated the project:
    U.S. EPA

Major environmental problems:  This  area was
selected   because  of  the  following  high
risk/priority  indicators: pollutants  released  into
the environment; known/suspected environmental
problems; local meteorological conditions; and
the level of public concern expressed to EPA.

Actions taken or proposed:  The Air Quality,
Risk Analysis, Pollution Prevention, Geographic
Information System (GIS)  and Public Relations
workgroups are currently working on the follow-
ing projects:  Industry and Community Discus-
sions, Risk Screening/GIS  Mapping, Air Toxics
Study, Pollution Prevention and a Surface Water
Study.  Teams on  the inactive  status include
Groundwater, Waste, and Compliance.

Stakeholders:
    Agency for  Toxic Substances and Disease
         Registry
    EPA Regions III, IV and V
    Kentucky Department  of  Environmental
         Protection
    Kentucky Partners
    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
    Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission
    Portsmouth Local Air Quality Agency
    West Virginia  Division of Environmental
         Protection
Contact:
    Richard Schleyer
    EPA Region V
    Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17JO)
    (312) 353-5089
    FAX: (312) 353-8289
                                             219

-------
                          Southeast Michigan  Initiative
  Size  and  location:   The  Southeast  Michigan
  Initiative (SEMI)  covers eight counties in and
  around the Detroit, Michigan,  metropolitan area
  and includes five Areas of  Concern (AOCs)
  designated under the Great Lakes Water Quality
  Agreement.   The five  AOC watersheds are
  Clinton River, River Rouge, Detroit River, River
  Raisin, and St. Claire River.  The counties in the
  initiative area include St. Clair, Macomb,  Oak-
  land, Livingston, Washtenaw, Wayne,  Lenawee,
  and Monroe.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA  works in
  partnership with other agencies  on SEMI, provid-
  ing staff support and funding.

  Organization that  initiated project:
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Combined sev/er overflow
     •    Nonpoint source pollution
     •    Sediment contamination
     •    Urban air pollution

 Actions taken or proposed:  SEMI is a partner-
 ship formed among the Michigan Department of
 Natural Resources  (MDNR),  EPA,  and other
 state and local  agencies to focus  resources in
 eight counties in the Detroit metropolitan area.
 This partnership  was prompted by the  recogni-
 tion that environmental problems might  be better
 addressed through a more coordinated effort and
 that they need not be addressed solely by regula-
 tory solutions.  It  was also recognized that  a
 geographical,  cross-media,  ecosystem, and/or
 holistic solution  might be  required for their
 resolution.
     The agencies'  base programs  will be  key
 tools in this effort. Consequently, intense discus-
 sions have  been initiated  between  EPA  and
 MDNR.  Examples of issues under  discussion
 include remediation  of industrial waste in landfill
 along the banks  of the Rouge River  and  re-
 mediation of a sediment polychloririated biphenyl
 (PCB) "hot spot" on the Raisin River.  The goal,
 in general, is  to better use the  permitting,  en-
forcement,  and planning processes to  further
environmental work.
      During 1994, SEMI will develop innovative
 programs on  pollution  prevention, Remedial
 Action Plans and sediments, public participation
 (including risk communication), and  compliance
 and  enforcement.    Several  projects  already
 initiated include an industrial pretreatment pollu-
 tion  prevention  program  for  publicly  owned
 treatment works, the development of  an industri-
 al pollution prevention network, an environmen-
 tal justice study, and a survey  of neighborhood
 environmental  problems.   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 Demon-
 stration Project.  The  project, which is funded
 through  $128 million  in  federal grants, is de-
 signed to investigate sources of water pollution
 in a  highly  urbanized watershed during wet-
 weather events and to  demonstrate methods 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) 886-0168
                                             218

-------
                               Region VI Projects

       Example projects submitted by Region VI include the 11 projects listed below, plus its
large-scale initiatives (see Part  I) and place-based activities  related to many of the  multisite
projects (see Part III). The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale
and local-scale projects in this Region.

       The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of
partners involved with EPA, and in their goals.  Many are based on river basins, bays/estuaries,
and lakes. Other projects focus on environmental issues in the international boundary zone with
Mexico, long-term ecological research in  arid lands, and ground water. Erosion of barrier islands
and coastal  wetlands, degradation  of estuarine  habitats, endangered species issues, declining
seafood harvests,  agricultural wastes and  runoff, rangeland impacts, ground water flow and
contamination, urban  nonpoint sources, and conversion of bottomland hardwoods to agriculture
are reported among  the problems  these  projects seek to  address.   Actions taken include
developing partnerships  with a variety of  local, state, and federal agencies, industries, private
citizens' groups, and other organizations.  Depending  upon the environmental problems present,
these multiorganizational teams might identify and assess important or degraded habitats; sponsor
needed research; monitor and analyze loading  rates, pollutant sources, and options for  pollution
prevention; propose development or revision of water quality standards; develop  outreach and
educational programs; or jointly deveiop management plans.  Many of the  local-scale projects
also will enhance as well as benefit from  the large-scale initiatives occurring in or extending into
the Region, which include the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative, the Gulf of Mexico Program,
the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Watersheds  Project, the Great Plains Initiative, the Colorado Plateau
Ecosystem Partnership  Project,  the  Colorado  River Program, and the Rio Grande  Basin
Landscape-Scale Assessment.

       Region  VI  projects in the Inventory at  this time include:

       Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer Project, OK
       Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary, LA
       Corpus  Christi Bay, TX
       Galveston Bay Estuary, TX
       Illinois River - Battle Branch, OK
       Jornada Long-Term Ecosystem  Research Project, NM
       Lake Pontchartrain Basin, LA
       Lake Worth, TX
       Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA,
              MS, AR, KY, TN, MO*
       Tangipahoa River, LA
       Tensas River Basin Initiative, LA
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region.  Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.
                                           221

-------
                      Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer Project
  Size and location: The aquifer covers an area of
  1300 square kilometers (500 square miles) in the
  State of Oklahoma.

  Nature  of EPA  involvement:    Interagency
  Agreement, U.S.  Geological Survey  (USGS),
  Oklahoma  City,  Principal Investigator Mark
  Savoca,  02/01/93-01/31/96, $104,660.  Project
  Officer:   Stephen   Kraemer,  USEPA/ORD/
  RSKERL-Ada.   The Project Officer  has  an
  In-house Research Project supporting this effort,
  including an on-site contractor work assignment.

  Organization that initiated project:
      U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma District

  Major   environmental  problems:      The
  Arbuckle-Simpson is a U.S. EPA Region VI Sole
  Source Aquifer.  The fractured rock aquifer has
  fresh water to a depth of over 610 meters (2000
  feet). Although relatively undeveloped, there are
  critical ecosystems and springs in the area that
  are threatened by human actions.  A significant
  trend of decreased discharge from springs within
  the Chickasaw  National Recreation  Area  has
 been recorded since 1906, possibly due to over-
 pumping. The city of Ada relies on Byrds Mill
 Spring for 100 percent of its water supply, and
 historic droughts have reduced the discharge to
 zero.

 Actions taken or proposed:  A field reconnais-
 sance and modeling project  has been  initiated
 with the USGS.  Abandoned oil wells are being
 used as windows into the subsurface. The holes
 are being  logged  and  hydraulically tested, and
 water quality samples are being dated so that
 residence times can be estimated.   A synoptic
 survey of spring discharges and  static  water
 levels in wells is planned for FY95. A regional-
 scale water budget model is proposed.

Stakeholders:
    State of Oklahoma Water Resources Board
    U.S. EPA
    USGS
    National Park Service (Chickasaw National
        Recreation Area)
    Municipalities and citizens within the aqui-
        fer area
Contact:
    Stephen R. Kraemer
    USEPA/RSKERL
    POB 1198
    Ada, OK 74821
    (405) 436-8549
    FAX: (405) 436-8703
    E-mail: kraemer@ad3100.ada.epa.gov
                                           222

-------
                       Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary
Size and location:   The Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuary consists of adjacent  basins that cover
more than 1.6 million hectares; (4 million acres)
of south-central Louisiana, between the Missis-
sippi River and the Atchfalaya River.  Parts or
all of 15 parishes are included in the study area.

Nature of EPA involvement:  In accordance
with the National  Estuary Program, EPA has
provided funding and technical and programmat-
ic support and has participated in various com-
mittees in the program.

Organizations that initiated project:
     State of Louisiana/Department of
         Environmental Quality
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Major environmental problems:
     •    Loss of more  than  1700 square kilo-
         meters (656 square  miles) of produc-
         tive wetlands and barrier islands
     •    Hydrological modification
     •    Loss of sediments
     •    Habitat loss/modification
     •    Changes in living resources

Actions taken or proposed: Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuary was selected for inclusion in the Nation-
al Estuary Program in 1990.  A Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) is
being developed by a coalition of affected agen-
cies, industries, and other organizations to identi-
fy detailed remedial action plans.
     In order to assess  future  environmental
conditions in the estuarine system, and to evalu-
ate potential management measures, the program
will use two state-of-the-art predictive models.
Although  the  two  models  address  different
parameters,  hydrologic alteration and landscape
change, they are being developed in close coor-
dination with one another.  This coordination is
essential because the hydrology of the  system
greatly affects  the  rate  and  timing  of  habitat
change.
     Other activities/studies include:
     •    Working  with  the Federal Emergency
         Management Agency to determine  the
         extent of environmental damage caused
         by Hurricane Andrew on the Barataria-
         Terrebonne estuary  system,  and  to
         develop plans to minimize future im-
         pacts.
    •    Mapping the oyster-producing  areas
         within the system.  This will assist in
         evaluating how the oyster  fishery is
         influenced by environmental changes
         within the estuaries.
    •    Survey of vegetative damage caused by
         nutria  herbivory  in  the  watersheds.
         This will provide information regarding
         the  distribution of  damaged   areas,
         species of vegetation being impacted,
         and  status  of recovery of damaged
         areas.
    •    Locating, characterizing, and mapping
         storm water drainage stations withinn
         the  system.   By focusing  on  storm
         water runoff discharge and its potential
         contribution to elevated levels of fecal
         coliform bacteria in areas that support
         recreation and shellfish, it will assist in
         developing a storm water management
         strategy.
    •    Measuring the input and distribution of
         suspended sediments and other aquatic
         parameters  in the western Terrebonne
         marshes, and determining the system's
         response to those inputs. This involves
         determining the distribution of selected
         water column  parameters,  and how
         their  distribution  relates  to  forcing
         functions such  as  tide  and river dis-
         charge.
    •    Developing a Wetlands Workshop to
         increase  public  awareness  regarding
         environmental   problems  and   issues
         facing Louisiana's  coast.
    •    Producing a high-quality video  focus-
         ing  on  residential sewage treatment
         systems, and  development of support
         materials. This  will educate the  public
         regarding the importance of maintain-
         ing  or installing a treatment system.

Stakeholders:
    Educational institutions
    Federal government  agencies
                                              223

-------
                     Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary
    Industries and businesses
    Local citizens
    Local government agencies
    Regional planning agencies
    Scientific community
    State government agencies
    Various user groups

Contacts:
    EP A.-
    Barbara Keeler (6W-QM)
    U.S. EPA Region VI
    1445 Ross Avenue
    Suite 1200NEP
    Dallas, TX  75202-2733
    (214) 665-6698
    FAX: (214) 665-6689

    Local:
    Dr. Steve Mathies, Director
    Barataria-Terrebonne NEP
    Nicholls State University  Campus
    P.O. Box 2663
    Thibodaux, LA 70310
    (504) 447-0868 or 1-800-259-0869
    FAX: (504)447-0870
                                       224

-------
                               Corpus  Christ! Bay
Size and location:   The  Corpus Christ; Bay
National  Estuary  Program (C'CBNEP) encom-
passes  the estuarine environment of  120 kilo-
meters  (75 miles) of the south-central  Texas
coastline and the 12  member counties of the
Coastal Bend Council of  Governments.   This
1425-square-kilometer  (550-square-mile)  area
includes  all  bays arid saltwater bayous  in the
Arkansas, Corpus Christi,  Baffin, and  upper
Laguna Madre Bay systems.

Nature of EPA  involvement:  EPA provides 75
percent funding for the program and also pro-
vides technical  and program guidance.   This
support includes  a full-time coordinator  and
participation in  the  program's policy,  manage-
ment, and technical committees.

Organizations that initiated project:
     Office of the Governor of Texas
     Texas Natural Resource Conservation
         Commission
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Major  environmental problems:
     •    Limited freshwater inflows to the Cor-
         pus Christi Bay system
     •    Loss of wetlands, seagrasses, and other
         critical habitats
     •    Altered estuarine circulation
     •    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 Estu-
ary Program in 1992.. A Comprehensive Conser-
vation  and  Management Plan (CCMP) is being
developed for Corpus Christi Bay that recom-
mends actions to  protect and enhance the water
quality and living resources of the bay.
     The CCMP  will outline specific actions,
schedules, and budgets to remediate those prob-
lems identified by  the CCBNEP.  The  actions
will  be  developed 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 manage-
ment actions.

Stakeholders:
    Agricultural interests
    Business and industry representatives
    Citizens' 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

    State:
    Richard Volk, Director
    CCBNEP
    TAMU - Corpus Christi Campus
    Campus Box 290
    6300 Ocean Boulevard
    Corpus Christi, TX 78412
    (512)985-6767
    FAX: (512) 985-6301
                                             225

-------
                               Galveston Bay Estuary
  Size and location:   Galveston Bay Estuary is
  located near Houston, Texas, and empties into
  the Gulf of Mexico.  The estuary itself covers
  1550 square kilometers (600 square miles) and
  has a watershed that encompasses 82,880 square
  kilometers (32,000 square miles).

  Nature  of  EPA involvement:  In accordance
  with the National  Estuary  Program,  EPA has
  provided funding, and technical and programmat-
  ic support and has participated in various com-
  mittees in the program.

  Organization that initiated project:
      Texas Natural Resource Conservation Com-
          mission (formerly Texas  Water Com-
          mission)

  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 Nation-
al Estuary Program in 1988.  A Comprehensive
Conservation  and Management Plan (CCMP) is
being developed for Galveston Bay that recom-
mends priority corrective actions to restore and
maintain  the  estuarine  resources.   Costs  for
implementation of the CCMP are projected to be
about $36.5 million.
      Actions that have been taken in the bay in-
 clude:
          Designation of two State Coastal Pre-
          serves.
          Proposed designation of Christmas Bay
          as an  Outstanding National Resource
          Water under the state's water quality
          standards.
          Restored shoreline vegetation in several
          areas.
     •    Conducted industrial pollution preven-
          tion activities.
          Built  a 2-hectare (5-acre) oyster reef
          using artificial substrate.
     •    Increased use of pump-outs by  recre-
          ational boaters   through an intensive
          education effort.
     •    Implemented  a  continually  expanding
         citizen monitoring program.
     •   Implemented  a  Citizens'   Pollution
         Reporting 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 development of the CCMP include:
         Acquire and protect quality wetlands.
         Restore, create, and protect wetlands.
    •    Implement  storm water  control  pro-
         grams for local cities.
    •    Establish  residential  load  reduction
         programs.
    •    Correct malfunctioning septic tanks.
    •    Eliminate or reduce bypass and over-
         flow problems.
         Issue  National  Pollutant  Discharge
        Elimination  System permit for control
        of oil and gas discharges.
    •    Establish sediment quality criteria.
        Determine total  maximum daily  load
        for oxygen demand and nutrients.
    •    Reduce nutrient and biological oxygen
        demand loadings to problem  areas.
    •    Establish  a planning  program   for
        shoreline development.
    •    Reduce water consumption.
        Implement   a   baywide   effort   to
        strengthen species management.
                                             226

-------
                           Galveston  Bay  Estuary
    A unique feature of the  Galveston Bay
program was the use of contingent valuation to
determine 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

Contacts:
    EPA:
    Ken league
    U.S. EPA Region VI
    1445 Ross Avenue
    Dallas, TX 75202
    (214) 665-6687
    FAX: (214) 665-6689

    Local:
    Dr. Frank Shipley
    Program Director
    Galveston Bay NEP
    Bay Plaza One
    Suite 210
    West Bay Area Blvd.
    Webster, TX 77598
    (713) 332-9937
    FAX: (713) 332-8590
                                          227

-------
                          Illinois  River  - Battle  Branch
 Size and location: The Battle Branch watershed
 is a subwatershed within the Illinois River basin.
 It  contains  approximately   14,500   hectares
 (36,000 acres) and is located in Delaware Coun-
 ty, Oklahoma.

 Nature  of EPA  involvement: EPA  provided
 financial assistance through Clean  Water  Act
 section 319(h) funds, to support the demonstra-
 tion  of best  management practices (BMPs)  and
 monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the
 BMPs implemented.

 Organization that initiated project:
      Cherokee  Hills  Resource   Conservation
          District

 Major environmental problems: Nutrient pollu-
 tion from a variety of sources including:
     •    Inadequate rural wastewater systems
     •    Disposal of other domestic  refuse
     •    Undesirable techniques for disposal of
          dead poultry or other animals
     •    Livestock, holding areas  and lagoons
          associated with dairy operations
     •    Excessive application  of  poultry litter
          and other animal wastes to agricultural
          pasture lands (more than 22,000 metric-
         tons (24,200 tons) of poultry and dairy
         waste per year)

Actions taken or proposed:
This project was divided into four major compo-
nents:
    (1)  Install  best  management   practices
         (BMPs) using structural  or  vegetative
         measures suited to a program of land--
         owner cost-sharing.
    (2)  Support development of animal waste
         plans through technical and/or financial
         assistance to landowners.   Promote
         voluntary landowner adoption of such
         plans.
    (3)  Conduct regular monitoring to  docu-
         ment  the  effectiveness   of  installed
         BMP measures  in  improving  water
         quality.
    (4)  Use  information learned  from  Battle
         Branch project to facilitate the transfer
          of effective BMP approaches to other
          small watershed units within the Illi-
          nois  River basin.

     The project manages nutrient sources on-site
 as thoroughly as possible through installation of
 water-quality-oriented BMPs.  BMPs  that used
 proper land application techniques and  waste
 handling methods to  reduce the  amount  of
 nutrients entering Battle Branch and its tributar-
 ies were developed. To date, approximately 84
 percent  of landowners in the  Battle Branch
 watershed have signed up for participation in the
 project.
     Implementation  of BMPs  in  the  Battle
 Branch  watershed  has significantly   reduced
 nutrient  concentrations.  During  runoff events,
 nitrate levels have decreased  as much as 72
 percent  and total phosphorus  levels have  de-
 creased as much as 35 percent.   Further, it is
 projected that  if similar reductions could be
 achieved in all creeks of the Illinois River basin,
 it would represent a  significant  reduction  in
 nutrient loading to the Illinois River. Examples
 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
                                             228

-------
        Jornada Long-Term Ecosystem Research  Project
Size and location:  The project is located on the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)  Agri-
cultural Research Service (ARS) Jornada Fxperi-
mental Range and New Mexico State University
Ranch.  The total area of the two  properties,
located north of I.as Cruces, Dona  Ana County.
New  Mexico,  is  195,360  hectares  (483,%()
acres).
                            Collaborative re-
                             supervision  of
Nature of EPA involvement:
search  programs  under  the
Dr. Walter G. Whitibrd (ST) Senior Research
Ecologist, Environmental  Monitoring  Systems
Laboratory-Las Vegas  and Dr. Kris Havstad.
Director.  USDA-ARS   Jornada  Experimental
Range.

Organization that initiated project:
    U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring Sys-
         tems Laboratory-Las Vegas, Nevada

Major environmental problems: This long term
experiment is designed to examine the effects of
single and multiple stressors on rangeland eco-
system responses.   Stressors  examined in the
experiment include grazing, drought, fire,  and
soil nutrient depletion.   Main effects are shrub
removal and  grazing; split effects are  drought,
fire, and nutrient depletion.  Ecosystem  parame-
ters measured in the study include vegetation
composition,   cover,  and  productivity   soil
microarthropod  populations; ant  communities
(species abundances); rodent species abundance.
insect abundance; lizard species abundances; soil
respiration; soil organic  matter;  size of erosion
cells;  soil depth; and soil bulk density.
    Sensitivity of indicators of rangeland health
is also a component of the experiment. Compar-
isons  of indicators  values  on  sites of known
history of disturbance and change will be made.
Indicators examined include vegetation composi-
tion and cover, soil stability, 14 parameters  that
provide measures  of  ecosystem  capacity  for
conserving and retaining the essential resources
(water and  nutrients),   and faunal indicators
(relative abundances of breeding birds, wintering
birds,  and ants).
    AVHRR imagery will be applied to classify-
ing and  assessing  degradation  of rangeland
ecosystems.    Sites with  known  histories  of
disturbance and change will be used to provide
ground truth and calibration for AVHRR imag-
ery, which uses differences in seasonal patterns
of green-up  of C3 and  C4 species  to classify
vegetation and to rank sites in terms of vegeta-
tive cover.

Actions taken or proposed:   A 5-year inter-
agency agreement  between the U.S.  EPA  and
USDA-ARS is  in place.  The  first year  of re-
search was completed on August 15,  1994. The
multiple stressor experiment set-up is complete,
and a complete  set of baseline data has been
gathered. One paper on AVHRR imagery is in
review in Ecological Applications.

Stakeholders:
    EPA's global climate change program
    National Science Foundation - Long-Term
         Ecological Research Program
    North American Free Trade Agreement In-
         terests
    USDA-ARS
    U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Contact:
    Walter G. Whitford
    USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range
    Dept. 3JER
    New Mexico State University
    Las Cruces, NM 88003
    Phone (505)646-8032
    FAX (505)646-5889
    E-mail:  wawhitfo@nmsu.edu
                                             229

-------
                            Lake Pontchartrain Basin
  Size and location:  Lake Pontchartrain and its
  adjacent lakes form  one of the largest estuaries
  in  the  United  States.   Nearly  1.5   million
  people—one-third of the entire population of
  Louisiana—live  in the 14 parishes of the Lake
  Pontchartrain  Basin.   The Lake Pontchartrain
  basin is a 12,170-square-kilometer (4,700-square-
  mile)  watershed  in  southeastern   Louisiana,
  stretching from the State of Mississippi on the
  north and east to  the Mississippi River on the
  west and south, and to Breton Sound at the Gulf
  of Mexico.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  Cooperative agree-
 ments with the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Founda-
 tion  (LPBF)  and participation  on  the  LPBF's
 Inter-Agency  Working Group.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
     U.S. Congress

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Nonpoint source pollutants from sew-
          age and farm animal wastes
     •    Saltwater intrusion
     •    Stormwater runoff
     •    Sewage from fishing camps and poorly
          sewered and nonsewered communities
     •    Habitat  destniction  from  rapidly ex-
          panding urban development
     •    Commercial activities along  the Inner
          Harbor Navigation Canal
     •   Loss of wetlands
     •   Dwindling grassbeds
     •    Diminished shellfish and fish harvests
     •    Closed beaches
     •    Occasional occurrence of oxygen-defi-
         cient areas ("dead zones") in the lake

Actions taken  or proposed:  A Comprehensive
Management Plan that reflects a holistic water-
shed  approach to  solving the  water quality
problems  has  been developed  for the  Lake
Pontchartrain basin.  A number of projects are
under way, including:

    •   A pilot storm  water treatment  effort
        (with created wetlands and  retention
        ponds).
     •   A basinwide educational program.
     •   Continued  construction and clean-out
         of no-discharge dairy waste lagoons in
         Tangipahoa Parish.
     •   A submerged aquatic vegetation resto-
         ration project.
     •   Citizens monitoring projects.
         A model  ordinance  project on  the
         North Shore.

Stakeholders:
     Businesses  (industry,  fishing,  agriculture,
         others)
     Government agencies  (local,  state,  and
         federal, environmental, parks, recre-
         ation, land use, etc.)
     Local citizens
     Special  interest groups   (environmental,
         recreation, preservation, education, etc.)

Contacts:
     EPA:
     Karen Young
     U.S. EPA Region VI
     1445 Ross Avenue
     Dallas, TX 75202-2733
     (214) 665-6689
     FAX: (214)  665-6679

    State:
    Carlton Dufrechou
    Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
    P.O. Box 6965
    Metairie, LA 70009
    (504) 836-2215
    FAX: (504) 836-7283
                                             230

-------
                                     Lake Worth
Size and  location:  Lake Worth is located in
north-central Texas.  The lake covers approxi-
mately 20 hectares (50 acres) and has a water-
shed of 5346  square kilometers (2064  square
miles).

Nature  of EPA  involvement:   Award  grant
authority and  project  management under  the
Clean Lakes Program (section 314 of the Clean
Water Act).

Organizations  that initiated project:
     Texas Natural Resource Conservation
         Commission
     City of Fort Worth

Major environmental problems:
     •    Increasing eutrophication
     •    Algae blooms
     •    Sedimentation
     •    Agricultural (dairy  farms) and mining
         (sand and gravel operations) impacts
         on lake water quality and aquatic habi-
         tat

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,  examined the watershed to deter-
mine the sources of pollution, and then evaluated
solutions and  recommendations  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 action. Phase
II projects implement in-lake  restoration work as
well as critical watershed management activities
to control nonpoint source pollution to a lake.
Several restoration activities  are  under  way
including:
     •    Construction of a pressurized  sewage
         collection  system  to  replace  septic
         systems  currently  causing  nonpoint
         source pollution around the lake.
     •    Removal of submerged stumps in the
         lake.
    •    Development of a comprehensive basin
         water 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
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    Recreation industry
    Sand and gravel mining operators
    Tarrant County Water Control and
         Improvement District
    Texas Natural  Resource Conservation
         Commission
    Trinity River Authority
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contacts:
    State:
    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
    (817) 871-8203
    FAX: (817) 871-8195
                                             231

-------
               Lower Mississippi Alluvial  Valley Wetland
                                  Conservation  Plan
 Size and location:   1120-kilometer (700-mile)
 stretch from Cairo, Illinois south to the Gulf of
 Mexico; historical alluvial plain of the Missis-
 sippi River.

 Nature of EPA involvement: Currently, provid-
 ing funding assistance to multiple state agencies
 within the Lower Mississippi Valley, as well as
 federal interagency projects addressing forestry
 and resource planning issues.  EPA and several
 regional sponsors will be coordinating the devel-
 opment of a regional wetlands conservation plan.

 Organizations  that initiated project:  Multiple
 federal agencies, including EPA, U.S. Geological
 Survey  (USGS),  National  Biological  Survey
 (NBS), Natural Resources Conservation Service
 (NRCS) and  U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service
 (FWS), are initiating ecosystem-scale planning
 and research efforts in the region.

 Major  environmental  problems:   Nonpoint
 source  pollution  in surface  waters, extensive
 forested  wetlands loss, impacted fisheries  and
 wildlife habitats, extensive hydrological modifi-
 cations.

 Actions taken  or proposed:  This multistate,
 multiregion  initiative focuses on wetland  resto-
 ration/reforestation  and reduction  of nonpoint
 source water pollution throughout the  Lower
 Mississippi  River Alluvial  Plain.  A regional
 sponsor will coordinate state and federal efforts
 by  developing  and  implementing a  regional
 wetlands conservation  plan.   Establishing net-
 works among interest groups and data  sharing
 through the use  of a geographic information sys-
 tem will be emphasized, as well as prioritization
 of wetland restoration/acquisition sites.

Stakeholders:
    Natural  resource state agencies from MS,
    LA, TN, AR, KY, MO, and IL, agricultural
    community, forestry community, landown-
    ers, hunting and outdoor recreation groups,
    environmental  organizations,  sustainable
    economy  organizations,  federal   natural
    resource and public health agencies, includ-
    ing EPA, National Biological Survey, U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resourc-
    es Conservation Service, U.S. Geological
    Service,  U.S.  Forest  Service Agency for
    Toxic  Substances  and  Disease  Registry
    (ATSDR).

Contact:
    Jennifer Derby/Eric Hughes
    EPA Region IV
    345 Courtland Street, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30365
    (404) 347-3871 ext. 6510 and ext.  6517

    Beverly Ethridge/Jay Gamble/Jack  Hill
    EPA Region VI
    1445 Ross Avenue
    Dallas, TX 75202-2733
    (214) 665-2263
                                            232

-------
                                 Tangipahoa  River
Size and location: The Tangipahoa River water-
shed includes about 214,000 hectares (529,600
acres), of which 67  percent are  in  Louisiana,
mostly located in Tangipahoa Parish.

Nature  of EPA involvement:   EPA provided
financial assistance, through Clean  Water  Act
section  106 and 319(h) funds,  to  support over-
sight of dairy lagoon construction, ground water
monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the
lagoons, and demonstration of  proper operation
and maintenance practices.

Organization that initiated project:
    Louisiana  Department  of Environmental
         Quality

Major environmental problems:
    •    Nutrient and sediment nonpoint source
         pollution
    •    Bacterial contamination
    •    Improperly    functioning   municipal
         wastewater treatment facilities
    •    Runoff from unsewered communities,
         trailer parks, and  homes  (lack  of a
         septic system or septic tank failure)
    •    Runoff and discharges from dairies 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   its
Nonpoint Source Management Program to reduce
bacterial contamination.  More specifically, the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) has three nonpoint  source pollution
control cooperative agreements  (section 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 that
are listed in the  Nonpoint Source  Assessment
Report  as  having  septic tank  problems.   The
purpose is to  educate local people about how
their individual wastewater problems contribute
to bacterial contamination of the river.
    LDEQ has  been working  with state and
federal  agricultural agencies on  a project  to
implement  Natural  Resources  Conservation
Service (NRCS) designed no-discharge  lagoon
systems  into   the  dairies   that  operate  in
Tangipahoa Parish. There are approximately 273
dairies in the parish, and approximately 225 have
agreed to participate  in either the  NRCS or the
Agricultural  Stabilization   and  Conservation
Service federal cost-share program for installa-
tion of the  lagoons.  Of the  225 dairymen who
have  agreed  to  participate  in   the  federal
cost-share program,  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 pro-
gram, the Louisiana State Legislature enacted a
provision to establish a state cost-share program
to assist the dairymen in meeting the installation
costs  of the lagoon systems.  First-year funding
for the state cost-share program was $350,000;
the second-year funding for the  program totaled
$250,000. The state cost-share program has been
successful,  with  approximately  80  dairymen
participating.
    LDEQ has implemented a series of five
dairy  demonstration field days to educate dairy-
men on  how the solids in the  lagoon systems
need to be cleaned out every 2 to 4 years, if the
systems  are   to  continue  to   function  as
no-discharge systems. The demonstration includ-
ed information on nutrient  availability in the
lagoon systems and how this translates to nitro-
gen and phosphorus values that can be applied to
the dairymen's fields.   The  equipment that is
used to pump solids from the lagoon system was
available and  functioning at  the demonstration
site,  to show  dairymen what was involved in
pumping the lagoons and land-applying wastes to
their  fields.   These  demonstrations  were well
attended by  more  than  100  dairymen  in
Tangipahoa Parish.
    The Department of Health and Hospitals has
estimated a reduction  of approximately 3.79
million liters (1 million gallons)  a day of untreat-
ed sewage  being discharged into the river, and
the water quality  data  are beginning to show
measurable declines in  the
                                              233

-------
                              Tangipahoa River
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
                                        234

-------
                        Tensas  River  Basin Initiative
Size and  location:   The  Tensas River flows
approximately  504  kilometers   (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,  consists  of  26,260  hectares
(65,000 acres) of extensive bottomland hardwood
swamps.   The Tensas River Basin Initiative is
located in  the upper Tensas watershed of Louisi-
ana, a 303,000-hectare (750,000-acre) watershed
in portions of East Carroll, Franklin, Madison,
and Tensas Parishes.

Nature of EPA involvement: Section 104(b) and
319 grants were awarded to the  Louisiana De-
partment of Environmental Quality to document
and implement a Tensas Model incorporating the
Watershed Protection Approach,  in  addition to
public  outreach  and  geographic  information
system (GIS) documentation to support the over-
all effort.
    The   U.S.   Department  of   Agriculture
(USDA) and EPA's  Corvallis Lab  worked to-
gether to apply a synoptic assessment approach
to identify potential wetland restoration sites in
the Tensas River basin. Results will be used as
a model for other watersheds within the Lower
Mississippi Alluvial Plain  ecosystem, including
the Cache-White River basin in  the Arkansas
Delta.

Organizations that initiated project:
    Northeast Delta Resource Conservation and
         Development  Board
    Louisiana Department of Environmental
         Quality
    The Nature Conservancy

Major environmental problems:
    •    Historic  conversion of  bottomland
         hardwoods  to agriculture,  resulting in
         loss of wetlands
    •    Channelization  and  loss  of  riparian
         areas
    •    Water quality degradation
    •    Reduction  in wildlife habitat   and
         biodiversity
    •    Nonpoint source  pollution
    •    Environmental justice (most impover-
         ished area in the United States)
    •    Loss of flood control functions

Actions taken  or proposed:   The  Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ)
received a grant from EPA to develop a compre-
hensive watershed protection plan for the Tensas
River,  using a holistic approach.  LADEQ has
contracted  with The Nature  Conservancy  to
develop the watershed protection plan for the
Tensas River  Watershed.   An additional EPA
grant  to  the  Natural Resources  Conservation
Service (NRCS) in Louisiana contributed to the
development  of a program-neutral River Basin
Study.  A Technical Steering Committee com-
posed of representatives from various state and
federal agencies,  nonprofit and special interest
groups, and local citizens, and chaired by the
local Farm Bureau Representative, meets quarter-
iy-
    The  Northeast  Resource Conservation and
Development Board, through funding from EPA,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, and The
Nature Conservancy, has  hired  a  Watershed
Manager to  inform  rural  landowners of the
project and to communicate between the partici-
pating  partners (agencies) and the public.  The
U.S. Geological Survey has included the Tensas
River  basin   in  the  Mississippi  Embayment
National  Water Quality Assessment  study unit
and will develop a proposal for participation  by
five states to restore hydrology to prechannelized
conditions.
    The Tensas effort is serving as a model for
two other watershed projects within the Lower
Mississippi Delta.  A Draft River Basin  Study is
due in late 1994.  The study will have  an indi-
vidual  watershed focus and will use Public Law
566  funds  for watershed planning.   This will
give landowners money  for watershed restora-
tion. The community of Richland will target the
Boeuf  River/Richland Creek sub watershed for
nonpoint source runoff reduction.
     A Final Report entitled Selecting Sites for
Wetlands Restoration  in the Tensas River Basin,
Louisiana: A Case Study of Landscape Analysis
Using the Synoptic Assessment Methodology was
submitted to EPA  by the  USDA Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service. The  report  in-
cludes characterizations  of natural  and socio-
                                             235

-------
                         Terisas  River Basin  Initiative
 economic  resources,  assessment  of  wetland
 values  and functional losses, development  of
 wetland restoration criteria and rules of combina-
 tion, and identification and characterization  of
 potential wetland restoration areas in the basin.
 GIS mapping products were developed to assist
 in the assessment process.

 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
     Grass-roots groups
     Hunting and fishing interests
     Local citizens
     Planning agencies
     Recreation industry
     State and local agencies
     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 Region VI
     1445 Ross Ave. (6E-FT)
    Dallas, TX 75202-2733
    (214) 665-6597
    FAX: (214) 665-7446
                                            236

-------

-------
                                       Figure  8:
A Phase I  Inventory  of  Current  EPA Efforts to Protect  Ecosystems
                          Region  7  Project  Locations
Scale 1:8,000,000
Albers Equal Area Projection
Sources: US EPA (various)
Compiled January 1995, MFMNJO014-7/10
Area boundaries and reference point locations are approximate
     Area included in 1  or more of
     the large-scale projects
     (see Part 1  project summaries)

     Reference point for local-scale project
A/   State Boundary

-------
                               Region VII Projects

        Example projects submitted by Region VII include the 22 projects listed below, plus its
  large-scale initiatives  (see Part I) and place-based  activities related to many of the multisite
  projects  (see Part III).  The map  at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale
  and local-scale projects in this Region.

        The Region's projects vary in size,  in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of
  partners  involved with EPA, and  in their goals.  Many are based on  lake or reservoir basins, and
  others involve ground water,  large rivers  and small- to moderate-size creeks, wetlands, and a
  prairie site.  Sediments, nutrients and pesticides from  croplands, rare and endangered species
  issues, habitat loss, eutrophication, erosion  and soil  loss,  streambank  degradation, channel
  modification, industrial discharges, and impairment of recreational uses are reported among the
  problems these projects seek to address. Actions taken include developing partnerships with a
  variety  of local, state and federal  agencies, industries, private citizens' groups, and  other
  organizations. Depending upon the environmental problems present, these multi-organizational
 teams might identify and assess important or degraded habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor
 and analyze  loading rates,  pollutant sources, and options for pollution  prevention;'propose
 development or revision of water  quality standards; develop outreach and educational programs;
 or jointly develop management plans. Many of the local-scale projects also will enhance as well
 as benefit from the large-scale initiatives in the Region, which include the Great Plains Initiative
 and the Lower Mississippi Delta  Initiative.

        Region VII projects in  the Inventory at this time include:

        Beeds Lake, IA
        Big Spring  Basin, IA
        Centerville Reservoirs Project, IA
        Cheyenne Bottoms Wetland Project, KS
       Clear Lake, IA
       Eastern Nebraska Saline Wetlands, NE
       Elm Creek, NE
       Hillsdale Reservoir, KS
       Iowa Great Lakes, IA
       Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA MS  AR
              KY, TN, MO*
       Meramec River, MO
       Mississippi River Gateway Project, IL, MO*
       Omaha Stretch of the Missouri River,  IA, NE
       Papio Lakes Project, NE
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region.  Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.


                                           239

-------
Pine Creek, IA
Platte River, NE
Salt Valley Lakes Project, NE
Storm Lake Project, IA
Upper Big Mill Creek, IA
Upper Niangua River Watershed, MO
Walnut Creek Prairie  Restoration Project, IA
Walnut Creek Watershed Project, IA
                                   240

-------
                                        Beeds  Lake
  Size and location:  Beeds Lake has  an 7662-
  hectare (18,966-acre) watershed and is located in
  Franklin County in north-central Iowa.

  Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded
  319(h) grant funds (FY93 $272,862) to support
  the   project  coordinator,   public   informa-
  tion/education program  on  agricultural  NFS
  control,  tech  transfer  activities,  and selected
  financial incentives for best management practice
  (BMP) implementation and demonstration.

  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 section 319  funds.  The state's Re-
 source Enhancement and Protection Program and
 the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
 Service  Water Quality  Incentive Program are
 also  providing funding.  The project workplan
 lays out a 3-year project,  but with the  involve-
 ment of  an  active citizens' group, watershed
 protection activities should  extend  beyond the
 life of the funds.
     Project objectives include reducing sedimen-
 tation by 70 percent and encouraging the farmers
 to apply  best  management practices  such as
 no-till, contour farming, and nutrient and  pesti-
 cide  management  on  the  2200  most critical
 hectares  (5500 acres) upstream from the  lake.
 Seventy percent of the watershed landowners are
 targeted for involvement over the next 2 years.
 Grass/tree  filter  strips, pasture  and  hayland
 management, critical area planting, animal  waste
 management, stream bank stabilization, and well
 testing are among the other activities planned.

Stakeholders:
    Boy Scouts of America
    Ducks Unlimited
     Franklin County Board of Supervisors
     Franklin County Conservation Board
     Franklin County Sanitarian
     Franklin County Soil and Water Conserva-
         tion District
     Friends of Beeds Lake
     Future Farmers of America
     Hampton Fish and Wildlife Club
     Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
         Stewardship, Division of Soil
         Conservation
     Iowa Department of Natural Resources
     Iowa State University Extension
     Natural Resources Conservation Service
     Pheasants Forever
     The Jaycees
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     USDA Farm Service Agency
     USDA Natural Resources Conservation
         Service

Contact:
     Ubbo Agena
     Iowa Department of Natural Resources
     Wallace Office Building
     Des Moines, IA 50319
     (515)281-6402
     FAX: (515) 281-8895
                                             241

-------
                                   Big Spring  Basin
 Size and location:  Big Spring Basin is a 267-
 square-kilometer (103-square-mile) ground water
 basin in Clayton County in northeast Iowa.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded
 approximately $195,000 in grant funds to support
 water quality  monitoring, biological assessment,
 and a  public information/education program.
 EPA is represented on the advisory group to the
 Big Spring Project (and others related  to  the
 project, e.g., Iowa consortium on Agriculture and
 Water Quality).

 Organization  that initiated project:
     Iowa Consortium on Agriculture and Water
          Quality

 Major environmental problems:
     •     Elevated nitrate and coliform levels in
          farmstead wells
     •     Herbicides including atrazine in ground
          and  surface water

 Actions  taken or proposed:  The Big  Spring
 project   comprises  a  comprehensive   multi-
 disciplinary  approach including research, demon-
 strations, and education programs. The research
 phase was started in 1981, and the demonstration
 program  started in  earnest  in 1986.   Project
 activities are ongoing, with funding from numer-
 ous sources, including EPA, the USDA Natural
 Resources 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, monitoring will continue
 over the  next several  years, even though  the
 major portion  of funding for the demonstration
 projects has  expired.
     The  project focuses on  the  impacts  of
agricultural  activities on  ground and  surface
water.  Specific actions include:
     •    Demonstration sites for animal  waste
         management and various crop-related
         activities  such  as alfalfa management
         and weed management.
    •    Collection  of  detailed   information
         through monitoring.
    •    Studies of the basin's  aquatic ecology.
     •    Examination of the impacts of agricul-
          ture on aquatic ecosystems, and in turn
          assessment  of  nutrient losses  that are
          taken up in this ecosystem.
     •    Surveys of farm management practices
          and chemical use.
          Extensive publicity and public educa-
          tion activities.
          Numerous field days for national and
          international 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 Integrated Farm Management Program and
 the Model Farms Demonstration Program. Iowa
 has been  able to demonstrate significant reduc-
 tions 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:
     Clayton County  Soil and Wrater Conserva-
         tion
     District Farmers
     Iowa Chemical and Fertilizer Dealers Asso-
         ciation
     Iowa Consortium on Agriculture and Water
         Quality
     Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
         Stewardship, Division of Soil Conser-
         vation
    Iowa Department of Natural Resources
    Iowa State University Extension
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    USDA   Natural  Resources  Conservation
         Service
    USDA Farm Service 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
                                             242

-------
                         Centerville Reservoirs  Project
 Size and location: The upper and lower Center-
 ville  reservoirs  are  man-made  (in-line) lakes
 located in Appanoose County, in southern Iowa.
 These lakes have a combined surface area of 53
 hectares (131 acres). The total watershed of the
 lakes is 1050 hectares (2599 acres). The reser-
 voirs are  the  primary  source  of raw drinking
 water for the community of Centerville (popula-
 tion 6000).   The reservoirs and  the adjoining
 104-hectare county park also  provide wildlife
 habitat and are a source of recreation for local
 residents.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded
 319(h) grant funds (FY92 $189,165) to support
 the  project coordinator,  public   information/
 education  program on agricultural NFS control,
 tech transfer  activities,  and selected financial
 incentives for BMP implementations and demon-
 strations.

 Organization that initiated project:
     Appanoose County Soil and Water
         Conservation District

 Major environmental problems:
     •   The  nonpoint  pollution  affecting the
         reservoirs includes sediment that  reduc-
         es the lake  volume,  causes  increased
         treatment and repair costs at  the water
         treatment plant, and impairs recreation-
         al use of the lakes.
     •   Also, nutrients  from cropland runoff
         cause algal  blooms  that impair  the
         lakes' fisheries.
     •   Elevated pesticide levels have also
         been found in the reservoirs  (at  times
         exceeding EPA drinking water stan-
         dards) and are not readily removed by
         conventional water treatment.

Actions taken or proposed:  Initiated in FY92,
the project  is scheduled to be implemented over
3 years.
     The objectives of the project are to improve
and protect the reservoirs by the implementation
of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce
sediment, nutrient, and pesticide levels. These
BMPs include converting critical land from crop
 production to permanent vegetative cover, con-
 structing sediment retention basins and wetlands
 above the reservoirs, conservation tillage, grassed
 field borders, waterways  and filter strips,  and
 nutrient and pesticide management. Concurrent-
 ly, the  project  will address septic  tanks  and
 related urban pollution sources in the watershed.

 Stakeholders:
     Appanoose County Conservation Board
     Appanoose County Health Office
     Appanose County Soil and Water Conserva-
         tion District
     Centerville  Chamber of Commerce
     Centerville  Municipal Water Works
     Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
         Stewardship, Division of Soil  Conser-
         vation
     Iowa Department of Natural Resources
     Iowa State University Extension Service
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     USDA Farm Service Agency

Contact Person:
     Ubbo Agena
     Iowa Department of Natural  Resources
     Wallace State Office Building
     Des Moines, IA 50319
     (515) 281-6402
                                             243

-------
                   Cheyenne  Bottoms  Wetland  Project
Size and location:   The project is  located in
Barton County, Kansas, and covers approximate-
ly 24,240 hectares (60,000 acres).

Nature  of EPA  involvement:   Cooperative
Agreement CR-823025, Kansas State University,
Principal Investigator James Koelliker, Project
Period: 10/01/94-09/30/97, Total Budget: $225,-
962; EPA Contribution:  $65,823. Project Offi-
cer, Stephen Kraemer., USEPA/RSKERL-Ada.
    The Project Officer has an In-house  Re-
search Project supporting this effort, including an
on-site contractor work assignment.   Liason:
Cathy Tortorici, USEPA  Region VII.

Organization that initiated  project:   U.S.  De-
partment of Agriculture  Region VII  contacted
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development/
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Labora-
tory (RSKERL)-Ada through the  RARE  pro-
gram.

Major environmental problems:
    •   Cheyenne  Bottoms is a wetland of
        international importance, being a criti-
        cal stopover point  for more  than  half
        of the population of northward-migrat-
        ing shorebirds of North America and a
        habitat for  numerous  species of  ma-
        mmals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, in-
        vertebrates, and plants;.
    •   Six species on  the  federal endangered
        and threatened species list regularly use
        the Bottoms: whooping crane, piping
        plover, snowy  plover, least tern, per-
        egrine  falcon, and bald eagle.
    •   The Cheyenne  Bottoms is the one of
        the last of  the major wetland systems
        left in the  State of Kansas, and  the
        maintenance of standing water is criti-
        cal for habitat  function.  The natural
        water supply needs  to be supplemented
        with diversions from neighboring  wa-
        tersheds (Wet Walnut Creek, Dry Wal-
        nut Creek,  Pawnee) and from the  Ar-
        kansas River.  These sources of water
        are under  increasing   pressure  from
        agricultural  and municipal  demands,
        and a deficit situation exists.
    •    Also,  existing  and  proposed  flood
         control structures within the Wet Wal-
         nut Creek and Pawnee watersheds are
         potentially altering the available water
         supply to the Bottoms.

Actions taken or proposed:  A detailed hydro-
logical budget model has been proposed.  The
modeling study will be comprehensive, including
both ground water and surface water, and contin-
uous  in  time,  simulating transient  watershed
responses.  The  impact of irrigation wells and
flood  control structures  within  the watersheds
will be investigated through scenario testing.  A
research  report will be prepared by September
1997.

Stakeholders:
    Citizens within the watersheds
    State of Kansas (Kansas Wildlife and Parks,
         Kansas Water Office,  Division of Wa-
         ter Resources, Board of Agriculture)
    The Nature Conservancy
    U.S. Army Crops of Engineers
    U.S. EPA
    USDA  Natural  Resources  Conservation
         Service

Contact:
    Stephen R. Kraemer
    USEPA/RSKERL
    POB 1198
    Ada, OK  74821
    (405) 436-8549
    FAX: (405) 436-8703
    E-mail1 kraemer@ad3100.ada.epa.gov
    ALL-IN-ONE: epa8029 or  kraemer.Stephen
                                            244

-------
                                       Clear Lake
 Size and location:  The  Clear Lake watershed
 covers an 3500-hectare (8700-acre) area located
 in Cerro Gordo County in north-central Iowa.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has awarded
 319(h) grant funds (FY94 $227,896) to support
 the   project   coordinator,    public   informa-
 tion/education program on urban and agricultural
 NFS control, tech transfer activities, and selected
 financial incentives for best management practice
 (BMP) implementation and demonstration.

 Organization that initiated project:
      Cerro Gordo Soil and Water  Conservation
          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 3-year project
 was initiated with Fiscal Year 1994 Clean Water
 Act Section 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 demonstrations and education
 efforts, technical assistance, and financial incen-
 tives for best management practice  implementa-
 tion.   The urban campaign includes  reducing
 nutrient impacts at  the business and residential
 level as well as a volunteer water quality moni-
 toring  program.   The agricultural  campaign
 includes wetlands development., nutrient and pest
 management, and both structural and nonstructur-
 al practices 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 reducing phytoplankton levels.

Stakeholders:
     Cerro Gordo County Health Department
     Cerro Gordo County Soil  and  Water  Con-
         servation 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
         Stewardship
     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
                                             245

-------
 Size and location:   This  project covers 2280
 hectares (5644 acres) of wetlands and deepwater
 habitats in Lancaster and southern  Saunders
 Counties, Nebraska.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  Awarded two
 grants  (1989  and  1990) to  state  for  resource
 inventory and public outreach projects; partici-
 pating  on interagency assessment team with
 Corps of Engineers (ACE), U.S. Fish and Wild-
 life Service (FWS), Nebraska Game and  Parks
 Commission (NGPC), and Nebraska Department
 of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) to conduct an
 advanced planning project.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     Original work initiated by EPA and NGPC

 Major environmental problems:   The saline
 wetlands are considered one of the most restrict-
 ed and imperiled natural community types in the
 state. They harbor holophytic plants considered
 rare in state. These  wetlands provide (1) habitat
 for more than half  of the total number of bird
 species in state,  including migratory shorebirds
 and (2) the sole habitat for  an endemic tiger
 beetle (Cicindela nevadica  var. lincolniana).
    These wetlands continue to be threatened by
 commercial  and residential development  pres-
 sures from the city of Lincoln, road construction,
 and the potential for agricultural development.

Actions taken or proposed:    The first  grant
 resulted in a report entitled An Inventory and
 General Assessment of Eastern Nebraska Saline
 Wetlands in Lancaster and Southern Saunders
 Countries.   The second  grant  resulted in the
 development of  outreach materials,  including  a
 narrated slide presentation,  color brochure, and
 color  poster.   Recent  interagency  efforts  have
 resulted in the development of a. report entitled
 Resource Categorization of Nebraska's Eastern
 Saline   Wetlands  and  associated  geographic
 information system (GlS)-based inventory maps,
 which have been incorporated and approved as
 part  of the  Lincoln-Lancaster  County  5-Year
 Comprehensive Development Plan.  Finalization
 of a report entitled Mitigation Guidelines for Ne-
 braska's Eastern Saline  Wetlands  is  pending.
The latter will include guidance for developing
saline wetlands mitigation banks.

Stakeholders:
    Lower  Platte  South  Natural  Resources
    District, Lincoln-Lancaster County Planning
    Department,   USDA  Natural  Resources
    Conservation  Service,  Nebraska  Natural
    Resources  Commission, Lincoln Board of
    Realtors, Inc.,  ACE, NGPC,  NDEQ,  and
    FWS

Contact:
    Tom Taylor
    Nebraska State Wetlands Coordinator
    U.S. EPA  Region VII Environmental  Re-
         view  Branch/ENRV
    726 Minnesota Avenue
    Kansas  City,  KS 66101
    (913) 551-7226
    FAX: (913) 551-7863
    E-mail:  taylor.tom@epamail.epa.gov
                                              246

-------
                                        Elm Creek
 Size and location:  The Elm Creek watershed
 covers   a  14,460-hectare   (35,800-acre)  area
 located  in  Webster County in  south-central
 Nebraska.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded
 section 319(h) grant funds to  accomplish key
 parts (monitoring,  information/education,  and
 targeting of innovative best management practic-
 es (BMPs) in critical areas) of this larger holistic
 watershed project.  Elm  Creek  is a  National
 Nonpoint Source Watershed Projects Monitoring
 Program site.

 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,  irrigation return  flows,  and
         livestock access
     •    Streambank erosion

Actions taken or proposed: Elm Creek is  a U.S.
 Department 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 pollutant loading con-
         tributing  to impairment  of beneficial
         uses.
    •    Implement demonstrable land treatment
         practices  that are  "cost-effective" and
         can functionally reduce sediment load-
         ing to Elm Creek by 50 percent.
    •    Facilitate  a nonpoint  source  public
         education effort within the project area.
    •    Conduct water quality monitoring; and
         integrate  CWA  section 319  funding/
         activities  with other funding/activities
         in the watershed to provide a holistic
         watershed  management  project  for
         water quality protection.
     •    Practices being employed include nutri-
         ent and pest  management, grazing
         management, cattle exclusion from the
         streams, and stream bank restoration.

Stakeholders:
     Lower  Republican Natural Resources Dis-
         trict
     Nebraska  Department  of  Environmental
         Quality
     Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     University  of Nebraska Extension
     USDA Natural Resource Conservation Ser-
         vice

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
                                             247

-------
                                 Hillsdale  Reservoir
 Size and location:  Hillsdale  Reservoir  is a
 1850-hectare  (4580-aere)  Corps of Engineers
 impoundment located in Kansas 48 kilometers
 (30 miles) southwest of Kansas City, Kansas. Its
 watershed covers 37,240 hectares (92,180 acres).

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) mini-grant
 and 319(h) funding for the Hillsdale Watershed
 Protection  project,  as  well as  water  quality
 monitoring and laboratory  support.   An  EPA
 staff position participates (with the local project
 manager and information/education coordinator)
 as a member of the project implementation team
 by providing technical and programmatic sup-
 port. EPA has served as a catalyst to bring other
 state, federal, and local agencies into the project.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     Citizens Management Committee
     Lakes  District Research Conservation  and
         Development District

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Nutrient overload and associated eutro-
         phication effects from both point  and
         nonpoint sources
     •    Minor threat from atrazine

 Actions taken or proposed:   A nutrient  total
 maximum  daily  load has  been developed.   A
 local association  of concerned  citizens  and
 agencies, together with the Kansas Department of
 Health and Environment and EPA staff support,
 is  implementing  a  watershed management  pro-
 gram using Clean Water Act section 319,  U.S.
 Department of Agriculture Water  Quality Incen-
 tives  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
    Johnson County Environmental Department
    Kansas Department of Health and
        Environment
    Lakes  District  Resources Conservation and
        Development District
    Rural Water Districts
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Department of Agriculture
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Geological Survey

Contact:
    Thomas Lorenz
    U.S. EPA Region VII
    726 Minnesota Avenue
    Kansas City, KS 66101
    (913) 551-7292
    FAX: (913) 551-7765
                                             248

-------
                                 Iowa Great  Lakes
Size and location:  The Iowa Great Lakes con-
sist of a 25,600-hectare (64,000-acre) watershed
in Dickinson County in northern Iowa.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
project funding through  104(b)3 (FY89 $9,000)
and  319(h)  grant funds (FY90 $50,000; FY92
$100,860; FY94  $44,860;  FY95 $128,430) to
support the  project coordinator, public informa-
tion/education program on urban and agricultural
NFS control, wetlands protection and restoration,
and selected financial incentives for BMP imple-
mentations and demonstration

Organization that initiated project:
     Dickinson County Soil and Water Conserva-
         tion District

Major environmental problems:
     •    Sediment
     •    Nutrient runoff from  both rural  and
         urban  lands  threatening  14  natural
         lakes

Actions taken or proposed: This 5-year project
was  initiated with fiscal year  1990 Clean Water
Act  section 319  funds and has  also received
funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Farm  Service  Agency  through  the
Agricultural Conservation  Program, the Iowa
Resource Enhancement and Protection Program.
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.
Efforts are being focused on avoiding unneces-
sary or excessive 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 2 years since the project was initiat-
ed, about 32 hectares  (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 31  hectares (78 acres)  in the
watershed; project workers have made site visits
with a total of 83 of the 185 watershed landown-
ers to discuss water quality; and  landowners
throughout the watershed, including urban resi-
dents, have gained an awareness of water quality
through the project's education program.
     One-third of the watershed is in Minnesota,
and  a cooperative  effort  occurs  across  state
boundaries.  Plans are also under way to apply
for similar project funding for the Minnesota side
of the watershed.

Stakeholders:
     Dickinson County Soil and Water Conserva-
         tion District
     Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
         Stewardship, Division of Soil
         Conservation
     Iowa Department of Natural Resources
     Iowa Natural Heritage  Foundation
     Iowa State University Extension
     Local lake protective associations
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     USDA Farm Service Agency
     USDA  Natural  Resources Conservation
         Service

Contact:
     Ubbo Agena
     Iowa Department of Natural Resources
     Wallace State Office Building
     Des Moines,  IA 50319
     (515) 281-6402
     FAX: (515) 281-8895
                                             249

-------
               Lower Mississippi Alluvial  Valley  Wetland
                                  Conservation  Plan
  Size and location:  1120-kilometer (700 miles)
  stretch from Cairo,  Illinois south to the Gulf of
  Mexico; historical alluvial plain of the Mississip-
  pi River.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  Currently, provid-
  ing funding assistance to  multiple state agencies
  within the Lower Mississippi  Valley,  as well as
  federal interagency  projects addressing forestry
  and resource planning issues.  EPA and several
  regional sponsors will be coordinating  the devel-
  opment of a regional wetlands conservation plan.

  Organizations that initiated project:  Multiple
  federal agencies, including EPA, U.S. Geological
  Survey  (USGS),  National Biological  Survey
  (NBS), Natural Resources Conservation Service
  (NRCS),  and  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife Service
  (FWS) are initiating ecosystem-scale planning
 and research efforts in the region.

 Major  environmental  problems:    Nonpoint
 source  pollution in  surface waters,  extensive
 forested wetlands loss,  impacted fisheries  and
 wildlife habitats, extensive hydrological modifi-
 cations.

 Actions taken  or proposed:  This multistate,
 multiregion initiative focuses on  wetland resto-
 ration/reforestation and  reduction of  nonpoint
 source water pollution  throughout  the Lower
 Mississippi  River Alluvial Plain.   A  regional
 sponsor will coordinate state and federal efforts
 by  developing   and  implementing  a  regional
 wetlands conservation plan.  Establishing  net-
 works among interest groups and data sharing
 through the use  of a geographic information sys-
 tem will be emphasized, as well as prioritization
 of wetland restoration/acquisition  sites.

Stakeholders:
    Natural resource state agencies  from MS,
    LA, TN, AR, KY, MO, and IL, agricultural
    community, forestry community, landown-
    ers, hunting and outdoor recreation groups,
    environmental organizations,  sustainable
    economy  organizations,  federal  natural
    resource and public health agencies, includ-
     ing EPA, National Biological Survey, U.S.
     Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resourc-
     es Conservation Service, U.S. Geological
     Service,  U.S. Forest Service, and Agency
     for Toxic substances and Disease Registry.

Contact:
     Jennifer Derby/Eric Hughes
     EPA Region IV
     345 Courtland Street, NE
     Atlanta, GA 30365
     (404) 347-3871  ext. 6510 and ext. 6517

    Beverly Ethridge/Jay Gamble/Jack Hill
    EPA Region VI
     1445 Ross Avenue
    Dallas, TX 75202-2733
    (214) 665-2263
                                            250

-------
                                    Meramec River
 Size and location:  The Meramec River mean-
 ders some  350 kilometers (220 miles) through
 six Missouri Ozark  Highland counties—Dent,
 Phelps,  Crawford, Franklin, Jefferson, and St.
 Louis—before it  empties  into the Mississippi
 River.  Between the mouth and its source, it falls
 313 meters  (1,025 feet). The Meramec watershed
 covers  portions of eight additional counties—
 Maries, Gasconade, Iron, Washington, Reynolds,
 St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, and Texas—totaling
 approximately 10,300 square  kilometers (3,980
 square miles).

 Nature of  EPA involvement: EPA,  through a
 cooperative agreement with the Missouri Depart-
 ment of  Conservation,  is providing  technical
 assistance as well  as a State Wetland  Protection
 Development Grant.  EPA  will also be assisting
 in future planning efforts in the watershed.

 Organization the initiated project:
     Missouri Department of Conservation

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Sand and gravel  dredging  operation
         impacts
     •   Developmental pressures
     •   Increased agricultural  and  livestock
         production
     •   Nonpoint source pollution
     •   Point source pollution
     •   Threats to water quality and drinking
         water supply
     •   Flooding
     •   Impaired  aquatic  diversity  (including
         federally   and  state   threatened  and
         endangered species) due to habitat loss
         and water quality  degradation
     •    Riparian  corridor destruction
     •    Wetland loss

Actions taken or  proposed:   The  Missouri
Department  of Conservation under a State Wet-
land Protection Development Grant from  EPA
will coordinate scientific information with stake-
holders  to develop a  watershed  plan for the
Meramec basin through the  following measures:
    •    Provide scientific information on phys-
         iography, geology, hydrology, geomor-
         phology, land usage, Clean Water Act
         section 404  jurisdiction (stream and
         wetland), structural  influences,  water
         quality,  fish  contamination,  habitat
         conditions,  community  sampling  of
         fish and invertebrates, and locations of
         threatened and endangered species.
     •   Provide data in geographic information
         system form.
     •   Identify basin problems and potential
         solutions.
     •   Prepare a basin-specific, dynamic plan
         to aid managers in addressing manage-
         ment,  coordination,  and  information
         needs to integrate wetland protection
         and  management  into a  watershed
         context.
     •   Identify potential sociopolitical partner-
         ships  needed  to implement improve-
         ment programs.

Stakeholders:
     Citizen groups
     Landowners
     Local governments
     Missouri Department of Conservation
     Missouri Department of Natural Resources
     Missouri Stream Teams
     Private organizations
     Regional planning groups
     U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers, St.  Louis
         District
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     US DA Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
         vice

Contact:
     Kathleen Mulder
     U.S. EPA Region VII
     726 Minnesota Avenue
     Kansas  City, KS 66101
     (913)551-7542
                                             251

-------
                     Mississippi River  Gateway Project
 Size and location:  The project area encompass-
 es three counties in  Illinois (Madison and  St.
 Clair) and  Missouri  (St.  Louis).  The project
 focuses mainly on the western portions of Madi-
 son and  St. Clair Counties of Illinois  at the
 present time.

 Nature of EPA  involvement:   EPA  has been
 involved  with the local community as well as
 with federal, state, and local agencies to address
 the  human  health and environmental  problems
 associated with  hazardous  and  solid wastes.
 flooding, chemical disposal, and lead contamina-
 tion in the community.  These problems are
 being  addressed  through pollution prevention
 efforts, cleanup of trash  and waste associated
 with the lack of garbage pick-up, and compliance
 assistance/enforcement  programs.   Concerns
 related to environmental justice are being ad-
 dressed by  working with the local community
 leaders.  EPA is also initiating efforts with local
 environmental groups to begin restoring lost or
 degraded  habitats  and providing environmental
 education.

 Organization that initiated project: This effort
 was begun by EPA Region V but is supported by
 EPA Region VII,  the U.S. Department of  Hous-
 ing and Urban  Development, the Illinois  Envi-
 ronmental  Protection  Agency,  the  Missouri
 Department  of Health, and the Illinois Depart-
 ment of Public Health.

 Major environmental problems:   The  major
 environmental problems are listed above.  Some
 of these are  related to the economic situation of
 the community. East St. Louis, Illinois, had lost
 much of its tax base and was unable to provide
 some of the basic services to its  residents, e.g.,
 garbage pickup, adequate wastewater treatment,
 safe housing, etc.  By working with the  other
 agencies, EPA has begun to address the  com-
 munity's needs.

Actions taken or proposed: Pollution prevention
 activities have begun to be implemented in the
 Greater St. Louis  area to achieve reductions in
 pollutants of greatest risk. For instance, an  effort
 has been undertaken to reduce human exposure
to environmental and household lead.  EPA is in
the process of determining whether minority or
low-income populations in the initiative area are
disproportionatly  exposed to  hazardous  waste,
hazardous substances or other hazardous activi-
ties. EPA is  working to develop a community-
based public involvement program that encourag-
es dialogue among governments, industry, com-
muni?y groups, and others. EPA is also develop-
ing a program to address the issue of lost and
degraded habitats and the use of high quality
habitats in environmental education.

Stakeholders: Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency,  Illinois  Department of Public Health,
Missouri Department of Health, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, EPA Re-
gions V  and  VII, local community groups and
local industry. EPA expects that as the initiative
grows,  additional agencies  will  assist in this
project.

Contacts:
    Linda Hamsing (Karen  Lumino)
    EPA Region V
    (312) 886-0981

    Doug Elders
    EPA Region VII
    (913)551-7393
                                             252

-------
                  Omaha  Stretch of the Missouri  River
Size and location:  The Omaha Stretch of the
Missouri River corridor extends approximately
69 kilometers (43 miles) from north  to south,
from the  Washington-Burt County,  Nebraska,
line to the mouth of the Platte  River.

Nature of the EPA involvement: EPA is a new
member  of  the  growing  partnership.  Media
programs are focusing on water, waste, air, and
pesticide issues. The Great Plains Program has
designated  the Omaha  Stretch as one of  its
laboratories for place-based management. EPA is
also participating in studies at two wetland sites
and sponsoring  environmental education  pro-
grams.

Organization that initiated project:
     The Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources
         District of Nebraska

Major environmental problems: The Missouri
River ecosystem has  historically suffered major
changes  and dramatic  losses.  In  the Omaha
Stretch, forests and wildlife have been harvested
and settlements  have covered  the  valley  The
once braided and meandering  river  has been
channelized  and  confined  to   a  single,  deep
navigation canal.  With levees and  dams,  its
hydrologic cycle, including natural flooding, has
nearly been eliminated. Wetlands  and diverse
kinds of fishery habitat have been lost, and lands
continue to be converted from  forests  and wet-
lands to cropland and residential areas.  The City
of Omaha is a major industrial center with many
discharges to water, air, and land, all  of which
have led to human health concerns and ecologi-
cal stress. Agriculture in the region contributes
nonpoint source  runoff high in nutrients and
pesticides.

Actions taken or proposed: Through the cooper-
ative efforts of federal, state, and private organi-
zations, projects  are currently under  way  to
restore various ecological components  as well  as
encourage sustainable development. The City  of
Omaha  has  developed  revitalization  plans  to
improve access  to the  river,  to build a trail
system for bicycling and walking through Oma-
ha, and to improve the waterfront and municipal
parks.  Also under way are an environmental
education program to increase student and com-
munity awareness of the Missouri River ecosys-
tem and  a  "Back to  the River" outreach cam-
paign to  encourage citizens to explore the river
for its beauty, history, and ecological importance.

Stakeholders:
    Fontanelle Forest Assoc.
    Iowa Department of Natural Resources
    Iowa County Conservation Boards
    National Audubon Society
    National Park Service
    Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
    Nebraska Department of Economic Devel-
         opment
    Nebraska Natural Resources Commission
    Missouri River Preservation Authority
    Omaha and Winnebago Tribes of Nebraska
    U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
    U.S. EPA
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Contact person:
    Kerry B. Herndon
    Great Plains Program Office
    EPA Region VII
    726  Minnesota Avenue
    Kansas City,  KA  66101
    (913) 551-7286
    FAX: (913) 551-7956
    E-mail: herndon.kerry@epamail.epa.gov
                                             253

-------
                                 Papio Lakes Project
  Size and location:   The Papio Lakes  Project
  encompasses five lake watersheds located in and
  around Omaha, Nebraska.   The five lakes are
  Glen  Cunningham  (158 hectares/390  acres),
  Standing Bear (55 hectares/135  acres),  Wehr-
  spann  (99 hectares/245  acres),  Zorinsky  (102
  hectares/253 acres), and Summit (77 hectares/190
  acres).  The total drainage area for the five lakes
  encompasses  16,282  hectares (40,301 acres).

  Nature of EPA involvement:    EPA has been
  involved in this project since 1989 when all five
  lakes were funded under the federal Clean Lakes
  Program.   Continued involvement  has come
  through the federal Nonpoint  Source Manage-
  ment Program.

  Organizations that initiated project:
     Papio-Missouri  River  Natural  Resources
          District
     City of Omaha

 Major   environmental problem:    Excessive
 sedimentation  and nutrient  loading  stemming
 from agricultural and construction  activities.
 Associated problems  such as poor water clarity
 and habitat loss are  impacting aesthetics  and
 aquatic life.

 Actions taken  or proposed: The project sponsor
 is utilizing a combination of federal,  state,  and
 local funding and expertise to address the prob-
 lems. Section 314 and 319 funding, in addition
 to  local funding,  has been  approved for  the
 design  and construction  of wetlands.  U.S.
 Department of  Agriculture  (USDA)  funding
 through  the Water Quality Incentives Program
 has  been approved for treatment practices on
 agricultural lands.  The University of Nebraska-
 Lincoln Cooperative Extension Service,  Papio-
 Missouri River NRD, Nebraska Department of
 Environmental Quality, and EPA  have entered
 into a joint venture  to  provide  an extension
 educator for the project.  Local Planning Agen-
cies are developing strategies to reduce construc-
tion site impacts.
    The objectives of the project are to:
    (1)   Reduce lake sedimentation rates to less
         than  0.3  percent of the initial lake
         volume per year.
     (2) Improve and maintain summer water
         clarity measurements to depths greater
         than 0.75 meter.
     (3) Maintain summer  chlorophyll a con-
         centrations at levels less than 33 mg/1.

Stakeholders:
     City of Gretna
     City of Omaha
     Nebraska  Department  of  Environmental
         Quality
     Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
     Papio-Missouri River  Natural  Resources
         District
     University  of Nebraska Cooperative Ex-
         tension Service
     U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     USDA  Natural  Resources Conservation
         Service

Contact:
     Gary Bowen
     Papio-Missouri River  Natural  Resources
        District
     8901 S. 154th Street
     Omaha, NE 68138-3621
                                             254

-------
                                        Pine  Creek
 Size and location:  The Pine Creek watershed
 covers 3910 hectares (9,680 acres) in Hardin and
 Grundy Counties in north-central Iowa. Upper
 and  Lower Pine  Lakes are the  feature water-
 bodies of Pine Lakes State Park.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded
 314  Phase  I and II Clean  Lakes Program and
 319(h) grant  funds.   The  319 funds  (FY92
 $207,891) support the project coordinator, public
 information/education  program  on  agricultural
 NPS control, tech transfer activities, and selected
 financial incentives for best management practice
 (BMP) implementation and  demonstration.

 Organizations  that initiated project:
     Hardin and Grundy County Soil and Water
         Conservation Districts

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Sediment and nutrients from eroding
         croplands
     •   Frequent algal blooms
     •   Impaired fisheries
     •   Degraded aquatic habitat
     •   Reduced recreational use
     •   Animal  waste
     •   Stream bank erosion

Actions taken  or proposed:  Iowa received  a
Clean Lakes Program grant in 1989 to conduct a
Phase I diagnostic/feasibility  study for Upper and
Lower Pine Lakes and the  surrounding water-
shed.  This study provided the basis for  this
3-year water quality  protection project.  Water-
shed measures are being carried out using funds
from  Clean Water Act section  319 Nonpoint
Source Program, USDA Farm Services Agency
and  the State's  Resource  Enhancement  and
Protection Programs.  Restoration of the lakes is
being carried out using Clean Lakes Program
Phase II funding awarded in 1992. The objec-
tives of the project include:
    •   Implementing  BMPs,  on  a priority
        basis,  to reduce sediment and nutrient
        loads to  Upper and Lower Pine Lakes
        by  60  percent.
        Implementing BMPs on 1,200 hectares
        (3,000 acres) in the watershed per year.
     •    Increasing the area of warm season
          grasses in the watershed by  100 per-
          cent.
     •    Holding farmer-to-farmer meetings  to
          facilitate technology transfer to  land-
          owners and operators in the watershed.
     •    Demonstrating   and  promoting  the
          economic feasibility of BMPs to the
          local community and public at large.

     Currently, about 30 producers are participat-
 ing in the project, which is designed to encour-
 age local producers to implement comprehensive
 resource management systems to control erosion,
 reduce  pesticide  and fertilizer  use,  and better
 protect stream banks. Activities include wildlife
 habitat management, pasture management, animal
 waste management, livestock exclusion, stream
 bank  stabilization, filter strips, critical  area
 plantings,  integrated crop  management,   and
 others.

 Stakeholders:
    Grundy County Soil and Water Conserva-
         tion District
    Hardin Soil  and Water Conservation  Dis-
         trict
    Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
         Stewardship, Division of Soil
         Conservation
    Iowa Department of Natural Resources
    Iowa State University Extension
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    USDA  Natural  Resources   Conservation
        Service

Contact:
    Ubbo Agena
    Iowa  Department of Natural  Resources
    Wallace State Office Building
    Des Moines,  IA 50319
    (515)281-6402
    FAX: (515) 281-8895
                                             255

-------
                                        Platte  River
  Size and location:  Originating in the mountains
  of Colorado  and Wyoming, the Platte  River
  watershed drains two-thirds of the state of Ne-
  braska.  Ground water is an important part of
  this ecosystem.

  Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has served as
  a catalyst and facilitator for the Platte Watershed
  Program.   EPA  has  devoted staff to  program
  coordination, assessments, and outreach for this
  area,  Region VII's  major large-scale watershed
  approach project and a priority "place" under the
  Great  Plains Program.   Funding from  various
  sources has been focused on investigation and
  implementation activities in the Platte watershed.
  The Middle Platte wetlands watershed is also a
  national case  study site for  conducting water-
  shed-scale,  multiple-stressor  ecological   risk
  assessments and  a national  pilot area for  wet-
  lands  biocriteria development.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,
          Region VII
     Nebraska  Department  of  Environmental
          Quality  (NDEQ)

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Nonpoint sources of pollution
     •    Nitrate and pesticide contamination
     •    Habitat destruction and alteration
     •    Hydrologic modification
     •    Flood plain development

 Actions taken or proposed:   The Platte  Water-
 shed Program is  a  partnership lo 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; and support an economy
 based on rich agricultural production. The Platte
 River alluvial aquifer provides drinking water to
 two-thirds  of Nebraska's citizens.  The Platte
 River  also  supports multiple uses  including
recreation,  aquatic life  and  wildlife, irrigation,
industrial water supply, and hydropower genera-
tion.
      EPA has been working with the Nebraska
  Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ),
  the University of Nebraska, and other partners to
  develop a comprehensive ecosystem approach to
  the Platte River Basin that prevents pollution and
  maintains a healthy, sustainable 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 coop-
  erative assessment and action.  The Platte Water-
  shed Program is using a two-pronged approach
  to meet its goal: (1) coordinating and focusing
  activities basinwide and (2)  involving stake-
  holders in assessing problems and developing
  action plans by subbasin.
      EPA is  working  in  coordination with
  NDEQ's  newly adopted  Basin Management Ap-
 proach to compile  and assess  existing water
 quality and pollutant source data for each of the
 six  Platte River sub-basins  in Nebraska. This
 information will support NDEQ's development
 of water  quality monitoring  project plans  and
 basin management  plans for each  sub-basin.
 Involvement of parties most affected by manage-
 ment decisions (federal, state, and local stake-
 holders, as appropriate)  in monitoring, identify-
 ing  problems,  setting environmental goals,  and
 measuring success will be crucial to development
 of these basin management plans.
     For the Middle Platte sub-basin, the  assess-
 ment will also includes ecological data.  The
 Middle Platte sub-basin was selected by EPA in
 1993 as one  of five  national  case study sites to
 develop the procedures for conducting multiple-
 stressor, watershed-level ecological risk  assess-
 ments.  The purpose of the  case studies is to
 develop a scientific process that increases under-
 standing  of  how  ecological  resources  within
 watersheds respond to a  combination of  human
 activities.   By  comparing the five case studies,
 EPA  hopes to  identify the principles of water-
 shed  risk  assessment and develop guidance on
 how to  perform such assessments. The Middle
 Platte case study is intended to demonstrate how
 a watershed approach  incorporating ecological
response assessment might be used by  stake-
holders in  planning for a sustainable future. The
                                              256

-------
                                      Platte  River
Middle Platte case study is being conducted by
a workgroup consisting of technical representa-
tives  from U.S. EPA, the U.S  Geological  Sur-
vey,  the U.S.  Fish  and Wildlife Service,  The
Nature Conservancy, the University of Nebraska,
and participants from 10 state and local natural
resource agencies and organizations in Nebraska.
     Building on the Middle Platte ecological
response assessment case study., the Platte Water-
shed  Program  is  serving as a pilot  area  for
developing wetlands biocriteria, using  environ-
mental  indicators to  measure  progress,  and
understanding landscape structure in relation to
ecosystem  function.   An economic analysis is
also being planned as a companion project to the
ecological  response  assessment.  Together,  the
ecological  and economic analyses will provide
information  for resource managers  to use in
evaluating  management options and identifying
those  which  maximize ecological  protection
while maintaining a viable economy.
    Outreach  and  education  are  important
components of the Platte Watershed Program as
well.  Through  the Summer  Orientation About
Rivers (SOAR) Program of  the Prairie Plains
Resources  Institute,  students experience  first-
hand  the relationship between the quality of the
natural  resource base and the  quality  of  their
lives.   Scientists and natural  resource managers
share  information and discuss issues related to
the Platte  watershed during  the  annual  Platte
Basin  Ecosystem  Symposium.    Cooperative
Extension Specialists at the University of Nebra-
ska-Lincoln  help form partnerships,  facilitate
stakeholder involvement, and conduct outreach
and educational activities.

Stakeholders:
    Agricultural, Environmental, Business, and
         Community Groups
    Municipalities
    Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
    Nebraska Department of  Agriculture
    Nebraska  Department  of Environmental
         Quality
    Nebraska Game  and Parks Commission
    Nebraska Natural Resources Commission
    Nebraska Water Resources Commission
    Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Main-
         tenance Trust
    Prairie Plains Resource Institute
    Bureau of Reclamation
    The Nature  Conservancy
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    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
                                              257

-------
                             Salt  Valley  Lakes Project
  Size and location:  The Salt Valley Lakes Pro-
  ject encompasses five lake watersheds located in
  and around Lincoln, Nebraska.  The five lakes
  are Wildwood (42 hectares/103 acres), Branched
  Oak  (727  hectares/1800 acres), Pawnee  (299
  hectares/740 acres), Holmes (40  hectares/100
  acres), and Meadowlark (22 hectares/55 acres).
  The total drainage area for the five lakes encom-
  passes 37,092 hectares (91,811 acres).

  Nature of the EPA involvement: EPA has been
  involved in this project since 1989 when all five
  lakes were funded under the federal Clean Lakes
  Program.  Continued  involvement has come
  through  the federal Nonpoint Source Manage-
  ment  Program.

  Organization that initiated project:
     Lower Platte South Natural Resources
          District (LPSNRD)

 Major environmental problems: Excessive sedi-
 mentation and nutrient loading stemming from
 agricultural and construction activities. Associat-
 ed problems  such as poor  water  clarity  and
 habitat loss are impacting aesthetics and aquatic
 life.

 Actions taken or proposed:  The LPSNRD is
 utilizing  a combination of  federal, state,  and
 local funding and expertise to address the identi-
 fied problems.    Two  lakes  (Wildwood  and
 Holmes) have been approved by EPA for fund-
 ing under the Nonpoint Source Management Pro-
 gram.  Funding will be used for information/edu-
 cation,  treatment on agricultural lands,  and  for
 the renovation and construction of sediment/nutr-
 ient traps and wetlands. Local funding combined
 with section  205(j)(5)  funding  from EPA was
 used  to  renovate  Meadowlark  Lake,  which
 included  dredging and the  development of a
 wetland area.  Section 104(b),(c) funding will be
 combined with local and state funding to conduct
 a total maximum daily load study on Holmes
 Lake. The LPSNRD has established a cost-share
 program for urban best management practices.
 The LPSNRD, University of Nebraska Coopera-
 tive  Extension Service, EPA,  and  Nebraska
Department  of  Environmental  Quality  have
 entered into a joint venture to provide an exten-
 sion educator for the project.
     The objectives of the project are to:
     (1)  Reduce and maintain lake sedimenta-
         tion rates to less than 0.3 percent  of
         the initial lake volume per year.
     (2)  Improve  and  maintain summer water
         clarity measurements to depths greater
         than 0.75 meters.
     (3)  Maintain  summer chlorophyll a con-
         centrations at levels less than 33mg/l.

Stakeholders:
     Lower Platte South Natural Resources
     District
     Nebraska Department of  Environmental
         Quality
     Nebraska Nurseries
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     University of Nebraska Cooperative Exten-
         sion Service

Contact:
    Paul Zillig
    Lower Platte South Natural Resources
        District
    3125 Portia Street
    P.O. Box 83581
    Lincoln, NE 68501-3581
                                            258

-------
                                  Storm Lake Project
  Size  and location:   Storm Lake  is located  in
  Buena Vista County in Northwestern Iowa.  The
  lake is a 1244-hectare (3080-acre) natural glacial
  lake.  The  watershed is 7098 hectare  (17,570-
  acre) and  is  drained by Powell  Creek which
  feeds into a 73-hectare (180-acre) wetland known
  as Little Storm Lake before entering Storm Lake
  proper.  The communities of Storm Lake (pop.
  9000) and Alta (population  1720) are located
  within the watershed.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has  awarded
  319(h) grant funds (FY93) $204,445) to support
  the  project  coordinator, public  information/
  education program on agricultural NPS control,
  tech transfer  activities, and  selected financial
  incentives for BMP implementations and demon-
  strations.

  Organization that initiated project:
     Buena Vista Boil and Water Conservation
          District

 Major environment problems: The environmen-
 tal problems affecting Storm Lake include sedi-
 ment  that reduces  lake volume, nutrients and
 pesticides from both  agricultural  and urban
 landuse  practices,  waste runoff from   animal
 feeding operations, and illegal  wastewater hook-
 ups to the   Storm  Lake storm water  system.
 These sources  of nutrients cause  repeated algal
 blooms  that impair  lake fisheries and other
 recreational uses.

 Actions taken or proposed: Initiated in FY93,
 the project is scheduled to be implemented over
 three years.  The objectives of the project are to
 reduce sedimentation, and nutrient and pesticide
 pollution  of Storm lake  from  both  agricultural
 and urban sources.  This will  be  accomplished
 through total farm ecosystem based planning and
 application of structural  and management best
 management practices that include conservation
 tillage, contour  farming, terraces, grassed water-
 ways, filter strips, pasture and hayland manage-
 ment, critical area planting, wildlife  and  upland
 habitat, animal  waste management systems and
a  "priority area" application  of  nutrient and
pesticide  management to acres  identified as
 having the greatest impact on lake water quality.
 The  project is coordinating  activities  with the
 ongoing  Storm  Lake  Demonstration  Project
 sponsored by the Leopold Center for Sustainable
 Agriculture that  was initiated in 1990 and the
 Iowa Department of Natural Resources Phase
 One  Clean Lakes  study.   These  projects  are
 monitoring water quality changes in Storm Lake.
 The project  will also work  in concert with a
 riparian tree buffer  strip demonstration project
 being conducted  by Iowa State  University and
 supported with FY93 section 319 funds.   The
 riparian area is located  along a 1-mile  reach of
 Powell  Creek in the Storm Lake watershed.

 Stakeholders:
     Buena Vista County Board of Health
     City of Storm Lake
     Iowa Department of Natural Resources
     Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
         Stewardship, Division of Soil
         Conservation
    Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture
    Storm Lake Preservation Association
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    USDA Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
         vice
    USDA Farm  Service Agency

Contact:
    Ubbo Agena
    Iowa Department of Natural Resources
    Wallace State Office building
    Des Moines, IA  50319
    (515)281-6402
    FAX: (515) 281-8895
                                             259

-------
                               Upper Big Mill  Creek
 Size and location:  The Upper Big  Mill Creek
 watershed  encompasses  3219 hectares (7967
 acres) and is located in Jackson County in East-
 Central  Iowa.   Big Mill Creek  is  one of  the
 state's  highest quality  cold-water streams and
 one of only six streams in Iowa  that support a
 naturally reproducing population of brown trout.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded
 319(h) grant funds (FY93 $113,394) to support
 the   project coordinator,  public  information/
 education   program  on  agricultural  nonpoint
 source (NFS) control, tech transfer activities, and
 selected financial incentives for best management
 practice  (BMP)  implementation  and  demon-
 stration.

 Organization that initiated project:
     Jackson County Soil and Water Conserva-
         tion District

 Major environmental problems:   The largest
 environmental  problem  affecting  the  water
 quality  of  Big  Mill  Creek  is sediment  from
 stream bank erosion  and from the  erosion  of
 1280 hectares (3,200 acres) of cropland in the
 watershed  that  have also been  identified  as
 Highly Erodible Land (HEL).  Sediment covers
 the  natural,  rocky substrate and  reduces the
 habitat of fish and macroinvertebrates. Nutrients
 and pesticides from cropland and livestock waste
 are considered secondary water quality concerns
 In addition,  sinkholes and springs in  the water-
 shed need to be protected.

Actions taken or proposed:   Initiated in FY93,
 the project is scheduled  to be  implemented over
 3 years.  The purpose of the project is to imple-
 ment BMPs in  the  Big  Mill  watershed that
 improve  water quality by  reducing soil erosion
 on crop and  pasture land, improving nutrient and
 pesticide management, and reducing  bank ero-
 sion, and improve stream conditions, reduce bank
 erosion,  and improve   in-stream  and  riparian
 habitat.  The BMPs that will be demonstrated are
 sediment control basins, crop rotation, contour-
 ing, conservation tillage, sinkhole  management,
improved livestock  v/aste  practices,   stream
corridor protection, alternative watering systems,
 and improved  nutrient and pesticide manage-
 ment.  The objectives of the project are to reduce
 sedimentation by 60  percent, reduce livestock
 waste reaching the stream by 50 percent, reduce
 fertilizer and pesticide application by 20 percent
 from current levels, and develop a public infor-
 mation  and education  program to inform  local
 producers about crop/livestock BMPs and stream
 corridor habitat protection practices.

 Stakeholders:
     Iowa Department of Natural Resources
     Iowa Department  of Agriculture and Land
         Stewardship/  Division of Soil Conser-
         vation
     Iowa State University Extension
     Izaak Walton League (Maquokets Chapter)
     Jackson County Conservation Board
     Jackson County Soil and Water
         Conservation  District
     The University of  Dubuque
     USDA Farm Service Agency
     USDA  Natural  Resources  Conservation
         Service

Contact:
     Ubbo Agena
     Iowa Department of Natural Resources
     Wallace State Office Building
     Des Moines, IA 50319
     (515) 281-6402
     FAX:  (515) 218-8895
                                             260

-------
                       Upper  Niangua  River Watershed
  Size and location:   The Upper Niangua River
  basin has an area of 95,000 hectares (236,000
  acres) and is located in south-central Missouri.

  Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded
  205(j)(5)  and 319(h) grant funds ($365,654).
  The project  is  a candidate for  the  National
  Nonpoint Source (NFS)  Watershed Projects
  Monitoring  Program.  EPA and  the  Missouri
  Department  of  Natural Resources (DNR) have
  partnered with the U.S. Department of Agricul-
  ture's (USDA)  Natural Resources  Conservation
  Service (NRCS) to provide funding for long-term
  monitoring in connection with a Hydrologic Unit
  Area project targeted at the excess nutrient load
  in the Niangua River.

  Organizations that initiated project:
     Missouri Department of Natural Resources
     USDA  Natural   Resources  Conservation
          Service (NRCS)

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Excessive nutrients
     •    Excessive bacteria in surface and grou-
          ndwater
     •   Threatened  fish  species  -  Niangua
         darter
         Declining species and critical habitat
     •    Threaten water supply and recreation
         resources

 Actions  taken or proposed:    The project is
 being implemented under the lead  of  the local
 Soil and Water  Conservation District  and in-
 volves a number of partners carrying out differ-
 ent components.  Activities include biological,
 habitat,  and water quality monitoring; animal
 manure management systems; farmstead assess-
 ment; and plugging abandoned wells. An activi-
 ty with local 4-H organizations was undertaken
 to involve youth  in water quality issues. USDA
 Water Quality Incentive Program funds are also
 being applied to address water quality concerns
 in the watershed.  Projects were initiated in 1991
 and will  continue through 1997 at the current
 funding level. Additional funding for monitoring
 is anticipated  if the project is  accepted into the
National  NPS  Watershed Projects  Monitoring
Program.
Stakeholders:
     Dairymen and cattlemen
     Missouri Department of Natural Resources
     Missouri Department of Health
     Public and Private Water Districts
     Recreation and Tourism Industry
     University  of Missouri
     U.S. EPA
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     U.S. Geologic Survey
     USDA-NRCS, Cooperative Extension

Contact:
     Betty Keehart
     Missouri Department of Natural  Resources
     Department of Environmental Quality
     P.O.  Box 176
    Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0176
    (314) 751-7144
    FAX: (314)751-9396
                                            26

-------
                Walnut Creek  Prairie  Restoration  Project
  Size and location:  Walnut  Creek, located in
  Jasper County in central Iowa, drains a 7,900-
  hectare (19,500-acre) watershed and discharges
  into the Des Moines River.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has awarded
  319(h) grant funds ($435,800) to provide overall
  monitoring project coordination and monitoring
  activities including sampling and analytical work.
  The project  is  a candidate  for  the  National
  Nonpoint Source Watershed Projects Monitoring
  Program.

  Organization that initiated project:
      Iowa Department of Natural Resources/Geo-
          logic Survey Bureau

 Major environmental problems:
      •    Sediment
      •    Suspended solids
      •    Nutrients
      •    Pesticides (including atrazine  and ala-
          chlor) from croplands
     •    Elevated nitrate and bacterial levels in
          stream
     •    Declining fish communities.

 Actions taken or proposed:  This 4-year project
 will begin in FY95.  The primary objective is to
 initiate a comprehensive, nonpoint-source moni-
 toring project in the Walnut Creek watershed to
 quantitatively document the water  quality  im-
 provements resulting from restoration of riparian
 and upland ecosystems and implementation of
 agricultural management measures for soil con-
 servation and nutrient and pest  management and
 to incorporate aspects of the monitoring activities
 and results into the Refuge's considerable educa-
 tion and  demonstration efforts.  The  Walnut
 Creek Wildlife Refuge was established by Con-
 gress to restore native prairie/savanna, the rarest
 of North America's major natural landscapes, on
 an 3496-hectare (8,654-acre) area in the Walnut
 Creek watershed.  Land within the refuge will be
converted  to  prairie/savanna over  a multiyear
period. Lands remaining in row crop production
during the restoration period will be required to
implement specific agricultural best management
practices  (BMPs).   In order to document the
 water quality improvements that result from this
 land  use conversion, a  comprehensive paired
 watershed  monitoring program will  be imple-
 mented using the adjacent Squaw Creek basin
 (4680 hectares/11,710 acres).  The monitoring
 plan  will utilize a combination of surface  and
 ground water and aquatic ecosystem  measure-
 ments to assess water quality improvements.

 Stakeholders:
     Iowa  Department of  Natural  Resources/
         Geological Survey Bureau
     Iowa State University
     Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture
     University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory
     U.S. EPA
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     U.S. Geologic Survey
     USDA  Natural  Resources   Conservation
         Service
     USDA Soil Tilth Laboratory

Contact:
    Ubbo Agena
    Iowa Department of Natural Resources
    Wallace Office Building
    Des Moines, Iowa   50319
    (515)281-6402
    FAX: (515) 281-8895
                                             262

-------
                     Walnut  Creek Watershed Project
Size and location:  The Walnut Creek watershed
is approximately 47 square kilometers (18 square
miles) in size.  It is  located in central Iowa
approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) south of
Ames, Iowa.  Although the specific  site where
the place-based research is  occurring is Walnut
Creek, the goal is to regionalize results to at least
the Western Cornbelt Plains Ecoregion, if not the
entire Midwest.

Nature of EPA involvement:   Walnut Creek is
the primary location for EPA's Midwest Agri-
chemical   Surface/Subsurface  Transport  and
Effects Research  (MASTER) program.   The
Walnut Creek watershed is a U.S. Department of
Agriculture-Agricultural Resource Service Man-
agement Systems Evaluation Area (USDA-ARS
MSEA) site. The USDA-ARS National Soil Tilth
Lab oversees the  site and is EPA's primary
cooperator.  MASTER is a multi EPA Laborato-
ry Program involving the Ada,  Athens, Corvallis,
Duluth, and Las Vegas labs.  (Management  of
MASTER is the responsibility  of the Athens lab;
however, since a project for  this site was not
included in the list, RSKERL-Ada prepared this
summary, which is focused on Ada's involve-
ment.)

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. EPA

Major environmental problems:   Agricultural
nonpoint source  pollution.  The research focus
and/or environmental endpoint responsibilities of
the EPA labs are:
     •    Ada - agrichemical fate, site character-
         ization, modeling; ground water and
         soil quality
     •    Athens - system modeling; water quali-
         ty
     •    Corvallis  -   terrestrial habitat quality
         and biotic diversity
     •    Duluth -  aquatic  habitat  quality and
         biotic diversity
     •    Las Vegas - data base management and
         geographic  information  system  (GIS);
         no specific endpoint  responsibilities.
The goal is  to holistic-ally address the agricultural
pollution problem  by  focusing  on  both the
chemical and  ecological aspects at a specific
location that typifies the situation in the western
cornbelt.

Actions taken or proposed:   All  laboratories
including the Tilth Lab are preparing an assess-
ment of the situation at Walnut Creek. Discus-
sion of the  effects on the  environmental end-
points  of various  options to alleviate the prob-
lems are included as part  of the  assessment.
After the assessment is completed, the plan is to
implement, in conjunction with the Tilth Lab, the
most feasible and promising options.  In addi-
tion, while the assessment  is being performed
each lab is conducting both in-house and extra-
mural research projects.   RSKERL-Ada is con-
ducting research on ground  water modeling at
the regional scale, development of a soil quality
index,  the fate of pesticides  in soil and ground
water,  the fate of nitrate in  the deeper subsur-
face, and ground water/surface water interactions.

Stakeholders:
    Agricultural community
    General public
    U.S. Department of Agriculture
    U.S. EPA Region VII
    U.S. Geological Survey

Contact person:
    Dr. Michael D. Jawson
    RSKERL-Ada
    P.O. Box  1198
    Ada, OK 74820
    (405)-436-8560
    FAX: (405)-436-8703
    E-mail: jawson@ad3100.ada.epa.gov
                                             263

-------
                                       Figure  9:

A Phase I Inventory  of Current EPA Efforts to  Protect Ecosystems
                          Region 8 Project  Locations
Scale 1:10,000,000
AJbers Equal Area Projection
Sources: US EPA (various)
Compiled January 1995, MFWOO014-8/10
Area boundaries and reference point locations are approximate
                                                            Area included  in 1  or more of
                                                            the large-scale projects
                                                            (see Part 1  project summaries)
 •   Reference point for local-scale proj<


A/   State Boundary

-------
                             Region  VIII Projects

       Example projects submitted by Region VIII include the 15 projects listed below, plus its
large-scale initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many  of the multisite
projects (see Part III).  The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale
and local-scale projects in this Region.

       The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of
partners involved with EPA, and in  their goals.  Many are based on watersheds of rivers and
creeks.   Mining impacts, excessive water  withdrawals,  soil erosion,  riparian and wetland
degradation, heavy metals, sedimentation, nutrients and eutrophication, silvicultural and grazing
impacts,  livestock waste, and pesticide contamination are reported among the problems  these
projects seek to address. Actions taken include developing partnerships with a variety of local,
state, and federal  agencies,  industries,  private  citizens'  groups,  and  other organizations.
Depending upon the environmental  problems present,  these multiorganizational teams might
identify and assess important or degraded habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor and analyze
loading rates, pollutant sources, and options  for pollution prevention; propose development or
revision  of  water quality  standards; develop outreach  and educational  programs; or jointly
develop management plans. Many of the local-scale projects also will enhance as well as benefit
from the large-scale initiatives in the Region, which include the Colorado  Plateau Ecosystem
Partnership Project, the Colorado River Program, the Great Plains Initiative, the Prairie Pothole
Region Ecosystem Assessment, and the Prairie Potholes/Missouri Coteau Ecoregion Assessment.

       Region VIII projects in the Inventory at this  time include:

       Animas River Basin Watershed Project, CO
       Bear River, ID, UT, WY*
       Blackfoot River, MT
       Bowman-Haley Reservoir, ND
       Chalk Creek, UT
       Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA*
       Clear Creek, CO
       Goodman Creek, ND
       Kootenay River, ID, MT,  British Columbia*
       Little Bear River, UT
       Otter Creek, UT
       Red River Watershed, ND
       Squaw Creek and Baldwin Creek, WY
       Upper Arkansas River, CO
       Upper Clark Fork Basin, MT
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region.  Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.


                                           265

-------
                 Ariimas River  Basin  Watershed Project
 Size and location: The Animas Basin headwaters
 originate in the San Juan Mountains of south-
 western Colorado.   The major  towns  in the
 watershed are Silverton and Durango.

 Nature  of EPA involvement:  EPA  provides
 technical  assistance   and  monetary   support
 through the Rocky Mountain Headwaters Initia-
 tive and through the Nonpoint Source Program.
 Technical assistance has also been provided on
 setting  water quality  standards  as  goals  and
 ground water monitoring.

 Organizations that initiated project: The organi-
 zations  that  initiated this  collaborative effort
 were a  local stakeholder group,  the  Colorado
 Water Quality Division, and the Colorado Center
 for  Environmental  Management.   The local
 group is supported by a resource group of federal
 and  state  agencies participating  in the local
 watershed group.

 Major environmental problems: Major environ-
 mental problems result from past mining activi-
 ties in the basin, growth problems which include
 major section 404 actions,  coal  bed  methane
 problems in drinking water, and recreation.

Actions taken or proposed:  Numerous actions
 have been taken, and more are proposed.
         The Division of Wildlife is investigat-
         ing substrate and other habitat limita-
         tions to aquatic life.
    •    Cooperative sampling is being conduct-
         ed by industry, environmental groups,
         State of  Colorado,  Forest  Service,
         Bureau of Land Management, Bureau
         of Mines, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
         Geological Survey,  and EPA  to target
         problem areas within the watershed for
         special projects.
    •    A local coordinator was hired to help
         facilitate efforts and to provide a local
         clearinghouse for information.
    •    Feasibility  studies  for five  targeted
         mine site remediation .areas will take
         place this summer. One mining compa-
        ny is taking on a  nonpoint  source
        demonstration  on  how  to clean up
        abandoned mines.
     •    Water quality standards  were revised,
         setting current ambient standards with
         goal water quality standards in place
         within 3 years.
         A  bibliography of all available data
         and studies was compiled by the Bu-
         reau of Mines.
     •    The Corps of Engineers  has identified
         this area as a special study area.
     •    Investigation  of  funding sources  for
         possible clean-up actions.
         Pilot study for regulatory  policy op-
         tions.

Stakeholders:
     Colorado Center for Environmental
         Management
     Colorado Department of Public Health and
         Environment
     Colorado Division of Wildlife
     Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
     Colorado Department of Natural Resources
     Colorado Geological Survey
     Concerned Citizens
     Durango Water Department
    Friends of the Animas River
    La Plata County
    Oak  Ridge National Laboratory
    San Juan County
    Sunnyside Mining Company
    Southwest Water Conservancy District
    Sierra Club
    Silver Wing Mining
    Shenandoah Mining
    Tusco
    U.S.  Bureau of Mines
    U.S.  Bureau of Land Management
    U.S.  Bureau of Reclamation
    U.S.  Department of Agriculture Forest
        Service
    U.S. EPA
    U.S. Geological  Survey
                                            266

-------
             Animas River Basin Watershed Project
Contacts:
   Bill Simon
   Animas Basin Coordinator
   PO Box 401
   Silverton, CO 81433

   Carol Russell
   EPA Region VIII (8WM-WQ)
   999 18th St.
   Denver, CO
   (303) 293-1449
   FAX: (303)391-6957
                                    267

-------
                                        Bear River
  Size and location: The Bear River has a 19,700-
  square-kilometer (7600-square-mile) watershed
  located in Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho.

  Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
  technical assistance, funding, and participation in
  coordination committees.

  Organization that initiated project:
      Utah Division of Water Resources

  Major environmental problems:
      •    Soil erosion, increased sediment load-
          ings, coliforms, and high nutrient load-
          ings due to animal feeding operations,
          dairies,  urban development, roads, oil
          and gas exploration, and silviculture
      •    Riparian vegetation removal
      •    Stream channelization
      •    Degraded stream channels and stream
          banks

 Actions taken or proposed:  Interest in increas-
 ing the use of the river  as a drinking water
 source  for the growing urban population in the
 lower basin and along the Wasatch Front promp-
 ted the Utah Legislature to enact the Bear River
 Development Act and fund a Bear River water
 development and management plan.  The effort
 is to  address both water development and water
 quality  issues with a water quality plan  that
 includes a broad-reaching  analysis of pollutant
 loading to the river as well as chemical, biologi-
 cal, 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 promote  "grass roots" direction and partici-
 pation.  The Bear River Watershed Water Quali-
 ty Coordination  Committee is coordinating  an
 array  of water projects in the Bear River Basin
 initiated by different organizations and groups.
    For example,  the State of Utah, EPA, and
 the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA)
 initiated a watershed 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 management, and animal
 waste  treatment actions.  Now  under way in
 Wyoming are several additional nonpoint source
 projects aimed at restoring tributary streams that
 have been impacted by channelization,  stream
 bank modification, and riparian habitat loss.
     These "on-the-ground" demonstration pro-
 jects are helping to generate enthusiasm for more
 cooperative efforts.

 Stakeholders:
     Bear Lake Regional Commission
     Bear River Resource Conservation and
         Development Council
     Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
     Idaho Fish and Game Department
     Local citizen  groups
     Natural Resources 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
                                             268

-------
                                    Blackfoot  River
 Size and location:  The Blackfoot River has a
 5930-square-kilometer (2290-square-mile) water-
 shed located  in  western  Montana and eastern
 Idaho.   The watershed is  201 kilometers (125
 miles) long.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
 technical assistance as well as funding for a
 director's position and creation of a geographic
 information (GIS) system.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     Blackfoot Trout Unlimited
     Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Sedimentation from grazing  and silvi-
         cultural activities
     •    Heavy metals from active and inactive
         mines
     •    Loss of riparian areas  and  instream
         habitat
     •    Recreational impacts

 Actions taken or proposed:  In 1991, the Black-
 foot River Symposium was held.  It established
 the Blackfoot  River Challenge to promote coop-
 erative  resource management  of the Blackfoot
 River,  its tributaries, and adjacent lands.  The
 symposium developed the following goals:
     •    Provide a forum for the timely  distri-
         bution  of technical  and  topical  infor-
         mation from public and private  sourc-
         es.
     •    Foster communication between  public
         and private interests to avoid duplica-
         tion of efforts and capitalize on oppor-
         tunities.
     •    Recognize  and work with the diverse
         interests  in the  Blackfoot Valley  to
         resolve issues and avoid confrontation.
     •    Examine the cumulative affects of land
         management  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 to facilitate watershed assessment  and
land use decisions.  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
noncontroversial arenas. However, the coalition
will  continue to  work together searching  for
solutions to more  difficult issues over time.

Stakeholders:
    ARCO
    ASARCO
    Blackfoot Trout Unlimited
    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
         Environmental Sciences
    Montana Department of State Lands
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    Phelps-Dodge
    Plum Creek Paper
    Recreationalists
    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
                                             269

-------
                               Blackfoot River
Contacts:
    Jim Stone, President
    Blackfoot River Challenge
    Box 148
    Ovando, MT 59854
    (406) 793-5530

    Mike Settevendemie, Executive Director
    Blackfoot River Challenge
    Box 1117
    Bonner, MT 59823
    (406) 244-5600
                                        270

-------
                           Bowman-Haley  Reservoir
Size and location:  Bowman-Haley Reservoir
consists  of a  123,000-hectare (304,000-acre)
watershed located in southwestern North Dakota
along  the  border between  North  and  South
Dakota.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding under section 319 of the Clean  Water
Act.

Organization that initiated project:
     Bowman-Slope Soil Conservation District

Major environmental problems:
     •    Nutrients from grazing practices and
         feedlots
     •    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 is used for agriculture or 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  watershed to  reduce wind/water
         erosion and the transport of nonpoint
         source pollutants to the reservoir.
     •    Develop livestock  waste  management
         plans for the priority livestock concen-
         tration areas to reduce/eliminate runoff
         from these areas.
    •    Monitor water quality trends and track
         implementation of  best  management
         practices.
    •    Educate  landowners/operators on the
         most effective land use  technologies
         and  management  strategies that will
         protect/improve water quality.
The Conservation District is meeting the objec-
tives by implementing an aggressive nonpoint
source  information/education   campaign  and
providing financial  and technical assistance to
landowners to encourage voluntary implementa-
tion and conservation  practices  on  their farm
units.   Participation by individual farmers in
voluntarily implementing practices to improve
water quality throughout the watershed has been
high.

Stakeholders:
     Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
         Service
     Bowman-Slope Soil Conservation District
     Ducks Unlimited
     Farmers
     Harding County Conservation District
     Natural Resources  Conservation Service
     North Dakota Department of Health
     North Dakota Extension Service
     North Dakota Game and Fish
     Pheasants Forever
     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) 328-5232
     FAX: (701) 328-5200

     Local:
     Kent Belland
     Bowman-Slope  Soil Conservation District
    P.O. Box 256
    Bowman, ND 58623
    (701) 523-3872
    FAX: (701) 523-3870
                                            271

-------
                                       Chalk Creek
 Size and location:  Chalk Creek has a 69,000-
 hectare (173,000-acre) watershed that is located
 72 kilometers (45 miles) east of Salt Lake City,
 Utah.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
 funding in support of this project.

 Organizations that initiated project:
      Utah Department of Environmental Quality
      Utah Department of Agriculture

 Major environmental problems:
      •    Sedimentation due to oil and gas con-
          struction sites, grazing practices, road
          construction, and loss of riparian vege-
          tation
      •    Nutrients due to erosion and livestock
          concentrations
      •    Degrading stream channels and stream
          banks
      •    Loss of riparian vegetation
      •   Eutrophication of Echo Reservoir

 Actions taken or proposed:   Inventories have
 been completed for rangeland, forest,  irrigated
 cropland, fisheries, stream and riparian areas, and
 wildlife.  Alternative treatment plans have been
 developed for rangeland, irrigated cropland, and
 forest land.
     The  resource  inventories and alternative
 treatment plans were used to complete a Coordi-
 nated Resource  Management  Plan  (CRMP) for
 the watershed in 1994. The CRMP is a water-
 shed management plan that represents consensus
 of all the stakeholders in the watershed. Water-
 shed  activities  are  coordinated 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 technical  assistance.  Now that  the CRMP
 has been completed, USDA is  accelerating work
 on development  of conservation plans for  indi-
 vidual landowners.  Watershed treatment practic-
es to stabilize  stream channels and control pollut-
ants from rangeland and  irrigated pasture and
 hayland are in the initial phases of implementa-
 tion.  Funding is being provided through CWA
 section 319, the 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, 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
                                             272

-------
                    Clark  Fork-Pend Oreille  Watershed
 Size and location:  The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
 Watershed  covers  67,300 square  kilometers
 (26,000  square  miles) in Montana, Idaho, and
 Washington.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
 funding  and technical support for various  pro-
 jects in the  watershed.

 Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Congress

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Nutrients  from sources including  irri-
         gated  agriculture, septic  tanks,  and
         municipal  and industrial  wastewater
         discharges
     •    Heavy metals from active and inactive
         mining and smelting activities

Actions taken or proposed:  Section 525  of the
 1987 Clean  Water Act called for a comprehen-
 sive study of the sources of pollution in Pend
 Oreille Lake, the  Pend Oreille River, and the
 Clark Fork  River and its tributaries.  Such an
 undertaking  has  required help from three states,
 two EPA regions,  and  the  EPA  Las Vegas
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory.
    Using a range  of technological tools, the
study of the rivers feeding  Lake Pend Oreille
was linked  with an analysis of the lake by  a
project team made up of the  U.S. Geological
Survey, the  University of Idaho, the Panhandle
Health District, the Eastern Washington  Universi-
ty,  the Bonner  County Planning and  Develop-
ment  Department,  the  Idaho  Department  of
Environmental Quality, the Idaho Department of
Fish and Game,  and the EPA Las Vegas  Envi-
ronmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory.

Objectives of the project include:
    •    Control nuisance  algae in the  Clark
         Fork River and Pend Oreille  River by
         reducing nutrient concentrations.
    •    Protect Pend Oreille Lake water quality
         by  maintaining or reducing current rate
         of nutrient loading from the Clark Fork
         River and Pend Oreille River.
    •    Reduce near shore eutrophication in
          Pend Oreille Lake by reducing nutrient
          loading from local sources.
     •    Improve Pend Oreille Lake water qual-
          ity through  macrophyte management
          and tributary nonpoint source controls.

 Actions include:
     •    Convene  a Tri-State Implementation
          Council to implement the management
          plan recommendations.
     •    Establish a basinwide phosphate deter-
          gent ban.
     •    Establish   numeric  nutrient  loading
          targets for the Clark Fork River, Pend
          Oreille River, and Pend Oreille Lake.
     •    Develop  and maintain  programs  to
          educate the public on its  role in  pro-
          tecting and maintaining  water quality.
     •    Control Eurasian  milfoil  (a nuisance
          plant) by education, rotovation (a har-
          vesting  technique), and research  into
          alternative methods of control.
     •    Install centralized sewer systems  for
          developed areas on Pend Oreille Lake.
     •    Institute seasonal land application and
          other  improvements at  the  Missoula
          wastewater treatment facility.
     •    Enforce existing regulations and laws
          consistently and  aggressively, particu-
          larly state anti-degradation statutes.
     •     Establish  and maintain  a basinwide
          water quality monitoring  network to
          assess effectiveness and trends and to
         better identify sources of pollutants.
     •    Develop and enforce storm water and
         erosion control plans and county ordi-
         nances.

     In  addition, Idaho received a Clean Lakes
Program grant  in  1987 to  conduct a Phase I
diagnostic/feasibility study for Lake Pend Oreille
and its  watershed.   This study will analyze the
lake's condition and determine the causes of ttat
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.
                                             273

-------
                  Clark  Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed
    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 a lake.

Stakeholders:
    City of Butte
    City of Deer Lodge
    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
    Kootenay 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
         Environmental Science
    Montana Power Company
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    Pend Oreille Conservation District
     Steering Committee for the Tri-State
         Implementation  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-Pend Oreille Tri-State
         Implementation Council
    206 N. 4th Ave., Suite 157
    Sand Point, ID 83864
    (208) 265-9092
                                             274

-------
                                       Clear  Creek
 Size and location:  The Clear Creek Watershed
 covers roughly  1550  square kilometers  (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 communi-
 ties with Colorado's largest metropolitan area.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
 seed money for the project  by hiring a local
 coordinator  and  sharing in the  cost of several
 watershed projects.

 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 Clear Creek.

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Metal  loadings from active and inac-
          tive mining sites
     •    Highway construction and maintenance
          runoff  and direct  spills to the creek
          from highway accidents
     •    Urban  development and runoff
     •    Hydrologic modification
     •    Nutrient pollution  from  septic tanks
          and municipal point sources
     •    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 restora-
tion 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.
     A unique partnership was formed to address
the McClelland Mine.  Recently, through cooper-
ative efforts of Superfund, Coors Brewing Com-
pany, the Colorado Department of Health, the
Colorado  Department of Transportation, Clear
Creek County, and EPA's Mining  Headwaters
Initiative (each taking one part  of  the six-part
project), a comprehensive restoration was accom-
plished. 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
         water users when spills have occurred
         in the Creek.
         Completion  of  the  Bakersville  to
         Loveland trail by Coors, the  County,
         the Department of Transportation  and
         the U.S. Forest Service.
    •    AMAX Henderson Mine water quality
        project.
    •   Reworking of old Urad mill tailings to
        reduce metal loadings.
    •   Guanella Pass road reconstruction.
        Bear Mine Project by the U.S. Bureau
        of Mines and the U.S. Forest Service.
    •   Idaho Springs stream restoration pro-
        ject.
    •   Formation of the  North Clear Creek
        miniforum—a venue for small mountain
        communities  to cooperate on environ-
        mental solutions.
    •    Gambling impacts projects for water
        quality  protection and  transportation
        improvement.
        Water supply environmental  impact
        statement.
    •    Wetlands planning.
    •    City ordinances.
    •    Clear Creek Land Conservancy— Forest
        Stewardship Program.
   •    Jefferson County Open Space — acqui-
        sitions to protect  water quality  and
        stream corridors "Trails  2000 Plan.
   •    The Nature Conservancy mapping of
        endangered species,  specifically  the
        orchid Ute Ladies' Tresses (Spiranthes
        diluvailis).
                                             275

-------
                                     Clear Creek
     •    Clear   Creek   Canyon   Action
         Plan—environmentally   sustainable
         development plan for the central can-
         yon area.
     •    Golden Gate Canyon—"Great Outdoors
         Colorado" State Park improvements.
     •    Colorado School  of  Mines freshman
         class EPICS—nonpoint source evalua-
         tions.
     •    Colorado School  of  Mines Research
         Institute—emergency cleanup of radio-
         active waste.
     •    City of Golden—water quality ordinanc-
         es and enforcement.
     •    Riparian  restoration  of  Clear Creek
         through  Golden and Wheat Ridge by
         Coors.
     •    Clear Creek  WIIN  Newsletter and
         video.
     •    Clear Creek—1-76 joint land use plan
         by Arvada and Jefferson County with
         specific  environmental  performance
         standards.
     •    Standley Lake Agreement— comprehen-
         sive watershed management agreement
         for implementation of new water quali-
         ty standards within the basin.
     •    Urban  Drainage and  Flood  Control
         District—urban   runoff water  quality
         control and flood prevention projects.
     •    Division  of  Wildlife—Stream Watch
         Program.
     •    Adams County River Parks.

     Many  of these projects and programs were
instigated  or  facilitated  by the  Clear Creek
Watershed  Forum,  which was organized and
attended  by  a diverse  group  of stakeholder
interests. The Clear Creek Watershed effort is a
model for ecosystem protection in Colorado. The
water and the watershed through which  it flows
easily establish a sense of place for the  citizens
and  a focus for efforts to protect the environ-
ment. 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
interest 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.

Stakeholders:
    Cities - Central City, Black Hawk, Empire,
         Silver  Plume,   Georgetown,  Idaho
         Springs, Golden, Arvada, Westminster,
         Northglenn, etc.
    Colorado Department  of Public Health and
         the  Environment
    Colorado Department  of Transportation
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Counties - Jefferson, Clear Creek, Gilpin
    Denver Regional Council of Governments
    Environmental groups - Clear Creek Land
         Conservancy,  PAVE
    Large and Small industries -  Amax/Cyprus,
         Coors  Brewery  Company,  Western
         Mobile Cooley Gravel
    Local citizens
    Professional organizations
    Stanley Lake Users Group
    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) or Carol Russell
    (8WM-WQ)
    U.S. EPA Region VIII
    999  18th Street, Suite  500
    Denver, CO 80202
    (303) 293-1822 or  (303) 293-1449
    FAX: (303) 39-6957
                                             276

-------
                                  Goodman  Creek
Size and  location:   Goodman  Creek has  a
24,000-hectare (59,000-acre) watershed and is
located in  west-central North Dakota.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding under section 319 of the  Clean Water
Act.

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 de-
        graded riparian areas
    •   Contamination from livestock waste

Actions taken or proposed:  The Mercer County
Soil Conservation District is  sponsoring  and
coordinating this project in rural North Dakota.
The water quality of Goodman Creek should be
improved  by promoting improved land manage-
ment  and  installing various best  management
practices (BMPs) that effectively reduce erosion
on 60 percent of the agricultural lands within the
watershed. These  land treatment practices  will
focus primarily 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
quality 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 cumula-
tive 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 than 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) 328-5232
    FAX: (701) 328-5200

    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
                                             277

-------
                                    Kootenay River
 Size  and  location:   The  watershed of  the
 Kootenay River covers 49,000 square kilometers
 (19,000 square miles) in northwestern Montana,
 northern Idaho, and British Columbia.

 Nature  of EPA involvement:  EPA  provided
 funding for data collection in the watershed, an
 Adopt-A-Stream project,  and to hire a profes-
 sional facilitator.

 Organization that initiated project:
     Cabinet Resource Group

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Threats from silviculture, hydropower,
          mining, and pulp mills
     •    Protection of species of special concern
          (white sturgeon and bulltrout)

 Actions taken or proposed: The Kootenay River
 Network (KRN)  has been  formed and is com-
 posed of federal, state, tribal, provincial, indus-
 try, and citizen group representatives  who are
 interested in the Kootenay River basin.  The
 mission of the KRN is to involve stakeholders in
 the protection and  restoration of the chemical,
 physical, and biological integrity of the waters of
 the Kootenay River basin.  The goals are:
     •    Improve communication among  gov-
         ernment  arid  tribal  water resource
         management  agencies and public and
         private interests for British  Columbia,
         Idaho, and Montana.
     •    Pursue  coordination of  efforts  and
         standardization of methods.
     •    Develop  and implement a  basin wide
         water quality monitoring program.
     •    Fully  use monitoring information  to
         accomplish  proactive,  scientifically
         based water resources management.
     •    Educate the public and solicit informa-
         tion about water resources issues.

     EPA, the Bonneville Power Administration,
Noranda  Minerals, and Champion International
funded the Water Quality Status Report (January
1994),  which provides a history and description
of the  Kootenay River basin; discusses current
water quality issues, development activities, and
 aquatic resources in the basin; gives an overview
 of past, present, and potential future environmen-
 tal issues and problems in the basin;  and makes
 recommendations  for prioritizing the  basin's
 water quality concerns and critical issues.
     The  KRN also received funding to have
 Adopt-A-Stream Foundation conduct a workshop
 to train 20 citizen volunteers in stream monitor-
 ing methods and implement a  monitoring pro-
 gram.  These  volunteers, called Streamkeepers,
 are to train others as well.  The KRN has also
 received funding for 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
     Kootenay National Forest
     Kootenay Tribe of Idaho
     Kootenay Tribes of British Columbia
     Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife,
         and Parks
    Montana Department of Health and
         Environmental Sciences
    Noranda Minerals Corps
    Panhandle National Forest

Contact:
    Jill Davies
    14 Old Bull River Road
    Noxon, MT 59853
    (406) 847-2228
                                             278

-------
                                 Little  Bear River
Size and location:  The Little Bear River has a
77,600-hectare (192,000-acre) watershed located
approximately 80  miles   129  kilometers  (80
miles) north of Salt Lake City, Utah.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding and technical assistance in support of
this project.

Organizations that initiated project:
    Natural Resources 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
    •    Degraded stream channels and 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 Reclama-
tion, 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
implemented.  The project is also being coordi-
nated with a CWA section 314  project to im-
prove Hyrum  Reservoir.

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
                                             279

-------
                                       Otter Creek
 Size and location:  Otter Creek has a 97,000-
 hectare  (240,000-acre) watershed  located  ap-
 proximately 322 kilometers (200 miles) south of
 Salt Lake City, Utah.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
 funding in support of this project.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     Natural Resources Conservation Service
     Utah Department  of Environmental Quality
     Local soil conservation district

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Nutrients
     •    Sediment
     •    Degraded riparian  areas  and stream
          channel
     •    Stream bank  erosion
     •    Erosion on rangeland
     •    Animal waste
     •    Eutrophication of Otter Creek Reser-
          voir

 Actions  taken or proposed:   This project  is
 coordinating funding through the U.S. Depart-
 ment 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 Conserva-
 tion Service oversees this  project, and  a water-
 shed project steering committee plays an active
 role in the project.  Several water quality demon-
 stration projects  such  as  riparian and stream
 stabilization, rangeland brush control, and reseed-
 ing are under way  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 coordinated with a CWA  sec-
 tion 314  project to improve Otter Creek Reser-
 voir.

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
                                             280

-------
                               Red River Watershed
 Size and location: The Red River Watershed is
 located in eastern North Dakota and western
 Minnesota.  Part of the project area covers the
 Carmel, Homme, and Renwick subwatersheds  in
 northeastern North Dakota, which total 119,720
 hectares  (296,332 acres). Another  part of the
 effort on the Red River is focused on the south-
 ern part of the watershed near the  cities of Fargo
 and  Moorhead.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
 funding under section  319 of the Clean Water
 Act  and provided technical assistance.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     Red River Resource Conservation and
         Development Council
     Pembina, Walsh,  and Cavalier Soil
         Conservation Districts and Water
         Resource Districts
     North Dakota Department of  Health  and
         Consolidated  Laboratories

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Eutrophication  of  Homme Reservoir
         due to  agricultural practices
     •    Sedimentation of Red River and tribu-
         taries in northeastern North Dakota due
         to agricultural practices
     •    Ammonia  and  low  dissolved oxygen
         due to wastewater treatment discharges
         in southeastern North Dakota
     •    Threats from  agricultural practices to
         the Icelandic aquifer

Actions taken or proposed: The Red River Re-
 source 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 sediment loadings are
 expected  to be  lowered by implementing  the
 following objectives and efforts, which are under
way:
     •    Develop resource management  plans
         for 80 percent  of the  lands in  the
         subwatersheds.
     •    Implement an information  and educa-
         tion program to educate the residents
         on  the impacts  of  nonpoint source
         pollution and possible preventive mea-
         sures.
     •   Document land use improvements and
         trends  in water quality.
     •   Provide financial and technical assis-
         tance to producers to implement the
         resource management plans.
     •   Demonstrate best management practic-
         es to restore riparian  zones  that are
         under various agricultural uses such as
         cropland and livestock production.

     The State of North Dakota joined  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-stream monitoring plan to continue modeling
efforts. In addition, the group is currently coordi-
nating with several organizations to implement a
project to observe the river's behavior in winter
conditions when discharges take place under the
ice during low flow.
     The result of these studies will help deter-
mine the next pollution prevention actions. In the
immediate future, actions will include the refine-
ment of effluent  limits from the cities' discharg-
es. These limits will probably lead to upgrading
wastewater treatment facilities.  Possible future
actions for consideration during the second phase
of this  effort  include changing  upstream  dam
operations  and  addressing  nonpoint   source
pollution from surrounding agricultural use areas.

Stakeholders:
     American Crystal Sugar
     City of Fargo, North Dakota
     City of Moorhead, Minnesota
     City of Park River, North  Dakota
     Farmers
     North Dakota Department of Health
     North Dakota Game  and Fish Department
     North Dakota Parks and Recreation
     Minnesota Pollution  Control Agency
                                             281

-------
                            Red River  Watershed
    Pembina, Walsh and Cavalier Soil Conser-
        vation  District and  Water Resource
        District
    Red River Resource Conservation and
        Development Council
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Geological Survey

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) 328-5232 (Greg)
    (701) 328-5150 (Mike)
    FAX: (701)  328-5200

    Paul Willman
    Red River Resource Conservation and
       Development Council
    1004 Hill Ave.
    Grafton, ND 58237
    (701) 352-0127
    FAX: (701) 352-3015
                                         282

-------
                    Squaw Creek and Baldwin  Creek
Size and location:   The watershed for Squaw
Creek and Baldwin Creek covers 26,300 hectares
(65,000 acres) in central Wyoming.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding as part of  a cost-sharing effort in the
project.

Organization that initiated project:
    Popo Agie Conservation District

Major environmental problems:
    •    Ground water contaminated with pesti-
         cides
    •    Hydrological modification
    •    Severe sedimentation
    •    Surface water contaminated by coli-
         form, nutrients, salinity, and pesticides
    •    Destroyed  riparian areas  resulting in
         loss  of trout fishery
    •    Contaminated drinking water

Actions taken or proposed: The Conservation
District has received Clean Water Act section
319 funding to work with nearly all of the 96
landowners in the watershed to implement best
management   practices    (BMPs)   through
cost-sharing. The BMPs include proper grazing
use, irrigation  water management, pasture and
hayland management, nutrient and pest manage-
ment, wildlife upland and  wetland  habitat man-
agement, and stream improvements.  An infor-
mation and education program  includes displays
at the  county fair,  news releases,  tours of the
project area, workshops for teachers, a national
award-winning  demonstration   area at Lander
High School, and other activities.

Stakeholders:
    Boy Scouts
    City of Lander County Extension Service
    Elementary and high  schools
    Landowners
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    Popo Agie Conservation District
    Students
    U.S. Bureau of Land  Management
    U.S. Forest Service
    Wyoming  Department of  Environmental
         Quality
    Wyoming Fish and Game Department
    Wyoming Outdoor Council

Contact:
    Karen Wilbur
    Popo Agie Conservation District
    600 N. Highway 287
    Lander, WY 82520
    (307)332-3114
                                            283

-------
                               Upper Arkansas  River
  Size and location: The watershed for the Upper
  Arkansas River covers 13,000 square kilometers
  (500 square miles) in central Colorado extending
  from the Continental  Divide in Pike-San Isabel
  National Forest to Pueblo Reservoir where the
  plains meet the mountains.

  Nature  of EPA involvement:   EPA  provided
  initial leadership and continues to provide fund-
  ing and technical assistance.

  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 ques-
 tions, and develop recommendations for further
 research in  the basin.  The overarching  finding
 from this forum was  that coordination among
 agencies had to be improved.  At the same time,
 researchers  from EPA developed  a proposed
 management plan for research that would lead to
 a comprehensive understanding and  remediation
 of water quality impacts from human disturbanc-
 es, principally hard rock mining.  The ongoing
 work, the workshop, and the management plan
 helped generate 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  Reclamation,  and  EPA,
 which, among other decisions, set a selfreproduc-
ing brown trout fishery as their biological reme-
diation goal  for the river.
    In 1992,  EPA  formed a Regional  Upper
  Arkansas Watershed Initiative Team to coordi-
  nate  development  and  implementation of  a
  watershed protection  strategy  for the Upper
  Arkansas Basin. A number of Clean Water Act
  section 319 nonpoint source projects were initiat-
  ed at abandoned mining sites along Chalk Creek
  and  St. Kevin's Gulch and on rangeland along
  Badger Creek.  In addition, recently constructed
  metal treatment facilities will control two major
  draining  mine discharges  to the river,  with an
  expected significant reduction in metals load to
  the  mainstem  of  the  river  as  a  result  of
  Superfund and  water  discharge compliance
  actions.
      Local citizens are  also active in the water-
  shed. A local Resource Conservation and Devel-
  opment 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 coop-
 eration among various stakeholders, solicits ideas
 for the strategy,  and implements a public  out-
 reach program for the initiative.  He coordinated
 a second MOU,  which has the following goal:
 improve or maintain the aquatic ecosystem of the
 Upper Arkansas River Watershed. He coordinat-
 ed the first watershed forum, focused on  enhanc-
 ing the awareness and knowledge of watershed
 citizens  throughout the 242 kilometers (150
 miles) of the river.  The forum was planned and
 implemented with a steering committee  of local
 interests.  The evaluations showed it was highly
 successful and helpful in bringing information
 and  a sense of  watershed community   to  the
 participants.  A volunteer monitoring program,
 with strong participation by local high schools,
 is active in the basin.  This program, which was
 developed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife,
 based on  its  success  in the Arkansas basin, 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's Wetland Research Pro-
 gram  is supporting  the  development of  a geo-
 graphic  information  system,  data base, and
research project addressing hydrologic needs for
the restoration of the wetland/riparian areas. The
                                             284

-------
                            Upper Arkansas River
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
    Cities of Leadville, Buena Vista, Salida and
        Canon City
    Colorado Association of Conservation
        Districts
    Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
    Colorado Division of Parks  and Outdoor
        Recreation
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Colorado Riparian Association
    Colorado State Engineer's Office
    Irrigation companies
    Lake  County Conservation District
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    Sangre de Cristo Resource Conservation and
        Development 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
    Upper  Arkansas  River Recreation Task
        Force

Contact:
    Jeff Keidel
    P.O. Box 938
    Buena Vista, CO 81211
    (719) 395-6035
                                            285

-------
                             Upper  Clark  Fork Basin
 Size and location:  The Upper Clark Fork Basin
 consists  of a  15,700-square-kilometer (6060-
 square-mile) watershed in western Montana.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
 technical assistance through participation on the
 steering committee.

 Organization that initiated project:
     Montana State Legislature

 Major environmental problems: Overappropria-
 tion of water, leading to dry reaches, elevated
 water  temperatures, nuisance algae,  low  dis-
 solved oxygen, and damaged fish  habitat

 Actions taken or proposed:  The Montana State
 Legislature passed legislation calling for a mora-
 torium in the issuance of most new surface water
 rights  until  June  30,  1995.   The legislation
 created the Upper Clark Fork Steering Commit-
 tee, which  is charged with operating a  water
 management plan that  would consider and bal-
 ance all beneficial water uses in the basin above
 Milltown Dam. By law, the plan must contain a
 recommendation concerning  the  water rights
 moratorium  and identify and make recommenda-
 tions for resolving water issues in  the basin.
    A planning process was developed follow-
 ing six public meetings throughout the basin.
 Six committees are to identify specific problems
 and potential solutions in various reaches of the
 basin and develop a dispute  resolution process.
 The steering committee will integrate the infor-
 mation from the six committees into a coordinat-
 ed, comprehensive management scheme.

Stakeholders:
    Hydroelectric utilities
    Irrigators
    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
Contacts:
    Gerald Mueller
    7165 Old Grant Road
    Missoula, MT 59802
    (406) 543-0026

    Gary Ingman
    Montana Department of Health and
        Environmental Sciences
    Water Quality Bureau
    Cogswell Building
    Helena, MT  59620
    (406) 444-5320
    FAX: (406) 444-1374
                                            286

-------

-------
                                     Figure  10:

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA  Efforts to Protect  Ecosystems
                          Region 9  Project Locations
Scale 1:8,750,000
Alters Equal Area Projection
Sources: US EPA (various)
Compiled January 1995, MR#00014-9/10
Area boundaries and reference point locations are approximate.
     Area included in 1 or more of
     the large-scale projects
     (see Part 1  project summaries)

     Reference point for local-scale project
A/   State Boundary

-------
                               Region IX Projects

       Example projects submitted by Region IX include the 12 projects listed below, plus its
 large-scale initiatives  (see Part I) and  place-based  activities related to many of the multisite
 projects  (see Part III).  The map at left  indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale
 and local-scale projects in this Region.

       The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of
 partners  involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on river basins and coastal bays.
 Overgrazing, erosion,  nonpoint source  problems from urban and agricultural areas, pesticides,
 declines  in anadromous fish stocks, excessive water withdrawals, endangered species issues, point
 source control, habitat degradation and loss,  riparian zone degradation, pathogens and toxics, and
 grazing,  silvicultural, and mining impacts are reported among the problems these  projects seek
 to address.  Actions taken include developing  partnerships with a  variety of local, state,  and
 federal agencies, industries, private citizens' groups, and other organizations. Depending upon
 the environmental problems  present,  these multiorganizational teams might identify and assess
 important or degraded habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor  and analyze loading rates,
 pollutant sources, and options for pollution prevention; propose development or revision of water
 quality standards; develop outreach  and educational programs; or jointly develop management
 plans. Many of the local-scale projects  also will enhance as well as benefit from the large-scale
 initiatives in the Region,  which include the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
 Estuary  Project, the President's Forest Plan  for the Pacific Northwest, the  Colorado Plateau
 Ecosystem Partnership Project, and the  Colorado River Program.

       Region  IX projects in the Inventory  at this time include:

       Ala Wai Canal, HI
       Elkhorn Slough, CA
       Klamath Basin, CA, OR*
       Malibu Creek,  CA
       Morro Bay, CA
       Oak Creek Watershed, AZ
       San Luis Rey River, CA
       Santa Margarita River, CA
       Santa Monica Bay, CA
       Truckee River, CA, NV
       Verde River Advance Identification  (ADID) Project, AZ
       West Maui Watershed, HI
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region.  Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.
                                           289

-------
                                     Ala Wai  Canal
  Size and location:  Ala Wai Canal watershed is
  located  on  the southern coast of the island of
  Oahu, Hawaii, and includes  most  of Waikiki.
  The watershed covers about 42.4 square kilome-
  ters (16.3 square miles).

  Nature  of EPA  involvement:  The  project is
  supported by the following grants: a 604(b) grant
  for partial funding  of a coordinator position at
  Hawaii Department of Health (DOH), 106 sur-
  face water funding  for the  development of bio-
  criteria for three Ala Wai canal tributaries, 319
  discretionary funds to partially fund  a citizen
  volunteer monitoring project,  and 106  ground
  water funding for a wellhead protection project.
  Future funding  is  being  sought through  319
  grants  for watershed restoration and education
  work and 104(b)(3) grants to fund an intermittent
  Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement  (IPA)
  position  to work on Ala Wai issues.

  Organization that initiated project:
      Hawaii  Department of Health

 Major environmental problems:
      •    Coliform bacteria
      •    Nutrients
      •    Sediment
     •    Pesticides
     •    Litter and garbage dumping

 Actions taken or proposed:  The Ala Wai Canal
 is a man-made estuary that separates the tourist
 destination  of Waikiki from  the rest of  the
 island. The watershed encompasses a variety of
 land  uses including urban areas,  residential
 neighborhoods, preservation  lands, agriculture,
 and three stream systems.  A DOH  internal
 working  group  has formed to integrate  and
 coordinate Ala Wai Canal watershed protection
 efforts.  Initially, the  project will focus  only on
 water programs,  and it  may expand  later to
 include  waste and toxics programs. Although
 DOH at present has the lead on the effort, it is
 envisioned that Ala Wai Canal coordination will
 be  transferred  to  a community-funded  effort
 within a few  years. Thus, important short-term
 tasks will  include public outreach and participa-
tion efforts, development of a  broad Ala Wai
 Canal watershed advisory/stakeholder group, and
 legislative support  for bills or resolutions that
 may have an impact on the watershed.

 Stakeholders:
     Department of Land and Natural
         Resources (HI)
     Hawaii Department of Health
     lolani and Punahou schools
     Local interest groups, landowners,  rowing
         clubs, businesses
     Natural Resources Conservation Service
     University of Hawaii at Manoa
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact:
     Kelvin Sunada
     Hawaii Department of Health
    Environmental Planning Office
    P.O. Box 3378
    Honolulu, HI 96801
    (808) 586-4337
                                             290

-------
                                   Elkhorn Slough
Size and location:  Eilkhorn  Slough winds be-
tween Santa Cruz  and  Monterey, California,
covering a distance of approximately 11 kilome-
ters (7 miles).  Its watershed encompasses  1010
hectares) 2500 acres of salt marsh, mudflat, and
tidal  channels  and is the largest wetland in
central California.

Nature of EPA  involvement:  The project is
supported by the following grants:  a 604(b) grant
for planning innovative  watershed management
planning approach and 319(h) a.nd Near Coastal
Waters grants  that  support implementation of
innovative   agricultural  pollution  prevention
practices focusing on pesticide use reduction.
Staff support consists of limited  technical  and
organizational  assistance,  partly  through  an
Intergovernmental Personnel  Agreement (1PA)
that supports Elkhorn Slough activities related to
the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary Project.

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 vegetation on formerly overgrazed lands
in this coastal  watershed and  to implement
nonpoint source best management practices.  In
addition, the project includes a survey of restora-
tion needs and livestock impacts in the Elkhorn
Slough watershed (the Slough).
     Many  entities are carrying out projects at
Elkhorn  Slough.  The  Slough is  a  National
Estuarine Research  Reserve, designated by the
National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administra-
tion, and is  managed by the California Depart-
ment  of Fish and Game.  The California State
Water Resources Control Board is managing a
Clean Water Act section 604(b) project studying
runoff from  strawberry  fields.    The Nature
Conservancy recently  purchased a large parcel
near the site of this  project and is  planning
restoration efforts.
    The Elkhorn Slough Foundation, a nonprofit
environmental organization focusing on restora-
tion 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.

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 Admin-
        istration
    The Nature Conservancy
    University of California-Santa Cruz
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact:
    Suzanne Marr
    U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-1)
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
    (415) 744-1974
    FAX: (415) 744-1078
                                             29

-------
                                     Klamath Basin
 Size and location:  The Klamath Basin ecosys-
 tem covers an area of 20,700 square kilometers
 (8003 square miles) in south-central Oregon and
 northwestern California.   In Oregon, the  basin
 covers  14,700 square kilometers (5676 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 Rivers.  The
 Upper Klamath Lake is  a large, shallow lake
 (36,360 hectares/90,000 acres, 2.4-meter/7.9- foot
 average depth).

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
 the following grants: a 319(h) grant for agricul-
 tural best management  practice  implementation
 in high-priority tributary watersheds  and estab-
 lishment of a comprehensive geographic infor-
 mation system (CIS) watershed  data  base (with
 training  and equipment for use  at local level;
 Clean Lakes  Water Quality Assessment grant
 funds for the Klamath Tribe Fish and Wildlife
 Section  to complete a  water quality study  of
 Upper Klamath Lake; 104(b)(3)  total maximum
 daily load (TMDL) mini-grant for TMDL devel-
 opment and staff; and 319  grants that fund  state
 staff working intensively in the basin.  EPA staff
 have provided technical assistance in  the devel-
 opment  of  watershed  assessments  related  to
 FEMAT (the  President's  Forestry  Initiative),
 coordinating cross-state communication.

 Organizations that initiated project:
     The Klamath Tribe
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen/ice

Major environmental problems:
     •    Habitat  degradation  resulting  in the
         listing of two endangered  species—
         Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus)
         and  shortnose  sucker  (Chasm istes
         brevirostris}
     •    Water quality degradation and degrada-
         tion of wildlife habitat caused by tradi-
         tional forestry practices  including large
         areas of clear-cuts
    •    Declines  in anadromous fish popula-
         tions including the chinook salmon due
          to elevated temperature, sedimentation,
          and blockage of migration pathways
      •    Excessive upstream  withdrawals,  re-
          sulting in low river flows over the past
          several years
          Diversion  of  61,650  hectare-meter
          (500,000 acre-feet) of  water in  the
          Upper Klamath Basin to irrigate 90,900
          hectares (225,000 acres) of hay,  pota-
          toes, and sugar beets
      •    Loss of wetlands to agricultural uses (a
          conversion  that  has  been  linked to
          water quality and riparian degradation
          and wildlife  habitat destruction)
      •    Point source discharges
      •    Questionable application of toxic che-
          micals, including pesticides, that  have
          the potential to affect salmonids, en-
          dangered species  (fish and wildlife),
          and nontargeted aquatic invertebrates

Actions taken or proposed: The Department of
the Interior has formed the Klamath Basin  Eco-
system Restoration Office.  This office is staffed
by both the Bureau of  Reclamation and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and is based in Klam-
ath Falls,  Oregon. The Bureau of Land Manage-
ment purchased the Wood River  Ranch, a signif-
icant land acquisition adjacent to  the Wood River
at the north end of Agency Lake.
     A Technical Advisory Committee  (TAG)
has  been  formed to discuss  and  evaluate all
studies  currently  under way in the Klamath
Basin. TAC 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  affect salmonids,  endangered
species, and 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
                                              292

-------
                                 Klamath  Basin
    Nonconsumptive resource users
    Several tribes in California
    Sport and commercial fishing interests
    Timber interests
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Contacts:
    Steve Lewis
    Manager
    USFWS
    Klamath Basin  Ecosystem Restoration
        Office
    6600 Washburn Way
    Klamath Falls,  OR 97603-9365

    Charles E. Kimbol, Sr., Tribe Chairman
    Craig Bienz, Chief Biologist
    Klamath Tribe
    P.O. Box 436
    Chiloquin, OR  97624

    Tom Robertson
    U.S. EPA Region X
    Oregon Operations Office
    811 SW Sixth Avenue
    Portland, Oregon 97204
    (503) 326-3250
    FAX: (503) 326-3399

    Michael Ryan
    Project Manager
    Bureau of Reclamation

    Jane Freeman
    U.S. EPA Region IX
    75 Hawthorne Street (W-3-1)
    San Francisco.  CA 94105
    (415) 744-1978
    FAX: (415) 744-1078
                                           293

-------
                                      Malibu  Creek
  Size and location:  Malibu  Creek is located
  northwest of Los Angeles, California. The creek
  and its watershed span approximately 282 square
  kilometers (109 square miles).

  Nature of EPA involvement:   The project is
  supported by the following grants: a Near Coast-
  al  Waters grant for stream restoration  and a
  604(b) planning grant for a coordinator position.
  Staff support consists of limited participation in
  project planning, coordination with the Natural
  Resources  Conservation  Service  (watershed
  modeling work), and support through the Santa
  Monica Bay Restoration Project.

  Organizations that initiated project:
      Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Pro-
          gram
      Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource Conserva-
          tion 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 watershed have been under way since the
 1970s and  were  accelerated  recently when the
 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, the local
 National Estuary Program,  identified the water-
 shed as one of the  major contributors of pollu-
 tion to  the bay.   These efforts were  augmented
 by the  Local Resource Conservation District,
 which requested and received watershed planning
 assistance through the U.S. Department of Agri-
 culture's Small Watershed Program (resulting in
 a Natural Resources Plan study) and by the state.
 Because the lagoon  is riot  meeting state water
 quality standards, the state  targeted it for early
 action in developing total maximum daily loads
 and waste load allocations.
     Project efforts resulted  in a watershed plan
with 111 agreed-upon recommendations, which
 since have been  consolidated into  44 actions.
 The stakeholder group has formed an implemen-
 tation committee, the Malibu Creek Watershed
 Advisory  Council, to carry out these actions.
 EPA will  work with the state and  local stake-
 holders  to identify funds for implementation.
 The Resource  Conservation District  recently
 received a Clean Water Act section 319 grant to
 address confined animal runoff and  to restore a
 section of  stream bank in the watershed that was
 damaged by development.  With EPA's assis-
 tance, the stakeholder group is developing  a
 comprehensive watershed monitoring plan.

 Stakeholders:
     California Fish and Game
     California Parks  and Recreation
     California Regional Water Quality Control
         Board
     California State Coastal Commission
     Coastal Conservancy
     Environmental groups
     Local  dischargers,  developers, and home-
         owner groups
     Local  municipal governments
     Local  Resource Conservation District
     Santa  Monica Bay Restoration Project
     Surfer groups
     U.S. Department  of Agriculture
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     Ventura and Los Angeles Counties

Contacts:
     Heather Trim
     Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
        Control Board
     101 Centre Plaza Drive
    Monterey Park, CA 91754-2156
    (213) 266-7500
                                             294

-------
                                       Morro Bay
 Size and location:  Morro Bay has an approxi-
 mately 259-square-kilometer  (100-square-mile)
 watershed located on the California coast, about
 242 kilometers (150 miles) north of Los Angeles.

 Nature of EPA  involvement:  The  project is
 supported by the following grants: 319 grants for
 agricultural and  grazing BMP implementation
 projects, special 319 grants for nonpoint source
 (NFS)  national  monitoring project (long-term
 project to study the effectiveness  of  NFS con-
 trols), 604(b) planning  grants, 319 funding  for
 state  staff coordinators, and a  Near  Coastal
 Waters grant for NFS controls

 Organizations that initiated project:
     California State Coastal Commission
     Central Coast Regional Water Quality
         Control Board
     Natural Resources Conservation Service

 Major environmental problem:
     •   Sedimentation

 Actions  taken or proposed:   To  protect this
 endangered area,  EPA  supports the Morro Bay
 Watershed Project with both funding and techni-
 cal guidance  concerning nonpoint source moni-
 toring 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 Region-
 al Water Board has initiated an effort to closely
 coordinate implementation of other water quality
 programs, including underground tank remedia-
 tion, storm water, and point source permitting on
 a watershed basis.

Stakeholders:
    California Polytechnic  Institute-San Luis
         Obispo
    California Regional Water Quality Control
         Board
    California State Coastal Commission
    Local interest groups and landowners
    Resource Conservation District
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact:
    Howard  Kolb
    Central Coast Regional Water
    Quality Control Board
    81 Higuera Street, Suite 200
    San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5414
    (805) 549-3332
                                             295

-------
                              Oak Creek  Watershed
 Size and location:  Oak Creek Watershed covers
 1106 square  kilometers (427 square  miles) in
 Arizona.

 Nature  of EPA involvement:   The project is
 supported  by the following grants: 319 grants for
 nonpoint source (urban  runoff and recreation)
 BMPs, special 319 grant for NFS national moni-
 toring project, 319 funding for state staff provid-
 ing watershed project coordination. Staff support
 consists of assistance in the design of national
 monitoring program and NFS projects, TMDL
 review, and NPDES permit issues.

 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 De-
 partment of Environmental Quality initiated the
 Oak  Creek project to  provide  an  analytical,
 planning,   and  implementation  framework to
 address water quality problems associated with
 point and nonpoint  pollutant  discharges.  Oak
 Creek was  selected as a  National Nonpoint
 Source  Monitoring  project site  for long-term
 monitoring  and assessment of the effectiveness
 of nonpoint source best management practices.
 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 landown-
        ers
    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
                                            296

-------
                                San  Luis Rey  River
Size and location:   The San Luis Rey (SLR)
River is located in Sari Diego County in Califor-
nia.

Nature of EPA involvement:  The  project  is
supported by the following grants: 104(b) wet-
lands grants for comprehensive watershed plan-
ning  and  management  and 6()4(b) grants for
watershed planning.

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

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 develop  a  Multi-objective River
Corridor Management Plan for long-term man-
agement of the San Luis Rey River. The goals
for this  plan include better coordination  of
enforcement,   restoration,  and   development
activities for maximization of wetlands protection
and enhancement. In addition, EPA's  Wetlands
Research  Program  is sponsoring  research to
develop approaches for identifying  and prioritiz-
ing sites for ecosystem restoration.
    San Diego County is involved in coordinat-
ing the many interest groups and public agencies
in the area.  A Technical Advisory Committee
and a Citizens Advisory Committee have been
formed to  oversee development of the  Manage-
ment  Plan.  A consultant  is working  on a re-
source inventory and an  opportunities and con-
straints  analysis  to  be used  as the  basis for
development  of  the  Management  Plan.  The
County  has  completed  for the  participating
agencies' signature a Memorandum of Under-
standing that outlines the agencies'  commitment
to the project.
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 Mu-
         nicipal Water Districts
    San  Diego Area Council of Governments
    San  Diego County Department of Parks
         and Recreation
    San  Diego County Planning Department
    San  Diego County Rock Producers  Asso-
         ciation
    San  Diego County Water Authority
    San  Diego Farm Bureau
    San  Diego Gas  and Electric
    San  Diego Regional Water Quality  Con-
         trol Board
    Upper  San Luis Rey Resources Conserva-
         tion District
    U.S  Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Contact:
    Stephanie L. Wilson
    U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-2)
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San  Francisco, CA 94105-3901
    (415)744-1968
    FAX:  (415)744-1078
                                            297

-------
                                Santa Margarita  River
  Size and location:  The Santa Margarita River
  has  a  1920-square-kilometer (740-square-mile)
  coastal watershed and is located in Riverside and
  San  Diego Counties in California.

  Nature  of EPA involvement:   The project  is
  supported by the following grants: 319(h) for
  best  management practices (BMP) implementa-
  tion to address nutrient runoff from orchards and
  104(b)  wetlands grant  for  watershed planning.
  Staff support  consists  of  a  regional  lead on
  advanced identification  for 404 planning, a part-
  time  staff coordinator,  an  intensive  staff-level
  workgroup  to  coordinate  all  EPA activity by
  multiple programs (especially National Pollutant
  Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), ground-
  water protection,  monitoring,   and  nonpoint
  source),  and participation in the local watershed
  management planning process.

  Organizations that initiated project:
     Riverside and San Diego Counties
     California State Coastal Conservancy
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Major environmental problems:
          Endangered wetland and riparian habi-
          tat
     •    Flooding
     •    Development pressures
          Impacts from channelization of tribu-
          taries
     •     Wastewater and storm water discharges
     •     Nonpoint source discharges
     •     Hazardous waste sites

Actions taken or proposed: The California State
Coastal Conservancy, in cooperation with River-
side and San  Diego Counties, is developing an
integrated watershed  managemenl: plan for the
Santa Margarita River watershed.  This planning
effort will take a watershed protection approach
to the  long-term preservation of important wet-
land and  riparian habitats,  particularly  in the
estuary and the Santa Margarita River floodplain.
Flood  control and  development   engineering
design  criteria that focus  on the maintenance of
hydrologic balance and riparian and creek values
in both the upper basin and the lower reaches of
  the watershed will be formulated.  An economic

  analysis of alternative flood control and develop-
  ment design criteria will be conducted.
       A watershed policy committee, consisting of
  representatives  of Riverside  and  San Diego
  Counties, Temecula, Murrieta, and Camp Pendle-
  ton,  has  been established.   Three subcommit-
  tees—the Recreation, Open Space and Wildlife
  Habitat Subcommittee; the Water Quality  and
  Supply Subcommittee; and  the Flood Control
  and Land  Use Subcommittee—have also been
  created.
      EPA will coordinate  Superfund  activities
  (including an ecological assessment and remedia-
  tion of Superfund sites along the Santa Margarita
  River),  NPDES and 404 permit review,  grant
  funds, the implementation  of Region  IX's  Ef-
  fluent-Dependent Streams guidance, and  other
  applicable water quality standard issues in  the
  watershed.
      A technical framework for evaluating wet-
  land functions in the watershed is being devel-
  oped.  This framework will be consistent with
  the hydrogeomorphic approach being developed
 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  identification   planning  project  that
 identifies aquatic sites within the Santa Margarita
 River watershed and evaluates whether they are
 suitable  for possible future disposal sites for the
 discharge of dredge and fill  material is being
 conducted.  This project will augment the plan-
 ning effort for the Santa Margarita River that has
 recently  been  initiated  by  Riverside  and  San
 Diego Counties with the assistance of  the Na-
 tional Park Service's Rivers, Trails, and  Conser-
 vation Assistance program.
     Research to support local community plan-
 ning  has been  initiated by  EPA's Office  of
 Research and Development in coordination with
 the Biodiversity Research Consortium and the
 Department of Defense. The  study will examine
the effect on  regional biodiversity of  various
scenarios of urban growth.
     Other activities include:
         Developing a data base that can serve
         as a focal point for enhancing all the
                                             298

-------
                            Santa Margarita  River
        water programs in the watershed.
    •   Conducting a source assessment based
        on existing information for nutrients
        and sediments and setting target reduc-
        tion 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 Street
     San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
     (415) 744-1985
     FAX:  (415) 744-1078
                                            299

-------
                                   Santa Monica Bay
   Size  and location:   The Santa Monica Bay
   Restoration Project (SMBRP) stretches from the
   Ventura County  line to  Point  Fermin at the
   southernmost tip of the Palos Verdes Peninsula,
   covering approximately 80 kilometers (50 miles)
   of coastline.   Santa Monica Bay's  watershed
   covers  1072  square  kilometers (414  square
   miles).

  Nature  of EPA involvement:  The  project is
  supported by  the following grants:  National
  Estuary  Program  (NEP)  planning  grants,  604
  planning grants focused on Malibu Creek, a 319
  grant  for  public education and  outreach  pro-
  grams, and a 104(b) National Pollutant Discharge
  Elimination System (NPDES) project to begin
  coordinating planning  and permit issuance by
  watershed.  Staff support consists of extensive
  input to the NEP process and senior management
  participation on steering committees.

  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
          swimming 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 Program in 1988.   In May  1994  the
 SMBRP released for public comment a Compre-
 hensive Conservation  and  Management  Plan
 (CCMP) that identifies actions necessary for bay
 restoration and  protection.   It is  entitled the
 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan.  The  plan,
 which  focuses primarily on  controlling urban
 runoff and other diffuse sources of pollution,
 contains nearly 250 actions.  Of these, 73  have
 been identified as "priority  actions."  The  plan
provides a strategy for coordinating  water pollu-
tion control on a watershed basis.  The following
  are highlights of the plan:
          Establishment of a Santa Monica Bay
          Watershed Council.
          Implementation of a "mass emissions
          approach" to control discharge of toxic
          pollutants from  both  point and non-
          point sources more effectively.
          Reduction  of  hazardous  waste  from
          households and small businesses.
          Best management practices (BMPs) to
          improve  the  quality  of  urban/storm
          water runoff that enters the bay.
     •    Full secondary treatment of sewage at
          the treatment facilities of the  City  of
          Los  Angeles  and County  Sanitation
          Districts.
          Assessment of swimming health risks
          and  a plan to track down pathogen
          sources.
     •     Restoration and enhancement of priori-
          ty wetlands and other sensitive marine,
          coastal, and upland habitats.
          Improved   public education and in-
          volvement programs.
     •     Implementation  of  a  comprehensive
         baywide monitoring program.
     •    Adoption  of a  comprehensive  water-
         shed planning and management strate-
         gy-

    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 Universi-
        ty of California-Los Angeles Laborato-
        ry  of  Biomedical  and Environmental
        Science showed that ozone is an excel-
        lent disinfectant.)
        Issued a Los Angeles County Storm
        Water  National  Pollutant  Discharge
        Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
        that  is  unique  in  its  emphasis  on
        BMPs.
   •    Established  new breeding sites for the
        California least tern, an endangered
                                             300

-------
                                 Santa  Monica Bay
         species.
    •    Instituted  a  storm  drain  stenciling
         project to educate the public about the
         disposal  of contaminants  in storm
         drains. The project was 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 wet-
         land, lagoon, and sand dunes.
    •    Established a "mini-grants" program to
         provide funding for schools, inner-city
         youth, environmental groups, and mu-
         nicipalities  to educate and involve the
         public in bay resource protection and
         pollution prevention efforts.
    •    Designed the first-ever epidemiological
         study  of human health risk from con-
         taminated runoff for the West  Coast.
    •    Performed the first technical study to
         quantify pollutant loads associated with
         storm  water runoff for the bay water-
         shed.
    •    Conducted  research on seafood con-
         tamination  and analyzed the sportfish
         consumption patterns of local anglers.
    •    Conducted a study to identify and map
         remaining wetlands and riparian habitat
         in the  watershed and identified several
         sites for possible restoration.
    •    Developed a comprehensive and coor-
         dinated monitoring program to provide
         insights into regional, cumulative, and
         long-term impacts; link public concerns
         with measurable indicators; and reduce
         costs associated with current monitor-
         ing practices.
    •    Developed  the  Santa  Monica  Bay
         Restoration Plan.

Stakeholders:
    Area universities
    Bay watershed cities (NPDES co-
         permittees)
    Heal the Bay
    Los Angeles County
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Ad-
         ministration
    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
    USDA Natural Resources Conservation
         Service
    University of California-Los Angeles
         Laboratory of Biomedical and En-
         vironmental Science

Contact:
    Cheryl McGovern
    U.S. EPA Region IX
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
    (415) 744-2013
    FAX:  (415) 744-1078
                                             301

-------
                                       Truckee River
   Size  and location:   The 225-kilometer  (140-
   mile)-long Truckee River runs from Lake Tahoe,
   California,  into  the  saline  Pyramid  Lake  in
   Nevada.

   Nature of EPA  involvement:   The project is
   supported by the following grants: 319 grants for
   nonpoint  source  controls (urban  runoff,  agri-
   culture) and public education activities (also with
   Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian tribe),  314 Clean
   Lakes grants for lake assessments (Tahoe and
   Pyramid)  and several phase 2  implementation
  projects,  604(b)  projects  to plan  watershed
  management in several tributaries; and to develop
  standards for Truckee River and  Pyramid Lake,
  and a special 104(b) grant for a supports coordi-
  nator for a lower river habitat restoration project.
  Staff support consists of a part-time EPA coordi-
  nator  for over 5  years; participation in  water
  quality/quantity   negotiations; and  extensive
  involvement  in standards, total maximum daily
  load (TMDL), and permit reviews and ground
  water  planning.

  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.
 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife uses some  of the
 water to induce spawning of the endangered fish
 cuiui and to provide drought relief.   Approxi-
 mately  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 great-
 er metropolitan area of Reno and Sparks, and the
 Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Reservation.
    The Pyramid  Lake Paiute Tribe has taken
 numerous legal actions over the last 100 years to
 obtain legal compensation  for  the adverse im-
pacts  resulting from the  water   diversion  to
Lahontan Valley.  Lake elevations have dropped
  80  feet  (24  meters),  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 water-
  shed restoration program.  In particular, EPA:
           Provides grant assistance  to a  Native
           American tribe and the states of Neva-
          da and California to assess problems,
          to develop a water quality model, and
          to implement both nonpoint and point
          source controls.
      •    Oversees  and  approves the develop-
          ment of state water quality standards,
          total maximum daily loads, and storm
          water and  treatment works permits.
          Funds a grant to explore alternative
          economic incentives to conserve water
          and improve 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 beneficial instream uses.

     The  Nevada  Division of  Environmental
Protection  has assumed the lead for  the project
and is currently coordinating the multiagency
effort to protect and  restore the river.

Stakeholders:
     California Lahontan Regional Water Quality
         Board
     Fenley Town Utilities
     Lyon,  Storey, and Washoe Counties in
         Nevada
    National Park Service
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    Nevada Cooperative Extension
    Nevada Resource Conservative Service
    Nevada Department of Wildlife
    Nevada Division of Environmental Protec-
        tion
                                              302

-------
                                  Truckee  River
    Nevada Division of Transportation
    Public Resource Associates
    Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
    Reno and Sparks municipal governments
    Sierra Club
    Sierra Pacific Power Company
    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
                                            303

-------
  Size  and  location:   This wetlands  planning
  project extends from Sullivan Lake to Horseshoe
  Reservoir,  covering 201 kilometers (125 miles)
  of the Verde River in Yavapai and Gila Counties
  in Arizona. The ADID  is  a  component of a
  watershed  planning  effort currently  underway
  that will address a broader range of issues
  throughout the Verde River Basin, which covers
  14,100 square kilometers (5450 square miles).
      The Verde River has outstanding  natural
  resources of local, regional, and national impor-
  tance  and is functioning, overall, as a high-value
  riverine system. The  ADID area  includes the
  following:
           The only river reach  designated Wild
           and Scenic in the state
           Extensive stands of cottonwood-willow
           riparian gallery  forest that support  a
           high diversity of bird  species
      •     Critical habitat for razorback sucker,
           proposed critical habitat for southwest-
           ern willow flycatcher
           Reintroduction sites  for    Colorado
           squawfish and razorback sucker
      •    Habitat for 31 special  status species.
          Designated as  Resource Category 1 by
          U.S.   Fish   and   Wildlife  Service
          (USFWS)
     •    Listed on Department  of the Interior's
          National Rivers Inventory as one of the
          Nation's most  significant free-flowing
          rivers
     •    State priority for river corridor plan-
          ning.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA entered into
 an  Interagency Agreement (IAG) with  USFWS
 to prepare a  functional assessment of the Verde
 River riparian ecosystem. The functional assess-
 ment provided a  technical  basis for  identifying
 "suitable" and "unsuitable" sites along the Verde
 River. A 104(b)(3)  grant was awarded to  the
 Arizona Geological Survey  to map the alluvial
 deposits along the river. EPA  provided staff
 support and funding for printing costs  throughout
 the  project. The watershed is a priority for non-
 point source implementation; several section 319
grants have been awarded  in the area.  EPA is
also involved
  in  National  Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination
  System (NPDES)  and 404 permitting and en-
  forcement issues.

  Organizations that initiated project:
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

  Major environmental problems:
      •    Sedimentation  from sand  and gravel
           mining and hydrologic modification
           problems
           Polluted runoff from abandoned hard-
           rock mines
           Bank stabilization
      •     Flooding
      •    Threatened  and  endangered  species
          (including Razorback sucker and Sou-
          thwestern  willow flycatcher)

 Actions taken or proposed: EPA and the U.S.
 Army  Corps  of Engineers (Corps)  recently
 completed the  ADID.   The final ADID  site
 identifications are described in an August 18,
 1994, joint EPA-Corps public notice.  The ADID
 identified  potentially  suitable sites for specific
 activities involving minor discharges of dredged
 or fill material that have minimal adverse effects
 on the river. All of the stream reaches within the
 ADID area are generally  unsuitable  for major
 discharges such as  sand  and gravel  mining,
 stream channelization, and dredging projects. The
 ADID also identifies environmental criteria that,
 if  incorporated,  should  expedite the  permit
 review process.
     Goals of the ADID are twofold:
         To achieve a net gain in the quality
         and quantity of the Verde River ripari-
         an ecosystem in terms of acres, func-
         tions, and values.
         To restore  and  maintain  the physical,
         chemical, and biological  integrity of
         the Verde River riparian ecosystem.
The objectives are to:
         Strengthen  the   Clean   Water  Act
         (CWA)  section 404 wetlands permit
         and  enforcement  program   through
         public outreach.
                                              304

-------
       Verde River  Advance Identification  (ADID) Project
     •    Ensure compliance with CWA section
         404 early in the planning process.
     •    Seek avoidance of placing fill in sensi-
         tive 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 pro-
gram and ADID, to present the results  of the
functional assessment of the Verde River, and to
solicit  public comments on options for identify-
ing "suitable"  and "unsuitable"  sites along the
river. Public workshops will be  held to answer
questions and clarify points.
     The ADID involved considerable interagen-
cy coordination, a technical evaluation  of the
Verde River riparian ecosystem, and public input
at various points throughout the  process.
     A couple of follow-up actions are anticipat-
ed. EPA intends to take the lead in developing
guidance on the applicability of  the agricultural
exemptions under section  404(f) of the Clean
Water  Act, specifically to  the construction and
maintenance of agricultural diversion structures.
The Corps is considering revoking and/or modi-
fying the Nationwide Permit  program  for the
Verde  River to  be  consistent with the  ADID
guidance.
     Camp Verde will soon fund a flood mitiga-
tion  study in the Town of Camp Verde.  The
study will include determining the feasibility of
channelizing West Clear Creek, a major tributary
to the Verde River. Flood protection is a priori-
ty concern for the Town of Camp Verde because
approximately 20 percent of the  town is located
in the floodplain.
    The Verde  Watershed Association  and
Arizona Department  of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) are working with other local  stake-
holders to assess and remedy nonpoint runoff
problems. In addition, EPA is evaluating poten-
tial environmental impacts associated with runoff
from a  mine tailing area  and working with devel-
opers to avoid adverse impacts from a proposed
development in this area.
Stakeholders: (partial list, 750 on mailing list)
    Arizona  Department  of  Environmental
         Quality
    Arizona Game and Fish Department
    Arizona State Parks
    Audubon Society
    Friends of the River
    Irrigation Organizations
    National Forest Service
    National Park Service
    Natural Resources Conservation Districts
    The Nature Conservancy
    Salt River Projects
    Town of Camp  Verde
    Town of Clarkdale
    Town of Cottonwood
    Town of Jerome
    U.S. Bureau of  Reclamation
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Verde Watershed Association
    Yavapai County Planning Department
    Yavapai County Flood Control  District

Contact:
    Mary Butterwick
    U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-2)
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
    (415) 744-1985
    FAX:  (415)744-1078
                                            305

-------
                               West Maui  Watershed
  Size and Location:   This project consists of a
  series of small watersheds along a 26-kilometer
  (16-mile) stretch of coast on the island of Maui,
  Hawaii.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  The project is
  supported by the following grants: congressional
  line-item grants for a wide range of watershed
  assessment,  planning,  and  pollution  control
  projects; a  319(h)  grant for sediment  control
  projects; and various grants to support a full-time
  coordinator (EPA Intergovernmental Personnel
  Agreement (IPA)).   EPA staff are conducting
  extensive work to draw attention to watershed
  issues, gain funding, and address nonpoint source
  and  wastewater  management  issues (Under-
  ground Injection Control and National Pollutant
  Discharge Elimination System programs).

  Organizations that initiated project:
      U.S. Environmental! Protection Agency
      Hawaii Department of Health

 Major environmental problems:
      •    Sediment runoff from  agriculture and
          construction sites
      •    Nearshore turbidity
      •    Macroalgal blooms and nutrient  runoff
          possibly associated  with  agricultural
          runoff,  wastewater infiltration to sur-
          face 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 a 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 manage-
 ment  plan focusing on nutrient source controls
 within the watershed. EPA is also working with
 the Hawaii Department of Health, the County of
 Maui, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
 Administration on studies regarding the linkage
 between sewage injection wells, nutrient loading
 to the ocean, and source controls. EPA is  fund-
ing a local watershed manager to  facilitate
assessment and planning of watershed protection
 activates in West Maui.  Through this effort, the
 Mayor of Maui publicly committed to increased
 water reclamation and canceled plans for new
 sewage injection wells.
     In addition, local sugar cane and pineapple
 farmers have begun implementing best manage-
 ment practices (BMPs) to reduce  sediment and
 associated nutrient runoff from fields.

 Stakeholders:
     Hawaii Department of Health
     Local sugar and tourist industries
     Maui County
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
         istration
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact:
     Wendy Wiltse
     Hawaii Department of Health
     c/o Lahaina Comprehensive Health Center
     1837 Honiapiilani Highway
     Lahaina, HI  96761
     (808) 669-7571
                                             306

-------

-------
                                       Figure 11:
  A Phase I Inventory of Current  EPA Efforts  to  Protect Ecosystems
                           Region  10  Project  Locations
Scale 1:6,500,000
Albers Equal Area Projection
Sources: US EPA (various)
Compiled January 1995, MR000014-10/10
Area boundanes and reference point locations are approximate.
A/
Area included in 1 or more of
the large-scale projects
(see Part 1 project summaries)

Reference point for local-scale project

State Boundary

-------
                               Region  X Projects

       Example projects submitted by Region X include the  17  projects listed below, plus its
large-scale initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities  related to  many of the multisite
projects (see Part III).  The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale
and local-scale projects in this Region.

       The Region's projects vary in size, in  the types of ecosystems considered, in  the types of
partners involved with EPA,  and in their goals. All are based on watersheds of various types,
including the basins surrounding rivers, bays, and sounds.  Declining anadromous  fish stocks,
channel alteration, riparian zone degradation, habitat fragmentation, increased sediment and water
temperature, excessive  water withdrawals, toxics, endangered species  issues,  heavy  metals,
reduced recreational uses, silvicultural and  grazing impacts,  and exotic  species  impacts  are
reported among the problems these projects seek to address.  Actions taken include developing
partnerships  with a variety of local, state, and federal agencies, industries, private citizens'
groups, and  other organizations.   Depending upon the environmental problems  present, these
multiorganizational teams might identify and  assess important or degraded habitats; sponsor
needed research; monitor  and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and options for pollution
prevention; propose development or revision of water quality standards; develop outreach and
educational programs; or jointly develop management plans.  Many of the local-scale projects
also will enhance as well as benefit from the  large-scale initiatives in the Region,  which include
the Interior  Columbia  River  Basin Ecosystem  Project, the Pacific  Northwest Ecosystem
Management Research Initiative, and the President's Forest Plan.

       Region  X projects in the Inventory  at this time include:

       Bear River,  ID, UT, WY*
       Chehalis River, WA
       Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA*
       Coeur D'Alene Basin, ID
       Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins, OR
       Duck Creek, AK
       Grande  Ronde River Basin Project, OR
       Klamath Basin, CA, 0>R*
       Kootenay River, ID, MT, British Columbia*
       Lake Roosevelt, WA
       Middle  Snake River, ID
       Pacific Northwestern Watershed Economic Valuation Project, WA
       Puget Sound Estuary,  WA
       Tillamook Bay, OR
       Willamette River Basin, OR
       Willapa Bay Watershed Project, WA
       Yakima River, WA
* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region.  Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are
summarized under each Region in which they occur.
                                           309

-------
                                         Bear  River
  Size and location: Bear River  has  a 19,700-
  square-kilometer (7600-square- mile)  watershed
  located in Wyoming, Utah,  and Idaho.

  Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
  technical assistance, funding, and participation in
  coordination committees.

  Organization that initiated project:
      Utah Division of Water Resources

  Major environmental problems:
      •    Soil erosion,  increased sediment load-
           ings, coliforms, and high nutrient load-
           ings due to animal feeding operations,
           dairies,  urban development,  roads, oil
           and gas exploration, and silviculture
      •     Riparian vegetation removal
      •     Stream channelization
          Degraded  stream channels and stream
          banks

 Actions taken or proposed:  Interest in increas-
 ing the use of the river  as a drinking  water
 source for the growing urban population in the
 lower basin  and along  the Wasatch Front pro-
 mpted  the Utah Legislature  to  enact  the  Bear
 River Development  Act and  fund  a Bear  River
 water development and management plan.  The
 effort is to address both water development and
 water quality issues with a  water quality  plan
 that includes a broad-reaching  analysis of pol-
 lutant loading 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  plan-
 ning efforts, and promote "grass roots" direction
 and  participation.  The Bear River Watershed
 Water Quality Coordination Committee is coordi-
 nating an  array of water projects  in  the  Bear
 River Basin initiated by different organizations.
     For example,  the State of Utah, EPA, and
 the U.S. Department of Agriculture  (USDA)
 initiated  a  watershed 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 management, and animal
  waste  treatment  actions.   Now underway in
  Wyoming are several additional nonpoint source
  projects aimed at restoring tributary streams that
  have been impacted by channelization, stream
  bank modification, and riparian habitat loss.
     These "on-the-ground" demonstration pro-
 jects are helping to generate enthusiasm for more
 cooperative efforts.

 Stakeholders:
     Bear Lake Regional Commission
     Bear River Resource Conservation and
         Development Council
     Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
     Idaho Fish and Game Department
     Local citizen groups
     Natural Resources 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
                                             310

-------
                                    Chehalis  River
Size and location:   The Chehalis River has a
6840-square-kilometer  (2660-square-mile) drai-
nage basin, located midway along the western
Washington State coast. This includes the entire
Chehalis River  watershed,  minus   the  Grays
Harbor estuary.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding for various projects within the Chehalis
River basin.

Organization that initiated project:
    Chehalis River Council (CRC)

Major environmental problems:
    •    Bacteria
    •    Temperature
    •    Dissolved oxygen
    •    S illation
    •    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 currently being sought.
Actions to be taken once  funding has  been
obtained include:
    •    An economic  feasibility  study  for a
         biowaste processing facility to remove
         waste  streams.    Tri-County   Bio-
         Products, a group of dairy farmers, and
         other interested citizens and agricultur-
         al interests will manage the study.
    •    Ground  water monitoring  studies of
         areas affected by fecal  coliform  and
         nitrates.  The county is already  doing
         some work  on this.
    •    Education and outreach to teach people
         about environmental  problems  and
         their relationship to ecosystems.

    Actions that have: already been taken  or are
under way  in the Chehalis River Basin include:
    •    A nonpoint source pollution plan was
         completed by consensus of river basin
         users in December 1992.
    •   The Chehalis  Basin  Resources  Alli-
         ance—a nonprofit organization  not
         eligible for tax-deductible gifts—was
         formed  for  fund  raising and grant
         application for CRC.
     •    The Chehalis Basin Resource Trust—a
         nonprofit organization eligible for tax-
         deductible gifts, easements, and  be-
         quests—was formed.
     •    Washington  Department of Ecology
         (Ecology) is performing a total maxi-
         mum daily load study of the  middle
         Chehalis River  and Black  River,  a
         tributary, and began a wasteload allo-
         cation process in fiscal year 1994.
     •    Ecology (with EPA funding) has devel-
         oped 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 was begun by the Lewis
         County Conservation District.
     •    A basinwide private well water testing
         program is under way through Central-
         ia College.

     The Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force, a
nonprofit group, is developing and implementing
a $20 million fisheries (salmon  and steelhead)
restoration  plan  for the Chehalis River Basin.
The  U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service 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
         Reservation
     Conservation districts
     Environmental groups
     Fish Growers Association
     Fisheries interests
     Grays Harbor Conservation District
                                             311

-------
                                   Chehalis River
     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
    Ockville, WA 98568
    (206)  273-8117
                                          312

-------
                   Clark Fork-Pend Oreille  Watershed
Size and location:  The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille
Watershed  covers  67,000  square  kilometers
(26,000 square miles) in Montana,  Idaho,  and
Washington.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
funding and technical support for various pro-
jects in  the watershed.

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Congress

Major environmental problems:
     •    Nutrients from  sources including  irri-
         gated agriculture,  septic  tanks,  and
         municipal and  industrial  wastewater
         discharges
     •    Heavy metals from active and inactive
         mining and smelting activities

Actions taken or proposed:  Section 525  of the
 1987 Clean Water Act called for a  comprehen-
 sive study  of the sources of pollution in Pend
 Oreille  Lake, the  Pend Oreille  River, and the
 Clark Fork River  and  its tributaries.  Such an
 undertaking has required help from  three  states,
 two EPA  Regions,  and the  EPA  Las  Vegas
 Environmental Monitoring Systems  Laboratory.
     Using a  range of technological  tools, the
 study of the rivers feeding Lake Pend Oreille
 was linked with  an analysis  of the lake by  a
 project  team  made up of the U.S. Geological
 Survey, the University of Idaho,  the Panhandle
 Health District, the Eastern Washington Universi-
 ty, the  Bonner County Planning and Develop-
 ment Department, the  Idaho Department of
 Environmental Quality, the Idaho Department of
 Fish and Game, and the EPA Las Vegas Envi-
 ronmental  Monitoring Systems Laboratory.
     Objectives of the project include:
     •   Control nuisance  algae in  the Clark
         Fork River and Pend Oreille River by
         reducing nutrient concentrations.
     •   Protect Pend Oreille Lake water  quality
         by maintaining or reducing current rate
         of nutrient loading from the Clark Fork
         River and Pend Oreille River.
     •   Reduce near shore  eutrophication  in
         Pend Oreille Lake by reducing nutrient
         loading from local sources.
    •    Improve Pend Oreille Lake water qual-
         ity through macrophyte management
         and tributary nonpoint source controls.

Actions include:
    •    Convene a Tri-State Implementation
         Council to implement the management
         plan recommendations.
    •    Establish a basinwide phosphate deter-
         gent ban.
    •    Establish  numeric  nutrient  loading
         targets  for the Clark Fork River, Pend
         Oreille River, and Pend Oreille Lake.
    •    Develop and maintain  programs  to
         educate the public on its role in pro-
         tecting and maintaining water quality.
    •    Control Eurasian milfoil (a nuisance
         plant) by education, rotovation (a har-
         vesting  technique),  and research into
         alternative methods  of control.
    •    Install  centralized  sewer systems for
         developed areas on Pend Oreille Lake.
    •    Institute seasonal land application and
         other  improvements at  the  Missoula
         wastewater treatment facility.
    •    Enforce existing regulations and laws
         consistently and aggressively, particu-
         larly state anti-degradation statutes.
    •    Establish  and maintain  a  basinwide
         water quality monitoring network to
         assess  effectiveness and trends and to
         better identify sources of pollutants.
     •    Develop and  enforce storm water and
         erosion control  plans and county ordi-
         nances.

     In addition,  Idaho received a Clean Lakes
Program grant in 1987  to conduct  a Phase I
diagnostic/feasibility study for Lake Pend Oreille
and its watershed.  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
                                              313

-------
                  Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed
the Phase I recommendations into action.  Phase
II projects implement iri-lake restoration work as
well as critical watershed management activities
to  control nonpoint source pollution to a lake.

Stakeholders:
    City of Butte
    City of Deer Lodge
    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
    Kootenay 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
        Environmental Science
    Montana Power Company
    Pend Oreille Conservation District
    Steering Committee for the Tri-State
        Implementation Council
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    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-Pend Oreille Tri-State
    Implementation Council
    206 N.  4th Ave., Suite 157
    Sand Point, ID 83864
    (208) 265-9092
                                           314

-------
                              Coeur  D'Alene Basin
Size and location:  The Coeur D'Alene Basin
encompasses  9583  square  kilometers  (3700
square miles) in Idaho.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
funding and technical assistance for studies in
the Coeur D'Alene Basin.

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 agencies 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.  Therefore,  the State  of Idaho  must
develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for
both the point sources and nonpoint sources in
the basin. Another major  source of basin con-
tamination is the  Bunker  Hill  Superfund  Site.
Contamination at this site  is being addressed
through the Superfund remedial action  process.
The remedial actions implemented and resulting
monitoring data will provide information that can
help evaluate clean-up 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
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
    Panhandle Health District
    Shoshone County
    Three soil conservation districts
    Timber interests
    U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
    U.S. Bureau of Land Management
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    U.S. Forest Service
    U.S. Geological Survey
    University of Idaho

Contact:
    Geoff Harvey
    Idaho Department of Environmental
         Quality
    2110 Ironwood Parkway
    Coeur D'Alene, ID 83814
    (208) 769-1422
                                            315

-------
                      Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins
Size and location:  The Coos Bay and Coquille
River Basins are located along the southern part
of the Oregon coast.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
technical assistance and contributed funding for
watershed plan  development, and participates
with other organizations in working groups.

Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Major environmental problems:
     •    Degraded salrnonid  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 environ-
mental threats listed above for some time.  In
many instances, individual actions  had already
been planned or initiated, but the level of effort
and necessary teamwork were not nearly ade-
quate 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 Qual-
         ity
    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 Avenue
    Seattle, WA 98101
    (206) 553-4014
    FAX: (206) 553-1775
                                            316

-------
                                     Duck Creek
Size and location:  Juneau, Alaska - 6.4 kilome-
ters (4 miles) long.

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
financial and technical assistance.

Organizations that initiated project:
    National Marine Fisheries Service
    Alaska Department of Environmental Con-
         servation

Major environmental problems:
    •    Salmon habitat, riparian, and wetlands
         degradation
    •    Low water flows and hydrologic dis-
         continuities
    •    Stormwater runoff
    •    Iron; bacteria
    •    Toxics, primarily from the airport
    •    Urban development

Actions taken or proposed:
    •    Extensive monitoring
    •    Comprehensive watershed  planning
    •    Developing best management practices
         (BMPs) for dealing with snow removal
    •    Systematic  replacement  of problem
         culverts
    •    Public education  and involvement in
         monitoring and riparian restoration
    •    Annual stream cleanup

Stakeholders:
    City and Borough of Juneau
    Fishing  groups
    Local businesses
    Local residents
    Several  federal and state agencies

Contact:
    Christine Kelly
    U.S. EPA Region X (WD-139)
    1200 Sixth  Avenue
    Seattle,  WA 9810
    (206) 553-1566
                                            317

-------
                    Grande Ronde River Basin Project
 Size and location:   The Grande Ronde Water-
 shed covers approximately 12,950 square kilome-
 ters (5000 square miles) in northeastern Oregon
 and southeastern Washington.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
 financial and technical assistance and assistance
 in developing and implementing public involve-
 ment projects, as well as serving as a participant
 in several  interagency/stakeholder  teams  for
 specific issues and resource protection/restoration
 projects.

 Organization that initiated project:  Numerous
 organizations  initiated numerous projects and
 ecosystem efforts in the basin; no clear lead.

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Habitat degradation of salmon species
         listed under the Endangered Species
         Act (ESA)
     •    Very high water temperatures through-
         out the basin
     •    Low water  flows  and hydrologic dis-
         continuities in some critical areas
     •    Wetlands, wet meadows, and riparian
         degradation
     •    High  nutrients  and  sediment  from
         agriculture, grazing, and forestry

Actions taken or proposed:
     •    Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs):
         one on temperature; one on nutrients,
         DO, pH, ammonia
    •    Extensive monitoring
    •    ESA recovery and habitat conservation
         planning
    •    Stormwater management planning
    •    Comprehensive watershed planning for
         various portions of the basin
    •    Implementation  of  agriculture  and
         forestry best  management  practices
         (BMPs)
    •    Riparian, wetland, and  m-stream res-
         toration
    •    Public education and involvement in
        protection/restoration projects
    •   Water conservation practices
Stakeholders:
    Environmental groups
    Farmers and ranchers
    Local businesses
    Local government
    Native American tribes
    Numerous federal and state agencies
    Timber industry

Contact:
    Christine Kelly
    U.S.EPA Region X, WD-139
    1200 Sixth Avenue
    Seattle, WA 98101
    (206)553-1566
                                            318

-------
                                    Klamath  Basin
Size and location: The Klamath Basin ecosys-
tem covers an area of 20,700 square kilometers
(8003 square miles) in south-central Oregon and
northwestern California.  In Oregon, the basin
covers 14,700 square kilometers  (5676 square
miles) primarily in Klamath County, with smaller
areas  in Jackson, Josephine, arid Lake Counties.
Three river systems in the Upper Klamath Basin
discharge to Upper Klamath Lake, including the
Wood, Williamson, and  Sprague  Rivers.   The
Upper Klamath Lake is  a large,  shallow  lake
(36,360 hectares/90,000 acres, 2.4-meter/7.9- foot
average depth).

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
the following grants:  a 319(h) grant for agricul-
tural best management practice implementation
in high-priority tributary  watersheds and estab-
lishment of a comprehensive geographic infor-
mation system (GIS) watershed data base (with
training and equipment for  use at  local level;
Clean Lakes Water  Quality  Assessment grant
funds for the Klamath Tribe  Fish and  Wildlife
Section to complete a water  quality study of
Upper Klamath Lake; 104(b)(3) total maximum
daily load (TMDL) mini-grant for TMDL devel-
opment and staff; and 319 grants that fund state
staff working intensively in the basin. EPA staff
have provided technical assistance in the devel-
opment  of  watershed assessments  related to
FEMAT (the President's Forestry  Initiative),
coordinating cross-state communication.

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 species—
         Lost River sucker (Deltistes  luxatus)
         and  shortnose  sucker   (Chasmistes
         brevirostris)
    •    Water quality degradation and degrada-
         tion of wildlife habitat caused by tradi-
         tional forestry practices including large
         areas of clear-cuts
    •    Declines in anadromous fish popula-
         tions including the chinook salmon due
         to elevated temperature, sedimentation,
         and blockage of migration pathways
    •    Excessive upstream  withdrawals, re-
         sulting in low river flows over the past
         several years
    •    Diversion  of 61,650  hectare-meter
         (500,000 acre-feet) of water  in the
         Upper Klamath Basin to irrigate 90,900
         hectares (225,000 acres) of hay,  pota-
         toes, and sugar beets
    •    Loss of wetlands to agricultural uses (a
         conversion  that  has been linked to
         water quality and riparian  degradation
         and wildlife habitat destruction)
    •    Point source discharges
    •    Questionable application of toxic che-
         micals, including pesticides, that have
         the potential to  affect salmonids, en-
         dangered species (fish and wildlife),
         and nontargeted aquatic invertebrates

Actions taken or proposed:  The Department of
the Interior has formed the Klamath Basin Eco-
system Restoration Office.  This office is staffed
by both the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and is based in Klam-
ath Falls, Oregon.  The Bureau of Land Manage-
ment purchased the Wood River Ranch, a signif-
icant land acquisition adjacent to the Wood River
at the north  end of Agency Lake.
    A  Technical  Advisory Committee (TAG)
has been formed  to discuss  and  evaluate  all
studies  currently  under  way  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 affect salmonids,  endangered
species, and 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
                                              319

-------
                                 Klamath Basin
    Nonconsumptive resource users
    Several tribes in California
    Sport and commercial fishing interests
    Timber interests
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Contacts:
    Steve Lewis
    Manager
    USFWS
    Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration
        Office
    6600 Washburn Way
    Klamath Falls, OR 97603-9365

    Charles E. Kimbol, Sr., Tribe Chairman
    Craig Bienz,  Chief Biologist
    Klamath Tribe
    P.O. Box 436
    Chiloquin, OR 97624

    Tom Robertson
    U.S. EPA Region X
    Oregon Operations  Office
    811 SW Sixth Avenue
    Portland, Oregon 97204
    (503) 326-3250
    FAX: (503) 326-3399

    Michael Ryan
    Project Manager
    Bureau of Reclamation

    Jane Freeman
    U.S. EPA Region IX
    75 Hawthorne Street (W-3-1)
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    (415) 744-1978
    FAX: (415) 744-1078
                                          320

-------
                                   Kootenay  River
Size and location: The watershed of the Koot-
enay  River covers 49,000  square  kilometers
(19,000 square miles) in northv/estern Montana,
northern Idaho, and British Columbia.

Nature  of EPA involvement:  EPA  provided
funding for data collection in the watershed, an
Adopt-A-Stream project, and to hire of a profes-
sional facilitator.

Organization that initiated project:
    Cabinet Resource Group

Major environmental problems:
    •    Threats from silviculture, hydropower,
         mining,  and pulp mills
    •    Protection of species of special concern
         (white sturgeon and bulltrout)

Actions taken or proposed: The Kootenay River
Network (KRN) has been formed and is com-
posed of federal,  state, tribal, provincial, indus-
try, and citizen group  representatives who are
interested in  the  Kootenay  River basin.   The
mission of the KRN is  to involve stakeholders in
the protection and restoration of the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the waters of
the Kootenay River basin. The goals are:
    •    Improve communication among  gov-
         ernment  and  tribal water  resource
         management agencies and  public and
         private interests for British Columbia,
         Idaho, and Montana.
    •    Pursue  coordination of  efforts  and
         standardization of methods.
    •    Develop and  implement a basinwide
         water quality monitoring program.
    •    Fully  use  monitoring  information  to
         accomplish   proactive,   scientifically
         based water resources management.
    •    Educate the  public  and  solicit infor-
         mation about water resources issues.

    EPA, the Bonneville Power Administration,
Noranda Minerals, and Champion International
funded the Water Quality Status Report (January
1994), which  provides a history and description
of the Kootenay River basin; discusses current
water quality issues, development activities, and
aquatic resources in the basin; gives an overview
of past, present, and potential future environmen-
tal issues and problems in the basin; and makes
recommendations for prioritizing  the  basin's
water quality concerns and critical issues.
    The KRN also  received funding to have
Adopt-A-Stream Foundation conduct a workshop
to train 20 citizen volunteers in stream monitor-
ing  methods and implement a monitoring pro-
gram.  These volunteers, called Streamkeepers,
are  to train others as well.  The  KRN has also
received funding for 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
    Kootenay National Forest
    Kootenay Tribe of Idaho
    Kootenay Tribes of British Columbia
    Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife,
         and Parks
    Montana Department of Health and
         Environmental Sciences
    Noranda Minerals Corps
    Panhandle National Forest

Contact:
    Jill Davies
    14 Old Bull River Road
    Noxon,  MT 59853
    (406) 847-2228
                                             321

-------
                                    Lake Roosevelt
 Size and location: Lake Roosevelt, located in
 north-central Washington, has a surface area of
 about 324 square kilometers (125 square miles).

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
 project and financial management.

 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 comp-
         ounds in fish tissue
     •    Point source discharges

 Actions taken or proposed:  Findings of metals
 and  dioxin contamination in sediment and fish,
 followed by  fish consumption advisories, led
 local citizens to press Congress to appropriate
 funds to EPA to develop a water quality man-
 agement plan for Lake  Roosevelt.  Ultimately,
 Congress provided over $1  million for the pro-
ject  and  EPA  dedicated  additional funding.
 Funds have been used for sediment analyses; fish
 tissue analyses; retrospective  studies of water-
 shed characteristics,  fisheries, limnology, and
toxic contaminations; limnological  work; fish
consumption  surveys; public involvement; and
development of a management plan.

Stakeholders:
     Boise Cascade, Kettle Falls
     British Columbia Ministry of the
        Environment
     Citizens for a Clean Columbia
     Colville Confederated Tribes
    Environment Canada
    Ferry County Commissioners
    Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council
    Lake Roosevelt Forum
    Lake Roosevelt Property Owners
        Association
    Lincoln County Commissioners
    National Park Sen-ice
    Spokane Tribe
     Stevens County Commissioners
     Tri-County Health Department
     U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     U.S. Geological Survey
     Washington Association of Wheat
         Growers
     Washington Department of Ecology
     Washington Department of Health
     Washington Department of Wildlife
     Washington Water Research Center

Contact:
     Lee Daneker
     U.S. EPA Region X
     1200 Sixth  Avenue
     Seattle, WA 98101
     (206) 553-1380
     FAX: (206) 553-1280
                                            322

-------
                               Middle Snake  River
Size and location:  The Middle Snake River is
located in the Snake River Plain in south- central
Idaho.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA Region X and
EPA Headquarters'  Office of Water and Office
of Policy, Planning  and Evaluation  are working
together with the state and other stakeholders on
a watershed  ecological  risk assessment  and a
total maximum daily load for nutrients. Both of
these activities are being integrated with the
state's development of a nutrient management
plan and other management activities.

Organizations that initiated project:
     U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency
     State of Idaho
     Middle Snake River Study Group
         (MSRSG)

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 concerned about cumulative impacts to
the  Middle Snake River from existing and pro-
posed hydroelectric  projects. As a  result, EPA
initiated an ecological risk analysis  of this por-
tion of the Snake River that uses both measure-
ments and models to estimate the likelihood of
deleterious changes in the watershed.
     In 1990, the State of Idaho designated parts
of the Middle Snake River as water quality-limit-
ed,  thereby requiring the establishment of a total
maximum daily load.  The state then developed
a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP).  Input from
industry,  environmental groups, and local gov-
ernment will  aid  in defining  a pollutant load
limit  that achieves water quality standards and
specifies  a clearly  enforceable  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 Coordinated Water Resource Management
Plan for the Middle Snake River.    The inte-
gration of these  three efforts (NMP, ecological
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 coun-
         ties)
    North Side Canal Company
    Rangen, Inc.
    Twin Falls Canal Company
    Twin Falls County Parks Department
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contact:
    Pat Cirone
    U.S. EPA Region X
    1200 Sixth Avenue
    Seattle, WA 98101
    (206) 553-1597
    FAX: (206)553-0119
                                            323

-------
                     Pacific Northwestern Watershed
                         Economic Valuation Project
 Size and location:  Yet to be chosen by Region
 X.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's Office of
 Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE)  might
 fund development of integrated ecosystem and
 economic models of the watershed for the pur-
 poses of  integrated  v/atershed management.  As
 a starting point, OPPE will transfer the models
 developed  in  the  Patuxent River  Watershed
 Project to the selected  watershed in  Region X.
 EPA would use this model in its process  of
 watershed coordination. It would potentially use
 the model  as  a process  and  tool to involve
 stakeholders in developing a sustainable future
 for the watershed.

 Organization that initiated project:
    EPA -  Office of Policy,  Planning and
         Evaluation

 Major environmental problems:   The models
 will be designed  to  evaluate  the ecological and
 economic effects and benefits of various environ-
 mental  problems.  These include agricultural
 runoff  of nutrients, wetland  protection,  and
 restoration.

Actions taken or proposed: None yet.

Stakeholders:
    EPA Region X  and by extension the stakeh-
    olders of the specific watershed.

Contact:
    Michael Brody
    U.S.  EPA OPPE
    401 M  Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
    (202) 260-2783
    FAX: (202) 260-1935
                                          324

-------
                              Puget  Sound Estuary
Size and location:  The  Puget Sound Estuary
and its watershed cover several thousand square
miles in Washington State in the area bordering
British Columbia in Canada.

Nature  of EPA involvement:   In  accordance
with the National  Estuary Program, EPA  has
provided funding and technical and programmat-
ic support and has participated in the Manage-
ment Committee of the program.

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
        shellfish beds

Actions  taken or proposed:  Puget Sound was
selected for inclusion in EPA's National Estuary
Program in 1987. A Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan  was drafted  that
recommends priority corrective actions to restore
and maintain the water quality and biological
resources of the  sound. This plan was revised
and updated in 1989, 1991, and 1994.

Stakeholders:
    Native American tribes
    Numerous large and  small environmental
        groups
Contacts:
    EPA:
    John Armstrong
    U.S. EPA Region X
    (MS WD-139)
    1200 Sixth Avenue
    Seattle, WA  98101
    (206)553-1368
    FAX:  (206) 553-0165

    Local:
    Nancy McKay
    Puget  Sound Water Quality Authority
    P.O. Box 40900
    Olympia, WA  98504-0900
    (206) 407-7302
    FAX (206) 405-7333
                                           325

-------
                                   Tillamook Bay
 Size and Location:  Tillamook Bay is a large,
 shallow estuary along the north coast of Oregon.
 Its watershed covers 147,380 hectares (364,800
 acres). Five major rivers—Miami, Kilchis, Wil-
 son, Trask, and Tillamook—drain the watershed.

 Nature of EPA involvement:   In accordance
 with  the National Estuary Program, EPA has
 provided funding and technical and programmat-
 ic  support  and has participated  in the  Policy,
 Management, and Advisory Committees of the
 program.

 Organizations 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
 for EPA's  National Estuary Program  (NEP).
 There has been strong local involvement in the
 project's conception and implementation.

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Fecal coliform contamination
     •    Animal wastes from agricultural activi-
         ties
     •    Bacterial  contamination from  dairy
         animal waste
     •    Habitat loss and sedimentation, which
         are threatening  anadromous fisheries
         (summer steelhead, spring/fall chinook,
         and one of few remnant chum salmon
         populations in the state)
     •    Possible  sedimentation  problems  if
         future logging activities are not care-
         fully conducted

Actions taken or proposed: Tillamook Bay was
 selected for inclusion in the  NEP in 1992.  A
 Comprehensive Conservation and Management
 Plan that will recommend priority  corrective
 actions to  restore and  maintain  the estuarine
 resources of the bay is being developed.
    The  Methane  Energy  and  Agricultural
 Development 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
     National Marine Fisheries Service
     Natural Resources Conservation Service
     Oregon Departments of:
         Agriculture; Environmental Quality;
         Fish and Wildlife; Forestry; Health;
         Land, Conservation, and Develop-
         ment; and State Lands
     Oyster/clam industries
     Residents
     Soil and Water Conservation District
     Tillamook Bay and Garibaldi Port
         Districts
     Tillamook County
     Tillamook County Creamery Association
     Tillamook County Economic Development
         Committee
     Tillamook Sanitation Technical Advisory
         Committee
     Tourism industry
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
     U.S. Bureau of Land Management
     U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     USDA Farm Service Agency
     USDA Forest Service

Contacts:
     EPA:
     John Gabrielson
     U.S. EPA Region X
     1200 Sixth Avenue
     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
                                            326

-------
                             Willamette River Basin
Size and location:  The Willamette River basin
is located in Oregon and covers 29,785 square
kilometers  (11,500 square miles).  Within the
basin  are more  than 8,050 kilometers (5,000
miles) of rivers and tributaries.

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided
technical  assistance  for  restoration  projects,
contributed significant funding  for  watershed
plan development, and participates with other
organizations in working groups.

Organizations that initiated project:  A number
of local, state,  and federal groups are working to
align their efforts.

Major environmental problem:
    •    Development pressures

Actions taken  or proposed:  EPA is developing
several strategic  work plans for the Willamette
River basin. These work plans include:
    •    Riparian and aquatic habitat restoration
         targeting and implementation
    •    Applying sustainability concepts  and
         approaches
    •    Environmental justice through reduc-
         tion of toxic exposure risks
    •    Drinking  water protection  through  a
         pollution  prevention strategy
    All  work plans  include field-level demon-
stration projects.
    EPA is working with a  variety of local,
state, federal, and private groups to develop new
technical approaches for  reconciling conflicts
between land use and the management of terres-
trial and aquatic  biodiversity.
    Federal  Forest   Ecosystem  Management
Plans are being  developed for the "key water-
sheds" on federally owned forest lands within the
Willamette River basin. More than a dozen "key
watersheds" have  been designated within the
basin.  Watershed einalysis for restoration work
began in 1994.
    Oregon is developing  state policies  and
processes for fostering greater  local stewardship
through  inter-agency communication  and the
formation of local basin councils.
    Six communities within  the  Willamette
River basin are developing comprehensive wet-
land protection plans.   Total  maximum daily
loads are being developed in a number of sub-
watersheds.
     Many local and basinwide networks  have
been or are being formed in response to changes
in social and land use development patterns and
the corresponding effects on resource manage-
ment options.

Stakeholders:
     Local citizens
     Local Soil and Water Conservation
         Districts
     Multiple state agencies
     Natural Resources Conservation Service
     Pacific Rivers Council
     The Nature Conservancy
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -
         Corvallis Research Lab

Contact:
     Mike Rylko
     U.S. EPA Region X
     1200 Sixth Avenue
     Seattle, WA 98101
     (206) 553-4014
     FAX: (206) 553-0165
                                              327

-------
                       Willapa Bay Watershed Project
 Size and location:  The Willapa Bay watershed
 covers 389 square kilometers (150 square miles)
 in southwestern Washington.

 Nature of EPA involvement:
     •   A Region X second-tier priority water-
         shed
     •   Several Near Coastal Waters targeted
         on Nonpoint Source (NFS) issues

 Organizations that initiated project:
     EPA Region X, Water Division, Watershed
         Section

 Major environmental problems:
     •   Coliform  bacteria  in rivers and bay
         from sewage and agricultural sources
     •   Forest,  wetland, and  marine  habitat
         degradation caused by logging, diking,
         and other activities
     •    Spartina invasion resulting in the oblit-
         eration of salmon, crab, benthic, eel
         grass habitat
         Application  of carbaryl  to  control
         burrowing shrimp  populations

Actions taken or proposed:
     •    Comprehensive watershed planning
         Implementation  of  agriculture  best
         management practices (BMPs)
     •    Development of pest management
         plans for shrimp and Spartina
     •    Assisting local groups in restoration
         and stewardship projects

Stakeholders:
     Oyster industry
     Dairy and beef farmers
     Commercial and recreational fishermen
     Timber companies

Contact:
     Elbert Moore
     EPA, Region X, WD-139
     1200 Sixth Avenue
     Seattle, WA 98101
    Phone:  (206)553-4181
                                           328

-------
                                    Yakima River
 Size and location:  The Yakima River basin is
 located in south-central Washington and drains
 an area of 15,941 square kilometers (6155 square
 miles).

 Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA has provided
 technical assistance and contributed funding for
 watershed plan development, and participates
 with other organizations in working groups.

 Organization that initiated project:
     Yakima Valley Conference of
         Governments

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Altered  temperature,  pH,   and  in-
         stream flows
     •    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
 Management Plan that includes basin character-
 ization 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 public 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:
    Judith Leckrone
    U.S. EPA Region X
    1200 Sixth Avenue
    Seattle, WA 98101
    (206)553-6911
    FAX: (206) 553-0165
                                            329

-------

-------
          Part Three:
Summaries of Multisite Ecosystem
Protection Projects and Programs

-------

-------
                                    Part Three:
   Summaries of Multisite Ecosystem Protection Projects and Programs
       This  third category of projects was added to the Inventory because many submitted
projects that were place-based and ecosystem-oriented did not seem to fit the large-scale or local-
scale categories' focus on a  single place.  Generally, these projects conduct the same kind of
ecosystem protection activity at several different sites  scattered across a region or the whole
nation.  Beyond the significance of the activity at each site, these projects are important to the
Inventory because many of them represent programs that have already demonstrated that they can
accommodate an ecosystem protection approach.

       A single project summary represents each multisite project or program in lieu of repetitive
summary forms for every individual site.   Some of these programs involve  dozens or even
hundreds of place-based projects.  In a few cases, some of the best  examples of local-scale
projects under these multisite programs also appear under the local-scale part of this Inventory.

       The multisite projects in the Inventory at this  time include:

       Biodiversity/Habitat Assessment Project
       Clean Lakes Program
       Ecosystem Management Strategy for Compliance and Enforcement
       EPA New England Regional Lead Initiative
       GATF Northwestern Riparian Zone Assessment and Restoration Project
       Gulf Ecological Management Sites
       Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Project
       Mississippi  River Compliance Initiative
       Multimedia Project
       Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC)
       Oak-Savanna Ecosystem Project
       OECA/OC Watersheds Initiative
       Pacific Salmon Habitat Recovery Project
       Rocky Mountain Headwaters  Mining Waste Initiative
       Targeted Watersheds Project
       TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Case Studies
       Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Program
       Wetlands Advance Identification Program
       Wetland Restoration Research Project
                                         333

-------
                   Biodiversity/Habitat  Assessment  Project
   Type of sites and locations:  Pilot studies are
   going on in Oregon, Pennsylvania, California,
   Washington,  Idaho, and the states  bordering
   Chesapeake  Bay.   Many  of the  analyses  are
   prototypes being developed for national applica-
   tion at this stage.  Also,  the project has ecosys-
   tem/watershed research in  the four watersheds
   draining through Camp Pendleton, California, has
   completed research on Monroe County, Pennsyl-
   vania - Poconos, and is initiating a regional-level
   assessment in the Mojave Desert.

  Nature of EPA involvement:  In recognition that
  loss  of  biological  diversity  can be effectively
  addressed only through  cooperation of vested
  interests, EPA has formed a biodiversity research
  consortium to develop the technical information
  and data bases needed  to  assess and manage
  risks to biodiversity. Initially, membership in the
  consortium includes EPA, U.S. National Biologi-
  cal Survey (USNBS), U.S. Department of Agri-
  culture (USDA), Forest Service, U.S. Department
  of the Interior (USDI) Geological Survey, U.S.
  Department of Defense (DOD), Bureau of Land
  Management  (BLM), and The Nature Conser-
  vancy.  Additional organizations will be added,
  much as  the "Partners in Flight" consortium has
  been created for neotropical migratory birds.

  Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Major environmental problems:  Traditionally,
 the management of biodiversity has  focused  on
 rescuing rare, threatened, or endangered species
 from the brink of extinction.   Huge sums  of
 money have been spent on recovery programs for
 a small number of species.   While there  are
 strong  conservation arguments for  preserving
 these species, the effort expended  has been out
 of proportion  to  the contribution  that these
 species make to the genetic diversity, and there-
 fore the fitness of the biota as a whole to adapt
 to environmental stress.
    The Habitat/Biodiversity Research Program
 invokes a  new risk-based paradigm for identify-
 ing those  areas that  have  species  assemblages
which contribute the greatest genetic diversity to
the biota of their biogeographic regions and then
   managing those areas  to  sustain biodiversity.
   The paradigm is implemented in two stages and
   at  two greatly  different spatial scales.   First,
   priorities for management action are identified by
   comparative risk  assessment across  spatially
   extensive biogeographic regions.   This permits
   cost-effective targeting  of more intensive diag-
   nostic and remediation  efforts, allows accurate
   evaluation of the many  species that have  exten-
   sive  geographic distributions, and avoids the
   pitfall of instituting protection at the local level,
   only to have cumulative effects of actions in the
   surrounding landscape undermine these efforts.
   Secondly,  specific  remedial  action  plans are
  developed  and  implemented  at a  finer spatial
  scale  (i.e., ecological subregions within a state)
  than the  comparative risk  assessment.  At this
  scale, landscape-level management approaches
  are needed. Attention will be directed to amelio-
  rating the adverse effects of habitat fragmenta-
  tion,  reducing  other forms  of anthropogenic
  stress, restoring habitat, and evaluating the land
  management  trade-offs  required  to  sustain
  biodiversity.

 Actions taken or proposed:  Initially, the consor-
 tium proposes to categorize and map the species
 diversity and environmental diversity of each of
 about 12,000 sampling units (hexagons) based on
 the Environmental Monitoring  and  Assessment
 Program (EMAP) sampling grid covering the
 conterminous United States. The process  will
 include:
          Compilation   of   The   Nature
          Conservancy's   detailed   vertebrate
          species distribution and attribute  data
          for each hexagon.
          Compilation by  hexagon of attributes
         of environmental  diversity from re-
         motely  sensed  land  characterization
         data (AVHRR,  TM,  or  MSS  based,
         depending on results of pilot studies).
         Analysis of the species and land char-
         acterization data by different ecological
         weighing  methods, spatial analyses,
         multivariate statistical pattern analyses,
         and protection optimization methods.
    This information, along with stressor data
compiled  from existing  data  bases (TIGER;
                                             334

-------
               Biodiversity/Habitat Assessment Project
USGS LUDA; USDA-NASS, ERS, NRI, FIA;
USDI BLM) will be evaluated and synthesized to
quantify relative risks to biodiversity by region
and landscape type. Overall patterns that lead to
high importance  and vulnerability of  natural
landscapes and biodiversity will be identified.
Benefits include:
    •   Establishment of baseline conditions
        concerning  species  distributions  and
        their relationships with  environmental
        diversity.
    •   Comparative  risk  assessment   for
        biodiversity, which identifies priorities
        for attention by the diversity of public
        and private  land managers whose coor-
        dinated  efforts will be  necessary to
        sustain biodiversity.
    •   Testing  of  methods that hold promise
        for  significantly  reducing  costs  of
        habitat  monitoring, evaluation,   and
        management.

Stakeholders:
    Land Resource Management Agencies
    U.S. EPA

Contact:
    Eric Preston
    U.S EPA ERL-Corvallis
    200 SW 35th Street
    Corvallis, OR 97333
    (503) 754-4459
    E-mail: preston@wbmail.cor.epa.gov
                                            335

-------
                                Clean Lakes  Program
  Type of sites and locations:  Over 600 Clean
  Lakes Program grants have been awarded to 49
  states and 18 Native American tribes since 1976.
  These grants have been made for the four pur-
  poses outlined below.

      (1)  Lake Water Quality Assessments - Pro-
          vide general support  for state/tribal
          lakes programs.
      (2)  Phase I Diagnostic-Feasibility Studies -
          Define the problems  in a lake through
          an assessment of the lake and its wa-
          tershed and determine the most feasible
          plan for lake ecosystem restoration.
      (3)  Phase II Implementation Projects - Im-
          plement recommendations of the Phase
          I  study, which can include watershed
          nonpoint source pollution control meth-
          ods and in-lake ecosystem restoration
          measures.
      (4)  Phase III Post-Implementation Moni-
          toring Studies -   Support  a  scientific
          analysis of various in-lake and water-
          shed management activities  to  deter-
          mine their long-term  effectiveness for
          restoration and/or protection of the lake
          ecosystem.
 The  lakes  that are targeted  for Clean Lakes
 projects are based on a state  priority list  and
 criteria outlined  by the Clean Lakes  Program
 Regulations (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart H, Febru-
 ary 5, 1980), the Clean Lakes Program Guidance
 (December 1987), and an annual program imple-
 mentation memorandum.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  The Clean Lakes
 Program is administered by the Office of Water's
 Office of Wetlands,  Oceans and Watersheds,
 Assessment and Watershed  Protection Division,
 Watershed Branch.    Clean Lakes  funds  are
 transferred to  the  Regions, which  enter  into
 cooperative agreements with the designated state
 water quality agencies.  The  state may then enter
 into  sub-state agreements with local agencies,
 universities, and others  to implement the project.
 The  Regional Clean Lakes  Coordinator acts as
 project officer on each project.  The  level of
EPA involvement varies with each project, but
generally  the  day-to-day project  activities are
 carried out at the state or local level.  One of the
 principles of the Clean  Lakes Program that has
 proven to  be an element of long-term project
 success is  that  there is a high level of local
 support and involvement in the project.

 Organisation that initiated program: The Clean
 Lakes Program  was established by  Congress
 under the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control
 Act.

 Major environmental problems:  The informa-
 tion that was reported by the states in their 1992
 section 305(b) reports  indicates  that the  five
 leading causes of impairment to lakes include
 metals, nutrients, organic enrichment/dissolved
 oxygen depletion, siltation, and priority organic
 chemicals.   Although metals were  reported to
 impair the greatest number of lake acres nation-
 ally, over 50 percent of these lake acres were
 reported in  one state (Minnesota).  More states
 reported problems from nutrients than any other
 single pollutant.  Nutrients cause nuisance over-
 growth of algae  as well as aquatic vegetation,
 which  can  lead  to  oxygen depletion via plant
 respiration and microbial decomposition of plant
 matter.   Thirty  states  reported  that siltation
 impairs their lakes, ponds, and reservoirs.  Silt-
 ation can smother aquatic organisms and their
 habitats, damage gills in  fish  and other aquatic
 organisms, and gradually fill in lakes. Priority
 organic chemicals increased in  relative impor-
 tance as a lake pollutant  from the 1990 305(b)
 reports.  The sources of these pollutants were
 reported to be primarily agricultural activities (56
 percent). Other sources of pollutants were  urban
 runoff and storm  sewers, hydrological and habi-
 tat modification,  municipal point  sources, and
 onsite  wastewater disposal.

Actions taken or proposed:  The Clean Lakes
 Program will continue to offer financial  assis-
 tance (as available) to the states to address these
 problems. The states are encouraged to leverage
 other funding sources to  help address lake eco-
 system problems.  The Clean Lakes Program will
also continue  to  offer  technical  assistance
through guidance  documents on  restoring and
managing lakes and support for conferences and
                                              336

-------
                             Clean  Lakes  Program
workshops on a wide variety of lake  manage-
ment issues.

Stakeholders:  Participation in  Clean  Lakes
Program projects has included EPA and other
federal agencies including the U.S. Department
of Agriculture,  the  Corps  of  Engineers,  the
Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Department.
of the Interior.  Forty-nine state and numerous
local water quality agencies, 18 Native American
tribes, community groups,  universities, private
businesses, and citizens have also played roles in
Clean Lakes  projects.

Contact:
    Susan Ratcliffe (4503F)
    Watershed Branch, AWPD/OWOW
    U.S. EPA
    401 M Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
    (202) 260-5404
    FAX: (202) 260-1977
    E-mail: ratcliffe.susan@epamail.epa.gov
                                           337

-------
        Ecosystem  Management Strategy  for Compliance
                                 and Enforcement
 Type of sites and locations:  No specific sites
 designated as yet.  Some places are planned as
 part of the strategy development.

 Nature  of EPA involvement:  The Office of
 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
 is planning to develop a strategy for Ecosystem
 Management in Compliance  and  Enforcement.
 This strategy is being designed to complement
 and support  the Agency-wide efforts on place-
 based or ecosystem management and will iden-
 tify compliance and enforcement activities for
 ecosystem  protection  and improvement.   In
 addition, some pilot activities are planned partic-
 ularly in  conjunction with the  focus  on the
 Mississippi River and the  Water Enforcement
 Division's initiatives on watersheds and fish con-
 sumption advisories.

 Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Endangered  species
     •    Ecological impacts from releases to the
         environment
     •    Contaminated fish
     •    Fish kills
     •    Wetlands and habitat losses

Actions taken or proposed:  A major need is for
 more comprehensive  compliance  and enforce-
 ment  approaches for  ecosystem  protection.
 Examples of ecosystem protection and improve-
 ment  opportunities using compliance and  en-
 forcement include the  following:
    •   Better use of SEPs for ecosystem pro-
        tection and restoration in resolution of
        past violations.
    •   Ecosystem protection from agricultural
        impacts by using  localized bulletins,
        advisories, and label restrictions.
    •   Endangered species protection.
    •   Establishing   compliance  assistance
        centers for various sectors of the regu-
        lated community and providing out-
        reach  with  clean-up information to
        groups  of pollutant releasers.
    •   Identifying areas where more require-
        ments are needed.

Stakeholders:
    Agricultural groups and interest
    Environmental Conservation and Recreation
        groups
    EPA Regions
    Farmers
    Industry
    Public
    State and local governments
    Other federal agencies

Contact:
    Walter  Brodtman (2225A)
    U.S. EPA OECA
    401 M  Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
    (202) 564-4181
    FAX: (202) 564-0028
                                           33

-------
            EPA  New England Regional  Lead  Initiative
Type  of sites  and locations:   New England
Region  including the States  of Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire.  Rhode
Island, and Vermont.

Nature of EPA involvement:  Developing and
implementing a regional  strategy in partnership
with state and  local  governments,  community
groups, and grassroots organizations that focuses
on  education  and outreach,  monitoring  and
mapping, training, state and federal coordination,
and enforcement.  Certain facets of regional
activities have place-based  components, such as
the examples listed below.

Organization that initiated project:
    EPA New England

Major environmental problem:  In EPA New
England's comparative risk analyses, lead was
one of the top three environmental health threats
facing New England. The 1990 Census indicates
more  than 51  percent of New England housing
stock  was built prior to the 1978 ban on  lead in
paint, suggesting this housing  might contain
lead-based paint, as do residential soils surround-
ing homes where exterior lead-based paint was
used.

Actions taken or proposed:
    •    Established  in  November  1992  and
         continuing support to the New England
         Lead   Coordinating   Committee
         (NELCC) quarterly meetings composed
         of State health and environmental con-
         tacts  and representatives  as well  as
         representatives  from  Department  of
         Housing and Urban Development, U.S.
         Public Health Service, and Occupation-
         al Safety and Health Administration.
    •    Award  grants  to  community-based
         organizations for lead poisoning  pre-
         vention education in high-risk commu-
         nities.
    •    Education and  outreach to day  care
         centers and  English as a second  lan-
         guage programs throughout New Eng-
         land under way.
    •    Pilot  training and economic develop-
        ment project at Roxbury Community
        College linking high-risk communities
        with lead professions training and job
        opportunities.
    •   Develop and conduct intensive  lead
        source  data collection and  mapping
        project in East Providence in conjunc-
        tion with the City of East Providence
        and  Rhode  Island  Department of
        Health.   Plot  products  and  software
        support provided to partner communi-
        ties.

Stakeholders:
    Children under six most affected by lead,
        particularly children in low-income and
        minority communities
    Homeowners and tenants
    Parents  of children, families
    State health  and environmental agencies

Contact person:
    Ann Carroll
    Regional Lead Coordinator
    EPA New England - RDA
    JFK Federal Building
    Boston, MA 02130
    (617)565-3411
    FAX: (617)  565-3415
    E-mail:  carroll.ann@epamail.epa.gov
                                            339

-------
       GATF Northwestern  Riparian  Zone  Assessment and
                                 Restoration Project
 Type of sites and locations:  Project includes
 several medium to large watersheds in Oregon,
 Washington, and Idaho known to be high-priority
 river systems for restoration of cold-water aquat-
 ic communities and in particular their historically
 significant wild salmon stocks.  The rivers  are
 the Grande Ronde (OR), John Day  (OR), Yaki-
 ma (WA), Umpqua (OR), Imnaha  (OR), Tuc-
 annon (WA), Lolo Creek (ID), and Asotin Creek
 (WA). These areas were selected after consult-
 ing with several federal and  state agencies and
 the Columbia River Tribes to  identify their high-
 priority waterbodies.

 Nature of EPA involvement: This is an EPA-
 led multiagency project. The  EPA project is one
 of  eight  programs in eight civilian agencies
 funded through the Department  of Defense's
 Environmental  Program, Government Applica-
 tions Task Force (GATF).  At the  direction of
 Congress,  this  program's  purpose  is  to  use
 advanced  technologies  to  provide  improved
 support  to environmental  missions  of  several
 federal agencies.

 Organization that  initiated project:
     EPA Office of Water,  Office of Wetlands,
         Oceans and Watersheds.

 Major environmental problem:  One  of  the
 biggest ecological problems in the watersheds of
 the   Pacific  Northwest  is  overwarming   of
 waterbodies due to removal  of the shade-pro-
 ducing riparian (streamside) vegetation that keeps
 streams cool.  Temperature  stress  results  in
 failure to attain state water  quality standards
 protective of cold-water  biota in many rivers
 throughout the region. Due to multiple adverse
 effects, including the effects  of elevated water
 temperature, an immediate  threat faces Pacific
 salmon populations in their spawning grounds.
 In fact, water temperatures of  25 °C  (77 °F) can
 be lethal to adult salmon, and other life cycle
 stages experience lethal  or  sublethal effects  at
 even lower temperatures. The  American Fisher-
 ies Society assessed over 400 wild salmon stocks
throughout  the Pacific Northwest in 1991  and
found most of them under moderate to high risk.
 Some streamside forestry and grazing practices
 reduce or eliminate shade,  resulting  in  water
 temperatures that can be harmful or lethal  to the
 salmon  populations.  Nevertheless, ecological
 restoration  techniques  can restore  shade and
 management  practices  that  retain shade, and
 stable banks are increasingly being applied on
 public lands and some  private lands near these
 rivers. As grazing, forestry, and agricultural uses
 also occur within the study watersheds, solutions
 to the problems in  each waterbody will require
 assessing the interrelationship of the terrestrial
 and aquatic characteristics of the ecosystem and
 identifying  the most compatible  management
 strategies.
     Environmental managers across this region,
 however, are  not  well  equipped to  monitor,
 quantify,  assess, and remediate such widespread
 problems. It is a scientific and socioeconomic
 challenge to determine where the  temperature
 problems are, what reaches are affected and how
 severely,  what the probable causes are in each
 location, what remedies are available, and where
 best to restore riparian zones and instream  habi-
 tat in different watersheds and geographic set-
 tings.

 Actions taken  or proposed:  Although  not a
 panacea, the integrative analysis techniques of
 remote  sensing  and geographic  information
 systems (GIS) have the potential to assist state
 and federal  agencies in ecological assessment,
 restoration planning,  and management, where
 data on large areas  are needed in a relatively
 short time fiame.  The  projects at each of the
 eight river systems will use remote sensing and
 GIS  technology  to  perform  screening-level
 modeling  and assessment of the likelihood of
 temperature impairment and will combine these
 findings with a closer look at the location  of
 critical habitat  features  and  potential  riparian
 restoration sites.  Modeling will support evalu-
 ation of  "what if  management scenarios in-
 volving different patterns of terrestrial vegetation
and  land use activity in  and near  the riparian
zone and the potential effects of these scenarios
on  the aquatic  systems.   These analyses  will
provide greater understanding of the exposure to
                                             340

-------
      GATF Northwestern Riparian Zone  Assessment and
                              Restoration Project
temperature stress  from  sub-basin to sub-basin
and will provide GIS-based assessment data to
help set  priorities for  ecological  restoration
projects that will be widespread in the Northwest
over the  next few years.   In  doing  this, the
project will also contribute to  the information
base for determining combinations of multiple
uses in northwestern forested  watersheds that
might be compatible and sustainable in the long
term.

Stakeholders:  Direct participation in the project
has included EPA, U.S. Forest Service,  U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the State  of Oregon,
the Environmental  Research Institute of Michi-
gan, and the Columbia River Tribes.  A much
broader assortment of stakeholders,  public and
private, are also involved with related watershed
analysis and management activities in these
watersheds.

Contact person:
    Doug Norton (4503F)
    Watershed Branch, AWPD/OWOW
    U.S. EPA
    401 M Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
    (202) 260-7017
    FAX: (202) 260-7024
    E-mail: norton.douglas@epamail.epa.gov
                                         341

-------
                    Gulf  Ecological  Management Sites
 Type of sites and locations:  The Gulf of Mexi-
 co abuts five Gulf Coast states and has a surface
 area of 1,631,700 square kilometers  (630,000
 square miles)  and a  U.S.  coastline length  of
 almost  2,737  linear  kilometers (1,700  linear
 miles).

 Nature of EPA involvement:   Funding assis-
 tance for all Gulf of Mexico Program activities
 associated with this initiative; providing technical
 input via steering committees, meetings, and
 workshops; and promotion of the Gulf Ecological
 Management Sites  (GEMS)  concept  to other
 federal and state agencies.

 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:   In June of 1991,
 representatives from state and federal agencies,
 nonprofit organizations, and private industry first
 met  to outline the strengths and weaknesses  of
 coastal  management  initiatives and  identify
 action items that would help develop the role  of
 the   Gulf  of Mexico  Program  in  the  GEMS
 concept.
     The GEMS  concept aspires  to bring  an
 awareness of and support to  these special areas
 via the power  of  multiagency endorsement and
 participation.  Such endorsement is essential  in
 establishing  the level  of  public awareness and
 support  necessary to  encourage  local,  state,
 federal,  and corporate entities to seek out and
 leverage existing mechanisms or create innova-
tive alliances.  Such a process works through the
concepts embodied by sustainable development.
     This process served as  a catalyst for the
 establishment of the Graveline Bayou and Grand
 Bay  Coastal Preserves by the Mississippi Bureau
of Marine Resources (BMR).  The Nature Con-
 servancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
assisted BMR in the acquisition of and develop-
ment of management plans for these areas.
     In  February  of 1993, federal, state, and
private  organizations established a  framework
under which the GEMS concept will be carried
out.  GEMS  coordinators  for each  of the five
Gulf states, tasked to take the lead in compiling
a list of prospective sites within their state, were
identified.
     In September of 1993, the site identification
and compilation phase was initiated. In conjunc-
tion  with  this phase, a  data base  system was
established to manage and evaluate information
compiled for these sites.

Stakeholders:
     Environmental organizations
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric
         Administration
     Other cooperating agencies
     State governments  in Florida,  Alabama,
         Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas
     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
                                             342

-------
                   Louisiana  Coastal Wetlands Project
Type of sites and locations:  Approximately 1.3
million hectares (3.3 million  acres) of tidally
influenced fresh,  brackish,  intermediate, and
saline wetlands in  19 parishes in Louisiana.

Nature of EPA involvement: The Administrator
of EPA is designated by the Coastal Wetlands
Planning,  Protection and Restoration Act (CWP-
PRA) as one of six Task Force members (along
with the Secretaries of Army, Commerce, Interi-
or, and Agriculture and the Governor of Louisi-
ana) to develop a comprehensive plan for resto-
ration  of  coastal  Louisiana wetlands  and  to
"carry  out"  restoration projects.   The  act also
requires EPA to administer a grant to Louisiana
to develop a State  Conservation Plan.

Organization  that initiated  project: Congress
enacted Public Land 101-646 (CWPPRA)  in
November 1990. The legislation was initiated by
the  Coalition  to Restore Coastal Louisiana  in
conjunction with Senators Breaux and Johnston.

Major  environmental   problems:     These
wetlands,  which constitute about 40 percent  of
the estuarine wetlands in the  lower 48 states, are
being lost at rate of about 65 square kilometers
(25 square miles)  per year.   Human activities
such as the construction of  levees, dams, and
navigation channels;  drainage  for development
and agriculture;  and  natural  subsidence of the
Mississippi River delta contribute to the losses
occurring.

Actions taken or proposed: The Restoration Plan
calls for significant changes  in management  of
the  Mississippi and  Atchafalaya Rivers to in-
crease sediment and freshwater input and restart
natural processes of  land building and  mainte-
nance.  Projects are identified to  reverse hydro-
logic modifications by rebuilding barrier island
chains  and controlling tidal flows through large
navigation channels.  Specific projects  include
freshwater and sediment diversions, shoreline
protection, hydrologic restoration, and vegetative
plantings.
Stakeholders:
    Commercial and recreational fishermen
    Eco-tourism
    Hunters and trappers
    Include the human populations that
         depend on wetlands to provide a buffer
         from hurricanes and other storms
    Industries such as oil/gas, chemical
    Landowners
    Seafood consumers

Contact:
    Jeanne Peckham (6E-FT)
    U.S. EPA Region VI
    1445 Ross Avenue
    Dallas, TX  75202
    (214) 665-8330
    FAX: (214)  665-7446
                                             343

-------
                Mississippi River  Compliance  Initiative
 Type of sites and locations:  Various sites within
 the  Mississippi  River basin.   Locations  not
 known at this time.

 Nature of EPA involvement:  The Agriculture
 and  Ecosystem Division  in  the Office of  En-
 forcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is
 reviewing problem  areas and  authorities  for
 resolving problems  in the  Mississippi  River
 basin.  The purpose  of this review is to identify
 ecosystem protection and improvement opportu-
 nities in the Mississippi River compliance activi-
 ties.

 Organization that initiated project:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Major environmental problems:
     •    Impacts  from  concentrated  animal
         feeding operations
     •    Contaminated fish advisories
     •    Fish kills
     •    Impacts from agricultural activities
     •    Wetland losses

Actions taken or proposed: OECA is collecting
 information and  evaluating  problem areas  and
 authorities in order  to focus on activities on a
 smaller   geographical  basis  within  the  basin
 where  enforcement  and compliance can have
 positive  effects on  ecological protection  and
 improvement.
     The  Office  of Regulatory  Enforcement
within OECA has initiated a plan for case initia-
tives in the Mississippi River basin in response
to an invitation by 17 U.S. Attorneys in the Mis-
sissippi River  basin area for EPA to become
involved  in enforcement actions in the basin.

Stakeholders:
     Agricultural groups and interests
     Environmental Conservation and Recreation
         groups
     EPA Regions
     Farmers
     Industry
     Public
     State and local governments
     Other federal agencies
Contact:
    Walter Brodtman (2225A)
    U.S. EPA
    401 M Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
    (202) 564-4181
    FAX: (202) 564-0028
                                            344

-------
                                Multimedia Project
Type of sites and locations:
    North Carolina
         Albemarle Sound
         Pamlico River
         Core Sound
    Maryland
         St. Martin River
         Chincoteague Bay

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA initiated the
project,  recruited the participants, coordinates
their activities, participates in sample collection,
and performs chemical  analyses of biological,
water,  and sediment  samples  in-house  in  the
laboratories of EPA's Atmospheric Research and
Exposure  Assessment  Laboratory  (AREAL).
AREAL, the  Environmental  Monitoring  and
Assessment Program (EMAP),  and participating
investigators and agencies have all supported the
project.

Organizations that initiated project:
    EPA Atmospheric Research and Exposure
         Assessment Laboratory, Quality
         Assurance and Technical Support
         Division,   Analytical  Materials  and
         Support Branch
    Organic Analysis Section

Major  environmental problems:  Coastal and
estuarine ecosystems are among the most  pro-
ductive of ecological systems. Historically, more
than 70 percent of commercial and recreational
landings of fish, shellfish, and  crustaceans have
been taken from estuaries.  In  the past quarter-
century, slow deterioration of  water quality  in
such ecosystems and the increasing prevalence of
diseased organisms have been observed.
    Crustaceans, including  the commercially
important blue  crab  (Collinectes  sapidus),  are
commonly affected by pollutants, overharvesting
and habitat changes. Observations from prelimi-
nary research  studies as  well as fishermen's
accounts show an increase in the prevalence  of
shell disease syndrome in blue  crabs.   This
disease has been associated with stressed envi-
ronments,  such  as  intensive aquaculture, im-
pounded populations, and polluted natural envi-
ronments. It can be experimentally induced by
exposure to sewage sludge, pesticides, or heavy
metals, suggesting its potential as a useful bio-
marker of environmental degradation.

Actions taken or proposed: EPA's Atmospheric
Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
is conducting a project to assess the feasibility of
using various  measures  of the  health of the
Atlantic blue crab as indicators of environmental
stress.   The  project  will  attempt  to develop
baseline biological data using shell histopatholo-
gy  and immune  functions of blue crabs that
might  be rationalized by paralytic  chemical
analyses of tissues and other media.

Stakeholders:
     AREAL
     CDS Analytical
     Chesapeake Bay Program
     Duke University
     EMAP
     Gulf of Mexico Program
     EPA Regions III, IV, and VI
     Delaware
     Maryland
     North Carolina Marine Research
     North Carolina State University
     Other estuarine monitoring efforts
     Versar Inc.

Contacts:
     Joseph E. Bumgarner
     (919)541-2430
     Laboratory (919) 541-5001
     FAX: (919) 541-1111

     Miriam Rodon-Naveira
     (919) 541-2435
     FAX: (919) 541-1111

     EPA/AREAL
     MD-78
     Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
                                             345

-------
       Multi-Resolution Land  Characteristics Consortium
                                     (MRLC)
 Type of sites  and locations:   Conterminous
 United States

 Nature  of EPA  involvement:   Coordinating
 agency

 Organizations  that initiated project:   EPA's
 Environmental  Monitoring   and Assessment
 Program (EMAP); the U.S. Geological Survey's
 National  Ambient Water Quality  assessment
 (NAWQA), Eros Data Center (EDC), and North
 American Landscape Characterization (NALC);
 and  the  National  Oceanic  and Atmospheric
 Administration's Coastal Change Analysis Pro-
 gram (CCAP)

 Major environmental problems: Project pro-
 vides geographic information system (GIS) data
 useful for assessment of a wide  variety of eco-
 logical problems.

Actions taken proposed: Natural resource (land
 cover/land use) mapping for United  States;
 development of a national archive of multiscale
 imagery and derivative  products.

Stakeholders:
    EDC
    EMAP
    CCAP
    NAWQA
    GAP
    NALC

Contact:
    Denice M.  Shaw, Technical Coordinator
    EMAP Landscape Characterization
    U.S. EPA
    Research Triangle Park, NC
    (919) 541-2698
    FAX: (919) 541-3615
    E-mail: shaw.denice@epamail.epa.gov
                                         346

-------
                      Oak-Savanna Ecosystem  Project
 Type of sites and locations:  The oak-savannas
 and open oak  woodlands of the Midwest are
 among the world's most threatened communities.
 At one  time, prior to European  settlement, oak-
 savanna and woodland communities occupied a
 significant portion  of the Midwest,  probably
 from 11 million to 13 million hectares.  Approxi-
 mately  17-20 percent of the Midwest oak-savan-
 nas remain; however, most are  highly degraded
 as  a  result  of  timber harvesting,  overgrazing,
 agricultural use, fragmentation, and fire suppres-
 sion.    Oak-savannas  extended from Canada
 through Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
 Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Okla-
 homa, and Texas.

 Nature  of EPA involvement:  EPA cooperated
 with the Universities of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
 and Northeastern Illinois and The Nature Con-
 servancy to sponsor a conference on the ecosys-
 tem.  The conference had two purposes: first, to
 bring the scientific community together to debate
 the issues regarding the viability of the system,
 the species included, and the steps necessary for
 recovery;  and, second, to develop and circulate
 a draft recovery plan for the oak-savanna system.
 The draft recovery plan  has been shared and
 revised based experience in the field and scientif-
 ic analysis. Another revision will be available at
 the September 1995 Savanna Conference in St.
 Louis, Missouri.

 Organization the initiated project: EPA Region
 V, Planning and Management Division, working
 with The Nature Conservancy and the University
 of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and North Eastern
 Illinois University.  Support for the effort came
 from all of the Divisions and Program Offices
 within Region V.

Major environmental problems:
    •    Loss of biological diversity
    •    Significant lose of grassland birds
    •    Soil erosion
    •    Increased flooding  in  the area  of the
        ecosystem
    •   Exotic species
Actions taken or proposed: A recovery plan for
the oak-savanna ecosystem has been drafted and
has been used by practitioners for  over a year.
Based on their experiences, the recovery plan has
been revised.   Another revision  will also be
made  available at  the  Savanna  Conference
planned for September 1995 in  St. Louis, Mis-
souri.  The region is also planning to meet with
the leading scientist and the agency partners to
establish a vision for the  ecosystem and  to
establish goals  and objectives.  The team will
then decide on the  initiatives that will be under-
taken and what each team  member can contrib-
ute.

Stakeholders:   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. National Park Service, U.S. National  Bio-
logical Survey, U.S. Forest Service, Department
of Defense, States of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri,
Ontario,  Canada,  The  Nature Conservancy,
volunteer stewards, and many local governments.

Contacts:
    Bill Franz
    U.S. EPA Region V
    77 West Jackson Boulevard
    Chicago, IL 60604-3590
    (312) 886-7500
    Fax: (312)353-5374

    Karen Holland
    Great Lakes National Program Office
    77 West Jackson Boulevard
    Chicago, IL 60604-3590
    (312)353-2690
                                             347

-------
                      OECA/OC  Watersheds Initiative
 Type of sites and locations: As yet undesigned

 Nature of EPA  Involvement:   The Office of
 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OE-
 CA) Water Enforcement Division and Office of
 Compliance (OC) are working together to devel-
 op  a  permitting, compliance  assistance,  and
 enforcement  strategy  to  apply the Agency's
 various  regulatory  authorities,  in conjunction
 with outreach,  in a concerted  effort  to prevent
 and/or remediate pollution in various watersheds.
 EPA hopes this strategy will be used by the  Re-
 gions and states  in setting priorities for FY96
 and will support and build on existing efforts at
 watershed protection.

 Organizations that initiated the project:
     OECA and EPA's Office of Water (OW)

 Major environmental  problems:   Depending
 upon the  watershed identified, problems  might
 include some of the folio wing:
     •    Nonpoint source pollution
     •    National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
         tion System (NPDES) violations
     •    Permits  that aire not sufficiently strin-
         gent
     •    Deposits from air emissions
     •    Combined  sewer  overflows,   storm
         sewer overflows,  or sludge problems
     •    Hazardous waste  storage or disposal
         violations
     •    Misuse of pesticides
     •    Inability to consume fish or use  water
         for drinking and/or recreation

Actions taken or proposed:
     •    Identification of measurement  criteria
         for identifying troubled  watersheds
     •    Expedited  issuance or  reissuance  of
         permits
     •   Compliance assistance
     •   Public information and outreach
     •   Enforcement (both administrative and
        judicial)
     •   Statutory or regulatory changes
Stakeholders:
    Local communities
    Regulated public
    States and Regions

Contact:
    Elyse Di Biagio-Wood (2243A)
    U.S. EPA
    401 M Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
    (202) 564-8187
    FAX: (202) 564-0018
                                            348

-------
               Pacific Salmon Habitat Recovery Project
Type of sites and locations:  All of Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho; major portions of west-
ern Montana and northern California.

Nature of EPA involvement:  Full partner; major
emphasis on aligning fishery  arid environmental
agencies' authorities and programs for maximum
salmonid  benefit,  particularly   in  improving
protection of critical aquatic and riparian habitat.
EPA will play key roles on both  the Habitat and
Hydropower subcommittees.

Organization that initiated  project:  Office of
Environmental Policy (White House), with lead
agency  responsibilities  resting   with  National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Major environmental  problems:   Our wild
Pacific Northwest salmon are crashing  toward
extinction. A growing list of at least 314 stocks
of salmonids (81  chinook, 98 coho, 6 sockeye,
28  chum, 6 pink, 89 steelhead,  and 5 sea-run
cutthroat) are at risk v/ithin western Washington,
western Oregon, and northern California alone.
     This  decline is symbolic of the pervasive
decline  of all  forms  of aquatic  biodiversity
regionwide.  The vast  majority  of the region's
river systems are significantly degraded by water
quality and quantity problems, and all watersheds
suffer  from  significant  "ecosystem simplifica-
tion," causing not just the loss and degradation
of freshwater habitats,  but critical aquatic food
chain problems as well.
     No  one agency can  reverse this  decline.
Authorities and resources are both incomplete
and fragmented across all levels of government.
Even worse,  many  agencies  have priorities that
run counter to salmon survival.

Actions taken  or proposed:  An Interagency
Memorandum of Agreement has  been signed by
seven key federal agencies; implementation is
under way.  The Pacific Salmon Coordinating
Committee has  been established.  Interagency
subcommittees  are now being  established  to
coordinate key issues  (i.e.,  habitat, hatcheries,
hydro, and harvest). Interagency teams are also
being  considered  for five  major ecoregions
(Washington Coast, Oregon Coast, Columbia
River,  and northern California.)   NMFS has
proposed to expand planned status review of nine
endangered salmon stocks to include comprehen-
sive status assessment of all Pacific salmonids.

Stakeholders:  Everyone.  It is almost impossible
to find any Pacific Northwest interest (public,
private, or parochial) that  will not be affected by
this effort.  Protecting  the salmon will require
fundamental, and extremely difficult, changes in
how people value and use the water resources in
the Pacific Northwest.

Contact:
    Anita Frankel
    U.S. EPA Region X
     1200 Sixth Avenue
    Seattle, WA 98101
    (206) 553-2963
    FAX: (206) 553-0165
                                              349

-------
      Rocky Mountain Headwaters  Mining Waste Initiative
 Type of sites and locations: The mineralized re-
 gions of the Rocky Mountains.

 Nature of EPA involvement: EPA Headquarters
 has provided funding to Region  VIII for this
 geographic initiative.   Regional  staff provide
 oversight to the research, remediation, coordina-
 tion, and  public involvement projects funded by
 the Initiative. Staff are often directly involved in
 the design and implementation of projects.  Staff
 also work in multiprogram, multiagency efforts
 to address issues  identified  by   the initiative
 objectives that are not  necessarily funded pro-
 jects.

 Organization that initiated projected: The water
 Quality Branch  of EPA Region VIII began the
 initiative.  Projects funded by the initiative were
 begun by  universities.,  other federal  and  state
 agencies,  municipalities, and watershed groups.

 Major environmental problems:  Heavy metals
 contamination of thousands of miles of Rocky
 Mountain streams due to  the remains of past
 mining activities  at  thousands  of  sites, and
 threats from current and  proposed mining ac-
 tivities.

 Actions taken or proposed: Using  the watershed
 framework of the Initiative, EPA  has improved
 participation by  stakeholders as   well as  the
 multiprogram, multiagency approach to address-
 ing mined sites within a geographic area.  EPA
 has developed a partnership network across the
 mineralized Rocky Mountains to share  tech-
 nology, data,  experiences, and resources and
 improve policies to restore water quality.  EPA
 has also developed biological indicators for metal
 impacted  sites  and is  developing  screening
 methodologies.  Site  characterization and  re-
 mediation  at mined sites throughout the region
 have led  to  improved understanding of  what
 needs to take place before remediation of target-
 ed mined areas within defined watersheds.  EPA
 has also experimented with and demonstrated
 several types of passive remedial technologies
and is  beginning to develop  knowledge about
their usefulness under certain scenarios.
 Stakeholders: Partnerships with the following or-
 ganizations have been developed through joint
 outreach, research, and remediation projects:
     Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited
     City of Golden
     City of Idaho Springs
     Clark Fork  Pend Oreille Coalition
     Clear Creek County
     Clear Creek Forum
     Colorado Division of Minerals and
          Geology
     Colorado Division of Wildlife
     Colorado Nonpoint Source Task Force
     Colorado School of Mines
     Colorado State University
     Colorado Water Quality Control Division
     Coors Brewing Company
     Kootenay River Network
     Montana Water Quality Bureau
     Northwest Colorado Council of
         Governments
     Sangre de  Cristo Resource  Conservation
         and Development  Council, Inc.
     San Juan County
     Salt Lake County
     South Dakota State University
     State of Idaho
     Sunnyside Mining Company
     The Nature  Conservancy
     U.S. Bureau of Land Management
     U.S. Bureau of Mines
     U.S. EPA Region X
     U.S. Forest  Service
     U.S. Fish  and Wildlife  Service
     U.S. Geological Survey
     Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado

Contact:
     Jim Dunn
     U.S. EPA Region VIII
     999  18th Street, Suite 500
     Denver, CO   80202-2466
     (303) 294-7030
     FAX: (303)  391-6957
                                             350

-------
                        Targeted  Watersheds  Project
 Type of sites  and locations:   The  Targeted
 Watersheds Project consists of four watershed
 restoration projects located throughout the State
 of Maryland.  The watersheds are the Sawmill
 Creek (122 square kilometers/8.5 square miles of
 mostly urban area) in Anne Arundel County, the
 Bird  River  (68  square kilometers/26  square
 miles) of future growth area with some current
 mining  activities) in  Baltimore  County,  the
 Piney/Alloway  Creeks (154 square kilometers/
 59.3 square miles of mostly dairy farming and
 feed-growing areas) in Carroll County, and the
 German  Branch  (50.5  square kilometers/19.5
 square miles) of mostly agricultural, row-cropped
 land) in Queen  Anne's County.

 Nature of EPA  involvement:  EPA has provided
 funding through section 319 of the Clean Water
 Act; and also has conducted regional training
 workshops  for biological monitoring.

 Organization that initiated project:
     Maryland Department of Natural
         Resources

 Major environmental problems: The purpose of
 the Targeted Watershed Project is to demonstrate
 the effectiveness  of coordinating  multi-agency
 resource management programs, on a watershed
 basis, to restore typical streams leading  to the
 Chesapeake Bay.  The project addresses prob-
 lems of nonpoint source pollution through its
 activities.

Actions  taken  or proposed:  Baseline  water
 quality assessments have been published for each
 watershed thus far.  Restoration education pro-
 grams  are  underway.   In urban  watersheds,
 several projects  have  been constructed to  im-
 prove habitat; several  major ones  (channel  and
 riparian  habitat  reconstruction  and  pollutant
control) are about to begin.  In the two agricul-
tural watersheds, there has been a  high level of
farmer cooperation, new best management prac-
tice (BMP) construction, and  nutrient manage-
ment plan implementation.   Trend monitoring
and restoration programs are continuing.
Stakeholders:
     State of Maryland:
         Chesapeake Bay Trust
         Department of Natural Resources
         Department of the Environment
         Department of Agriculture
         Department of Transportation
         Local Governments and Soil
             Conservation Districts of Queen
             Anne's, Baltimore, Carroll,and
             Anne Arundel Counties and
             Adams County, Pennsylvania
         Maryland Governor's Office (Bay
             Workgroup)

     U.S. Government:
         Department of Agriculture
         EPA
         Fish and Wildlife Service
         Geological Survey
         National Oceanic and Atmospheric
             Administration
     Private:
         Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
         Chesapeake Bay Foundation volunteers
         Sawmill Creek Watershed Association
         Save Our Streams

Contact:
     Stuart Lehman
     Maryland DNR
     Coastal and Watershed Resources Division
     Annapolis, MD
     (410) 974-5780
                                             351

-------
        TMDL (Total  Maximum Daily Load)  Case Studies
 Type of sites and locations:  Over 500 TMDLs
 have been initiated for waterbodies in 47 states
 since  1992, and over 225 have been completed
 and approved.  The Case Studies involve 13
 TMDLs, in  scattered  locations  throughout the
 United States, that are unusually progressive in
 their whole-watershed analysis perspective, use
 of new technologies or methods,  and attention to
 protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems.

 Nature of EPA involvement:   EPA  generally
 administers the Clean Water Act, and the section
 303(d) TMDL  program, as  a  state-delegated
 program  with  some  federal  oversight.   EPA
 reviews and  approves  TMDLs  developed by
 states  or tribes and has provided  technical assis-
 tance  or funding  to aid the development of
 specific TMDLs.
     Combining TMDL development with other
 assessment and planning efforts such as resource
 management plans, basin plans,  and watershed
 analyses is encouraged.  For example, the Clean
 Lakes program (Clean Water Act (CWA) section
 314) has  coordinated its program requirements
 with  the  TMDL  process so  that assessments
 conducted under Phase 1 of  the program  may
 qualify as TMDLs.  Analyses that qualify as a
 TMDL may be developed through activities such
 as CWA  section 319 nonpoint source manage-
 ment  programs  and  implementation  projects,
 Lakewide Area Management  Plans (LaMPs) in
 the  Great Lakes,  upcoming  activities under
 section 6217  of  the  Coastal Zone  Act  Re-
 authorization Amendments (CZARA), watershed
 analysis/planning under the President's Forest
 Plan, other land management planning by federal
 or state land management agencies, water quali-
 ty-based effluent limits (WQBELs), and ecologi-
 cal risk assessments.

 Organization that initiated project:
    EPA Office of Water, Office of Wetlands,
    Ocean and  Watersheds,   Assessment  and
    Watershed Protection Division, Watershed
    Branch

Major  environmental problem:  Traditionally,
TMDLs had been developed for chemical pollut-
ants  typically associated  with point  sources.
 More and more  often,  predominantly nonpoint
 pollution problems such as nutrients, ammonia,
 pH,  and sediment have become the focus of
 many TMDLs  as point source controls  and
 improved technologies reduce the contribution of
 point sources to water quality problems in gener-
 al.   Because of the flexibility of the  TMDL
 process, it  is possible  to develop TMDLs  for
 nonchemical stressors such  as  temperature and
 habitat alteration as well as the more traditional
 pollutants.  In these situations the methods used
 for reducing the loading may sometimes rely on
 ecological restoration.

 Actions taken or proposed: TMDLs are required
 by the Clean Water Act for estimating the load-
 ing reductions necessary to  meet water quality
 standards on  an  impaired waterbody and rec-
 ommending  control  measures  that will bring
 about this improvement.  TMDLs are applicable
 to whole watersheds and waterbodies impaired
 by point sources only, nonpoint sources only, or
 a combination of both point and nonpoint sourc-
 es, and are among the most flexible tools avail-
 able  for managing aquatic  ecosystem quality.
 Section 303(d) and the  TMDL  process provide
 the legislative and scientific underpinnings for
 the Watershed Protection Approach.
     As described in EPA regulations, a  TMDL
 is  defined as the sum of the individual wasteload
 allocations (WLAs) for point sources plus the
 sum   of  load allocations  (LAs)  for nonpoint
 sources plus a margin  of  safety  (MOS).   A
 reserve for future growth may also be included.
 The  TMDL concept applies to any type  of
 chemical, physical  or  biological pollutant  or
 other stressor affecting the Nation's waterbodies.
 TMDLs span a wide range of sizes and levels of
 complexity,  and although each  TMDL  will be
 unique  to the  waterbody and  the stressor it
 addresses, TMDLs must possess certain basic
 elements to  be approvable under CWA  section
 303(d).  These common characteristics  include
being  quantitative,  model-based,  focused  on
attaining water quality standards, and addressing
all possible sources of a  stressor.
                                             352

-------
      TMDL (Total Maximum  Daily Load) Case Studies
Stakeholders:
    States
    Tribes
    Other federal and. EPA water programs are
    directly involved in TMDL development;
    the public, recreational users, landowners,
    and practically any other interests may be
    involved in the process or in implementing
    the plans to reduce loadings and reattain
    water quality standards.

Contact person:
    Don Brady (4503F)
    OWOW/AWPD Watershed  Branch
    EPA Office of Water
    401 M Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
    (202) 260-7074
    FAX: (202) 260-7024
                                        353

-------
          Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Program
 Type of sites  and locations:  Four watershed
 projects  across the country  are  demonstrating
 how ecological risk assessment can add scientific
 rigor to management  decisions  and  priority
 setting  in  watershed  protection.   Watersheds
 include  Big Darby Creek, Ohio; Middle Platte
 River Wetlands, Nebraska; Snake  River, Idaho;
 Waquoit Bay Estuary, Massachusetts; and Clinch
 River, Virginia.

 Organization that initiated project:
      U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency in
      partnership  with  local government  and
      private organizations,  state regulatory and
      resource management agencies, and federal
      agencies

 Major environmental problems:
      •    Changing land use patterns
      •    Habitat alteration and  loss
      •    Point and nonpoint source pollution
      •    Overenrichment
      •    Hydrologic modification
      •    Sedimentation

 Actions  taken  or proposed:  Scientists and re-
 source managers at the  local, state, and federal
 levels, have formed volunteer partnerships in Big
 Darby Creek, Middle Platte River,  Snake River,
 Clinch River,  and Waquoit Bay  to  develop
 ecological risk  assessments in these watersheds,
 (Descriptions of the  watersheds  are provided
 elsewhere in this document.) These partnerships
 are highly successful because each recognizes
 that  establishing  management   priorities  and
 options based on a science is essential to effec-
 tive watershed management.
     Each watershed partnership  worked directly
 with  the public, local and state resource man-
 agers, federal agencies, and private organizations
 to identify  common goals for  the watershed.
 The goals were then used to  design the water-
 shed risk assessment to ensure that  the outcome
 of the assessment will directly assist stakeholders
 in making cohesive and effective decisions for
 their watershed.
    In addition to  providing  examples  of  eco-
logical risk assessments  in four  watersheds, the
case studies will demonstrate how to improve the
 monitoring and assessment process, use scientific
 information more effectively in management
 priority setting, and maximize limited resources
 and data in watershed-level evaluations.
     Guidance will be produced from this work
 that is appropriate for use at the local, state, and
 federal levels. The guidance will include infor-
 mation on how  to conduct and  use watershed
 ecological  risk  assessments  to  evaluate  the
 relative and combined effects of human activities
 on  watershed resources,  and will  provide  a
 decision  framework  for selecting among man-
 agement  options to protect those  resources.

 Stakeholders:
    Federal resource management agencies
    Federal environmental protection
         agencies
    General public
    Industry
    Local citizens groups
    Private organizations
    State environmental protection agencies
    State resource management agencies

Contact:
    Suzanne Marcy (4304)
    401  M Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20460
    (202) 260-0689
    FAX: (202)  260-1036
                                             354

-------
              Wetlands Advance  Identification  Program
 Type of sites and locations: There are approxi-
 mately 77 projects (both completed and ongoing)
 in EPA's Wetlands Advance Identification Pro-
 gram (ADID). ADID projects range in size from
 less than 40 hectares (100 acres) to greater than
 10,360 square  kilometers (4000 square miles)
 and are located from Alaska to Florida.

 Nature of EPA involvement:   ADID  is  an
 advance planning process under which EPA, in
 cooperation with the Corps of  Engineers and
 after consultation with the state, may  identify
 wetlands and other waters that are either general-
 ly  suitable or unsuitable  for the discharge  of
 dredged and fill material prior to  receipt of a
 Clean Water Act section 404 permit application.
 While an ADID study generally classifies wet-
 land areas as suitable or  unsuitable for the dis-
 charge of dredged or fill material, the classifica-
 tion does  not constitute either a permit approval
 or a denial and should be used only as a guide
 by  landowners and  project proponents  in  the
 planning of future activities. The nature of this
 classification is strictly advisory.

 Organization that initiated project: Program was
 created through  amending  Clean Water Act
 regulations during the mid-1980s.

 Major environmental problems: Primary char-
 acteristics of areas  chosen for ADID  are  the
 presence of wetlands of unusually high value or
 quality, an elevated likelihood of negative im-
 pacts upon those valued characteristics, and the
 resulting opportunity to provide general informa-
 tion and initiate dialogue  in advance of specific
 permit applications.

Actions taken or proposed: The ADID process
 generally involves collection and distribution  of
 information  on  the  values and functions  of
 wetland areas.  This  information provides the
 local community with information on the values
 of wetland areas that might be affected by their
 activities,  as well as a preliminary indication  of
factors that are likely to  be considered during
review of a Section 404 permit application.
    The ADID process is intended to add pre-
dictability to the wetlands permitting process  as
 well as better account for the impacts of losses
 from multiple projects from within a geographic
 area. The process also informs the local popula-
 tion of the values and functions of wetlands in
 their area, and it generates environmental infor-
 mation valuable for other purposes.   Individual
 ADID projects have been developed throughout
 the United States, as listed below:

 REGION I
 Lake  Champlain  Region Advance  Planning
     Project
 Leonard Pond Advance 404(c)
 Southern Maine/York County ADID

 REGION II
 Hackensack Meadowlands

 REGION in
 Cedar  Island, Virginia
 Chincoteague Island, Virginia
 Philipsburg/Moshannon Valley,  Pennsylvania
 Pocono ADID
 Quakertown Swamp
 Sussex County/Delaware  Inland Bays

 REGION IV
 Carolina Bays ADID
 Carteret County, North Carolina ADID
 Central Dougherty Plain ADID
 Florida Keys ADID
 Huntsville Area ADID
 Northeast  Shark River   Slough  (East  Ever-
     glades)
 Pearl River - Jackson, MS ADID
 Rookery Bay
 Southwest Biscayne Bay ADID
 St. John's Forest
 West Broward County
 West Chatham County
 West Kentucky Coalfield

 REGION V
 DuPage County, Illinois
 Grand  Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal
    ADID
Green Bay Special Wetlands Inventory Study
    (SWIS)
 Kenosha County ADID
                                             355

-------
              Wetlands Advance  Identification Program
 REGION V (cont)
 Kosciusko County ADID
 Lake Calumet SAMP
 Lake County, Illinois ADID (I)
 Lake County, Illinois (II)
 Rock Run ADID
 SEWRPC Corridor ADID
 Streetsboro Project
 Western Ohio/Lake Erie ADID

 REGION VI
 Bolivar Flats
 Faulkner Lake
 Lower Pearl River
 Upper  Trinity River Basin

 REGION VII
 Rainwater Basin ADID Study

 REGION VIII
 Boulder ADID
 Crested Butte, Colorado (Informal ADID)
 Jackson ADID (Informal)
 Missouri  River Valley Project, North Dakota
 Park County (Informal)
 Salt Lake County (Jordan River ADID)
 Snyderville Basin ADID
 Telluride ADID

 REGION IX
 Santa Margarita River Watershed
 Verde River

 REGION X
 Albany, Oregon Wetland Conservation Plan
 Bainbridge Island Wetland Conservation Plan
 Cannon Beach Wetland Planning Project
 Clackamas County Wetlands Planning Project
 Columbia South Shore Wetlands Management
 Colville Delta ADID
 Grants  Pass,  Oregon  Wetlands  Conservation
    Plan
 Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan
 Homer ADID
Juneau  ADID
Lincoln City Wetlands Planning Project
Mill Creek Drainage Basin SAMP
Prineville Wetlands Planning Project
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
    Phase I
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
    Phase II
Rockaway Beach Wetland Conservation Plan
Roseburg, Oregon Wetland Conservation Plan
Salem, Oregon Wetlands Conservation Plan
San Juan County Wetland Conservation Plan
Springfield Wetland Conservation Plan
Teton Valley Wetland Management Plan
Tigard Wetlands Planning Project
Toledo Wetlands Planning Project
Warrenton, Oregon Wetlands Conservation
    Plan
West  Corvallis/Squaw Creek  Wetlands  Plan-
    ning Project
West Eugene Wetland Conservation Plan

Contact person:
    John Ettinger (4502F)
    U.S. EPA
    401 M Street, SW
    Washington, DC  20460
    (202) 260-1190
                                           356

-------
                 Wetland  Restoration  Research Project
Type of sites and locations:  Samples of popula-
tions of freshwater wetlands of various sizes in
the Willamette Valley in western Oregon, east-
central Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Puget Sound
in western Washington,  the  Upper  Arkansas
watershed in Colorado, the Sari Luis Rey water-
shed  in  southern  California,  and the Prairie
Pothole Region (PPR).

Nature of EPA involvement:  EPA's Wetlands
Research Program (WRP) is conducting studies
to (1)  evaluate the ecological performance of
restored,   created,  and  enhanced  wetlands;
(2) develop  approaches  for  identifying  and
prioritizing sites for restoration; and (3) deter-
mine possible land use effects on  the functions
of wetlands.

Organization the initiated project:
    EPA's Wetlands Research Program

Major environmental problems:
    •    Wetland loss
    •    Urbanization
    •    Impacts  from  mining  and  farming
         practices
    •    Hydrologic modification.

Actions taken  or proposed:   The  Wetlands
Research Program is (1) conducting the work in
the Willamette Valley in Oregon; (2) cooperating
in the design,  data collection, and analysis for
the Pennsylvania, PPR, and Connecticut studies;
and (3) providing technical support as needed for
the San Luis Rey, Upper  Arkansas, and Wash-
ington studies.  Studies in the  San Luis Rey
watershed are nearing completion.  The studies
in the Upper Arkansas, Oregon, and Pennsylva-
nia are under way.  The  work in Connecticut,
Washington, and the PPR is being planned. The
study  in Connecticut will  be in the field in the
spring of 1995.  The study in the PPR will be in
the field in the summer of  1996. The implemen-
tation of the field work for the Washington study
is dependent on funding.
Stakeholders: Potential stakeholders include the
Natural  Resources Conservation Service  (for-
merly Soil Conservation Service); the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service; various state agencies; and
conservation groups, such as Ducks Unlimited.

Contact person:
    Mary E. Kentula
    U.S. EPA Environmental Research
         Laboratory
    200 SW 35th Street
    Corvallis, OR 97333
    (503) 754-4478
    FAX: (503) 754-4716
    ALL-IN-ONE: kentula.mary
                                            357

-------

-------