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 protectionan 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 regionsVirginia's Eastern
Shore, Maryland's Chester River wa-
tershed, and Pennsylvania's Cumber-
land Countyis 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-
lemsthe Patapsco, Anacostia, and
Elizabeth Riversas 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.
CitySpacedeveloping 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-
plexthe 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 areaamong
natural communities, people, cultural, historical
and political traditions and economy. There are
also common challengesfor 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 placesthe
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
imperativeecosystem 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 impactssignifi-
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
estuarythe 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 componentgreen 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-
vationhealthy 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-
shedthe 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 Watchto 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 estuaryimpacts 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 impactse.g., fish kills,
cold water releases, low DO releases
Development impactse.g., develop-
ment near urban areas, river access
projects, wetland losses, possible future
harbor development
Habitat alteration/destructione.g.,
dredging, salinity impacts, sedimenta-
tion, hydropower releases, development
Commercial shipping impacts on har-
bor water quality
Water quality impact of drought man-
agement planse.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 siteCannelton 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
peopleone-third of the entire population of
Louisianalive 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 countiesDent,
Phelps, Crawford, Franklin, Jefferson, and St.
Louisbefore 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 Texastotaling
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
miniforuma 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
Planenvironmentally sustainable
development plan for the central can-
yon area.
Golden Gate Canyon"Great Outdoors
Colorado" State Park improvements.
Colorado School of Mines freshman
class EPICSnonpoint source evalua-
tions.
Colorado School of Mines Research
Instituteemergency cleanup of radio-
active waste.
City of Goldenwater quality ordinanc-
es and enforcement.
Riparian restoration of Clear Creek
through Golden and Wheat Ridge by
Coors.
Clear Creek WIIN Newsletter and
video.
Clear Creek1-76 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
Districturban runoff water quality
control and flood prevention projects.
Division of WildlifeStream 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-
teesthe Recreation, Open Space and Wildlife
Habitat Subcommittee; the Water Quality and
Supply Subcommittee; and the Flood Control
and Land Use Subcommitteehave 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-
ancea nonprofit organization not
eligible for tax-deductible giftswas
formed for fund raising and grant
application for CRC.
The Chehalis Basin Resource Trusta
nonprofit organization eligible for tax-
deductible gifts, easements, and be-
questswas 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 riversMiami, Kilchis, Wil-
son, Trask, and Tillamookdrain 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
-------
------- |