A SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
IN BAYS AND ESTUARIES
VOLUME I
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
and
Region I
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
November 1992
-------
_
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
National Estuary Program Background
Report Purpose and Objective
Report Format
Project Approach
Selection Criteria
SECTION H: PROJECTS OF INTEREST
Boat and Marine Wastes
Contaminated Sediments
Land Use and Development Controls
Local Government and Community Involvement
Nutrient Loading
On-site Disposal Systems
Public Outreach and Education
Stormwater Controls
Toxic Waste Reduction
. Wetland/Habitat Protection and Restoration
SECTION ffl: IDENTIFIED PROJECTS
APPENDIX A: MATRIX OF PROJECTS BY CATEGORY
APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
Page
i
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
7
12
17
21
31
39
42
46
61
70
81
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. National Estuary Programs Investigated
Table 2. NEP Project Categories
Table 3. Projects of Interest Selection Criteria
Page
2
3
4
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank the following people for the assistance and cooperation they
provided in gathering information for this document.
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds: Joan Giordanno; Sandi Horton; Spencer Rodgers; Jennifer
Steel; Randy Waite. Buzzards Bay: Joseph Costa; George Heufelder; David Janik; Carol
Kilbride. Chesapeake Bay: Gould Charshee; Mike Haire; Ed Stiggal; Tom Tapley;
Delaware Bay: Marjorie Crofts; Mary Downes-Gastrich - DELEP; Steve Feltenberger -
EPA Region 2; Jay Laubengeyer - Cumberland Co. Planning. Delaware Inland Bays:
John Schneider - Delaware Inland Bays Program; GALVESTON BAY: Frank Shipley -
Galveston Bay Program; Carol Ward - Galveston Bay Program. Indian River Lagoon:
Derek Busby - Indian River Lagoon Project; Robert Day - Indian River Lagoon Project.
Long Island Sound: Susan Beede - EPA Region 1; Cynthia Pring-Ham - EPA Region 1;
Paul Stacey - Long Island Sound Study. Narragansett Bay: Richard Enander - RIDEM;
Katrina Kipp - EPA Region 1; Jennie Meyers - Land Management Project; Clayton
Pennimen - Narragansett Bay Project; Terry Whalen - Land Management Project. New
York/New Jersey Harbor: Seth Ausubel - EPA Region 2; Dawn Blauth - NY/NJ Harbor
Project; Mary Downes-Gastrich - NY/NJ Harbor Project; Cindy Rovins - NY/NJ Harbor
Project. Puget Sound: Kevin Anderson - PSWQA; Rika Cecil - WA Office of Envir.
Education; John Dohrmann - PSWQA; Dana Duxbury - Dana Duxbury & Associates;
Jane Rubey Frost - WA Dept of Ecology; William Green - WA Dept of Ecology; Nancy
Hansen - City of Bellevue; Kathy Minsch - PSWQA; Bob Sanders - PSWQA; Randy Scott
- PSWQA; Mike Spranger - WA Sea Grant; Bob Steelquist - PSWQA; Ken Stone - WA
Dept of Ecology; Michael Wheeler - PSWQA. San Francisco Bay: Rachael Dagovitz - San
Francisco Estuary; Tim Vendlinsky - EPA Region 9; Scott Wiley - Alameda Co. Flood
Control; Sam Zeigler - EPA Region 9; Amy Zimpfer - San Francisco Estuary. Santa
Monica Bay: Karen Ceasar - Santa Monica Bay Program; Catherine Tyrrell - Santa
Monica Bay Program; Maryann Yamaguchi - Santa Monica Bay Program. Sarasota Bay:
Mark Alderson - Sarasota Bay Program; J.P. Marchand - Sarasota Co. Stormwater; Heidi
Smith -Sarasota Bay Program; Doug Taylor - City of Sarasota; Susan Walker - Sarasota
Bay Program. Tampa Bay: Richard Eckenrod - Tampa Bay Estuary Project; Mary Hoppe
- Tampa Bay Estuary Project; Karen Lind - Tampa Bay Estuary Project.
Technical support for development of this document was provided by Metcalf and Eddy
under EPA Region I Contract 68-D-90163 with funding from the Casco Bay Estuary
Project, the Massachusetts Bays Program, and EPA Region I. Original cover artwork by
Sandra Koch.
-------
-------
A SUMMARY OF ACTION PLAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
IN THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) and Casco Bay Program have recently been added
to the National Estuary Program (NEP). A major theme of the MBP and CBEP is to take
action now to protect and restore the Bay ecosystems. To achieve this agenda, the MBP and
CBEP are interested in better understanding the many implementation and demonstration
activities that have been undertaken in other estuary programs and how they may apply to the
problems facing Massachusetts and Casco Bays. Therefore, in this project, various
demonstration and implementation activities undertaken in other estuary programs are
reviewed for effectiveness, transferability, and applicability to Massachusetts and Casco Bays.
The projects investigated include demonstration projects as well as unique programmatic
initiatives of 15 NEPs and are divided into 11 separate project categories.
• Boat and Marine Wastes
• Contaminated Sediments
• Land Use and Development Controls
• Local Government and Community Involvement
Nutrient Loading
• On-site Disposal Systems
• Public Outreach and Education
• Shellfish Bed Protection and Restoration
• Stormwater Controls
• Toxic Waste Reduction
• Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
REPORT FORMAT
This project was conducted in a phased approach, with an initial inventory of projects
followed by a selection of potentially applicable projects for further investigation. The report
is divided into three sections. Section I outlines background information and the method by
which projects were investigated and summarized. Section n contains project summaries for
29 separate projects of particular interest to members of the Massachusetts and Casco Bays
Estuary Programs. These project summaries are organized according to the 11 categories
listed above. Section HI contains a complete listing of 180 demonstration projects and estuary
program structures identified during this project. This listing of projects, organized by
category, also includes a brief description of the project, its status, and a reference for further
information. This summary document is directed toward members of the MBP and is
designed to direct the reader to areas of the report of particular interest to the MBP.
-------
BOAT AND MARINE WASTE
Two basic categories of projects are included under those addressing boat and marine wastes:
discharge/pumpout facilities and general waste recycling projects. Of the projects identified,
the projects dealing directly with the issue of pumpout facilities are generally just under way
and had not reached conclusions. Therefore, the project summaries focus on two debris
recycling projects directed toward boat operators and marinas. Both of these projects have
been successful and outline potential program structures that could be implemented in
Massachusetts Bays.
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Although the estuary programs investigated for this project generally identified contaminated
sediments as a problem within the estuary, very few projects have been conducted to address
the issue. The three projects identified have all been conducted in Puget Sound. The project
summarized in Section n resulted in the development of sediment cleanup guidelines. These
guidelines are some of the only guidelines existing for sediment cleanup. They consider
aspects such as human health risks and cleanup costs. These guidelines may be of interest to
the MBP as a starting point in the development of guidelines specific to Massachusetts Bays.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PROJECTS
The two projects investigated for this category have both been conducted in other NEPs in
New England. They have both been successful and address issues of interest to Massachusetts
Bays. The Dartmouth Water Quality Management Plan was conducted at the municipal level
and could serve as an example of watershed planning for communities within the
Massachusetts Bays area. Also, the Narragansett Bay Land Management Project has been
successful at improving community awareness of land management issues. Many of the
individual activities of the Land Management Project could have direct applicability to the
Massachusetts Bays watershed communities.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
This category of projects is universally recognized by NEP members as being important to the
overall success of a bay program. The involvement of local officials in the decision making
process and the implementation of demonstration projects is essential. The projects most
directly applicability to Massachusetts Bays include two projects conducted by the Buzzards
Bay Project A nonpoint source control document for local officials was developed and has
been distributed to officials throughout the coastal regions of Massachusetts., Therefore,
many of the communities in the Massachusetts Bays watershed will already be familiar with
this document In addition to the development of mis document, the Buzzards Bay Project's
Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee and Coalition for Buzzards Bay are two organizations that
could serve as models for local involvement in Massachusetts Bays.
NUTRIENT LOADING
Nutrient loading is generally a problem in all estuaries within the NEP. Various categories of
projects designed to address the problems of excessive nutrient loads have been attempted.
These range from phosphate detergent bans and the implementation of biological nutrient
n
-------
removal to the development of watershed plans and agricultural water quality cost share
programs. Of the projects investigated for this report, the Buzzards Bay Nitrogen Overlay
Project could be directly applicable to Massachusetts Bays. In this project, a methodology was
developed for calculating existing nitrogen loading and acceptable nitrogen loading limits for
the Buttermilk Bay drainage basin. New zoning bylaws were developed and adopted by three
towns to reduce future development, thereby reducing the amount of nitrogen entering the
bay. The results of this - project could be applied throughout the Massachusetts Bays area.
ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Very few demonstration projects have been conducted to reduce pollutant loads from on-site
septic systems. However, a project was conducted in Buzzards Bay to develop model health
regulations for the siting and construction of on-site disposal systems. These model
regulations are in the form of supplements to the existing Massachusetts Tide 5 regulations
and specify stricter standards for setbacks, depth to groundwater, and percolation testing.
Since these supplements directly address Title 5, they could be applicable for communities
within the Massachusetts Bays watershed.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
Like local government involvement, public education and outreach are very important aspects
of all estuary programs. This is the category of projects with the most existing demonstration
projects. Every estuary program in the country has spent considerable time in developing an
effective public education program. Most of the projects implemented by estuary programs
utilize conferences, media outlets, monthly newsletters, field trips, and other common
techniques for reaching citizens. However, there are also many unique programs under way in
the various estuaries. The table in section m of the report should be investigated closely for
many of these programs. However, Section H outlines one project that is particularly
innovative and successful. The Puget Sound Teacher Training Program not only provides
training for elementary and high school educators, but the program also provides funding for
the teachers to take days out of work to attend seminars and educational opportunities. The
idea of providing training as weU as a funding incentive to attend the training has been very
successful and has potential for development within the Massachusetts Bays region.
SHELLFISH BED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
Most of the effort expended to date on shellfish bed protection and restoration has gone
toward research into the causes of shellfish bed closure. Since these efforts have not led to
implementation activities, they were not investigated for this report. Some implementation
activities have been conducted, and these are listed in the table infection m. However, all of
the projects that have been conducted are very particular to the types of problems facing the
specific estuaries. It was found that the projects are not very transferable to Massachusetts
Bays. Therefore, there are no shellfish bed protection and restoration projects' outlined in
Section n.
STORMWATER CONTROLS
Most estuary programs have conducted demonstration projects for the control of stormwater
m
-------
pollution. Most of these projects are directly applicable to Massachusetts Bays. However,
some of the projects have been very innovative and have led to interesting conclusions. The
Mamaroneck Harbor project in Long Island Sound reached the conclusion that maintenance
activities such as street sweeping and catch basin cleaning are not very effective at reducing
stormwater pollution.' The Maryland Stormwater Quality Control Cost Share Program has
been one of the most successful programs in the country for funding runoff control projects.
Also, the San Francisco Bay Artificial Wetlands Project and the Buzzards Bay Electric
Avenue Beach Project will be developing useful data on the effectiveness of artificial
wetlands and infiltration systems for the control of stormwater runoff pollution.
TOXIC WASTE REDUCTION
Toxic waste reduction programs have been implemented within many estuary programs. The
Rhode Island Hazardous Waste Reduction Project has been particularly successful at reducing
toxic waste discharges from industrial sources. Through this program, many industries
throughout the Narragansett Bay watershed have implemented hazardous waste reduction
programs. This program could serve as a model for the reduction of toxic wastes in the
Massachusetts Bays watershed.
WETLANDS/HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
Many of the projects identified under this category could be directly applicable to
Massachusetts Bays, and the table in Section HI should be investigated. However, the projects
outlined in Section n are particularly unique. These projects include a shoreline erosion
control project conducted in Albemarle/Pamlico Sound, a stream preservation effort that has
become a national model in Puget Sound, and an actual habitat restoration project in Sarasota
Bay. All of these projects could provide valuable guidance for similar effort in Massachusetts
Bays.
SUMMARY
The final report contains a variety of information on demonstration projects conducted
through the National Estuary Program. If the reader is interested in detailed information on
specific projects conducted, the project summaries in Section n provide a good starting point,
with references at the end for obtaining further detailed information. However, if the reader is
more interested in seeing the full scope of projects conducted through the NEP, the Table in
Section in serves as a more logical starting point. In either case, it will be noticed that few
actual reports have been written about the implementation projects conducted through the
NEP. Therefore, additional information concerning specific project will generally only be
available by contacting the project contact listed at the end of each project summary.
IV
-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM BACKGROUND
In 1987, with the passage of amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA), Congress officially
created the National Estuary Program (NEP). The purpose of this program is to identify
nationally significant estuaries, protect and improve their water quality, and enhance their living
resources (U.S. EPA, 1990). Estuaries are selected into the NEP based on their potential to
address issues of significant national concern and the demonstrated commitment by various
parties to protect valuable resources. Currently, 17 estuaries are part of the NEP with five being
recently added to the 12 existing programs. Common problems found in these estuaries include
contamination from toxicants and pathogens, nutrient loading, habitat loss, declining abundance
in living marine resources, agricultural and urban runoff, and waste disposal activities.
Once an estuary is accepted into the NEP, EPA formally convenes a Management Conference
which must develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) to protect
the estuary. The Management Conference must also build a base of support to carry out the
recommended actions outlined in the CCMP.
In addition to developing CCMPs, Management Conferences also conduct extensive research
activities and implement projects to improve the water quality of the estuary. These projects are
usually demonstration activities, which are implemented on a small scale but can have
applicability to larger areas of the estuary.
REPORT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE
The Massachusetts Bay Program (MBP) in Massachusetts and the Casco Bay Estuary Program
(CBEP) in Maine are two of the five recently added estuaries to the NEP. Both of these
programs are overseen by the U.S. EPA Region I office in Boston, Massachusetts and have
recently convened their management conferences. A major theme of the MBP and CBEP is to
take action now to protect and restore the ecosystem. To achieve this agenda, the MBP and
CBEP are interested in better understanding the many implementation and demonstration
activities that have been undertaken in other estuary programs and how they may apply to the
problems facing Massachusetts and Casco Bays. Therefore, the purpose of this project is to
review and assess demonstration and implementation activities undertaken in other estuary
programs for effectiveness, transferability, and applicability to Massachusetts and Casco Bays.
The projects investigated for this report include demonstration projects as well as unique
programmatic initiatives of the national estuary programs and also Chesapeake Bay, which is a
program that predates the creation of the NEP. Estuary programs investigated for this report
include those shown in Table 1.
-------
Table 1: National Estuary Programs Investigated
Albemarle/Pamlico Sound
Buzzards Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Inland Bays
Galveston Bay
Indian River Lagoon
Long Island Sound
Narragansett Bay
New York/New Jersey Harbor
Puget Sound
San Francisco Bay
Santa Monica Bay
Sarasota Bay
Tampa Bay
REPORT FORMAT
This report contains information pertaining to action/demonstration projects and unique
programmatic aspects of each of the above listed estuary programs. This project was conducted
in a phased approach, with an initial inventory of projects and selection of potentially applicable
projects by representatives of the Massachusetts and Casco Bay Programs for further
investigation.
This section outlines the approach by which information was obtained on each of the projects
addressed in this report and outlines the process for selecting projects of interest. Section II
contains the detailed project summaries of the selected projects which are arranged according
to the issues they address under the 11 categories shown in Table 2.
A complete listing of all projects and estuary program structures identified during this project
is included in Section ffl. This listing of projects, organized by category, also includes a brief
description of the project, its status, and a reference for further information. Since many
projects could be included under more than one category, Appendix A contains a matrix to cross
reference projects between the major categories listed above.
-------
Table 2: NEP Project Categories
Boat and Marine Wastes
Contaminated Sediments
Land Use and Development Controls
Local Government and Community Involvement
Nutrient Loading
On-Site Disposal Systems
Public Outreach and Education
Shellfish Bed Protection and Restoration
Stormwater Controls
Toxic Waste Reduction
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
PROJECT APPROACH
The large scope of this project required the establishment of many contacts within each of the
estuary programs. Information was gathered through research, document reviews, meetings,
correspondence, and phone calls. The process for gathering and reviewing information began
with a request for information letter which was sent to the Directors and Managers at the fifteen
National Estuary Programs listed above. Follow up phone calls were made a week later and
documents began to arrive on a regular basis. Exhibits of correspondence used for obtaining
project information are included in Appendix B. Upon receipt of a document, the document
name and author were logged into a document inventory logbook and a central document library
was created.
Documents received from the Estuary Programs were reviewed for applicable projects.
Approximately 180 structural, non-structural, and programmatic demonstration and
implementation projects were extracted from the documents. These projects are briefly
summarized and included in Section HI. Scientific studies, surveys, and computer modelling
were not considered applicable "projects" for this report. When document review was
completed, a draft form of Section III was sent for review by appropriate staff within each of
the Estuary Programs. Comments and suggestions from their feedback were incorporated into
the Section.
From the list of projects in Section III, state and federal representatives from Massachusetts Bay
and Casco Bay selected 29 projects as "projects of interest" for this report. Selection was based
on a set of criteria that are discussed in Section I of this report. For each of these selected
projects, a two to three page summary has been prepared. The detailed information needed to
prepare the summaries was obtained through project literature and by contacting project
managers, staff, and principal investigators. To insure accuracy in the summaries, a copy of
-------
each completed project write up was sent to the appropriate contact for review and approval.
The contacts provided feedback and comments to insure that the project summaries are complete,
current, and technically accurate.
SELECTION CRITERIA
From the master list of projects in Section IE, 29 projects were selected for a more detailed
review and assessment. Selection of these projects was conducted by representatives of
Massachusetts Bay and Casco Bay based on the criteria listed below in Table 3.
Table 3: Projects of Interest Selection Criteria
1. At least one project must be selected for each of the eleven water quality issues in Table
2 with the exception of Shellfish Bed Protection and Restoration. This was due to an
apparent lack of a Shellfish Protection project which satisfied criteria number 3.
2. All projects selected must have either an ongoing or completed status.
3. Projects must be generally applicable to conditions present in Massachusetts Bay and/or
Casco Bay.
4. Sufficient information must be available to allow for a substantial project review and to
support subsequent inquiries.
5. There must be a mix of structural, non structural, and programmatic projects.
6. Innovative and unique projects must be well represented.
7. Projects should contain lessons to be learned for implementing the project elsewhere.
Every project selected did not necessarily meet all of the above criteria, however, projects which
were most applicable and satisfied as many of the requirements as possible were chosen. In
addition, a majority of the projects selected are ongoing projects. Therefore, more information
will become available on these projects as they are completed.
-------
SECTION II - PROJECTS OF INTEREST
NUTRIENT LOADING
Buzzards Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Sarasota Bay
Buttermilk Bay Nitrogen Overlay Project
Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost
Share Program
Sarasota Wastewater Reclamation Project
PROJECTS OF INTEREST
This section contains the project summaries completed for the 29 projects of interest. Each
summary includes a project description, a discussion of funding and management, the current
project status, unique highlights including a discussion of the success or failure of the project,
and references for further information. The summaries are organized by category as outlined
in Table 2. The following projects are summarized in this section:
BOAT AND MARINE WASTE
NY/NJ Harbor New Jersey Marine Debris Recycling
Project
Puget Sound Marine Debris Demonstration and
Education Project
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Puget Sound Sediment Management Standards
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
Buzzards Bay Dartmouth Water Quality Management
Plan
Narragansett Bay Land Management Project
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Buzzards Bay Nonpoint Source Control Demonstration
Project
Buzzards Bay Coalition for Buzzards Bay/Buzzards Bay
Advisory Committee
Delaware Bay Local Government Committee
Puget Sound Interagency Technical Assistance Team
ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Buzzards Bay Septic System Model Health Regulations
7
10
12
17
19
21
23
26
29
31
33
36
39
-------
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
Delaware Bay Legislative Liaison Project
Puget Sound Teacher Training Program
STORMWATER CONTROLS
Albemarle/Pamlico
Buzzards Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Long Island Sound
Puget Sound
San Francisco Bay
Sarasota Bay
Merchants Millpond Stormwater
Demonstration Project
Electric Avenue Beach Stormwater
Demonstration Project
Maryland Stormwater Quality Cost Share
Program
Mamaroneck Harbor Stormwater
Demonstration Project
Stormwater Control Guidance
Artificial Wetland Stormwater Control
Project
Sarasota County Stormwater Utility
TOXIC WASTE REDUCTION
Narragansett Bay Rhode Island Hazardous Waste Reduction
Project
Puget Sound Urban Bay Action Teams
Puget Sound Household Hazardous Waste Program
WETLAND/HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
Albemarle/Pamlico
Puget Sound
Puget Sound
Sarasota Bay
Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration
Project
Stream Team Program
Local Government Wetland Preservation
Program
City Island Habitat Module Project
42
44
46
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
64
67
70
73
76
78
-------
New Jersey Marine Debris Recycling Project
New York - New Jersey Harbor
Project Description
In the state of New Jersey, there has been a growing public concern over coastal water quality.
In 1987 and 1988, reports of ocean pollution incidents and an increase in floating marine debris,
especially plastic products, contributed to a $600 million dollar loss in tourism revenues. To
combat these problems, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has
created several key programs. These include Operation Clean Shores, the Cooperative Coastal
Monitoring Program, an anti-litter campaign, and helicopter surveillance of coastal waters.
During implementation of these programs, it was found that a significant increase in public
education on marine pollution was needed. Therefore, this project was undertaken to implement
a one year pilot marine debris recycling program and strong public education effort at three
selected marinas in New Jersey. These marinas were the Winter Yacht Basin in Ocean County,
the Lincoln Harbor Yacht Club in Hudson County, and the Frank S. Farley State Marina in
Atlantic City.
The marinas were selected based on the existence of pumpout and oil recycling facilities as well
as past responsible environmental practices. The marinas .ranged in size from 175 to 650 boat
slips, and the amounts of traffic.and solid waste operations were also varied. Only the Frank
S. Farley Marina previously had a recycling arrangement in place.
At the beginning of the project in early spring, letters explaining the recycling project were sent
with the slip rental bills to boaters at each of the trial marinas. A questionnaire was also
enclosed to identify trash disposal habits at home and at the marina. Recycling containers and
solid waste removal were provided free of charge by Ocean County for the Winter Yacht Basin.
The Frank S. Farley Marina had their own receptacles and the Lincoln Harbor Yacht Club hired
a private recycling company to collect and dispose of the materials. For this project, the
materials being recycled were glass bottles, aluminum cans, plastic beverage containers, and
newspapers.
In addition to the recycling containers, educational exhibits and information were put on display
at each of the trial marinas. Literature on the problems of plastic in the water, oil recycling,
safe boat paints, locations of NJ pumpout facilities, and the projects promotional stickers were
provided. Colorful reflective road signs that read "This Marina Recycles!" were posted around
the property of each marina. Large banners with the project logo and slogan were also flown.
Cotton reusable tote bags were distributed to each boater in the program to be used instead of
plastic bags for collection of recycling items on boats. Public service announcements by sports
and movie celebrities were played throughout the summer on cable television stations in New
York, New Jersey, and the Philadelphia area. All of these, and several other, multi media
techniques were used to educate the public about ocean pollution and encourage participation in
Boat and Marine Wastes
-------
the pilot recycling program.
Project Funding
This project was funded by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of $71,000
to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP then matched $23,668
of that grant for a total project budget of $94,668.
Project Management
Initially, meetings were held with staff of each of the participating marinas to seek their support
and ask for feedback throughout the project. This initial step proved valuable in opening a
dialogue with the project manager and marina workers.
A Task Force was established to provide advice, assistance, and feedback on the project.
Members of the Task Force included representatives from the New York/New Jersey Harbor
Project, NJ Marine Trade Association, NJ Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service, United Boatmen
of NJ, Ocean County Department of Solid Waste, the Marine Bureau of the State Police, the
U.S. Coast Guard, and the three marina operators. This group monitored the project's progress
and gave recommendations that will aid future recycling programs throughout New Jersey.
Project Status
This was initially a one year project scheduled between November 1989 and November 1990.
A six month extension was granted by the EPA to finish preparation and distribution of Marine
Recycling Kits. The project was scheduled to be completed at the end of June 1991.
Project Highlights
Overall, this project was considered to be very successful by all the groups involved. A
significant finding of this project was that a recycling program, no matter how well planned,
needs a strong public education element to make it effective. Much was learned about which
recycling techniques work best in a marina environment. A list of project experiences and
suggestions for other programs has been compiled into a "How to Recycle at Your Marina " kit
which is being distributed to all marina operators in New Jersey. In addition, a substantial list
of recommendations is contained in the project final report document. Some of the more
significant findings include:
1) Recycling compliance is greatly enhanced by public education material.
Boat and Marine Wastes
-------
2) Dumpsters do not make good recycling containers because people deposit miscellaneous
trash in them. Locating recycling containers away from trash receptacles works best as
long as it is still convenient for the boaters.
3) Compliance is best when all recyclable materials can be placed in the same container,
however, this is often unrealistic because of varied collection methods in different
communities.
4) Keeping the marina staff informed of the project encourages support of the program and
increases success.
5) An informative letter should be sent to each boater at the marina to inform them of the
project and boost participation.
6) Posting signs, hanging banners, and using recycling stickers was found to be helpful in
advertising the project and reminding boaters to recycle.
References/Contacts
New York - New Jersey Harbor Project. Pilot Project to Encourage Proper Handling of Marine.
Debris at a Series of Small Ports in New Jersey. Final Report. December 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Update: NY-NJ Marine Debris Handling and
Recycling. June 1990. *
Mr. Seth Ausubel, EPA Region H. Telephone (212) 264-6779
Ms. Wendy Kaczerski, New Jersey DEP. Telephone (609) 633-7020
Boat and Marine Wastes
-------
Marine Debris Demonstration and Education Project
Puget Sound
Project Description
The University of Washington's Sea Grant program set up a pilot marine debris recycling project
in SquaHcum Harbor in Puget Sound. The program was designed to reduce the amount of
plastic and other debris that boaters were dumping into Puget Sound and to educate boaters about
the problems of marine debris and its adverse effects on the environment and marine life.
The program was modeled after a similar program in Newport, Oregon, but it was modified to
specifically target commercial fishermen in Squalicum Harbor and the gear they use such as
wood, metal, lines, and nets. Fish carrying totes, four foot square by three feet deep were
donated by local fish processing plants and used as the recycling containers. Each tote was
washed, painted, and a chicken wire top was placed on each one.
The project was initially delayed six months due to lack of a committed advisory group and
support from the agency responsible for the harbor. Once this obstacle was overcome, the
project proceeded smoothly. The need for support from key persons within the affected
organizations was a valuable lesson learned from the start up of this pilot program.
The materials recycled in this program were cardboard, aluminum, scrap metal, scrap wood, and
nets. The recycling totes were placed at the head of each marina ramp within the harbor. Once
fishermen and boaters began rilling the totes with material, the project gained momentum and
widespread support.
The second part of this project consisted of disseminating information about recycling marine
debris. This was done with posters and information packets.
Project Funding
This project was funded by the Puget Sound NEP's Public Involvement and Education (PIE)
Model Projects Fund. The original budget for this project was $30,000. An additional $5,000
grant was given to republish and distribute more literature from the project.
Project Management
This project was managed by the University of Washington's Sea Grant Program. The project
staff was headed up by a coordinator from Sea Grant.
Boat and Marine Wastes
10
-------
Project Status
This project has been completed. A successful recycling program is now in place at Squalicum
Harbor in Bellingham.
Project Highlights
This project has succeeded in establishing a marine debris recycling program in Squalicum
Harbor and in educating the public about marine recycling and the'harmful effects of marine
debris on aquatic life. As part of the educational phase of the project, 3,000 copies of a color
poster about the Giant Pacific Octopus have been distributed. The posters are part of an
information packet that has been developed for use by other marinas. The packet includes group
specific brochures with marine recycling tips for commercial fishermen and recreational boaters.
Educational materials from this project have been distributed throughout the Sea Grant System.
Marinas and other agencies from across the country have requested information about the
project.
Upon seeing the success of the marine debris recycling program in Squalicum Harbor, the city
of Bellingham initiated its own curbside recycling program.
References/Contacts
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. PIE Model Projects Fund: 47 Success Stories From Pueet
Sound
Mr. Michael Spranger, Washington Sea Grant. Telephone (206) 543-660044
Boat and Marine Wastes
11
-------
Sediment Management Standards
Puget Sound
Project Description
Sediment samples collected in recent years from many locations within Puget Sound indicate that
there is recent and ongoing toxic contamination present, particularly in urban bay areas To
address this issue, the Washington Department of Ecology has adopted a new regulation-
Sediment Management Standards. The regulation became effective on April 27,1991 and is one
of the first sediment regulations to be established in the United States.
The new regulation has three key parts:
1) Sediment Quality Standards - standards have been developed that identify contaminated
sediments that have adverse effects on marine life or pose a significant health risk to
humans. Allowable concentration levels for the following 47 chemicals have been
established:
Puget Sound Marine Sediment Quality Standards (ref4)
Chemical Parameter
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
Chemical Parameter
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
2-Methylnaphthalene
mg/kg Dry Weight
ppm (dry)
57
5.1
260
390
450
.41
6.1
410
mg/kg Organic Carbon
(ppm Carbon)
370
99
66
16
23
100
220
38
Contaminated Sediments
12
-------
Chemical Parameter
HPAH
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(A)Anthracene
Chrysene
Total Benzofluoranthenes
Benzo(A)Pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-C,D)Pyrene
Dibenzo(A,H) Anthracene
Benzo(G,H,I)Perylene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Dimethyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Hexachlorobutadiene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Total PCB's
Chemical Parameter
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Benzyl Alcohol
Benzoic Acid
mg/kg Organic Carbon
(ppm Carbon)
960
160
1000
110
110
230
99
34
12
31
2.3
3.1
.81
.38
53
61
220
4.9
47
58
15
3.9
11
12
ug/kg Dry Weight
(ppb dry)
420
63
670
29
360
57
650
Sediments which are found to exceed the standard concentration level, are subjected to biological
testing to determine if they cause adverse biological effects. suojeciea to Dioiogical
Contaminated Sediments
13
-------
2) Source Control - the new regulation describes how the sediment quality standards will
be used to control sediment contamination from ongoing, permitted sources. "Sediment
Impact Zones" will be established in areas where dischargers are using the best available
technological control but are still causing contamination in excess of the quality
standards. The zones will permit the sediment quality standards to be exceeded to some
degree but would also require additional information for the discharge permits, increase
the sediment monitoring in the area, and require management of the sediment impact
zone.
3) Sediment Cleanup - The new regulation has established a uniform set of guidelines for
the decision process used in managing contaminated sediments. These guidelines are
incorporated into the Sediment Management Standards rule and will be used to determine
whether existing contaminated sediments should be capped, excavated, treated, or
allowed to recover naturally. The sediment guidelines, outlined below, focus and direct
all activities in the following stages of sediment management 1) site identification, 2) site
screening, 3) site ranking according to human health risk, 4) site prioritization, and 5)
selection of cleanup actions:
Outline of Sediment Cleanup Guidelines
1) The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan calls for contaminated sites to be
identified by Urban Bay Action Teams as part of the overall management plan.
Consequently, recommended guidelines for this stage of the process have not yet been
developed.
2) The site screening step is conducted to identify sites where action should be expedited
or deferred based on the site characteristics. A set of decision making guidelines has
been recommended for both expedited and deferred action.
3) The purpose of step 3, the sediment ranking system, is to assess the relative hazard the
contaminated sediments pose to human health and the environment. A finalized ranking
process relative to human health risk is not currently available, however, a framework
for the ranking system has been developed. Contaminated sediment sites that have been
ranked are placed on a list in order of their hazard ranking. The list describes the
current status of cleanup action at the site and is updated annually.
4) During site prioritization, the site rank scores and other information are evaluated. Site
prioritization differs from site ranking in that administrative considerations are taken into
account such as regulatory mechanisms, funding sources and action status. A stepwise
mechanism for this prioritization process has been developed which takes into account
these factors.
5) The evaluation of sediment cleanup actions is applied to all contaminated sediment sites
according to their final priority rating. Cleanup action and remedy selection guidelines
Contaminated Sediments
14
-------
have been developed which take into account source control activities, natural recovery
and erosion control considerations, and appropriate remedial strategy selections.
The recommended guidelines mentioned above are discussed at length and are contained in the
second reference document for this summary.
Project Funding
The proposed budget contained in the 1991 Water Quality Management Plan for the development
of the Sediment Management Standards is $418,934 for the 1991-93 biennium. The proposed
budget for the development of the cleanup decision guidelines is $70,771 for the same time
period.
Project Management
The Sediment Management Standards regulation has been developed by the Washington
Department of Ecology (DOE). The DOE conducted an extensive public involvement and
technical development process for the regulation. Affected parties include ports, industry,
federal and state agencies, and environmental groups. Implementation of the regulation will be
assisted by an Implementation Committee. This committee will allow affected parties and the
public to continue to be involved in the sediment management program.
Project Status
An Environmental Impact Statement, Responsiveness Summary, and Economic Impact Statement
were completed during the development of the regulation. On March 5, 1991, the Washington
Ecological Commission approved the regulation. The regulation became effective on April 27,
1991.
Project Highlights
Sediment remedial actions have already been implemented in the St. Paul Waterway, a
designated "problem area" within Commencement Bay, a Superfund site adjacent to Puget
Sound. The Superfund studies identified three potentially responsible parties. Two of these
parties combined to fund remedial actions to clean up and control the contaminated sediments.
Federal, State, and Local agencies as well as interested citizens were all involved in developing
and overseeing the actions. The response actions at the St. Paul Waterway represent the first
Contaminated Sediments
15
-------
approved and completed remedial actions at the site. In addition, the source controls being
implemented in the Waterway are the first approved and completed source control actions at the
Commencement Bay Superfund site.
References/Contacts
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan
Washington Department of Ecology. Recommended Guidelines for Contaminated Sediment
Cleanup Decisions. Draft June 19KQ " ~
Washington Department of Ecology. Focus: Sediment Mana^ment Standards. March 1991.
Washington State Register, Issue 91-08, Chanter 173-204 WAC - Sediment Management
Standards. " "
Mr. Michael Wheeler, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Telephone (206) 493-
Contaminated Sediments
16
-------
Dartmouth Water Quality Management Plan
Buzzards Bay
Project Description
Buzzards Bay is adversely impacted by various types of nonpoint source pollution, including
stormwater runoff, failed septic systems, and boat wastes. In order to address this nonpoint
source pollution in one subwatershed of Buzzards Bay, a water quality management plan is being
developed by the Town of Dartmouth. The Town is preparing a water quality management plan
for the Buttonwood Brook watershed, which is a tributary to Buzzards Bay. This water quality
management plan is focusing on reducing nonpoint source pollution with the ultimate aim of
reopening closed shellfish beds in the area of Dartmouth.
This project began with a shellfish inventory in Dartmouth to determine the value of the closed
shellfish areas. In addition, land use maps were created to assist in locating potential nonpoint
sources of pollution. From these maps, areas of potential nonpoint source pollution were
delineated. This was followed by a water quality sampling effort in Buttonwood Brook which
further isolated potential high pollution areas. In addition to this focus on land use within the
Buttonwood Brook watershed, the project also involved a review of regulations in the Town of
Dartmouth pertaining to water quality issues. This review included wetlands regulations, zoning
bylaws, subdivision regulations, and septic system requirements. From this review, and the data
obtained during the land use study and water quality sampling efforts, recommendations for
improved protection of Buttonwood Brook will be formulated. These recommendations will
focus on reducing pollutant inputs to Buttonwood Brook through the use of nonstructural zoning
restrictions, improved wetland regulations, and stricter subdivision requirements. To date, these
recommendations have not been made.
Funding Sources
This project is funded by the Buzzards Bay Project, the NEP agency for Buzzards Bay, through
its Municipal Grants Program. In this program, the Buzzards Bay Project provides a yearly sum
of money to fund action/demonstration projects within the Buzzards Bay watershed.
Municipalities can propose projects to be funded under this program, and proposals are reviewed
by the Buzzards Bay Project for their appropriateness for funding. In some instances,
communities are required to provide some additional funding for these projects. However, this
project was completely funded by a Municipal Grant for $13,200.
Land Use and Development Controls
17
-------
Project Management
This Water Quality Management Plan is being developed by the Town of Dartmouth, with
oversight being provided by the Buzzards Bay Project.
Project Status
This project is under way but has not reached completion. The shellfish inventory, land use
mapping, potential nonpoint source delineation, and water quality sampling efforts have all been
completed. Currently, the water quality regulations review is under way and will be followed
by the development of recommendations. A final report, including the actual water quality
management recommendations, is expected by the end of November, 1991.
Project Highlights
This project is being conducted principally at the municipal level with oversight by the Buzzards
Bay Project. The experience gained in this project can be used to produce similar water quality
management plans throughout the Buzzards Bay and Massachusetts Bay watersheds. Also, this
project is an example of a successful program funded by the Buzzards Bay Municipal Grants
Program. This program has been successful at providing funding for locally conducted projects
throughout the Buzzards Bay watershed. More specific results will probably be available upon
completion of the municipal regulation review and nonpoint source control recommendations.
Since many of the communities in the Buzzards Bay watershed have similar regulatory powers,
the findings of this portion of the study will have impacts outside of the Buttonwood Brook
watershed.
References/Contacts
For further information concerning this project, please contact
Mr. David Janik, Buzzards Bay Project, 2 Spring Street, Marion, MA 02738. Telephone
(508) 748-3600.
Dr. Joseph Costa, Buzzards Bay Project, 2 Spring Street, Marion, MA 02738.
Telephone (508) 748-3600.
Mr. Michael Gagne, Town of Dartmouth, 400 Slocum Road, Dartmouth, MA 02747.
Telephone (508) 999-0713.
Land Use and Development Controls
18
-------
Land Management Project
Narragansett Bay
Project Description
The Land Management Project (LMP) is a non-regulatory companion organization of the
Narragansett Bay Project (NBP). It is a resource organization for use by local and state land
management personnel, and its purpose is to provide assistance to communities on effective land
use and nonpoint source management techniques. The assistance provided includes:
1. helping communities implement growth strategies that are both protective of vital
resources and fiscally responsible;
2. developing land management ordinances to be used as models for local communities;
3. providing technical reviews of local land management projects and plans;
4. conducting evening in-town conferences for local community boards, commissions, and
residents on land use management and development techniques;
5. holding a variety of technical conferences on watershed management, planning, and
financing issues for environmental professionals and the design community;
6. publishing fact sheets on land use-water quality relationships, planning tools, and a broad
range of specific structural and non-structural BMPs applied to nonpoint source pollution
management.
The technical assistance provided by the LMP is in response to Rhode Island's two year
mandatory comprehensive planning process which requires each city and town to develop a
comprehensive local land management plan.
In addition to the technical assistance provided to local communities, the LMP project staff
works with designers to showcase specific site designs, landscaping techniques, and use of BMPs
to control nonpoint source pollution to Narragansett Bay. Slides of example projects in Rhode
Island and in other regions of the U.S. are available for use in technical presentations. Guided
field tours of demonstration projects are also offered.
Project Funding
This project is jointly funded, as an action plan through the Narragansett Bay Project, by the
U.S. EPA and the Rhode Island DEM. The original project grant was for $150,000 in July of
1988. Additional monies totalling $66,886 have been provided by the NBP, one for $36,866
in November of 1989, and one for $30,000 in April of 1990. The LMP is now awaiting the
approval of another $50,000 grant from the NBP to extend the project.
Land Use and Development Controls
19
-------
Project Management
The Land Management Project is housed in the Office of Environmental Coordination of the
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), and works closely with the
RIDEM Nonpoint Source Program staff. General project supervision is provided by the NBP,
and its Land Use Subcommittee, which includes state and local government professionals and
academics. The full-time staff includes a senior professional environmental scientist and one
professional planner, with intern and consultant support.
Project Status
The LMP was created in December, 1988 with a projected two-year Action Plan time-table, and
has been extended due to the lengthened duration of the state comprehensive planning process.
Pending additional funding by the NBP, the project could be extended into December of 1991.
Project Highlights
The LMP has aggressively pursued the results of projects emerging throughout the U.S. on land
use-water quality relationships and innovative growth management and nonpoint source control
techniques. Because of this, the LMP has had the opportunity to synthesize research results for
a wide audience and to offer new unbiased information on emerging and controversial land use
issues to a broad range of organizations. These research results are disseminated to interested
parties through workshops, conferences, educational materials, and technical guidance.
Communities have taken advantage of the technical assistance being provided by the LMP as
evidenced by the in-town workshop series which has been conducted in all 39 cities and towns
in the State of Rhode Island. In addition, seven technical conferences have been held throughout
the State with nationally and regionally recognized speakers. These conferences have been
attended by interested personnel from throughout New England.
References/Contacts
Narragansett Bay Project. Scope of Work: Land Management Project. Work element #9.
Mr. Terence Whalen, Water Resources Specialist, Land Management Project. Telephone
(401) 277-2776
Ms. Jennie Meyers, Director - Land Management Project. Telephone (401) 277-2776
Ms. Caroline Karp, Director - Narragansett Bay Project. Telephone (401) 277-3165
Land Use and Development Controls
20
-------
Nonpoint Source Control Demonstration Project
Buzzards Bay
Project Description
Coastal areas in Massachusetts, including Buzzards Bay, have been experiencing significant
decreases in available open shellfish beds in recent years. Much of the problem has been traced
to fecal coliform contamination resulting from nonpoint source pollution (MADEP, 1990). In
this project, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts provided technical assistance to local
communities developing nonpoint source control plans by developing two nonpoint source
control management plans and developing a guidance document outlining a methodology for
developing these management plans.
In this project, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, through a contract
with Metcalf & Eddy, Inc, prepared a nonpoint source guidance document for local officials to
assist them in developing nonpoint source management plans. This document outlines a
methodology for assessing and addressing nonpoint source pollution with an emphasis on the
types of pollution sources found in Massachusetts coastal communities. However, much of the
information contained in this document could be used by inland communities interested in
protecting lake and river resources. The methodology outlined in the guidance document
includes information on reviewing environmental data, evaluating affected resources, identifying
and ranking pollution sources, identifying and evaluating potential best management practices,
and developing plans to control priority sources. This document has been sent to many
communities throughout Massachusetts, as well as agencies in other states.
As a part of this project, two nonpoint source management plans were developed for the Towns
of Westport and Bourne, Massachusetts. These demonstration projects investigated both
structural and nonstructural best management practices to reduce pollutant discharge to shellfish
resources. Pollutant sources included stormwater runoff, agricultural runoff, septic systems, and
industrial/commercial land uses. The development of these plans assisted in the development
of the subsequent guidance document which outlines the process used during these projects.
Funding Sources
The development of the document "Nonpoint Source Control: A Guidance Document for Local
Officials" was funded by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Water Pollution Control. Funding for the development and distribution of the document was
approximately $130,000.
Local Government and Community Involvement 21
-------
Project Management
Primary oversight for this project was provided by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Water Pollution Control, Research and Development
Program. Through this project, an advisory committee was developed which included
representatives of the Buzzards Bay Project, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, USEPA
Region I, the Soil Conservation Service, the Southeast Regional Planning and Economic
Development District, and various citizens' groups from Westport and Bourne, Massachusetts.
Project Status
The nonpoint source control document was completed in February 1990 and has been distributed
to communities in Massachusetts and agencies in other states. The reaction to this document has
been generally favorable. However, it is not known if any communities have utilized the
methodology outlined in the document to develop nonpoint source management plans.
Project Highlights
The process for conducting this project included the development of two demonstration nonpoint
source management plans for the Towns of Bourne and Westport. These demonstration projects
were conducted prior to the development of the guidance document. Therefore, the process
described in the guidance document was developed through these demonstration projects.
Conducting these demonstration projects was important to the overall development of the
guidance document, since they provided opportunities to develop the methodology prior to
writing the guidance document.
In addition to providing education for participating local officials, the development of specific
nonpoint source management plans for Bourne and Westport allowed for interaction between
various local officials, state agencies, and citizens' groups in the Buzzards Bay watershed.
References/Contacts
Mr. George Kretas, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Water Pollution Control, Research and Development Program. Telephone (508) 366-
9181.
Mr. Bob Kubit, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Water Pollution Control, Nonpoint Source Program. Telephone (508) 366-9181.
Local Government and Community Involvement 22
-------
Coalition for Buzzards Bay/Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee
Buzzards Bay
Project Description
Like other programs within the National Estuary Program (NEP), the Buzzards Bay National
Estuary Program (BBP) established a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC). Early in the
development of this structure for the program, participants in the CAC realized that this group
could be more effective in their efforts to raise public awareness of issues in the Bay if they
were divided into two separate organizations. These organizations represent the two major
constituent groups within the BBP: the general public and local officials. The BBP provided
seed money to create the Coalition for Buzzards Bay (CBB) which would act as the voice of
citizen organizations and the general public. In addition to this group, the BBP has also
developed an organization of local town officials initially called the Buzzards Bay Advisory
Committee, now known as the Buzzards Bay Action Committee (BBAC). This entity serves to
advise the BBP regarding the development and implementation of the CCMP for the Bay.
Today, the CBB has become an independent group that works to increase the awareness of
citizens and communities surrounding the Bay about water quality and land use in the area. It
is an independent non-profit organization which has grown to over 600 members from research
institutions, businesses, citizen and environmental organizations, and the general public. The
CBB concentrates its effort on informing people about the practical ways in which they can
contribute to a healthier and safer environment. The CBB produces fact sheets, conducts public
education programs, issues environmental report cards for watershed communities, and holds
forums on issues such as oil spill response and zoning variances.
The BBAC received start up funding from the BBP to hire an executive director. The BBAC
is responsible for:
1) Taking regional water quality concerns down to the local level.
2) Keeping local boards aware of the technical assistance available through the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office.
3) Helping Buzzards Bay communities solicit funds for pollution control projects.
4) Serving as a political force for funding of local projects.
One of the BBACs accomplishments was the establishment of a Municipal Grants Program. This
is a program designed to fund local pollution control projects in the Buzzards Bay watershed.
In this program, communities send proposals for local projects, and the BBAC awards funds to
implement the projects. Seven separate demonstration projects totalling $100,000 were funded
through the Municipal Grants Program in its first year alone. These seven projects are listed
in Section m as demonstration projects within this report. In addition to the establishment of
the Municipal Grants Program, the BBAC's most significant accomplishment has been the
Local Government and Community Involvement
23
-------
signing of the Buzzards Bay Compact by all communities within the Buzzards Bay watershed.
This Compact represents the local community's commitment to implement the recommendations
of the CCMP.
Funding Sources
The BBAC received funding from the BBP to hire an executive director and to develop the
Municipal Grants Program, which is administered by the BBAC. However, the CBB is an
independent, non-profit organization which does not receive funding from the BBP. All funds
required by the CBB are raised through memberships and corporate and individual donations.
In addition to money raised through its membership, the CBB also receives funds from the BBP
for conducting specific tasks.
Project Management
The BBAC has a full time executive director and membership consisting of local officials from
communities within the Buzzards Bay watershed who are selected by the community selectmen
or mayor. Members of the BBAC include area health officials, regional planners, and members
of municipal boards. The CBB has two full time staff members and a board of directors elected
by the full membership. The staff is responsible for publishing monthly newsletters and
conducting public education.
Project Status
The BBAC is an active organization within the BBP and holds monthly meetings to develop and
now implement the recommendations of the CCMP. Since its initial establishment in 1987, the
CBB has become an independent non-profit organization.
Project Highlights
The development of the BBAC and the CBB have greatly helped the Buzzards Bay Project in
the development of goals and communication of these goals to the general public and the local
municipalities.
The BBAC has successfully overseen the dissemination of funds from the Municipal Grants
Program. This program has been very successful at funding local demonstration projects
throughout the Buzzards Bay watershed. The funded projects include stormwater controls, septic
system studies, land use planning efforts, and watershed management plans. In addition to the
Municipal Grants Program, the BBAC has been successful at getting the Buzzards Bay
Local Government and Community Involvement 24
-------
communities to sign the Buzzards Bay Compact. This Compact is vital to the implementation
of recommendations within the CCMP.
The CBB has been able to take the seed money given by the BBP in 1987 and become an
independent non-profit organization. Therefore, they no longer have to rely on funding from
the BBP to remain an effective organization. The fact that the CBB has been able to successfully
fund their own programs demonstrates the commitment of local citizens to the improvement of
water quality in Buzzards Bay. In addition to projects conducted with CBB funds, additional
specific projects are conducted by the CBB through funding from the BBP.
Contacts/References
For further information regarding the BBAC or CBB, please contact the following:
Mr. Dennis Luttrell, Executive Director BBAC, Buzzards Bay Project, 2 Spring Street,
Marion, MA 02738. Telephone (508) 748-3600.
Ms. Marion McConnell, Coalition for Buzzards Bay, P.O. Box 268, Buzzards Bay, MA
02532. Telephone (508) 759-5761 EXT 334.
Local Government and Community Involvement 25
-------
Local Government Committee
Delaware Estuary Program
Project Description
In an attempt to increase local government involvement in the Delaware Estuary Program
(DELEP), the Local Government Committee (LGC) was created. The purpose of the LGC is
to provide advice and recommendations to the DELEP Management Committee, to provide
coordination with local governments, and to assist in the development and implementation of the
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). In support of this, the LGC is
tasked with:
1. disseminating information about the DELEP to local governments;
2. communicating local government programs and initiatives to the DELEP;
3. reviewing local government efforts in view of the goals set by the CCMP;
4. advising the management committee in the development of annual reports;
5. advising the management committee in the development of annual workplans and
budgets;
6. advising the management committee on required changes concerning federal, state, and
local regulatory and monitoring efforts;
7. advising the management committee on required changes concerning land use programs,
authorities and initiatives;
8. directing funding expenditures for local government projects;
9. coordinating local government involvement in the DELEP.
The Local Government Committee works closely with the Public Participation Task Force,
especially in the development of programs for the Legislative Liaison Program. In addition, the
LGC oversees the development of reports and projects related to local government involvement
in the DELEP. For example, the LGC oversaw the development of an issues paper looking into
options for implementing land use management and nonpoint source control for the Delaware
Estuary.
The LGC also acts as an organization to bring together the diverse people involved at the local
level throughout the Delaware Estuary watershed, including people from three different states:
Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Project Funding
The LGC is part of the DELEP Management Committee and receives funding from the general
DELEP budget. Funding in the first year of the LGC included $65,000 for two projects: a
local land use management inventory and assessment; and a federal, state, and local
Local Government and Community Involvement
26
-------
regulatory/monitoring program inventory and assessment.
Project Status
The LGC was created by the management conference in 1989 and has been ongoing since its
creation.
Project Management
The LGC does not have any full time staff. Its membership is composed of representatives of
local governments, county planning commissions, county conservation districts, Coast Guard,
and other appropriate groups and organizations. The committee membership is limited to 33
members with decisions being made by consensus. Members of the LGC must:
1. be potentially affected by the recommendations contained in the CCMP;
2. be willing to assume responsibility for communicating with a local government or
appropriate government agency and attend regular meetings;
3. have knowledge and interest in Delaware Estuary water quality and resource management
issues;
4. be within the impact area of the program.
Project Highlights
The LGC has only been functioning within the DELEP since 1989 but has already begun funding
and overseeing projects at the local level. The local land use and regulatory programs are
progressing under the direction of the LGC. In addition to these projects, the LGC is also
responsible for participating in the Legislative Liaison Project and the Constituent Group
Conferences. These projects involve getting local government officials and citizens together to
address issues regarding Delaware Bay. These projects have been successful at developing
interest in the work of the DELEP.
Because the Delaware Bay watershed includes three states: Delaware, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania, the LGC includes members from all three states. This organization has been
valuable for bringing together representatives of these three states to address the water quality
issues of Delaware Bay.
Local Government and Community Involvement
27
-------
Contacts/References
Delaware Estuary Program Local Government Committee Bylaws. Revised Nov. 1989.
Available from the Department of Environmental Resources, Division of Coastal Zone
Management, P.O. Box 1467, Harrisburg, PA 17120.
Mr. Steve Feltenberger, DELEP Assistant State Program Coordinator, P.O. Box 8761,
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8761. Telephone (717) 541-7808.
Local Government and Community Involvement 28
-------
Interagency Technical Assistance Teams
Puget Sound
Project Description
The Puget Sound Nonpoint Source Action Plan calls for the development of watershed
management committees within each priority watershed in the Puget Sound Region. The
committees are made up of representatives from local, state, and federal agencies, as well as
watershed residents and affected parties. These watershed management committees are
responsible for developing a watershed action plan for their area. The action plans define goals
and objectives, define problems, characterize water quality, and provide a budget for pollution
control and implementation strategies.
Two technical assistance teams have been established as part of the Puget Sound Nonpoint
Source Action Plan to aid local watershed committees in developing their watershed action plans.
These teams are the Interagency Technical Assistance Team (TTAT) and the Puget Sound
Cooperative River Basin Study Team.
In 1987 the Department of Ecology formed the ITAT. The ITAT is made up of members from
the Departments of Ecology, Health, Wildlife, Fisheries, Natural Resources, Agriculture, the
PSWQA, and other state environmental agencies. Individuals participate on the ITAT over and
above their normal duties at their respective agencies. Team members are responsible for
tracking development and implementation of watershed action plans in their areas of technical
expertise. They provide technical assistance to watershed committees throughout the watershed
planning process and coordinate technical assistance between their agency and other agencies.
Members participate in watershed plan reviews and serve as the contact at their respective
agencies.
The Cooperative River Basin Study Team is a joint project between the Soil Conservation
Service, Forest Service, and the Departments of Ecology and Fisheries. This technical
assistance team functions similarly to the ITAT by providing assistance to watershed
management committees. The team provides a report with its recommendations to the local
watershed action committee. This team has had great success and has been very well received
by local people within the watersheds.
Project Funding
Funding for the teams comes from the state general fund. Individual agencies provide funding
for one or more individuals to serve on the teams. Team members participate in the project in
addition to their normal work responsibilities.
Local Government and Community Involvement 29
-------
Project Management
The assistance teams do not have a rigid management structure. The ITAT has a coordinator
who manages the team. The Cooperative River Basin Study Team has a team leader at the Soil
Conservation Service.
Protect Status
This project has been ongoing for three years.
Project Highlights
The ITAT and Cooperative River Basin Study teams have been successful in aiding local
management committees in preparing their watershed action plans. The ITAT has been able to
facilitate a statement of concurrence process which commits agencies to carry out their
responsibilities within the action plans.
References/Contacts
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
Mr. Ken Stone, Washington State Department of Ecology. Telephone (206) 438-7073
Local Government and Community Involvement
30
-------
Buttermilk Bay Nitrogen Overlay Project
Buzzards Bay
Project Description
Studies of Buzzards Bay have shown that excessive nitrogen loading to the Bay has resulted in
water quality degradation. This nitrogen loading results from both point and nonpoint sources
of contamination. However, within the Buzzards Bay watershed, the nitrogen loading is
primarily from nonpoint sources such as lawn fertilization and septic systems (BBP, 1990). As
a first step, a methodology for reducing nitrogen loadings from these sources was developed and
implemented in three communities in the Buttermilk Bay watershed: Wareham, Bourne, and
Plymouth.
As a first step, the current and future expected loadings of nitrogen to Buttermilk Bay were
determined and compared to the acceptable nitrogen loading rate developed by the Buzzards Bay
Project for the Bay. Based on this comparison, zoning density was decreased to maintain
nitrogen loadings below the acceptable level. The process for conducting this project included
delineating the tributary area of Buttermilk Bay, studying the Bay's flushing patterns and rates,
calculating acceptable yearly nitrogen loadings, calculating future nitrogen loadings at maximum
buildout, comparing the expected future load to the acceptable loading rate, and developing plans
to restrict future development so that nitrogen loading will remain below the acceptable level.
This study concentrated on the Buttermilk Bay watershed which includes portions of the towns
of Bourne, Plymouth, and Wareham. The recommendations for these communities focused on
restricting future development through zoning to prevent the watershed nitrogen loadings from
exceeding the acceptable total load calculated for Buttermilk Bay.
Funding Sources
This project was funded by the Buzzards Bay Project through Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Total funding for this project was
approximately $35,000.
Project Management
This project was overseen and conducted by the Buzzards Bay Project. Assistance in calculating
the acceptable yearly nitrogen loadings to Buttermilk Bay was provided by the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute.
Nutrient Loading
31
-------
Project Status
All work on this project has been completed, and the study recommendations have been adopted
by the towns of Bourne, Plymouth, and Wareham through town meeting votes on zoning
articles. The articles passed nearly unanimously in all three communities. Therefore, all three
communities now have zoning regulations which consider total nitrogen loading to Buttermilk
Bay.
Project Highlights
The Buzzards Bay Project has estimated acceptable nitrogen loading rates for this class of
embayment that may be applicable in other similar embayments. The methodology for
calculating current and expected nitrogen loads from developments is also applicable nationwide.
The management recommendations are Buttermilk Bay specific, and similar recommendations
may or may not be appropriate for other embayments.
In this project, the acceptable nitrogen loading level was found to be significantly lower than the
expected nitrogen loading level at full development. However, it was greater than the existing
nitrogen loading. Therefore, future protections were instituted. If current loadings had already
exceeded the acceptable loading, more costly and extensive solutions would have been required.
One of the important lessons to be learned from this project is that cooperation at the municipal
level is required in order to implement this type of project. In this case, the three affected
communities, Bourne, Plymouth, and Wareham, cooperated during the project, and they also
passed local regulations once the project was complete. If one or more of the three communities
did not participate in this effort, the protection afforded Buttermilk Bay would likely have been
inadequate.
References/Contacts
For further information regarding the Buttermilk Bay Nitrogen Overlay Project please contact
the following:
Mr. David Janik, Buzzards Bay Project, 2 Spring Street, Marion, MA 02738. Telephone
(508)748-3600.
Mr. Bruce Rosinoff, Buzzards Bay Project, 2 Spring Street, Marion, MA 02738.
Telephone (508) 748-3600.
Nutrient Loading
32
-------
Maryland Agricultural Cost-Share Program
Chesapeake Bay Program
Project Description
The Maryland Agricultural Cost-Share Program (MACS) was created in 1983 and provides
financial assistance to farmers who install agricultural best management practices (BMPs) to
solve water quality problems. Under this program, farmers can receive up to 87.5 percent of
the cost of installing approved BMPs to control water quality problems. The agricultural
activities eligible for funding under MACS include croplands, orchards, animal feedlots, grazing
land, and poultry operations. BMPs that are eligible for funding under this program include
those dealing with cropland protection, permanent vegetative cover, grazing land protection,
water protection, water control, and animal waste control. In this program, 24 priority
watersheds have been set aside to receive 75 percent of the funding allocated. Many of these
watersheds fall under the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Under this program, farmers file for approval of funding with the Maryland Department of
Agriculture (MDA) Soil Conservation District (SCD). In many cases, the SCO assists farmers
in the development of applicable BMPs and cost estimates for the specific problems experienced
on the farm. After approval of the application, the MDA drafts up a cost-share agreement which
requires the farmer to complete construction of the proposed BMP within one year and within
the allowed funding. Funding is determined by set rates developed for different BMPs by the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and MDA. Farmers must stay within this set cost estimate.
In addition to the funding given for design and construction of agricultural BMPs, the SCD and
MDA monitor the effectiveness and maintenance of the installed BMPs. If this monitoring, turns
up violations of set maintenance procedures, the Secretary of Agriculture can request legal action
be taken against the offending farmer. These monitoring reviews are performed by the SCD on
approximately ten percent of the installed practices annually.
Participation in this program by Maryland farmers is voluntary. The program is promoted by
SCD employees, who visit area farms on a regular basis. Also, newsletters, mailings, and radio
farm shows are used to introduce the program to area farmers.
Project Funding
The funding for the MACS Program began with a bond issue from the Maryland State
Legislature for $32.7 million and a $5.5 million grant from the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Approximately $22 million worth of projects have been completed to date with an annual
average of $3.7 million per year over the last three years. Funding for the 1990-1991 program
was $4.05 million. In this program, 75 percent of the total funds allocated by the State
Legislature each year are earmarked for use in priority watersheds throughout the State.
Nutrient Loading
33
-------
However, funds can be transferred among priority watersheds or from priority watersheds to
non-priority watersheds if application rates warrant.
Project Management
The MACS program is overseen by the MDA. The SCD receives and reviews applications for
funding under this program. They also provide technical assistance in completing applications
and developing BMP plans. These plans are approved or rejected by the MDA. Also, all three
departments provide ongoing technical assistance and maintenance monitoring for installed
BMPs.
Project Status
The MACS Program began in 1983 and has continued for the last eight years. During this time,
over 7,400 BMP applications have been received by the MDA. Of these applications, over
5,200 BMP projects have been implemented. Over 2,000 proposed projects have been ruled
ineligible by the program or withdrawn or canceled by the applicant.
Project Highlights
This program has been very successful at funding local agricultural BMP projects through the
State of Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The methods for disseminating
information about the program have been successful in reaching the target audience. The large
number of requests for funding under this program (781 applications during the 1990-1991 year)
have all been able to be assessed based on their applicability to the goals of the program. To
date, no application for installation of a BMP to remedy a critical condition has been rejected
for lack of funds.
Through conducting this program, certain characteristics of a successful agricultural cost share
program have been isolated. These characteristics include:
1) Motivated and well-trained local staff at the Soil Conservation District level;
2) Development of standard BMPs that are pre-approved for funding through the program;
3) Proper determination of eligibility criteria;
4) Selection of priority watersheds within the State;
5) Restrictions on the time frame under which BMPs can be implemented while still being
eligible for funding;
6) Required maintenance with enforcement powers;
7) Active promotion of the project by local committees;
8) Voluntary participation in the program by area farmers;
9) Strong educational aspect which teaches farmers about the cost-effectiveness of BMPs.
Nutrient Loading
34
-------
These lessons and others are contained in an EPA publication which outlines successful
agricultural water quality cost share programs in Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina, and
Wisconsin entitled "Share the Cost/Share the Benefit: Agricultural Water Quality Cost-share
Programs."
Contacts/References
Mr. Gould Charshee, Maryland Department of Agriculture. Telephone (301) 841-5864.
US EPA Office of Policy and Planning. Share the Cost/Share the Benefit: Agricultural Water
Quality Cost-share Programs. 1990.
Nutrient Loading
35
-------
Sarasota Waste water Reclamation Project
Sarasota Bay
Proiect Description
Historically, the City of Sarasota's wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) discharged secondary
effluent to Whitaker Bayou. This discharge was contributing significant levels of nutrients to
the bayou and Sarasota Bay. In the early 1980's, the City of Sarasota made a commitment to
eliminate discharges to the bayou except during wet weather. As a result of this commitment,
the City began a program to reuse the treated effluent.
Prior to the initiation of the reuse program, the Sarasota WWTF discharged approximately seven
to eight million gallons per day (MOD) of treated wastewater to the bayou. To date, the City
has located and developed contracts for two wastewater reusers: the city golf course and a
nearby cattle ranch. Bobby Jones Golf Course utilizes approximately 0.5 MGD of treated
wastewater for irrigation, and the Hi-Hat Ranch utilizes approximately four MGD of treated
wastewater to irrigate pasture land through a ridge and furrow system. The City is attempting
to develop other reuse contracts with area golf courses, ranches, and citrus growers. By the end
of 1992, the City hopes to have reuse contracts to cover the eight MGD of treated wastewater
discharged by the WWTF.
In addition to developing these reuse contracts, the City has also upgraded the WWTF to provide
advanced treatment of flows currently being discharged to Whitaker Bayou. With the current
reuse contracts and the advanced treatment of flows to Whitaker Bayou, it is estimated that
nitrogen discharges have been reduced by approximately 80 percent. By the end of 1992, the
City hopes to develop additional reuse contracts to completely eliminate dry weather discharges
from the WWTF. Under these conditions, it is estimated that nitrogen discharges could be
reduced by an additional 95 percent.
Project Funding
Total funding for this project dates back to the early 1980's with the City's commitment to
eliminate dry weather discharges to Whitaker Bayou. Since that time approximately $40 million
has been spent on plant improvements, land purchases, and irrigation and water storage facility
construction. Of this total, approximately $15 million has come from federal and state grants,
with the balance being contributed by the City of Sarasota.
Nutrient Loading
36
-------
Project Management
This project is being conducted by the City of Sarasota Department of Public Works with
technical assistance from the State of Florida and the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Project.
Project Status
This project began in the early 1980's and is going to continue until at least the end of 1992.
At that time, the City of Sarasota should have enough reuse contracts developed to completely
eliminate dry weather discharges to Whitaker Bayou.
Project Highlights
The decision to eliminate dry weather discharges to Whitaker Bayou from the Sarasota WWTF
was made by the City of Sarasota in the early 1980's. Since that time, the City has tried to meet
that goal. However, there have been difficulties primarily related to developing reuse contracts.
The City has experienced difficulties in finding suitable and willing purchasers for the treated
effluent. Part of this difficulty results from a lack of incentives for agricultural activities to
utilize treated effluent. The State of Florida has set restrictions on the amount of groundwater
that can be pumped by golf courses for irrigation. Therefore, golf courses have been generally
receptive to the use of the treated effluent, since this provides them with a constant supply of
irrigation water that is not as restricted as groundwater. However, agricultural uses of
groundwater are not restricted. Therefore, there is much less incentive for ranches or citrus
growers to utilize the treated effluent. Finding agricultural users for the discharges is one of the
most difficult aspects of this wastewater reuse project.
The City's attempt to implement this program has caused some legal difficulties. The original
goal of no dry weather discharges to Whitaker Bayou by the end of 1992 has been written into
the WWTF's permit. Because of non-backsliding requirements, the City of Sarasota is now
committed to fully implementing wastewater reuse by 1992. If suitable contracts can not be
developed by that time, they will be in danger of violating their permit conditions. Therefore,
even though the City of Sarasota originally developed goals beyond those required by law, they
are now committed to meeting those goals. The City of Sarasota still sees wastewater reuse as
a valuable goal. However, the pressure of meeting deadlines which were originally self-imposed
was not foreseen in the early 1980's when the goal was developed.
Other than the difficulties experienced in developing reuse contracts, the wastewater reclamation
project has been successful. The reusers currently under contract have been able to successfully
use the treated effluent as irrigation water. In fact, the Hi-Hat Ranch, a current user of four
MGD, is planning to expand use of the effluent. There are plans to add an additional 1500 acres
of pasture land to that already being irrigated by the treated effluent as well as a large citrus
grove.
Nutrient Loading
37
-------
References/Contacts
Mr. Doug Taylor, City of Sarasota, Department of Public Works. Telephone (813) 955-
2325.
Nutrient Loading
38
-------
Septic System Model Health Regulations
Buzzards Bay
Project Description
Studies undertaken by the Buzzards Bay Project (BBP) indicate a number of sources of pathogen
contamination, including septic systems, stormwater runoff, sanitary waste discharges from
marine craft, municipal wastewater discharges, waterfowl, and wildlife. This project addresses
the issue of pathogen contamination from septic systems in the Buzzards Bay watershed.
Septic systems are an important mode of wastewater disposal for most of Buzzards Bay, and
studies conducted by the Buzzards Bay Project have indicated that on-site wastewater disposal
systems are a source of pathogen contamination to Buzzards Bay. Pathogen contamination has
been responsible for the closure of many acres of shellfish beds in the Bay. Therefore, in this
demonstration project, the Buzzards Bay Project, the NEP agency in Buzzards Bay, investigated
various methods to reduce pathogen contamination of the Bay from on-site wastewater disposal
systems.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has set regulations for the design of on-site wastewater
disposal systems (Title 5). These regulations represent minimum requirements to protect
groundwater and surface water resources. These regulations specify certain setback distances
for septic systems from surface waters, wells, and water supply lines, as well as required soil
percolation rates and vertical depth to groundwater. However, because Title 5 is a state
minimum code and the Buzzards Bay watershed has some unique characteristics, Title 5
regulations may not be stringent enough to provide surface water protection.
In this demonstration project, the Buzzards Bay Project developed more stringent model
supplements to Title 5 that could be adopted by individual municipalities within the Buzzards
Bay watershed. These model supplements to Title 5 include requirements for septic system
construction, criteria for determining septic system repair and replacement, real estate transfer
septic system inspection, and septic system additives and cleaners. Supplements were drafted
and then reviewed by local health agents and appropriate state agencies. Follow-up was
provided to further explain the supplements and assist with implementation activities.
Also as part of this demonstration project, a public outreach campaign was conducted to educate
homeowners about the proper operation and maintenance of on-site wastewater disposal systems.
This education campaign included distributing pamphlets and focused on education related to
proper pumping frequencies for on-site systems and disposal of household hazardous wastes.
On-Site Disposal Systems
39
-------
Funding Sources
This demonstration project was primarily funded by the Buzzards Bay Project with recipients
contributing a minimum cost share of 25%. Total funding for this project was approximately
$26,000. Of this funding, approximately $20,000 was used to develop the model supplements
to Title 5.
Project Management
The model supplements for this project were developed by the Barnstable County Health
Department with technical assistance from the Buzzards Bay Project. The public education was
conducted by the Coalition for Buzzards Bay also with assistance from the Buzzards Bay Project.
Periodic review was conducted by Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Project Status
All tasks under this project have been completed. The model supplements to Massachusetts Title
5 have been developed and have been implemented in the community of Barnstable, which is
in the Massachusetts Bay watershed not the Buzzards Bay watershed. Also, the public education
program is an ongoing project.
Project Highlights
This project deals directly with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on-site wastewater disposal
regulations (Title 5), and, therefore, has applicability throughout the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The model supplements to Title 5 developed under this project have been passed
in Barnstable and could be passed in other Buzzards Bay communities. The Buzzards Bay
Project is attempting to convince some of these other communities to pass these supplements.
A by product of this project was the involvement of local officials in the development of the
model supplements. Through this process, local officials could be given technical assistance in
implementing the model ordinances. Prior to the development of these model supplements, local
officials were aware of their power to implement stronger regulations than those specified by
Title 5. However, they did not feel they had adequate technical assistance to develop the
stronger regulations.
The educational portion of this project is on-going and includes other aspects besides those
related to on-site wastewater disposal systems. The educational programs also included
information for boat owners on the proper disposal of on-board wastes. These different
educational goals were combined into this one program.
On-Site Disposal Systems
40
-------
References/Contacts
For further information regarding the Buzzards Bay Septic System Management Demonstration
Project please contact the following.
Mr. David Janik, Buzzards Bay Project, 2 Spring Street, Marion, MA 02738. Telephone
(508) 748-3600.
Mr. George Heufelder, Barnstable County Health Department. Telephone (508) 362-
2511 EXT 331.
On-Site Disposal Systems
41
-------
Legislative Liaison Project
Delaware Estuary Program
Project Description
The Delaware Estuary Program's (DELEP) Public Participation Task Force (PPTF) and Local
Government Committee (LGC) have set up the Legislative Liaison Program in order to raise
awareness of Bay issues among federal, state, and local officials. The primary function of the
project is to organize annual Legislative Conferences for government officials throughout the
Delaware Bay watershed. These conferences serve to keep legislators at all levels of government
informed of progress within the estuary program in order to elicit support for the efforts of the
DELEP. The Legislative Liaison Program also organizes briefings, special events, and estuary
tours.
The most recent Legislative Conference was held in October 1990. This conference provided
an overview of the National Estuary Program and how DELEP fits into the entire program and
how the state legislatures can assist in protecting Delaware Bay. The next conference, scheduled
for August 1991, will focus on land use options for protecting the estuary.
Project Funding
The Legislative Liaison Program receives funding from the overall DELEP PPTF budget. This
money is set aside for programs dealing with public education and outreach. The major expense
for the Legislative Liaison Project is the annual Legislative Conference.
Project Status
The Legislative Liaison Project conducts annual Legislative Conferences, with the most recent
being held in October 1990 and the next scheduled for August 1991.
Project Management
The Legislative Liaison Project is overseen by the PPTF and the LGC. Members of these
DELEP committees organize and conduct the annual Legislative Conferences. They also
produce periodic educational material for distribution to Legislators in the Delaware Estuary.
Public Outreach and Education
42
-------
Project Highlights
The Legislative Liaison Project has been in existence since 1989 and has conducted several
Legislative Conferences. These conferences have been well attended, especially by state officials
from Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. There is not as much interest in these
conferences among national or local officials within the Delaware Bay watershed.
One of the primary purposes of the Legislative Liaison Project is to increase legislative funding
for DELEP projects and research. However, there has not been a noticeable increase in funding
since the inception of the Legislative Liaison Project. Therefore, the project's primary success
has been in increasing awareness of DELEP activities among state legislators.
References/Contacts
For additional information regarding the Legislative Liaison Project, the following can be
contacted:
Steve Feltenberger, DELEP Assistant State Program Coordinator, P.O.Box 8761,
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8761. Telephone (717) 541-7808.
Public Outreach and Education
43
-------
Teacher Training Program
Puget Sound
Protect Description
The Office of Environmental Education of the Superintendent of Public Instruction has
coordinated a successful program to train elementary, middle school, junior high, and high
school teachers in environmental education.
School Districts throughout the Puget Sound Region are provided with funds to pay for teacher
release time to attend environmental education workshops coordinated by the Superintendent's
office. The workshops are facilitated by non-profit organizations and state environmental
agencies who wish to conduct them. Teachers may use the release time for workshop training
or to modify their existing curriculum to the local situation in Puget Sound. This includes
incorporating information on water quality, habitats, and pollution issues.
The workshops include a wide variety of water quality topics. They typically last for ten hours
and teachers can earn one continuing education credit at local universities by attending.
Workshops are open to any teacher in grades K through 12 in both public and private schools.
The number of participating teachers varies, however workshops are usually limited to thirty
teachers.
Project Funding
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) provides funds to the Superintendent of
Public Instruction to carry out this program. The program was partially funded through the
PSWQA Public Education and Involvement (PIE) Fund. The money is used to hire substitute
teachers to fill in while regular teachers are attending the workshops. Facilitators are provided
with support and they are reimbursed for workshop materials.
This project has received two funding grants. The first grant was for $50,000 for the 1987-89
biennium, and the second was for $40,000 for the 1989-91 biennium.
Project Management
This program is coordinated and supervised by a staff at the Office of Environmental Education
who coordinate the workshops and facilitate the teacher release time by reimbursing schools who
send teachers to participate in the program.
Public Outreach, and Education
44
-------
Project Status
This project has been ongoing for four years. To date fifty five workshops have been sponsored
and over twelve hundred teachers have been trained. Ah even greater demand fpr this funding
program is anticipated in the future due to tighter budgets, familiarity of teachers with the
substitute reimbursements, and the continuing need for water quality workshops.
Project Highlights
Program administrators and teachers both agree that this project has been very successful
because it has been able to reach teachers who otherwise would not be able to attend these
workshops. Teacher evaluations of the workshops have been very positive. Teachers who knew
nothing about environmental education are learning a great deal, and even those who had some
prior knowledge are learning new things and are benefiting from the program.
In addition to educating teachers, the program has brought about a greater collaborative effort
and willingness to cooperate between the state agencies and non-profit organizations who
facilitate the workshops.
References/Contacts
For further information on the Teacher Training Program, please contact:
Ms. Rika Cecil, Project Coordinator - Office of Environmental Education. Telephone
(206) 542-7671
Mr. Tony Angell, Office of Environmental Education. Telephone (206) 542-7671
Mr. Bob Steelquist, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Telephone (206) 493-9300
Public Outreach and Education
45
-------
Merchants Millpond Stormwater Demonstration Project
Albemarle/Pamlico Estuarine Study
Project Description
Merchants Millpond is a state-owned park in Gates County, North Carolina, with a drainage
basin covering 60 square miles of mostly forested land. However, in the unforested area, there
are over 300 farming operations, and 30 percent of these farms support confined animal
populations. In addition, ranged hogs are common in the wetland areas of three swamps within
the watershed. Millpond has an average depth of less than two meters and is covered by a
variety of aquatic plants. For many decades the pond has served as a catch basin for sediments,
fertilizer, and animal wastes washed from the farms upstream. This nutrient load has caused
the aquatic plants to grow so dense, that recreational uses of the pond are now impaired in the
summer season. To address this problem, the Albemarle/Pamlico National Estuary Program is
funding this project to encourage farmers within the pond watershed to implement conventional
and unconventional BMPs to reduce nutrient loads to the pond.
A variety of conventional and new BMPs are being evaluated in this project. They include,
animal waste management systems, and sediment and nutrient control practices. New BMPs
which are found to be successful, will be incorporated into North Carolina's well established
cost share program. Currently, this project provides a 75% cost share incentive to farmers who
wish to install and implement BMP programs on their farms. If money allocated to a farmer
for a BMP is not used within three years, it is put back into the central fund and made available
to other farmers wishing to participate. Participation in the project is voluntary.
In addition to the use of BMPs, technical assistance and monitoring programs have been set up.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Management (DEM) conducted a monitoring
report for baseline nutrient levels in Millpond. Subsequent monitoring after implementation of
BMPs will be conducted in 1992 to determine the progress which has been made in nutrient
reduction as a result of implementing the BMPs. A technician has been hired for a three year
period by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) to provide technical assistance
to farmers seeking BMP contracts. The technician assists farmers in writing BMP plans and
conducts public meetings to educate farmers about the project.
Project Funding
Funding for this project comes to the Division of Soil and Water Conservation from the
Albemarle/Pamlico National Estuary Program. The first year allocation for the project was
$175,000. Of this original sum, $69,423 has been used for BMP implementation, $20,000 has
been used for the premonitoring report, and $85,577 has been targeted for administrative costs
Stormwater Controls
46
-------
in Gates county. A second year allocation of $90,000 has been targeted specifically for the
implementation of BMP's. The total project budget, therefore, is $265,000.
Project Management
This project is managed by the North Carolina DEM, DSWC. Upon approval of a BMP
contract with a local farmer, the DSWC contacts the Albemarle/Pamlico study and receives
funding from the predetermined $265,000 budget account. The Gates Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD) administers the project, develops the individual farm plans, and
oversees the BMP installation. The DSWC oversees project coordination and provides
administrative assistance.
Project Status
This project is ongoing and will continue until the original budget is expended.
Project Highlights
To date, this project has established approximately 100 contracts with landowners in the
Millpond watershed. The BMPs implemented with these contracts include soil testing, reduced
fertilization, animal waste reuse, and solid waste management.
Using money from the first year allocation, approximately 19,000 acres of land have had soil
testing at a cost of $1 per acre. This was done to familiarize residents with the project and to
educate agricultural landowners about over fertilization with commercial fertilizers. As a result
of this nutrient management aspect of the program, there has been a significant reduction in over
fertilization by farmers. Much work has also been done in applying both solid and liquid animal
waste as a natural fertilizer in place of commercial fertilizers.
A new BMP which has proven very successful is the solid set waste management system.
Basically, the system consist of running pipes from a waste runoff lagoon and using the lagoon
water to irrigate and fertilize crops and grazing land. Bermuda grass, used for grazing animals,
has been found to grow extremely well with this process.
Two media tours of the Millpond project area have been conducted to educate the public about
the project and spread awareness of the nutrient overloading problem.
One of the most notable accomplishments of this project is the response that has been received
from area farmers. Farmer participation in the project is completely voluntary. However,
a large number of BMP plans have been developed and implemented throughout the watershed.
Stonnwater Controls
47
-------
The education portion of the project has been very successful at informing farmers of the
potential cost savings from reduced fertilizer use and proper animal waste management.
References/Contacts
Albemarle/Pamlico Study. Project Abstracts. FY 1989-90. Oct. 1990.
Ms. Sandi Horton, N.C. Department of Environment, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation. Telephone (919) 733-2302
Stormwater Controls
48
-------
Electric Avenue Beach Stormwater Demonstration Project
Buzzards Bay
Project Description
Buttermilk Bay, a Southeastern Massachusetts tidal embayment, is located in the Towns of
Bourne and Wareham, Massachusetts, at the north end of Buzzards Bay. In 1984, Buttermilk
Bay was closed to shellfishing due to high fecal coliform levels. Water quality monitoring
conducted by the Bamstable County Health Department indicated that a major source of fecal
coliform bacteria to Buttermilk Bay is wet weather storm drain discharges. In this demonstration
project, the Buzzards Bay Program designed and constructed a stormwater infiltration system
at Electric Avenue Beach in Bourne, Massachusetts in order to determine the effectiveness of
these systems in removing bacterial and nutrient contamination from stormwater runoff.
The stormwater infiltration system was designed to intercept the one year design storm (2 8
inches, maximum intensity 2.13 inches/hour) from the storm drain watershed and direct it away
from the original outfall. This flow entered a settling tank for solids and floatable waste
removal and then was discharged to infiltration galleys. Subsequent monitoring of this system
has shown that very few storms cause flow to be discharged from the original outfall. In
addition, groundwater monitoring in the area has indicated that the system is very effective at
removing fecal coliform.
Funding Sources
This project was completely funded by the Buzzards Bay Program through EPA Region I
Funding was provided for design, construction, and monitoring of the system and equaled
approximately $90,000.
Project Management
Review and oversight of this project was provided by EPA Region I and Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management.
Project Status
The design and construction phases of this project have been completed and monitoring
currently being conducted.
is
Stormwater Controls
49
-------
Project Highlights
This stormwater quality control demonstration project incorporated many unique design and
oversight aspects which are outlined below.
The stormwater infiltration galleys are preceded by separation tanks designed to reduce
clogging of the permeable soils by sediment and floatable wastes. The separation tank
is similar to a septic tank and seems to be effectively removing pollutants, such as
suspended solids and petroleum products, which could clog the pores of the infiltration
devices.
Many infiltration devices like that used at Electric Avenue Beach are surrounded by a
filter fabric to prevent surrounding soils from entering the void spaces of the washed
stone and reducing storage volume and destabilizing the ground surface. However,
practice has shown that these filter fabrics have a tendency to clog quickly from
pollutants entering the infiltration device. Therefore, the design in this project did not
utilize a filter fabric. In this design, progressively smaller washed stone is used in
moving away from the concrete infiltration structures. No structural problems have been
encountered and no clogging has been observed.
Because the location of the stormwater infiltration device is very close to the actual beach
area, the groundwater elevation is high. Therefore, the distance from the bottom of the
infiltration galleys to the mean high groundwater is only two feet. Most infiltration
devices are designed to allow for four feet from the bottom of the structure to the mean
high groundwater elevation. Groundwater sampling conducted near the infiltration
facility has not shown any contamination of groundwater resulting from this design.
In order to reduce construction costs for the designed infiltration system, EPA and the
Buzzards Bay Project utilized personnel from the Department of Public Works in the
Town of Bourne for construction. It was shown that the DPW personnel were fully
capable of constructing the infiltration system, and significant cost savings could be
realized. The experience gained in this design could now be used by the Town of
Bourne in the construction and maintenance of additional stormwater infiltration systems.
References/Contacts
Mr. Robert Morehouse, U.S. EPA Region I. Telephone (617) 565-3513
Mr. George Heufelder, Barnstable County Health Department. Telephone (508) 362-
2511 EXT 331
Stormwater Controls
50
-------
Maryland Stormwater Quality Control Cost Share Program
Chesapeake Bay
Project Description
The Maryland Stormwater Control Cost Share Program began in 1984 with the appropriation
of funds from the Maryland State Legislature. In this program, the Sediment and Stormwater
Administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment dedicates funds for counties and
incorporated cities to implement Stormwater control best management practices. The program
funds 75 percent of the Stormwater control project with local funds used for the remaining 25
percent. Projects funded through the Stormwater Quality Control Cost Share Program must be
Stormwater pollution control demonstration projects generally utilizing common best management
practices, such as retention ponds, infiltration structures, and shallow marshes. These projects
include retrofits into existing systems as well as new construction projects. In recent years, this
program has been working closely with the Small Creek and Estuary Program which focusses
on restoring degraded urban streams.
Every year, from March through May, the Sediment and Stormwater Administration sends
application forms and information packages to counties and incorporated cities. Local officials
can apply for funds from the Cost Share program. Typically, the Sediment and Stormwater
Administration receives two to three times as many applications as can be funded with the
appropriations available. Therefore, the projects are screened for their applicability to the
program and demonstration value. Approximately eight to ten projects are funded each year
through this program.
Project Funding
As discussed above, this program is funded through yearly appropriations from the Maryland
State Legislature. Total funding for the program since its creation in 1984 is approximately $7.3
million. Annual funding is usually about $1 million. With these funds and the local 25 percent
match, approximately eight to ten projects are funded each year. These funds are obtained
through bond issues.
Project Management
This program is overseen and conducted by the Sediment and Stormwater Administration of the
Maryland Department of the Environment. Local entities must apply for funds from this
program and provide a 25 percent match. The Sediment and Stormwater Administration also
provides technical assistance to the local counties and cities for the implementation of the
Stormwater demonstration projects.
Stormwater Controls
51
-------
Project Status
This program has been funding stormwater demonstration projects continuously since 1984 It
is continuing, with funding for 1991 at approximately $1 million.
Project Highlights
This program has been very successful at funding local stormwater pollution control
demonstration projects. Sending information packages to the eligible counties and cities on a
yearly basis has been an effective way to maintain interest at the local level In fact
approximately two-thirds of the applications for funding must be denied each year Manv of
these projects would be denied even if sufficient funds were available since the work to be
performed would not fall under the category of work funded through this program. Many cities
try to obtain funding through this program for storm drain capital improvement projects
However, if a proposed project does not address stormwater pollution issues, it is denied
funding.
The technical assistance provided to local entities by the Sediment and Stormwater
Administration is an important aspect of the Cost Share Program. This technical assistance is
provided to ensure successful design and construction of the proposed stormwater pollution
control projects. Throughout this Cost Share program, approximately 60 to 65 projects have
been funded.
The recent combining of resources between the Stormwater Cost Share Program and the Small
Creek and Estuary Program allows for even more assistance to local entities. The engineering
expertise of the Cost Share personnel can be combined with the habitat restoration expertise in
the Creek and Estuary Program to provide total services for restoring urban streams.
Contacts/References
For further information concerning the Maryland Stormwater Quality Control Cost Share
Program please contact the following:
Mr. Tom Tapley, Maryland Department of the Environment, Sediment and Stormwater
Administration, 2500 Broening Highway, Bldg. 30, 1st Floor, Baltimore, MD 21224
Telephone (301) 631-3553.
Stormwater Controls
52
-------
Mamaroneck Harbor Stormwater Demonstration Project
Long Island Sound
Project Description
Mamaroneck Harbor, on the western end of Long Island Sound, has been experiencing periodic
beach closures because of fecal coliform contamination. Investigations in Mamaroneck Harbor
have shown this fecal coliform contamination to be caused by deteriorated sanitary sewer
systems and Stormwater runoff from surrounding urban areas.
In order to address the contamination caused by Stormwater runoff, the Long Island Sound Study
conducted extensive modeling of the Sound and developed acceptable Stormwater discharge rates
to prevent beach closures. In addition, the Long Island Sound Study evaluated potential
structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs) for implementation in the
Mamaroneck Harbor watershed. From this evaluation, three nonstructural BMPs, catch basin
cleaning, street cleaning, and pet waste control, were selected for implementation.
In this demonstration project, the effectiveness of these three BMPs was assessed. Selected
storm drains were chosen for monitoring before, during, and after implementation of BMPs.
Catch basin cleaning and street cleaning were performed regularly on selected catch basins and
streets. Also, a public information program was conducted to increase public awareness of
existing pet waste ordinances and the contamination resulting from pet wastes. No changes in
Stormwater quality were found after the BMPs were put into practice. These results suggest that
incorporation of non-structural BMPs in Stormwater permits will not affect the Stormwater
contamination problem in Mamaroneck Harbor. To achieve the goal of improved water quality,
effluent permit limits must be incorporated into Stormwater discharge permits.
Funding Sources
This project was funded through the Long Island Sound Study and U.S. EPA Region II. The
total cost of the project was approximately $220,000 over the three years of the project.
Project Management
The Mamaroneck Harbor Stormwater Demonstration Project was managed by the Long Island
Sound Study in cooperation with the U.S. EPA Region II office in New York.
Stormwater Controls
53
-------
Project Status
Initial investigations, BMP evaluation, implementation and monitoring for this project have been
completed. The Long Island Sound Study is currently using the stormwater model developed
for this project to determine appropriate discharge permit limitations for fecal coliform.
Project Highlights
This project has done pre- and post-implementation monitoring for fecal coliform contamination
in stormwater discharges. Many stormwater quality management plans suggest implementing
nonstructural controls such as catch basin cleaning, street cleaning, and pet waste control, to
reduce fecal coliform contamination of surface waters. However, few studies, other than the
original Nationwide Urban Runoff Program studies, have been performed to determine the
ultimate effectiveness of these strategies. Therefore, the results of this study are important to
the overall development of stormwater control plans throughout Long Island Sound and other
National Estuary Program sites.
Unlike other projects which have focused on implementing nonstructural BMPs across entire
watersheds, this project focused attention on specific drainage systems within the Long Island
Sound Watershed. Specific streets and catch basins were cleaned and sampling within the
drainage systems was conducted. Therefore, the results from this study can be used to
accurately predict the level of expected improvement in a specific system from implementation
of these BMPs.
References/Contacts
For additional information concerning the Mamaroneck Harbor Stormwater Demonstration
Project, please contact the following people:
Mr. Mark Tedesco, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Water
Management Division, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278. Tel (212) 264-6991.
Ms. Susan Beede, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Water Management
Division, WQE-425, Boston , MA 02203. (617) 565-3550.
Stormwater Controls
54
-------
Stormwater Control Guidance
Puget Sound
Project Description
The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) is providing guidance to local officials in
support of local operation and maintenance programs and urbanized area stormwater
management programs. This guidance is in the form of rules and guidelines which local
authorities can utilize for the development of stormwater programs.
Two comprehensive stormwater management rules have been drafted. The first is a procedural
rule written by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA). This rule informs local
governments on which stormwater management ordinances should be developed. The second
is a companion rule written by the Department of Ecology which details the technical
requirements needed to meet state of Washington water quality standards. These rules contain
guidelines which include:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Procedures for developing, reviewing, and approving local stormwater programs.
Minimum requirements required by local ordinances for runoff control and system
maintenance.
Minimum requirements for control of private drainage systems.
Minimum requirements for operation and maintenance programs.
Methods for disposal of decant water, solids, and other substances from drainage system
cleanouts.
Additionally, the rules include procedures for identifying pollutant sources, sampling, spill
control measures, enforcement, treatment, and education
These rules are being reviewed by an Advisory Committee in August of 1991. Both rules are
expected to be adopted and implemented in early 1992.
Project Funding
The proposed budget for this project is $26,119 for the 1991-93 biennium. This is a significant
drop from $217,556 which was the proposed budget for the 1989-91 biennium. This drop in
funding is due to the fact that the work is nearing completion and the project is in its final
phases. According to the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, no money is budgeted
for this project beyond 1993.
Stormwater Controls
55
-------
Project Management
The development of these rules and guidelines is being jointly handled by the PSWQA and the
Department of Ecology. Once the rules become effective in early 1992, the DOE will have
primary regulatory authority over them. Currently, the DOE has a staff of six people working
on the project, and the PSWQA has one staff member. In the biennial budget for 1991-93, there
is additional funding available for additional staff to provide technical and implementation
assistance for the project.
Project Status
Work has been ongoing on this project since 1987. The project is now nearing completion with
approval and implementation of the new rules expected in early 1992.
Project Highlights
The work done on this project to date has brought about several results. A BMP manual has
been drafted which provides guidance on erosion and sediment control, land uses, hydraulic
modelling, and the design of stormwater retention facilities. The manual is currently under
public review and should be finalized in September of 1991. In addition, draft regulations have
been developed which require local governments to adopt ordinances to address stormwater and
erosion issues which come about as a result of new construction and development. The
regulations require records to be kept of all new stormwater control systems. Finally, the DOE
has written a rule requiring the Department of Transportation to control runoff from state
highways.
References/Contacts
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
Mr. Kevin Anderson, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Telephone (206) 493-9174
Ms. Vallana Piccolo, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Telephone (206) 493-9173
Ms. Ginny Broadhurst, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Telephone (206) 493-9173
Stonnwater Controls
56
-------
Artificial Wetland Stonnwater Control Project
San Francisco Bay
Project Description
San Francisco Bay, like many other estuaries, is adversely impacted by stormwater runoff
pollution. Stormwater runoff transports floatable contaminants, hydrocarbons, toxic
contaminants, settleable solids, and nutrients into the estuary during rainfall. This accounts for
much of the nonpoint source pollution entering the Bay. In this project, the feasibility of using
artificial wetlands to treat stormwater runoff was investigated.
In 1986, Dust Marsh was created by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in order
to test its stormwater pollutant removal capabilities. This 55-acre marsh, which consists of four
different ponding areas, was constructed over a two year period. After construction, the ABAG
conducted monitoring of the site to determine the pollutant removal capabilities of the marsh and
the effect of stormwater pollutants on the marsh plants. Few results came from this monitoring
because the vegetation had not reached equilibrium over the life of the project.
In 1990, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCP)
conducted a field survey of Dust Marsh to determine its current status. It was found that the
four ponding areas had completely lost their marsh qualities and had become ponds. However,
the inlet to these ponds, Crandell Creek, had become choked with vegetation and its downstream
end had become a marsh. Therefore, in this project, this newly created marsh area in Crandell
Creek was monitored for its effectiveness in stormwater pollution removal. This marsh receives
stormwater flows from a 4.6 square mile urbanized area of Fremont, CA.
In this project the following tasks were conducted:
1. Previous studies conducted at the site were reviewed
2. The marsh's baseline conditions were determined
3. Flow monitoring and sampling equipment was installed
4. A complete full-scale demonstration of the wetland system was conducted during two
complete wet-weather seasons
5. The cost of constructing and operating artificial wetland sites at other locations was
determined
6. The results of the study will be reported.
The final report, due at the end of August 1991, will discuss the characteristics of the marsh,
quantities and qualities of stormwater and dry weather flows passing through it, inlet and outlet
concentrations of selected indicator pollutants, and indicators of wetland condition, such as
habitat.
Stormwater Controls
57
-------
Funding Sources
This demonstration project was funded by EPA through the San Francisco Estuary Program and
matching funds from the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Total
funding for this project is $121,000, with $75,000 from EPA and a $46,000 match.
Project Management
This demonstration project was conducted by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District with oversight from U.S. EPA Region 9 and the San Francisco Estuary
Program.
Project Status
The project is currently progressing on schedule. Original work began in 1986 by the ABAG
and was continued in March 1991 by the ACFCD. The work is scheduled to be completed in
August 1991.
Project Highlights
This project was originally started in 1986 and abandoned because of inconclusive data.
However, field surveys in 1990 indicated that areas of Crandell Creek had become marsh-like
and the project was restarted. Because of the creation of the four ponding areas in 1986, the
results of this study will show the pollutant removal capabilities of both artificial wetlands and
wet ponds. Monitoring is primarily being conducted within the naturally occurring marsh area.
The results of this monitoring are not currently available. However, by the end of August, the
results should be complete and available for use by other areas.
This project began as a determination of the effectiveness of artificial wetlands for stormwater
pollutant removal. However, over time, it changed scope and is now focusing on the possibility
of using natural wetland areas for pollutant removal.
References/Contacts
Mr. Tim Vendlinsky, San Francisco Estuary Project, P.O. Box 2050, Oakland, CA
94604-2050. Telephone (415) 464-7996.
Mr. Scott Wiley, Alameda County Flood Control District. Telephone (415) 670-5576.
Stonnwater Controls
58
-------
Sarasota County Stormwater Utility
Sarasota Bay
Project Description
The Sarasota County Stormwater Utility was created in 1990 to raise funds to perform
Stormwater related work in the Sarasota County area. This program includes the unincorporated
county as well as cities choosing to participate. In this program, residential and non-residential
property is assessed a tax based on the number of acres of impervious area on site. Funds raised
from this tax are used by the county or participating city for any project dealing with the
stormwater drainage system. Funds can be used for capital improvements, system upgrades, or
Stormwater pollution control projects. There is no requirement that funds raised by the utility
be used exclusively for stormwater pollution issues. The program currently includes the
unincorporated county of Sarasota , as well as the City of Sarasota. The county stormwater
office is actively seeking to include additional area cities in the program.
When a city joins the stormwater utility, the county supplies the city with assessment rates. In
addition, the county assumes full responsibility for necessary drainage system maintenance and
improvements. In the City of Sarasota, the county conducts operations necessary for the proper
operation of the drainage system. All funds raised through the stormwater utility are collected
by the county and used to perform work on the city drainage system. Funds expended on
drainage system work are equal to funds raised by the utility in that city.
Project Funding
The rate charged to residential dwellings is determined on the basis of a value called the
Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). One ERU is considered to be 2,582 ft2 and the fee charged
is $32.50/per year/per ERU. Single family detached units are assessed at one ERU and all other
residential dwellings (e.g., mobile homes, condominiums, apartment buildings, etc) are assessed
at 0.71 ERU per unit. Non-residential buildings are assessed based on a calculation of the
impervious surface on-site. These non-residential buildings are charged at the same rate of
$32.50 per 2,582 ft2 of impervious area.
Project Management
The project is completely overseen by the Sarasota County Stormwater Office. All funds raised
in the unincorporated county or participating city are handled by the County and used for
projects in that area. In addition, cities choosing to participate in the utility relinquish local
control of their drainage system maintenance and upkeep. Funds are not channelled back to the
local municipality for use at their discretion.
Stormwater Controls
59
-------
Project Status
Currently, the stormwater utility raises funds only in the unincorporated county and the City of
Sarasota. The County is actively seeking to convince other cities in the area to participate in
the utility. The utility has only been in existence for nine months. Therefore, the number of
projects funded by the utility is not large. The budget for the utility in its first year has been
$5.5 million.
Project Highlights
The number of highlights from this project is limited by the short length of time the utility has
been in existence. However, in the nine months of its existence, the stormwater utility has been
able to raise $5.5 million for use in stormwater projects in the county and City of Sarasota.
These funds have been used in general capital improvement projects as well as stormwater
pollution control projects. One of the projects funded by money from the stormwater utility is
the Glower Creek project in the City of Sarasota. In this project, a stormwater management plan
is being developed for a highly urbanized area of Sarasota.
The program has been successful at raising and distributing funds for stormwater projects.
However, it has been less successful at convincing area municipalities to participate in the
program. The utility is still trying to convince other municipalities to participate in the program.
Contacts/References
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. Annual Report. Fiscal Year 1990.
Mr. J.P. Marchand, Sarasota County Stormwater Manager. Telephone (813) 378-6180.
Stormwater Controls
60
-------
Rhode Island Hazardous Waste Reduction Project (HWRP)
Narragansett Bay
Project Description
The Rhode Island Hazardous Waste Reduction Project (HWRP) was originally started under the
Narragansett Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) and later transferred to the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM). The HWRP was established to assist
Rhode Island companies in reducing their use and disposal of toxic and hazardous materials
The project furthers the Bay Project's objective of drafting a comprehensive water quality
management plan for Narragansett Bay by demonstrating the need for and use of land based
pollution controls in the bay drainage basin, and by providing direct technical assistance in
waste reduction technologies to Rhode Island industries.
The HWRP has assisted the Office of Environmental Coordination (OEC) in the establishment
of a technical assistance program that is characterized by cooperation between government
industry and academia. The University of Rhode Island (URI) is an academic and technical
participant in the program. Resources such as an information center, training sessions,
technology transfer forums, state sponsored consulting, and a statewide waste reductiorl
newsletter are made available to Rhode Island manufacturers. Approximately $1 5 Million
dollars in grant funds are currently available to aid manufacturers in the establishment of waste
reduction programs.
Under the HWRP, companies can request a technical assessment of their hazardous waste
generation practices. Assessment teams are then sent to inspect the company's industrial
processes to identify possible areas to reduce hazardous waste production or discharge The
assessment teams are usually made up of two or three people. They are staffed in part bv
undergraduate students from the URI Chemical Engineering Department. Staffing h also
provided by OEC personnel and a PhD student funded by the Narragansett Bay Program Prior
to an assessment, the team leader meets with the facility manager to outline the assessment
procedures and become familiar with the rules and policies of the company. The company is
asked to provide data on flow and quantities of hazardous materials in the plant. During the
visit, the company supplies a plant guide and a small working area for the assessment team.
r™* ' A°fZ^ °f *Z .plantKvisit' *? assessment team supplies a preliminary conclusions
report. A formal report is submitted six weeks later. The report identifies ways to reduce
S±UStT *****"*?* if*6 ?lant ^d recommends process modifications and waste
reduction technologies. In addition, a cost benefit analysis is provided to help evaluate the
Z™ ? ^°P°ratmg ** findings of the report. Once the report has b£a issued, the
company is asked to supply a quarterly report (1 page) on waste reduction progress at their
Toxic Waste Reduction
61
-------
This service is provided free of charge by the DEM and has been very successful so far. As
a result of participation in the program, several companies have established in-house waste
reduction teams. In some cases, grants are provided to companies for research and the
development of waste reduction demonstration projects.
Project Rinding
This project was initiated in 1988 with $150,000 from the Narragansett Bay Program. This
funding was matched by the Rhode Island DEM. In addition, a $2 million dollar bond issue was
given to establish a grant program for industry.
In 1989, the EPA provided a $300,000 Source Reduction and Recycling Technical Assistance
grant. Also in 1989, a Hard to Dispose of Law was passed in Rhode Island which places a front
end tax on those items which are difficult to dispose of. The program is slated to receive
$200,000 to $300,000 from this tax.
Project Management
This program was originally started by the Narragansett Bay NEP, but has since been transferred
to RIDEM's Office of Environmental Coordination. The State provides funding for a program
manager and a staff of about seven people.
The University of Rhode Island is supplied with funds by the EPA to provide graduate and
undergraduate students for the program. So far, the chairman of the Chemical Engineering
Department and seven students have participated in the program.
Project Status
This is an ongoing project. To date, sixty five company assessments have been completed.
Money from the Hard To Dispose Of tax will be used to continue the program.
Project Highlights
One of the goals of this program is to encourage companies to establish their own in-house
hazardous waste reduction teams. Several companies who have participated in the program have
established these teams.
A major success story of the program was a $125,000 grant given to the Narragansett Coated
Paper Company to switch their coating process from solvent based to aqueous based. This
resulted in a waste reduction from 180 drums per year to 20 drums per year.
Toxic Waste Reduction
62
-------
As a result of its participation in this program, the URI Chemical Engineering Department has
been designated as the Rhode Island Center for Pollution Control. In addition, a graduate level
course in pollution prevention is now being offered.
The project has also led to the development of the first statewide Rhode Island Pollution
Prevention Council. The council is made up of twenty members representing industry, trade
associations, academia, and government.
On June 4,1991 the Rhode Island DEM received a National Environmental Achievement Award
from the National Environmental Awards Council for its implementation of the HWRP.
References/Contacts
Mr. Richard Enander - Rhode Island DEM (401) 277-3434
Mr. Victor A. Bell - Rhode Island DEM (401) 277-3434
Toxic Waste Reduction
63
-------
Urban Bay Action Teams
Puget Sound
Project Description
In 1985, as part of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, the Washington State
Department of Ecology and the U.S. EPA began the development of Urban Bay Action
Programs for urban bays within Puget Sound. The goals of these programs are to protect the
marine environment from man made inputs of toxic materials, restore areas which are already
degraded, and to protect beneficial uses which could be affected by toxic contamination.
There are four basic phases of an Urban Bay Action Program:
1) Compile available data on the bay and identify problem areas.
2) Describe current agency activities, identify management gaps, and develop source control
action plans.
3) Implement source controls and remedial actions and evaluate the results.
4) Complete any necessary revisions to the action plan.
As part of an Urban Bay Action Program, Urban Bay Action Teams (UBATs) are established
to carry out the program. An action team is a field task force composed of technical staff from
appropriate regulatory and planning agencies. Each team identifies pollutant sources, performs
site inspections, issues and revises discharge permits, encourages BMPs, and initiates regulatory
responses to violations. Each action team has responsibility for one specific bay within the
sound and is also charged with educating, giving technical assistance, and seeking voluntary
cleanup efforts.
The number of individuals on an action team depends on the size and complexity of the bay.
Members of an action team should have training and/or experience in regulatory programs,
permits, and enforcement actions. In addition, action teams should include members with
qualifications in environmental chemistry, site investigation, treatment technologies, BMP
implementation, and community relations, the leader of an action team, as well as most of its
other members, should represent lead enforcement agencies such as state and federal resource
or environmental protection agencies, and municipalities. Action teams are most effective when
all or most of the appropriate regulatory agencies are represented on the team.
The regulatory authority which action teams have comes from discharge permit and inspection
requirements under the federal Clean Water Act and hazardous substance control regulations
under CERCLA and RCRA. Additional regulatory authority is derived in the State of
Washington from the state's Model Toxics Control Act, the NPDES program, and the CSO
control statute.
Toxic Waste Reduction
64
-------
Action Teams are already in place in several bays within Puget Sound and they, have
implemented Urban Bay Action Programs. In other parts of the Sound, teams are being formed
and Action Program plans are in various stages of development.
Project Funding
This project is funded by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. The proposed budget, for
Urban Bay Action Teams in the 1991-93 Biennium is $1,434,721.
Project Management
Urban Bay Action Teams are at the center of the organizational network of the Urban Bay
Action Programs. The action teams are directly supported by an Interagency Work Group and
a Citizens Advisory Committee. The Interagency Work Group is composed of representatives
from the county, city, state, port authorities, and NOAA. This group assists the action team in
activities such as securing commitments from resource agencies, coordinating program activities,
developing corrective actions, and reviewing progress. ^
The Citizens Advisory Committee is composed of concerned citizens along with representatives
from industry, businesses, and environmental groups. The CAC provides comments to the
Interagency Work Group, identifies public concerns on relevant issues, disseminates action plan
information, and helps insure the accountability of program participants responsible for
performing remedial actions or investigations.
In addition to these two supporting groups, action teams work directly with the state agencies
responsible for implementing elements of the overall action plans. Through this interaction with
state agencies, action teams also receive input from the EPA Regional Office and the Regional
Water Quality Planning Body.
Project Status
The Urban Bay Action Program is an ongoing program and is part of the Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Plan. Action Teams have completed program plans for Elliot Bay,
Commencement Bay, Sinclair/Dyes Inlet, Lake Union/Ship Canal, and Everett Harbor. Teams
are nearing completion of plans in at least two other areas of Puget Sound. The Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan has proposed budgeted funds for Urban Bay Action Teams up
through 1997.
Toxic Waste Reduction
65
-------
Project Highlights
Urban Bay Action Teams are key elements of the Puget Sound Urban Bay Action Program.
Teams have been established and have completed action plans in five areas within Puget Sound.
Development of plans is in the final phases in two other parts of the Sound.
To date, over 600 inspections of nearly 300 sites and facilities has been completed.
Approximately 100 warning letters and Notices of Violation have been issued and penalties
amounting to over $200,000 have been assessed. Cleanups have been completed at 14 sites and
the Action Program has worked with responsible industries to clean up 56 leaking underground
storage tanks.
In addition to cleanup and NPDES permitting efforts, educational and technical assistance has
been provided to the public, media, and public and private dischargers.
References/Contacts
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Urban Bay Action Teams Progress Report. Executive
Summary.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Puget Sound.
Action Proaram; A Focused Toxics Control Strategy.
Urban Bav
Mr. Michael Wheeler, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Telephone (206) 493-9176
Toxic Waste Reduction
66
-------
Household Hazardous Waste Program
Puget Sound
Project Description
In 1985, Household Hazardous Wastes (HHW) were included in the Washington State Hazardous
Waste Management Act under the category of moderate risk waste. Local governments were
mandated to undertake a planning process to identify local risk management options and to
implement a management program for these wastes by December 1991.
This project is a two part program aimed at reducing and managing household hazardous waste
through the implementation of local hazardous waste plans and by providing information and
education on less toxic alternatives for household products.
Under this program, four counties in the Puget Sound Region received grants to act as pilot
programs for completing their local hazardous waste management plans. These pilot programs
were all completed by February 1990. The remaining Puget Sound counties submitted final
drafts of their local plans for approval by the Department of Ecology and adoption by local
authorities. To date, five more county plans have been approved and three more will be
approved within a few months.
State Guidelines call for the local management plans to focus on an initial five year period,
second generation plans due in 1995 will be prepared for a twenty year time frame. The
Department of Ecology has provided the local governments with a set of guidelines which outline
the key elements each plan should have. These elements include:
1) Household Hazardous Waste Education.
2) HHW Collection and Waste Handling. Collection programs target potentially recyclable
wastes such as oil and paints.
3) Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Education and technical assistance. Assistance is
provided in the form of printed materials, seminars, workshops, and a telephone info
line.
4) SQG Collection and Waste Handling.
5) Compliance with the plan is enforced by enhancing local ordinances, SQG surveys and
audits, and the establishment of a response network.
These plans, once enacted, will ensure full implementation of recent amendments to the
Hazardous Waste Management Act and will improve management of household waste by
providing for appropriate disposal options within each community. Cost estimates for
implementation of plans throughout the Puget Sound region are $10 to $16 Million per year.
• Toxic Waste Reduction
67
-------
A major component of this program is public information and education. The Department of
Ecology (DOE) and the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority are working with local
governments, retailers, and the Washington Toxics Coalition to collect information on less toxic
alternatives to household toxicants. Information is disseminated through newsletters, pamphlets,
fact sheets, education programs, PIE fund projects, and Ecology's 1-800-RECYCLE hotline.
The DOE's Solid and Hazardous waste program is carrying out a program to educate
homeowners on safe use, storage, and disposal of home and garden chemicals. In addition, the
Cooperative Extension will be working with state agencies and local organizations to develop
a regional pesticide education program. The program will provide training on proper use and
disposal of pesticides and will act as a support for the local household hazardous waste plans.
Project Funding
The four original pilot projects were funded with monies from the Washington Centennial Clean
Water Fund which is supported by the Washington Cigarette Tax.
Planning and implementation activities in the other counties are funded by the Local Toxics
Control Account and by local utilities which in turn receive funding through Board of Health and
Solid Waste tipping fees. The Local Toxics Control Account was established in 1988. Money
is put into this account by the state and from the Hazardous Substance Tax which places a .07%
tax on the first in-state possessors or manufactures of substances classified as hazardous.
The cost for implementing the local management plans, especially waste collection activities, is
expected to gradually increase over time, reflecting the increase in service and the amount of
waste collected.
Project Management
The Washington DOE has oversight responsibility for this program. At the local level, planning
and implementation activities are typically undertaken by local health or public works
departments. These departments work in conjunction with a Hazardous Waste Public Advisory
Committee or Technical Planning Committee.
Project Status
This program has been ongoing for two years and only three remaining Puget Sound counties
are awaiting approval of their local management plans. This approval is expected before
December 1991.
Toxic Waste Reduction
68
-------
Implementation of waste management plans has already begun in the four pilot counties including
King County, which includes the city of Seattle, the largest city in the state of Washington.
Project Highlights
A strongpoint of this program has been the establishment of a successful collection system for
Household Hazardous Waste in the Puget Sound region. Presently, there are five functioning
permanent collection facilities and two mobile collection systems. The King County mobile
collection unit has already served over 17,000 households. Two additional permanent facilities
are in the planning stages. In addition, there have been numerous Household Hazardous Waste
collection events in the region. The Department of Ecology has a manual "Guidelines for
Collection Events" on how to plan and implement Household Hazardous Waste collection days
in communities.
References/Contacts
Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-King County. Final Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Small Quantities of Hazardous Waste
in the Seattle-King County Region. August 1989.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Planning Guidelines for Local Hazardous Waste
Plans. 1987.
Mr. William Green, Washington Department of Ecology. Telephone (206) 438-7233
Ms. Kathy Minsch, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Telephone (206) 493-9408
Mr. Dave Peeler, Washington Department of Ecology. Telephone (206) 438-7060
Toxic Waste Reduction
69
-------
Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration Project
Albemarle/Pamlico
Project Description
Most of the shoreline of the lower Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary is eroding due to natural geologic
processes. This erosion is expected to continue and possibly accelerate in the future. As
development continues to increase around the estuaries, landowners will eventually feel
threatened by erosion, and will look for a low cost alternative to halt the process. The goal of
this project is to demonstrate an effective, low cost erosion control device which will decrease
the erosion rates along the estuarine shorelines by increasing the acreage of marsh habitat in the
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds.
Marsh grasses have been used for shoreline erosion control for over two decades. They act as
biological filters of upland surface runoff and improve water quality by removing sediments and
nutrients. Establishing a fringing marsh will stabilize upland areas by dissipating wave action
and decrease erosion due to the erosion resistant peat layer which forms around the roots of
marshland plants. Studies have indicated that marshes in low lying areas continue to exist by
migrating along their inland fringe. However, marshes along higher elevation shorelines have
some of the highest erosion rates in the sounds. This is due primarily to the constant wave
action found in tidal areas.
In this project, low elevation breakwaters are being constructed that will protect marshes from
normal wave action and allow an expansion of marsh grass into areas where they would
normally be washed away. Under this project, a site selection committee made up of 5 members
representing permit agencies, the soil conservation service, and the principal investigator, has
selected 10 to 15 favored project sites based on a set of selection criteria. Acceptable sites must
have at least one mile of open water offshore for proper wave generation. The slope of the
beach must be flat and capable of growing marshes at least 20 feet wide. Also, there must be
easy public access and the water depth at normal high tide must be no greater than 2.5 feet at
a distance of 50 feet offshore. Sites that are selected will be spread geographically over the
APES study area.
Once a site is selected, the breakwater is constructed between 30 and 50 feet offshore. The
breakwater is made of wood and is similar to a bulkhead in appearance but no backfill material
is used. Once the breakwater is in place, marsh grass is planted along the shoreline behind the
protective structure. Costs for constructing the breakwater and planting the marsh grass are
expected to be between $25 and $35 per foot of shoreline protected.
Funding is available to assist property owners in constructing the breakwater, obtaining permits,
and planting the marsh grass. A 50% cost share is available to owners through the program if
they agree to allow shoreline access to show others of the effectiveness of this method. The
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
70
-------
property owner assumes ownership of the structure and is expected to perform reasonable
maintenance for at least 5 years. Periodic public and private inspections and monitoring will
take place by those interested in the project.
Once a dense growth of marsh grass has been established along a stretch of shoreline, usually
between one or two growing seasons, a significant reduction in shoreline erosion can be
expected.
Project Funding
This project is funded by grants from the Albemarle/Pamlico Study to the University of North
Carolina Sea Grant Program. The first year project grant is for $69,300, and the second year
grant is for $15,700.
Project Management
This project is managed by the principal investigator at the University of North Carolina. The
principal investigator handles all breakwater designs and permit applications.
The site selection committee is responsible for selecting appropriate sites which are spread
geographically throughout the Albemarle/Pamlico Study" area.
The property owners are responsible for obtaining bids from contractors for performing the
breakwater construction work.
Project Status
This project is ongoing. Funds are available for the construction of breakwaters at up to 15
different sites. One project site has already been permitted and three other sites have been
selected and are in the process of being permitted. Pending approval, construction will begin
at these sites.
Project Highlights
Existing erosion control methods such as bulkheads, revetments, and groins may minimize
adverse environmental effects on shorelines. However, they also offer little or no environmental
benefits to the estuary. This project is unique in that it provides erosion control with a low cost
breakwater, while at the same time being clearly beneficial to the estuary by establishing salt
marshes in areas where they would otherwise not grow. The use of these wooden breakwaters
is expected to provide a five or ten fold increase in the shoreline length where successful
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
71
-------
plantings of marsh grass for erosion control are possible. The breakwaters are designed for
increased longevity and can be installed at a low cost. This makes the project more attractive
to property owners and increases the chance for widespread participation .
References/Contacts
Marsh Grass Protection with Low-Cost Breakwaters Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration.
Proposal to APES, January 1990.
Erosion Control: MARSH and Low-Cost Breakwater. Coastal Zone '89. Spencer M. Rogers
Jr.
Mr. Spencer M. Rogers Jr., Principal Investigator. Telephone (919) 458-8257
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
72
-------
Stream Team Program
Puget Sound
Project Description
This program is sponsored by the City of Bellevue Storm and Surface Water Utility, with
assistance from the Puget Sound National Estuary Program (NEP). The original aim of the
program was to get people in the Kelsey Creek Watershed involved in monitoring, surveying,
and enhancing the stream systems in their community. The program was later expanded to
include the Coal Creek Watershed.
The stream team program involves recruiting, training, and supervising volunteers as well as
providing appropriate agencies with information gathered by the teams. Six volunteer stream
teams were established, five for Kelsey Creek and one for Coal Creek. Each team is responsible
for caring for a different area within the watershed. In addition to forming the teams, a Stream
Team Guidebook was drafted which outlines the program goals and organization. This
guidebook is a high quality illustrated book which provides general information and is used as
an easy reference. The Stream Team Program has received much recognition because of the
usefulness of its guidebook.
To train the volunteers, a series of six workshops is used, each one covering a different aspect
of stream protection. The workshops are titled Stream Bugs and Water Quality, Urban Salmon
and You, Streams and Urban Flood Control, Stream Habitat Evaluation, Wetlands, Wildlife and
You, and Landscaping for Healthy Streams.
The Stream Bugs and Water Quality Workshop educates volunteers on the importance of water
insects and their effect on water quality. Aquatic insect sampling kits are given to the volunteers
who take samples and help evaluate the water quality. In addition, appropriate actions which
should be taken in the event of pollution spills and fish kills are discussed.
In the Urban Salmon and You Workshop, volunteers are taught how to identify different types
of salmon and to record migration and spawning information. In early January, egg tubes are
placed in the creeks and volunteers are invited to participate in a salmon rearing project.
During the Streams and Urban Flood Control Workshop, participants are given a tour of the City
of Bellevue's stormwater management system. Volunteers are taught how to respond during
flood conditions and how to operate level gauges and take stormwater samples.
The Stream Habitat Evaluation Workshop teaches participants how to conduct stream surveys
using the EPA's streamwalk method. The survey results help map seasonal changes with
particular emphasis on the changes associated with physical improvements i.e road crossings
revegetation, etc. '
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
73
-------
The Wetlands, Wildlife and You workshop instructs participants on how to identify wetland
plants. A wetland field trip is conducted to view wildlife and collect samples of smaller wetland
wildlife. A survey for the noxious weed purple loosestrife is conducted in the summer. The
survey results help state and county noxious weed boards map the migration of purple loosestrife
in the area.
Homeowners who take part in the Landscaping for Healthy Streams workshop learn how to
enhance the stream environment through proper yard maintenance techniques. Appropriate
tools, plants and materials are discussed for landscaping around streams.
Another phase of the project is to educate the public on stream protection through mailings and
media presentations. As part of this process, local citizen groups were given stencils which read
"Dump No Waste. Drains to Stream". The groups were given instructions to spray paint this
message on storm drains throughout the region.
Stream Team volunteers have the opportunity to work with various groups such as scouts,
schools and other community organizations. A quarterly newsletter relays project progress and
training information to citizens and broadens public awareness of stream protection issues and
activities.
Project Funding
This project was initially funded through the Puget Sound Public Involvement and Education
(PIE) Model Projects Fund. This PIE fund was developed by the Puget Sound NEP to provide
funding for public education and involvement efforts in the Puget Sound watershed. The PIE
fund grant was for $30,000. An additional $32,000 was provided by the Storm and Surface
Water Utility. The project was subsequently funded to carry it through 1991 by a $115,000
Centennial Clean Water Fund grant from the State of Washington Department of Ecology.
$25,000 of this grant was matched by the city of Bellevue.
Project Management
The project is sponsored by the City of Bellevue Storm and Surface Water Utility.
Project Status
This project is ongoing and is still being sponsored by the Utility. The Centennial fund grant
runs out in 1991. However, the Utility plans to continue funding the program with its existing
city budget.
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
74
-------
Project Highlights
The program currently involves 150 active volunteers in stream protection and monitoring
activities. The annual workshop series attracts from 50 to 75 residents to each workshop. The
people in the Kelsey Creek and Coal watersheds are now actively involved in protecting their
stream habitats. One streamside property owner has even allowed his land to be used as a model
revegetation site.
More than 1500 storm drains in the area have been painted with the "Dump No Waste. Drains
to Stream" message, and volunteers have participated in several major streamside cleanup
projects.
The success of the Stream Team Program has sparked interest in other parts of the country. The
educational materials and program format developed for the Stream Team Program are available
as examples for other agencies interested in initiating similar programs.
References/Contacts
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Public Involvement and Education Model Projects Fund
47 Success Stories from Puget Sound.
City of Bellevue Storm and Surface Water Utility. Stream-Team Program Summary.
Ms. Nancy Hansen, City of Bellevue Storm and Surface Water Utility. Telephone (206)
451-4476
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
75
-------
Local Government Wetland Preservation Program
Puget Sound
Project Description
The Local Government Wetland Preservation Program is overseen by the Washington
Department of Ecology, the state organization directly involved with the Puget Sound National
Estuary Program (NEP). This program is designed to aid local governments in preparing their
own wetlands preservation programs. A preservation program is a non-regulatory acquisition
effort directed at protecting wetlands of special interest and/or significance.
The local government in King County was selected to establish and carry out a model wetlands
preservation program. The model program consisted of the following main elements:
1) Researching and preparing background material on alternatives that can be used to
implement a preservation program.
2) Establishing a local preservation program as a model for other jurisdictions.
3) Testing the local program model with a wetlands site acquisition.
The Department of Ecology retained the task of preparing a "How To" Guidebook for setting
up a local preservation program, utilizing the background materials from the model program.
A committee consisting of representatives from counties throughout the state was convened to
aid in the development of the background material and to ensure that the alternatives presented
would be applicable for other local governments in the State of Washington. The Department
of Ecology supported the project by providing technical advice and assistance.
The King County model wetlands preservation program is under completion and the experience
and information gained through the project is being used by the Department of Ecology to
develop the "How To" guidebook for use by other local governments in the region. The
guidebook will provide an overview of the components of a preservation program and discuss
alternatives that can be used by different jurisdictions to implement a program tailored to their
needs. This will reduce planning time and initial costs.
Project Funding
This two year project was funded by the EPA with a grant of $142,000 on September 1, 1989.
Of this original sum, $115,000 was subcontracted to King County for design and implementation
of the model preservation program. An extension on the two year time table has been requested
to complete the test wetland acquisition.
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
76
-------
Project Management.
This project was managed at both the State and Local levels. Management at the State level was
conducted by the Department of Ecology. At the local level, design and implementation of the
model wetlands preservation program was handled by the King County Resource Planning
Division.
Project Status
This project is ongoing. The King County model program has been developed and the
background information is being used by the Department of Ecology to develop the project
guidebook which will be ready in the fall of 1991. Currently, King County is in the process of
acquiring their first wetland under their new preservation program.
Protect Highlights
This project provides an example to other jurisdictions locally and nationwide of the aspects of
implementing a non-regulatory wetlands protection effort. Under this program, a successful
reference model has been developed which will be valuable for reducing planning time, and start
up costs for others. The project guidebook will be useful not only to communities in the Puget
Sound region, but it can be used for the establishment of local preservation programs in other
parts of the country.
A major accomplishment of this project is that it has increased the level of awareness about
wetlands protection within local governments in the state of Washington. As a result of the
project, there is now a marked increase in effort and coordination between different departments
within the local government system. In addition, the development of the model program has
served to increase coordination between Federal and State environmental agencies.
References/Contacts
Washington Department of Ecology. Creating a Local Government Wetlands Preservation
Program. (Due in Fall of 1991)
Ms. Jane Rubey Frost, Project Grant Officer, Department of Ecology. Telephone (206)
438-7429
Mr. Derek Poon, King County Resource Planning Division. Telephone (206) 296-8633
Ms. Kate Stenberg, King County Resource Planning Division. Telephone (206) 296-
7266
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration 77
-------
City Island Habitat Module Project
Sarasota Bay
Project Description
In this project, the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program restored natural, intertidal habitat on
city-owned property on City Island in Sarasota, Florida. Similar habitat restorations will be
developed throughout the Sarasota Bay watershed to demonstrate an effective way to replace lost
habitat. The restored habitats are designed for species diversity and high productivity of plants
and animals native to the area.
The City Island habitat was created on 4-1/2 acres of land adjacent to the office of the Sarasota
Bay Program. This site had previously been used for deposition of spoils and construction
debris. It is owned by the City of Sarasota which agreed to participate in the habitat creation.
The design of this habitat included the planting of marsh grasses and creation of six tidal pools
which increased the shoreline of the area by approximately one mile. Construction began hi
November 1990 and lasted approximately three weeks. The work included an extensive beach
clean-up and construction of a boardwalk for public access. More than 100 citizen volunteers
planted over 20,000 plants on the site.
Because of the location of this site directly outside the offices of the Sarasota Bay Program and
adjacent to Mote Marine Laboratory, it is used as a visitor attraction and public education and
outreach project. Even though the site has not officially "opened", tours have been conducted
with schools, teachers, public organizations, and local officials. The goal of these tours is to
teach Sarasota Bay residents and local officials the importance of preserving and restoring
habitats essential to protecting the Bay.
The City of Sarasota is responsible for monitoring the success of the new vegetation and
assessing habitat utilization and public awareness. Experience gained in restoring this habitat
will be used to restore additional habitats throughout the Sarasota Bay watershed and to serve
as the first step toward more extensive habitat restoration throughout the Bay.
Project Funding
This Project was funded by a combined effort of the U.S. EPA Region 4 and the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FLDER). U.S. EPA funding was $50,000 with
FLDER contributing $150,000. Funds contributed by the FLDER came from the Pollution
Recovery Trust Fund. This fund receives money from fines levied on polluters throughout the
State of Florida. Plants used in this project were donated by FLDER.
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
78
-------
Project Management
This project was conducted by the Sarasota Bay Program with funding and technical assistance
from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and U.S. EPA Region 4. In addition
the City of Sarasota is providing follow-up monitoring of newly planted species and habitat
utilization.
Project Status
Construction of the City Island Habitat is complete and some tours have been conducted The
City of Sarasota is currently conducting monitoring of the site for vegetation attrition and species
usage. The site will be fully open to the public in early fall once educational signage is
installed. 6
Project Highlights
Habitat protection and restoration programs are often complicated by issues revolving around
land ownership. Often, privately owned lands are difficult and expensive to purchase for the
purposes of habitat restoration and protection. Therefore, this project concentrated on
developing a smaller habitat "module" that is diverse enough to support a variety of uses In
this type of project, land requirements can be greatly reduced by utilizing small, publicly owned
lands for creating these habitat modules. This can reduce the time, effort, and cost required to
construct these habitats.
The City Island Habitat project has successfully completed construction of a diverse habitat on
a previously unused publicly owned property. In this project, 85 to 90 percent of the plantings
have survived, thereby decreasing the expected replanting requirements. Also, although actual
species diversity monitoring has not been conducted to date, observations indicate a high level
of species usage. More precise information will be available once the City of Sarasota begins
monitoring the site.
The method utilized in this project for creating small, diverse habitats has proven successful and
is being implemented in other areas of the Sarasota Bay watershed. A larger site in Manatee
County is currently beginning restoration and other sites within the Sarasota Bay watershed are
being identified for restoration.
The public education portion of this project is also meeting with early success. Even though the
site is not currently fully open, early tours of the area have increased awareness of the
importance of these habitats to the health of Sarasota. Bay. Once the site opens in early fall the
level of education is expected to increase. '
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
79
-------
Contacts/References
Mr. Mark Alderson, Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program, 1550 Ken Thompson
Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34236. Telephone (813) 361-6133.
Ms. Susan Wellington Walker, Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program, 1550 Ken
Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34236. Telephone (813) 361-6133.
Ms. Heidi Smith, Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program, 1550 Ken Thompson
Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34236. Telephone (813) 361-6133.
Wetlands/Habitat Protection and Restoration
80
-------
SECTION HI - IDENTIFIED PROJECTS
Section III contains the listing of projects investigated for the preparation of this document. For
each project, a brief description is given along with the status of the project, and references for
further information. Projects which are shaded and have an asterisk, are the projects of interest
described in detail in Section II. The following definitions apply in describing the status of
projects in this section:
Pending Pending indicates that the project has not yet been implemented. Reasons for this
could include lack of funding, staff, and/or project approval. In some cases,
projects may still be in the conceptual or planning stage.
Ongoing Ongoing indicates that implementation of the project has begun. This includes
projects in their beginning stages, as well as projects which have been underway
for several years.
Completed A completed project is one in which the main task or goal of the project has been
achieved.
81
-------
-------
1
Ul
oc
1
fe
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
S
(f
8
^.
cc
Q.
11
p
F
ci
c CD
o fc
§• CD
Second Progress R
Under the 1987 Agr
Dec 1989. Pg. 37
O)
c
0
O)
§
"2
re
.e:
Legislation requiring regulation of developments
within 1000 feet of the Bay. Most counties have I
their protection plans approved.
.2
S
Q.
OJ
1
o
2
<
*m C
.9 .2
^ 13
o s
Q c?
2 5
|
o E
8- 8
Second Progress R
Under the 1987 Agr
Dec 1989. Pg. 37
o>
c
0
o>
0
c
_g
^ CO
£ o
8 £
Tidewater local governments must designate pre
areas and manage land use and development in
areas in a manner that protects water quality.
S
S
Q.
O
^
* -
* c
to
"05
>
6 |
$ £
Q.
1
iiullllallaloifl
Illiaflglolplllbl
1
0>
t
8
1
O> 0
go
Q- c c
to o re
c ~ J2
co 2 F
&m ®
»ff CD S ,-.
i« |I
2 S
c 'o JS cs
^ Q *— <0
111 I
11*1
••* ^^ m
-------
1
a
a
w
P"
&
i_
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2j
§
0
Q.
P
P
1 e
£s
11
^PfEModel Pro]
^47 Success stc
1
CD
"5.
E
§
E
P
;;; ; A recycling program was set up at a marina bin Puget
;^ vBound, Squarewooden receptacles for cardboard, w
TJ
C
O
CD
3
Q.
1
we.
5 ~
"§ 13
Q is
c
if
2 Q
*
fPugel Sound
^
s
> jduminum, and nets wefe placed at the head of each:
s|nriarina ramp rand nearthecornrnercialrfishingifleetwi
'
CD
"«0 0
ill
1*1
115
13 2 £
3 g> C
to & 2
£« 1
to -o S
••
^
'
..
•o
1 £
i 8
CD '?
PIE Model Proj
47 Success stc
Puget Sound
13
"o
"5.
E
o
O
CD
Interpretive signs were installed at 15 marinas and
at boat launches. The signs were designed to educal
the public about proper disposal of boat waste and
environmentally safe boat maintenance.
c
o
D)
3
0.
8"
Q.
C
O
8
=>
S
V.
OJ
O
ffl
J .,
Q.
^
5
*-* O
•*- "5 C3
•3 CD o
0 o =
? &18
•c ® co
S o "S
«-|.i
i- i-1
a.5 E
I1] s
Q
X
-3
v
z
CD
Q
£f .S.
>.c^
JO Ctt
_CD .S
"^ Q-
*
o
^s
§ £
(D 35
5* O
C Q)
••- -''*
.£
•° o
^ >
o ,w
ll
1 e
o «•
2 ^o
03 o
£ "^
.1 1
§ to
B .£
B
to
CO
i
CD
to
B
g
o
| rf
13 E
>S o.
'
,
^ -
1 A.
CD
re
-j o
^ls
>- ro '-
2 D>
; Bulletin boards were installed at five marinas to
;. promote vessel waste exchange and recycling.
Educational exhibits were set up. In one bay within
the harbor, a trash collection vessel was used to remc
trash from other ships.
o
CO
X
-3
,*
Z
If
•— cc
ffl "O
? "*
TZ O)
f Is
CB CO £
Z X^Q.
>> .
S « o
1 m ^
211
Management o
Waste in BUZZE
FY1989Demoi
0)
c
'o
O)
c
o
This project is a subtask of the Sanitary waste
management plan for Buzzards Bay. The project will
select a marina and develop a plan to renovate and
>,
m
1
^
m
-------
UJ
c
2
a
u.
ff
1
5
fe
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2
§
£
£
- s= e
<° S? 0
1*** ro >^
*? CD -*"—
OT -g |
o S §
•*- N £
? C" XT*.
o ._ o>
«2 « §
cO nj ^^ O
5 5 £ ct
o>
c
'o
O)
6
"S 2
w ro
I -0 ffl .
C. « o
• w m
i nis project is a subtask of the Sanitary wast
management plan for Buzzards Bay. A facilil
constructed in and adjacent to a greenhouse
constructed wetlands, plants, animals, and b;
cleanse a boat waste and septage stream.
«
]Q
i
B
^
Q
Q.
O
0 o
|-|
w fa
P s
|5
N JO
m o
O)
c
1
6
,_ e
O ^
c o>
5 2
2 a.
*• ^
This project is funded under the Buzzards Ba
Municipal Grant Program. Under this project,
Westport will establish a mobile marine pump
in the Westport River.
^
m
i?
M
m
Q.
o
>» ^
W CO
T3 ^C
« 5
y CO
m Q
O
c
'o
O)
<§
D) „
_C 3
oil
•= *^ E
This is a Municipal Grant funded project in wf
sanitary wastes and used oil from commercial
vessels will be handled by newly designed pui
facilities.
s-
CQ
!>
CO
w
m
-------
c
CO
« a-
*~ ir5
CD "
« 0.
•r- ^
-------
« JP
ca Q*
03 .
I*
M 2?
3- »D
"CQ 2
_.
O
O
m ,
xs G>
81
3 «
CQ 2
O
"5
m .
01 O
•a o>
m
8
Q T
>• JP"
ra a.
"S
i
a.
I
I
Q.
o
o
.1
o
a>
a.
I
•D
t
I
CD
m
(0
•
si?
o »
il
(O Q
II
O)
c
o
'E
o
o
2
a.
-------
LU
o
o
co-
co
m
fc S
II
si
s &
CO <0
"CD co
•a
£ K
I o
6
I
i
Q.
^
CO
0
c c
§.^
^- (S
Municipal Grant project designed to educate I
on legal responsibilities and facilitate coordin:
between boards within and between towns.
^
CO
m
CO
•o
8
13
m
^ .
i
o>
_c
^
i
S t>
^ S"
L. Q.
CO
w E
§ „ 'c £
£ Q. co -g
1 0 « | |
> >J to* E o
ra 1? c^ , . CB
Manual designed to provide guidance to local
on potential sources of new funding for select
actions. Guidebook explores six revenue opt!
well as four independent financial managemei
that are available to local governments in Mas
m
CO
•g
co
W
m
C)
._
c
c
CO
Q. .M
— 0
Cv O
"o *Q
ro p
C 3
EL O
' ^j
c
jo
— *^
*S £- S
Igi
III
1 s*!
t 3 ^
S 8 °
H ^ 03
^- CO ^*
ll 1 i-
§ll-§
cflfl
"
1 „
0>
O)
£
15
~
•c g
Q> CO
t 1—
i?
2 2
% «
O 5
£ 8
| I
b §
< oc
•
E
2
1 *?
Q) Q) Q-
2 c § O)
This project has trained roughly 80 citizens of
area to conduct a regular water quality monitoi
program. This citizen monitoring program is c
coordinated with the State and USGS monitor!
8
E
S3
-------
I
s
UJ
en
CO
|
CO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
|
O
y
Q.
S
c
g
o E
*|
Iso?
2 ^~ •
Q- ® ®
T) ~ en
lid
/n
CD
CL
O
0
CO
s „
of phosphate containing detergents. B
, PA, VA, and DC. They are designed t<
sphorous loads to Chesapeake Bay.
CD Q O
§§£
C C CD
2«|
3-13
CD
1
cx
8
6
CO
c
CO
ffl
cl
CD
2>
CD
O
Q
CD
IS
.C
CL
'c
r |
Q. CD 10
Q) CD 1-
cc t3>4
CO < ?
1 £5 ra
en o> Q-
2 "• •
^58
T3 •* O>
g s r
0 "0 0
CD C CD
CO 3 Q
0)
c
"a
c
O
i^
ition of biological nitrogen and phospho
reatment facilities in MD, PA, DC, and '
Implements
removal at t
j§
CO
CD
Q.
CO
I
6
8
li
1
Sewage Plant
c
c 2
o £
& §
CC O)
S S3 "
0 T3 0
CO 5 Q
0>
c
I
c
O
0
PA to set aside funds for communities t
sewers and reduce septic system use.
Program in
connect to i
S
8
Q.
co
CO
CD
6
w
i
f/\
Expansion of 5
Districts
c:
c 5
0 C
.8- S
CC o> r^
CO < T-
8fe£
££ 0.
*£8
•O *- O
§ | ".
S c 8
CO Z> Q
O)
c:
'o
O)
c
0
n of a swirl concentrator in a CSO in
iia River in DC.
Constructio
theAnacosI
O <5 ' *"1
0 T3 <>
CD c CD
CO Z> O
o>
c
'!
c
0
_g
S
2 ffi
.1?
CD "q>
0 1
**" Q,
£ 6
•CO O
m °
o CD
if i
•i '§"
W O.
11
*
"g
ex
CO
1
6
CD
CO
13 co
w |
is
ll
c
g
o
.CD _>, Q.
m >. •-
T3 O) S^
*sr Q) ^
co i: ex
m co <
O)
c
'o
o>
c
0
veloped by PA to provide funds to ident
NPS pollution sources and prioritize
for BMP implementation.
Program de
agricultural
watersheds
V
co
CD
CL
CO
8
S
CD
O
CO
S c
co E
CO CO
O)
II
i o>
co c
'i*
££
c
p
1
0) CO i-
C T~ D)
® i- Q-
1 "7 "*
'I £ S
S. JO Q.
co i: Q.
m co <
o
c
'o
O)
c
O
provide funds for implementation of
BMPs.
Program to
agricultural
CD
-
£X
8
6
CD
0
C
CO
CO
1 i
< &
.2 2
= ™
g a
S^
2£
o
* co »-
c »- ci
CD >, Q.
i= "5 i
Z ' t<
CB >. •—
•§ ra^i
S 2 S
>> JO Q.
co i= a.
m co <
?
O
ex
it of 15 "standard" BMPs for use
ombinations. Use of these BMPs is
ly approved.
Developmel
in various c<
automatical
CD
1
Q.
8
6
1
CL
o
.2 S>
fo-
0 S
PA State Cons
Commission B
-------
2
UJ
cc
V)
1
§
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2
a
LU 1
p
n
o
•g
CD CO CM
8 ^. 0-
Baywide Nutri
Strategy - Jul
Appendix A -
CD
1
8
Program to provide funds for implementation of
agricultural BMPs.
1
6
CO
,W
PA Technical Ass
Funding Program
c
o
•5
]§ CO CM
CC co •>-
c * P
CD >, Q.
Baywide Nutrl
Strategy - Jul
Appendix A -
0»
c
o
CO
8
1
Program to encourage farmers to participate In the
Conservation Reserve Program through reduced per
requirements.
1
Q.
CO
6
s
o
o
CRP Incentive Pn
c
t>
3
S 00 CO
*_ o>
CD >. Q.
Baywide Nutri
Strategy - Jul
Appendix A -
0)
"5
o
8
Production of a manual of standard manure handling
practices. These practices are mandated for use at
farms in PA.
1
8-
6
c
CD
CD
CD
PA Manure Mana
Manual
c
o
0
| g N.
„ O *";
= *~ P
CD >, 0.
Baywide Nutri
Strategy - Jul
Appendix A -
O)
"5
CO
0
1
Program set up to oversee agricultural BMP develop
and implementation.
1
Q.
§
1 e
™ CO
~ il
3 O
PA Agricultural N
Management Pro
c
_o
"•jj
3
"O
CD CO
CC eo u>
„ cn .
c *- P
CD >, 0-
Baywide Nutri
Strategy - Jul
Appendix B -
I
03
Q-
1
Implementation of biological nitrogen removal at the
HRSD-New York River treatment plant to determine
effectiveness of the removal process.
1
1
6
is
ii
U. Q
HRSD-NewYork
BNR demonstrati
_
'G
CD OO
CC oo 10
^ cn .
•£ 7- p
CD >, O.
Baywide Nutri
Strategy - Jul
Appendix B -
ti>
Q.
o
O
CD
-C in
Implementation of biological phosphorus removal at
Kilmarnock treatment plant to determine effectivene!
of the removal process.
1
6
cc
CD 8
U- "o"
Kilmarnock WWT
demonstration pr
c
o
'o
3
, CL
Baywide Nutri
Strategy - Jul
Appendix B -
CD
Q.
1
§ 3
Implementation of simultaneous chemical precipitati
at the Fredericksburg WWTF to determine phosphor
removal effectiveness.
m.
Q.
6
U. "CO
t o
^ p
^^
Fredericksburg V
simultaneous che
precipitation
c
_o
•Q
CC oo .
CD >, 0-
Baywide Nutr
Strategy - Jul
Appendix B -
To
a.
1
Development of new water quality standards which
designated certain waters as "nutrient enriched".
1
CD
6
VA water quality
standards
-------
REFERENCE
CO
|
CO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
S
i
o
O.
a uj
Q.
c
_g
ywide Nutrient Reduct
ategy -July 1988
co to
m co
:
IS
CO
c
8
8
,~
B^i^isipl^iSfj^ipi^^^iiMipliiS
2?
f
i
m
^^ f
M
1
o
1
z
»
CO
ig Island Sound Annu
port 1989/1 990
31
CO
c
1
6
H c
=> o
Program to reduce nitrogen discharges from agricult
lands in the Housatonic watershed. Project focuses
•o
co
U)
CO
3
ts
Q)
I
C
CD
CD
2
z
CO
Q.
Z
S
soil testing and reduced fertilizer application.
S
co
c
jject Abstracts for the
riod 1987-1 989. Alben
mlico Estuarine Study
1. 1988. Pg. 25
c: 2
of land waste application techniques.
-------
1
£ 55
g
a
I
3
a o> JT 5
ifU
s c w
!ill
c ,c is *^
Siii
« £ s *•
C O T3
^ = 1 f.
I i II .
SO) *O O" "o
a> c i- S>
2 ^? <5 2 a>
«
ro
1 §
< E
ro S
I i
a>
-------
2 o
I s
O) i-
*£
>> D
»I 3
O ffl
"S
3
a
o
O
tr <*-•- kv o o
< 8 5 o. S.
c
ro
c J2
o CO-
SI
CO
O)
c
CO
m
i
1
CO
f
§
o
CO
CO
cS
-------
>. o
15
2 c
(0 CO
o
CO
cf
O)
Q.
co
a
£2 C
CD
CB JO
> Q-
"i =
£ CD
g E
w 8.
g
S c
eo jo
"2
S.
3
Jg
>» o
S 05
rt •"„-
ja a
3 O.
<§ oj _
«- £? CM
to 2 *-
o> 5 •
P 5 o>
0. 5 Q.
S
o
O)
c
"o
o>
o>
c
o
'o
O)
6
O)
c
'o
s
o
£ « en O
«
to
S- CD r=
s §
||||.
f» 1 2 3
ifilf^
0) C C
Illll
3
O
CO
ll implernei
State
to c
(D O
11
M
O CD
11
I!
o&!
§1
2> P
Pi -S
ining sh
Teache
areas.
gers and Sc
I I
w ^-j
fir 1
= «»
S -S
_<> <5 nj
11 s i S |
iiliflj
O ^ * o *" f^ ti
.b w- i. 3 '3 ^ CO
> o £ e s g
m c gJ? S i £
•s4S o 2 S § =2
s.
Q CO
£ CC
zlll
||];
.co-cot; ^^23-5^0 £30.ES°
HceQ-O. I- 73 o Q- 0) S en I- CO ra o> E CO
'o
c
3
i1
Q.
O)
a.
C3)
Q.
-------
UJ
c:
a
a
2
R
<
&5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1
m
Q
Q_
UJ
CL
pi
UJ
i
= "§>
8 §
<^
® c:
"c3 cB '
§ 51
§ |
o E
OT CO »"
o « J!
3 « CO
CL 5 Q.
CO
c
"O
c
03
CL
>^ CO
o E
5 CO
The Washington State Department of Wildlife is
coordinating with the Departments of Fisheries, Eco
and Natural Resources to provide educational progr
on Habitat Protection to developers, realtors,
contractors, businesses, and industry in the region.
•o
c
3
CO
"S
CD
3
CL
o
•£
2
03
C
03
C
O
1
£
1
.Q
(0
X
£.0
13 §
z
o5
*-j C
cu Co
§ 51
Puget Sound
Management
O)
c
o
CO
6
03
Under this program, the Washington OEE will provic
water quality kits to schools for use in freshwater
•o
c
CO
«
CO
c?
§
To
CC
"o
o
J=
o
CO
to c
C Js
N ra
§ s
m c
JO ._
o ~
co 5
^
CO
Q.
monitoring projects. In addition, citizen monitors
will carry out projects for the Puget Sound Ambient
03
.*~
E CD
0 C .C
Monitoring Program under volunteer management fr
PSWA. This project is not currently funded, but duri
1988-1990, citizen monitors helped investigators wit
three monitoring projects.
.£• °
co " •
O ^
i_
*—t d
CO CO
§ D-
Puget Sound
Management
CO
._
"O
I
Agencies and local governments involved in water
quality monitoring shall involve universities and
T3
c
3
O
CO
03
CO
Q.
03
«
0?
0
o
r-
co
T3
^
0 C?
S ™
co 2
™ 0
c? 2
Si
T—
Q.
colleges in monitoring projects. This will be done
'through classes, internships, and laboratory use.
2?°
!">
0 5
^.
S c
CO CO
5,0-
3 §
o E
l| d,
CL S Q.
D)
.£
"O
03
0.
rn rX
The PSWQA will initiate public awareness campaign!
which can address tangible results such as repairing
shellfish beds, reducing plastic debris, oil and
septage in the Sound, and the restoration of wetland;
•o
c
3
a
03
CO
CL
o
"cfl
l_
03
§5
o
o _
•*- T3
2 §
O) O
•55 co
C O)
O (X
>* 0
"w ">"
O 5
j_ ^
Q) fi*
CB ra
^ OL
Puget Sound
Management
pg. 125
CO
c
'•o
c
? S
This program is intended to have the governor of
Washington declare 1993 "The Year of the Sound" a
appoint a Year of the Sound committee. The commit
|
efj
03
CO
O.
jc
"5
03
c
03
0
T5
f—
03
~ E
o co
S c?
2ct
would seek funding and support from the public and
industry to sponsor events which highlight the Sound
and what people are doing to protect it.
;>> o
-- O)
CO "^
CJ ^
^~
03 f£
CO cfl
5 0.
Puget Sound 1
Management 1
pg. 125
CD
C
^
S.
The PSWQA will develop an awards program which
recognizes businesses, government, youth groups, oi
individuals for taking positive action to protect the
water quality of Puget Sound.
•o
0
03
CO
CL
CO
§
<
e§
2 co
CO O
"O T3
§ g
o 5
CO <
-------
HI
O
ffl
E
UJ
Cu
CO
*3
1
1
CL
S
of
§
CL
tr
3^
E
QJ JJJ
^J C
(£ r™
CL
- S
s"g
0^
Be
5 51
11
Q ^
CO ®
fra
CI
0. ^
CD
C
1
CL
Under this program, the PSWA would establish
Internships and opportunities for students to prepare
•Q
c;
0
I
3
CL
Jj
re
•5
CC
^8
a
1
T>
CO
C/)
1 1
£ «i
S g
£ o.
CM
»-
d
Q.
case studies on Issues related to Puget Sound. Credit
could possibly be provided for college students and
school teachers who participate.
>> ^3
•^ O)
"re "..;
O z
2 c
re ca
5 C
T3 •£
O
o E
W J^ o>
"S ca ^
CD '"•
c?5 S
CD
C
0
en
S
The PSWQA updates and periodically distributes a water
quality directory for public use. The directory
describes appropriate contacts for obtaining
information on specific issues related to the Puget
Sound Plan. The PSWA also makes use of hotlines to
handle inquiries related to the protection of the Sound.
•a
c
o
ID
o
a.
,0
c
"jo
CD
a
o ^5
i_ 33
Q §
2? =
S «
re P
o|
»_ c
CD —
4S "c
> re
£• o
• — OJ
re "^
O §
2 c
re .re
T CD
o E
w g,0
CD re II
01 5 •
3 ™ 0)
0- 2 a.
O)
c
'•a
The Washington Department of Community Development
will conduct a short course on local planning which
will include a section on Puget Sound water quality
protection and public involvement.
T3
C
O
CD
CO
3
Q.
0
j^
"re
o •
CD
0
O O)
CD S
UJ r-
5 C
0 ™
0 Q.
*t** *73
o o
to _i
.£•§
= "§
o i
2 c
re re
5i
3 2
S e
CO a> ,_
*- 2* CM
CD ™ i-:
o> 5 .
3 « en
D- 5 Q.
CO
c
0
0)
6
The Washington Department of Ecology has an active
education program for agricultural audiences and
pesticide users. The program details actions that are
-(-,
c
3
O
CD
O)
CL
o
1=
1-
CD
0
C
_o
c
1
2:
CL
|l
-* MI
=5 2
o. CL
iltural and pesticide waste
limilar programs are planned
hermen, and the marine
necessary to prevent agricu
from entering the Sound. S
for industry, commercial fisi
transport industry.
re
E
c
g
a. ?>
tE re
CL"
.y uj
JD rri
3 UJ
CL O
O)
C
'o
0)
6
Fact Sheets are published quarterly and are distributed
in the DELEP Newsletter, at meetings, and by the media.
fe
UJ
Q
C
.2
to
^
3
CL
to
OD
CD
x:
CO
S
^
Q.
ed information on specific
istuary.
Each fact sheet gives detail
issues affecting Delaware E
re
Q.
§
Q. ?
'•£ re
re -i
0 ^
^^ «J
CL Q
§
1
torial guide to the Estuary
the other. The map indicates
This color brochure is a pici
on one side, and a map on '
CL
HI
ED1
o
c
o
I
•3
rochure
CD
73
C
re"
2
oo
ai
a.
licts, and impact zones. It
ities.
natural resources, use conf
is distributed in large quant
-------
DC
D.
U
^
g
U
g
ti
u
a
a
|
fe
"I PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1
I
LU
S.
r"
.
,i C
J
_ '
—
<
"
•
I
i
c
03
^
: =
3 2.P
1 ~r;
J O ri
-. C ra
! to -i
• CL ~
Sag
0)
c
1
Q_
to
i° c:
« -i
f LJJ d,
CL Q CL
O)
c
0
O
CO
. ij
This is a popular outreach technique already in use
Legislators, business leaders, clubs, and discharge
are provided with the opportunity to get a first hand
look at the estuary in order to highlight specific
issues under discussion.
Q.
LU
Q
c
§
LU
•1
£
"CD
LL
>»
co
ID
s
c
C8
CL
c
_o
.1-S
If-
isS
O)
c
1
•il
LINK is an educational database and bulletin board
used by school teachers. DELEP news and informa
can be set up in the LINK system and then be acces
by anyone using the system.
Q.
LU
LU
Q
"8
13
CD
cc
^
1
(D
tO
m
«
Q
^*
^
~ '
c
03
CL
1 • ' "
•§.p>
is
Q •>
n
s _i c\j
DL C^ f>
O)
c
'o
O)
S
-
1 E Is
3 g « 8
0
^ co .co •£
8 w f w
|1*I
2 £ S -2
< ? 5 £ .
D.
13
LU
Q
O
'c
i
UJ
2?
to
Q
nj
z>
*—r
i3
Q)
.£
Q.
13
E
CO
CD
0
-------
0
tt
ft
LJJ
C£
CO
p
p~
<
p
to
\
|
g
g
m
^*
1^
IU
E
p
CO
CL
g
HP
S c
•C <3
CO -9
D-
lit
ca
_n
CD
Q.
This is a one day activity which focuses primarily on
the Estuary's tributaries. Residents will pick up
trash In the gullies that collect storm water and
0.
UJ
UJ
Q
c
CD
UJ
2 >•
c cd
«o Q
It
i §
cf o
they will be provided with literature on how these
individual activities affect the health of the estuary
as a whole.
c
CO
E
c
HP
'C oj
CO ~3
B- «-
.y Si
•Sri
0. Q
o>
c
c
°~
.c
i
An annual conference will be convened to bring
environmental and conservation groups into contact
&
UJ
D
c
CD
.>.
Lu
V.
•2
|
^•^
CL
g
CD
~ta
c
n
Si
d)
Q.
E
3
o
one another. Workshops, group discussions, and pr
solving sessions will be held to promote cooperation,
share information, and debate issues.
c
co
Q.
c
_o
HP
'•E «
co ~)
Q. Q-
CU D CL
•o
S
ffr
E
o
O
1
A toll free number has been set up that the public ca
use to call in questions regarding the estuary. The
number is listed in all estuary publications. This
is similar to the Hotlines employed by the Puget Soui
Program.
Q.
UJ
UJ
Q
0
fo
CD
C
CD
CD
1
CL
^
S;
}_
UJ
o
T-
C
CO
Q.
C
_o
HP
'•E «
co ~i
c? Q 2
C3)
c
c
CL
c
o
Actors will perform a humorous and musical product!
about the estuary for school age children. After the
show, information will be made available on club
Q.
UJ
UJ
o
"9
ra
. CD
CL
Q
Q
I
CO
c
o
•- <3
13 f:
E §
CO K
c "o
•c o
|2 1
(0
•8
memberships, litter prevention, and finding summer
in the estuary resort region.
c
CO
Q.
c
o
H °>
i's
(0 -3
Q_ ••
1 UJ d)
Q. O Q.
O)
c
*o
^
Service Stations which provide recycling of used oil
for the public will be listed in the Estuary newsletter.
The goal is to increase the number of participating
service stations and provide incentives for stations
Eb
UJ
0
0
*c
2
CD
C
CD
C3
-^ CO
co c
0..2
.E «
Ti rn
y "*
O CD
CD O
tr •§
<5 co
to participate.
c
CO
0.
c:
o
HP
'€ rt
CO ~5
n »
li
o
c
CD
Q.
A library will be set up which contains a data base
of all publications and literature on estuary topics. A
a,
UJ
o
0
]c
ra
CD
C
CD
CD
2
.Q
£•
5
ffl
1
o
list of contact people from various agencies and a
speakers list will also be included. This will
create a central information bank for use by the publ
-------
UJ
Q
jjj
LL
LLJ
CC
co
p
<
CO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1
8
CC
CL
O
=•) CL
O L
fl£ I"""
1_
ay
UJ ^J
CL
C
CO
CL
c
_o
HP
'•E «
CO -3
CL
3 _j
CL Q
O)
_c
£;
£L
W CD
The public participation coordinator will visit schoo
and make audio-visual presentations to promote tt
Q_
3
a
"S
ca
CD
CC
"5
o
e-
8
o
8
CO
J
CM
Q.
formation of student estuary groups. The goal is
to establish a region wide organization of students.
c
CO
CL
C
^g
H.P
c m
CO -»
CL jj-
!5 -J
3 HI
CL Q
O)
'o
o>
c
O
The public participation coordinator will attend
meetings of organizations in the region and make
CL
a
o
,0
"c
15
(D
o
T3
C
CO
£
~ »«
(D W
3 J2
SI
cvj
D)
CL
prensentations followed by a question and answer
session. This will get more organizations involved
in the estuary program. '
c
CO
CL,
C
g
H?
C «
co -)
|8j
CL Q
D)
.C
j-
°-
v^
CEO's and VP's of regional corporations will be asl
to provide financial support to activities such as
JL
UJ
o
0
c
2
CD
§
O
I"
n
CD
1
CL
1
O
8-
8
CM
CJ>
CL
"-'C
eg
1
public service announcements, videos, and docum
about the estuary.
c
CO
CL
c
IP
. C co
co -s
CL -
"§ 111 CJ)
Q. D 0.
0)
_c
c
CD
CL
CD
A twelve month color calendar with photographs of
estuary will be distributed to organizations and
agencies involved in the DELEP. It will contain
CL
a
o
o
CO
15
CL
CO
.2
O
££
CD
[5
'•^
s
CD
' educational facts about the estuary as well as
environmental holidays (Earth day etc) and will be
advertised through the newsletter and media.
c
CO
CL
c
_g
HP
'•E «
CO -i
CL -
a6«
j5 ^J *
3 UJ d>
CL O CL
-------
j
j
j
0
<
fc
^ PROJECT DESHRip-noM
i
8
c
0.
jj
s
M.
lj
•J
=
J
JJ °z
§ = *-
5 "5 ".£
b re •?
E^Q:
^ UJ ^
co
Q.
|
2 c
"C re
jSJ m oo
= w d Sri d>
O. Q Q. Q. Q Q.
9 "S
?•«-*
—
c o-
>c3
"ro
o *-
A gallery style exhibition displaying the work of la
artists has been developed and will be available Ir
all three states in the estuary region.
fe
lj
u
2
i
5
i
D
1
?
t
>
£
?
£
> o
Five video projects would be produced In success
years. The grant will award funds to produce thes
videos. The finished videos would be distributed
to local television stations for airing. Tapes would
also be sent to libraries and video rental stores.
53
ill
Q
as
CD
s -
E
V?
e
Q.
1
O
g
2
g
0.
c
.5
.!«
O »
Ifc'co
s m r-
Q. Q Q.
O)
S
1
An informative and motivational slide video would
be produced to invite participation in the estuary
program. The tape would be distributed to Erol's
video stores and loaned out free of charge.
Q.
in
id
Q
£
^
5
CD
&
1-
8 •
§
o
J=
CO
CD
CO
c
CO
E
c
.0
!-*
s E
C co
.9 &"«>
lEirt
Q. Q ci
0)
«
1
o
A Wilmington, Delaware radio station has offered
to include estuary related trivia questions in their
existing morning trivia game. Prizes will be given t
callers. This could be duplicated with any radio
station.
Q.
id
a
JO
"5
S
.«
is
H
re
1
c
re
E
.0
S.s
iy =•
C CO
O hi to
3 — ' *T
OT f^ f)
0)
•—
1
1
A short 60 second radio program called "In the Esti
will be produced and distributed monthly to
participating stations. The program will highlight
estuary history and will close with a note on how
to participate in the Estuary program.
Q.
ij
a
A
b
CD
_g
CC
re
o c
Si
CD ^
CO
E
O
a?
"o *
I J
•M uj "2
QJ ^
£ D 2
O>
CI
'o
O)
O
CO
s &
Announcements to be aired on radio and TV would 1
aimed at groups that are not yet involved in the
estuary program. They would encourage these groi
to become involved and take action.
_i
UJ
Q
re
s
(0
CD C
.y <"
CD R
CO £
O 3
= O
A C
1 5
-------
LLJ
O
<*£«
1
a
CO
p
p
to
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I
§
IL
UJ
E
UJ
1
F
%
0.
c
^5 »—
§.»
0 ,.:
ti CO
<0 ~5
o^-'co
.y nj *&
2-Sa
D)
C
T3
C
!!c M_
Members of the media would be invited to take cruise
on various types of vessels which operate in the
estuary. Cruises on fishing boats, shipping vessels,
coast guard cruisers, etc would encourage greater
press coverage on specific issues concerning each o
these vessel types.
83
o
c
s
CO
5
CJ
m
dl
st
CL to
| 8
E 1
S *
i|8
— c5 o>
.y E T~
^ll
0. < <
O)
c
'o
0>
O
This television campaign consists of 5 thirty second
PSA's which run over a period of 1 year. The PSA's
focus on education, the A/P study, and citizen
involvement. The PSA's are distributed to 18 T.V.
stations.
A o
© nj
.Q 0_
<
«
2
. c
1— "*
J^
2 8
CD 'g
£ CD
"o
£ —
CO 0-
c
CO
Q.
ts ^
b o>
x) ^
CO CO
5^
z «
>.8
Z U.
o>
c
o
o
c5
• A library which contains all reports, documents, and
literature produced by the harbor project is set up
and maintained in both of the harbor states.
o
.Q
CO
-3
Z
z
0
£
1
CD
o
8
§
•S-
C 0
CO &
58
c
CO
Q.
.Z. °
• Ql O
sS
5 *~
CO CO
z*
z «
^.8
Z li.
0)
c
'o
O)
6
CO (D
T O
Video tape presents regional issues using themes
designed to make people understand that the estuary
alive and that they as individuals can make a differen
.0
CO
—3
1
CO
^
c5
CO
_£-
'i z
o ~ 2;
'S •§
W ^^ ^^
lill
o > c S
O >* Q J^
CD •£ "o «5
CL U UJ X
0
c
0
o>
«5
1 -I
A Guidebook geared toward the general population w
focuses on problems in the harbor directly related to
citizen behavior. The book explains what the problen
are, and how people can change their behavior to pre
further damage to the harbor.
o
1
Z
i
>
o
J=
2
CD
C
CD
o
CD
s
3
(3
.CD
3
W
E
3
O)
*~
fc
ft
UJ
m C
^J oJ
Q. j££-
II
o>
c
fz
s.
CO
This program will be designed to educate people
specifically about stormwater runoff. Materials
including warning signs, posters, and radio and T.V.
ads will be used. The public will be instructed to
report illegal discharges and dumping to local official:
m
CO
Q.
*~ '
Q
jE
1
CD
tz
CD
CD
E
<*T Cd
c o>
1 2
EC 0.
fe c
2 o
i i
E §
o o
CO £
-------
REFERENCE
CO
p
1
to
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
«p
*5
cu
C|3
g
Q_
it
3 °-
f—
Q.
Q.
Ig
O p™
cc >^
CL
•5
The Program In a Nut
Galveston Bay Projec
GBNEP
O>
<=
i
6
A Bureau will be coordinated with presentation materials,
publications, and equipment for volunteer speakers. The
Bay program will provide speakers to give talks in the
Houston/Galveston area using the Speakers Bureau to fill
the requests for presentations.
co
m
c
o
>
re
CD
0
15
2
CD
§
0
I
3
CD
CO
*P
to
re
CD
,0
15
£
CD
CD
CD
.0
re
E
,0
c
&
CO
|
(n \_
9? +B
^> C
CD 0
CL
UJ
CQ
CD
articles, maps, and photos will be collected and kept
in the information center. A project called COMPAS will
allow computer access to information at the center.
^
"§
Correspondance with
Jennifer Steel
Albemarle/Pamlico St
"S
15
Q.
E
<3
This is a 67 page booklet describing the physical and
cultural aspects of the A/P estuarine system, and the
steps citizens can take to become involved in its
2 O
re «
E £
!£
^£
o
to .
_o
3
3
Q.
CD
§j JE
CC "o
•*-* frt
(u
05 Q)
x: CD
5 £
preservation.
^
1
Correspondance with
Jennifer Steel
Albemarle/Pamlico St
IB
to
Q.
1
A small booklet discussing the Ecology of the A/P
estuary with references on measures of public
involvement.
. "o"
Conversation with Ma
Hoppe, Tampa Bay Pi
D)
c
TO
C
CD
0.
This will be a comprehensive boater education campaign
that will address issues such as sea grass protection,
re
CO
re
CL
1
!_•
o
15
"re
CD
c
CD
CD
«
I
c
o
o
3
S
L
2
re
CD
marine debris, and the use of pumpout facilities.
0
•9i
Contact Project Staff
Santa Monica Bay Pr<
"8
"CD
"5.
o
O
Creators of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles designed
an original, eight page "Storm Drain Savers" comic book
for the Santa Monica Bay Project. The Project is
o
.«
o
2
•2
cO
CO
c '
g
to
.0
3
Z3
°-
J2
o
O
m
.0
1
f\t
^
H~
re
[g"
"Z-
pursuing expansion of the format to a coloring book
and also to tailoring the message to be applicable to
lake and river areas.
-------
UJ
o
1
cc
CO
p
<
CO
z
E
o
Q.
5
1
8
£
.
s£
S £
n"
a u.
fj £
rr F
CL
2*
rcj ^^
5*
l.s
£|
CO (0
c c
O (0
0 CO
o>
c
o
O)
c
O
'am, the SMBRP helped
sdia outreach for Coastal
s County. The day is organized
bris and learn about marine
was documented on data
ally by the Center for Marine
As part of a statewide progi
coordinate and provided mi
Cleanup Day in Los Angele
for volunteers to pick up de
pollution. Collected debris
cards, and compiled nation
Conservation.
re
o
c
o
«
1
CO
1
UJ
75
to >>
CQ Cu
^)
^^ Q.
75 =
!§
<0
I
•?£ Q.
rt **•
CO «
Is
£ §
^ «
1 I
0 CO
O)
•^
§
CL
isplay/Recycling Stations will
use areas. Displays will
low individual citizens can
cycling bags will be provided
Marine Debris Education Di
be installed in heavy beach
describe the problem and h
help solve the problem. Re
and recyclables collected.
•to
u
1
«
1
0
c
1
W
c
0>
O
CO
c
1
1.
CO
&~~
Q in
§ I
CO CO
-------
2 o
£ g> «
111
o co
II
II
O D)
CO So
a. »f\
• I
^ f* £"
i- O Q.
2 D>
QJ Jfl
O O)
CO TO
lit
5 < co
**" C> CD
«2 0> .C O5
o o> c .
CO T CO O)
III§
£ & =
s
I
O)
1
CO •
a
o J2 so
g eg ®
Q. CD CO
lit
iSil
S J> 9- S
CL
IS
II
O >.
i f
CD
8
•»
II
'I 8
CO
CO
0) C
S TO
< Q.
ll
o> c
S ra
< 0.
fe c?
m
S
I
CD -o
O
O 5?
CO
m
•5 2
ll
-------
UJ
O
1
tr
CO
|
l^
!T DESCRIPTION
a
1
5
Ji
O
£
^
UJ
F
c
o
'o
i
Baywide Nutrient R
Strategy July 1988
Appendix C - Pg. 4
O)
'5
6
Dject in DC as part o
s.
cl§
c '5
0 «
'•5 =
{? O)
>^ Q)
co ^
0 5
C CQ
•§ §
k. t
w o
CO to
18
O
i
Baywide Nutrient R
Strategy July 1988
Appendix C - Pg. 4
O)
i
5
at a new Housing
0
•52,
Q.
h
75 "
CD S
w ^,
i_ C
« CD
If
•ii Q)
CO T3
O
s
Q.
m
S
«
1.1
o S
To a
8.2
2 73
*!
o c
OC *o
c
o
1
TD
Q> CM
Baywide Nutrient R
Strategy July 1988
Appendix D - Pg. 1
o>
Si
0
g
OL
«k ^
Iplementation at neu
rs must construct Bl\
doped by the State.
& ® >
Q- o -g
S S fi
to g ^
0) Q -g
!£ CO .M
3 ffi .ti
S"'5l o
S Tj —
M 7z Q.
Regulation:
developme
a standard
®
iS
CD
Q.
(0
6
k.
CD
73
£
Ik?
CD .2
* to
CO 3
Q g1
5 CC
.S
1
3> CM
|||Syy^de WiJtrient : R
§|trategy?Jd(y:1988
|l:l^pendix;ift^Pg.:l
Of
"3
o
g
1
1
CD
O)
32 B
e S
^3 C
42 "D
0 ^
il
CD
1
6
*_
®
'1
o
55 £
il
«
^
s^
•^s
a*~
«g
* W
8l S
~j Q.
DJ 2
O Q.
o>
c
'o
o>
O
il lands (mushrooms]
s and conventional
2 .y
— rt
CD •*-
« 0
S §
CO i= .
Ill
CO q) 3
111
Q.
UJ
ui
O
"^
* t
II
cotS
0 §
CC T3
1
DELEP Gloucester i
Proposal -Feb 199
O)
1
a
0)
1
w
•n
stormwater and lam
pesticides and
0) »-
.E °
C <0
i 1
O. OT
E g
_ »-
^3 ^O
« °§
ih
'I c —
o) "o ti
Q o S
UJ
Q
*»
Q) k.
S 0>
(X5 •£*
ii
= 1 E
0 ™ CS
^.1 §>
|f ct
§ § i
cs o a
0^, |
USDA SCS Proposs
Demonstrate New a
Innovative Pollution
Prevention Technoli
0)
S
c
•5
O) c m mixing operations
"o « 3 t
C O g C
73 o 2 73
1 c If I
IL ° <= 1
.E w g 2
ra -2 > 5
"i? H ° 2
j? ® i 2
O o .= o>
8
1
§
be
c
c
-------
t_ C
<5 jo
II
•n c
O O)
CO co
*- c:
o to
•5 CL >• IS
CO CO
OJ
8
to
-
Q) JS
II
co
-
(D jro
II
•0 <£
c E
rj
CO co
Q ra
II
o at
CO co
0) CO
= CM _ = CM ~ ~
O CL ^ O CL S O tT ? o
CD
CD
cn
CD
— CD
« e
2 8-
3 £
"
"S
TO £
3 E
Q. o
•S to
_ co
CD f^
"8 €
TO CD
Q
§ s
s ^
^ 5 °-
> co k.
III I
, o w
e 0°
S ra "w TO o .o
§ °> » ? i ^
° S S I 1 '=
s §
.£ 3
<0 TO £
CD • co £
•> "§ TO
8
-------
UJ
o
ffi
&
cc
CO
I
Q) CO
§ g,
CO TO
CD TO
.
I
C
_o
O O>
•5. o
co CL
-S
<5 CD
TJ CD
Q. OV
Q_ cvi
^ o
&
O)
c
'o
o>
o
c
CO
c
o
a
I °-
CO o
T3 0)
a. o
CL ®
SI
O)
•§
o
Q ~ £
« £• fe
c -S'o
||S
"° TO r
O S C S
*j. C co to
co cD 73 t—
illf
i
*£>
LL
C '
CO
CO
•'
,
75
?l
|v
CO ,
CD
CO
•o
cO
§
m
1
CD "o
ll
J S '
€ Is
0 S ^
j& S ^f
03 co C
-------
uu
a:
OT
p
fe
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
|
fn
£
y
P
Buzzards Bay Draft CCMP
03
1
S
Demonstration project to install a stormwater
CO
m
CO
I
i
m
*
73
s
5
w
1
cc
u
k.
CD
1
S
6?
1
s
Ol
infiltration system along Red Brook Road forcontrollin
pathogen discharges to shellfish and swimming areas.
•?>
CD
O
£
"5
S
8
•Long Island Sound Studyi;
lAnnual Report: 1989/19904
^
is
Q.
•O
O
8
; : Demonstration i of the effectiveness of stireetsweeping,
: catch:biasin:cleaning,iand:pet;wasteremwa!;prdinahb
•o
c
CO
s
O)
J
o
€
CO
o
CD
C
2 y-
ell
to €>
M^> *-
S a.
CO
CM
d»
a.
^ for thecontrol of strOrnwater runoff ppllutlph|These:
^-;BMf>$^rehbtfbuhd|abe"e^ ;
•_ '.
-
CD
CO
CD ® P
£ JO CD
b< I
"co °* OT
7j o> £• o>
CO "<~ CO
!*«£
Ssss
_*_ o -= i-
2 CD CO 2
a. Q. O. O
CD
c
o
O)
6
„
s
15
Sflmpleme^i^Jbnybfcbriyeiifibna^ -:='
if Yagricuituial; BMPs for; the bbnt^
:|; farming bperatibiis in theMerbhahts Millpbnd vratersh
si Program includes technicar.assistanc0y;:nibnitborig: :
P::|Sstudies;i;and;ccst^sha>e,incbhtiy v f-J ->:: - 1 1::;: \'-_
Q)
ll
Q) P
< £
-. , . , " '••<
•g|
J-^
•? O
B ^
cO c
0)
5 0
*
A
Project Abstracts for the
Period 1987-1989. Albemar
Pamlico Estuary System
Oct 1988 Pg. 28
O)
75
O)
0
•3
Project to evaluate the effects of tide gates and
dashboard risers on runoff and water quality
immediately downstream from drained agricultural fiel
®
1.0
CD £
l£
Is
CD RJ "(5
•§ s- i
>» rr o
E§1
o O ^
c *— «
•^ •*•* ^c
3 5
rt TD E
> c o
M4 « •*=
Sarasota Bay NEP Annual
Report -FY 1990 Pg. 9
"S
CD
Q.
1
Construction of three tailwater pump-back stations to
reduce stormwater discharges to Sarasota Bay from a
CO
m
CO
75
i
<5?
CO
75
13
o
c
•3
o 75
O .CD,
® 2*
c "°
CO CD
S.LU
2,100 acre gladiolus field irrigated by reclaimed
wastewater.
'•^'
75
id,
Si °
t" en
Z o>
n3 *s»
m £
CO 'g
dl
"S
JD
£"
*
it ®
D.
*-i O
2 a
||
fCD
T3
s'i
"cO ^
ii
1!
-
* ,K*
j*-;
-------
_ o
2 75 i
8 .»
«? Q.
Estu
C
o re
x -8
51
§ CO
•S O)
IB .£
^ S cfg
P "-s « o q
co Bay
ect Pro
n of G
io
io
" « S — J
5«sis
o o c 5, =
1
CO UL
!
I
c
o
CO
c
re
-I «l
Q «J ®
r -a s>
U.
-------
UJ
o
z
BJ
cc
CO
i
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JjS
3
8
cc
Q.
UJ
C
p
"5
&
I
r-
eport on tl
CO
13
Q
S
"5.
0
1 This project was conducted by the EPA and the
^\
•o
3
CO
•g
3
CO
TJ
§
^
CD
1
S"
0.
©
re
X
8
cc
1
m
D)
_C
1: °
?n "?n
ty tests &!
leal Analyj
°o E
£s
Conneticut DEP to examine the toxic contributions of
different discharge sources into Black Rock Harbor.
c
75.
E !=;
inmental s
Rock Hart
.£= -^
§ ^
UJ CD
Samples were take during all four seasons in both dry
and wet weather. The discharge points of interest were
8 CSO's, one sewage treatment plant, and 2 industrial
dischargers. Results from the project indicate that the
industrial dischargers contribute the most toxics to
the harbor and that the toxic contamination is most
prevalent in the sediments of the harbor.
0
? >.
8"§
£«5
LL. o
-------
LU
O
i
EC
111
th
EC
CO
•3
i
to
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
<5
fir
CC
CL
^
LU Uj
EC P
CL
5-0
11
Q) f, T
5 re
5 Q-
S e
OT 0)
QJ re
o 5
CL 5
D)
C
1
I
"re
c
re
to
CD
^*
.t:
E
CD
CL
preparing state and NPDES waste discharge permits. A
checklist will accompany each permit application sent
in by municipalities or industry to insure that all
requirements of the manual and the Water Quality
Management Plan were met.
— — O5
|I
03 frT
"cS .to
^ ex.
11
CO
ci> re
O) ^
3 2
CL S
o>
c
0
O)
c
O
The Department of Ecology shall levy fees on all
permitted dischargers. These fees shall be in amounts
T3
3
O
CO
1
CL
?
CD
O>
re
•§
CO
Q
CO
CM
O)
Q.
so as to fully recover expenses incurred by the
permitting process including inspections, lab analysis,
and oversight. Initiative 97 in November 1988
implemented this permit rule with no upper limit on
the statewide revenues which could be gained.
2-0
"re *?
si
S c
rt JKJ
^ Q.
"D ^£
^ Q)
E £
3 re5-
o> ^-
CL 5 Q.
IB
*r*
"5.
e
o
O
A project was conducted by the authority to determine
'the feasibility of having a variable discharge permit
fee based on discharge criteria such as quantity,
toxicity, persistance, and other characteristics. A
variable permit fee would provide incentive for
dischargers to lower toxic discharge amounts. A draft
of the project results was completed in March 1 990.
T3
^
O
CO
I
CL
°c7
CL
CD
LL
'|
CL
5
re
re
•—- o}
re x;
si
S c
ro jro
^> CL
c §5
S |
CD *O p*j
D) ^~
3 ™ CJ)
CL 2 Q.
O)
c
1
o
This project is an element of the overall Municipal
and Industrial Discharge action plan. The objective of
the project was to establish maximum toxic discharge
•o
^
o
CO
1
CL
£
E
~
c
CD
"53 OT
*—• •*~r
c "E
re £
.y CD
K
I- .£
limits in permits to control the amount of toxicants in
' waste discharges. Limits are currently in effect for a
few permits but are yet to be incorporated into many
municipal and industrial permit applications.
-------
r
REFERENCE
CO
£3
H
fc
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
S
^C
g
a:
Q.
i
t-
Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan, Nov 90
pg. 215
o>
C
1
UJ
§
A draft set of guidelines for establishment of mixing
zones in municipal and Industrial wastewater discharge
permits as well as for stormwater outfalls has been
developed.
•a
~
CO
3
D-
C
«
CO
c
I
1
1
O
2
Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan, Nov 90
pg. 218
CO
1=
T3
S.
§
The Department of Ecology will prepare an inspectors
manual which will incorporate all components of the
Water Quality Management Plan and pertinent informal!
•o
Z3
o
CO
CO
3
Q.
,
CO
c
CO
52
o
a.
s
E
0
>,
'CD
TO
5
*
O)
1
>;
S
i.
H
o
O
-
»
I
3 *>
.55 £
iff
tS ^ 8
*l «
1 §£
S
'
J,
Puget Sound Water Quality
.Management Plan, Nov 90
0)
c
'o
CO
6
The Department of Ecology has established an ongoing
training program for permit writers and inspectors.
•o
c
3
O
CO
"CD
CO
3
Q.
CD
3
'I
S. §
73 CO
O
>_ Q-
o ,c
w-'i
£ P
CO
CM
CO
Q.
Minimum training requirements have been established.
Indian River Lagoon FY 1991
Annual Workplan
CO
c
T3
|
Baseline levels of toxic organic compounds within
organisms and sediments will be established at sites
throughout the lagoon. Data will facilitate
c
o
o
2
1
CC
c
jC
O)
•—
o
'c
o
A
tft
$ ~
O 0
£5 "o"
O) Jf
£3 0-
* 0
§ Is
H Z
recommendations for future monitoring sites and for
reducing signifigant input sources.
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide
Toxics Reduction Strategy,
December 1988
CO
c
'o
CO
o
The purpose of this project is to provide a quantitative
amount of toxic inputs to the Bay from poinl and non
point sources. The inventory will be reviewed and
m
(D
TO
CD
Q.
.TO
c-
0
£•
o
9
CO
c
!o
1
_l
'§
F
I
1
'
-------
UJ
c.
u
s
u
cc
,
•f o)
C S
1 2
m 55
cO* O m
03 'S 29
0 S ?
t§ "§} »-
2 cc Q
to .O
O H- Q
0)
1
o
This program will supplement the Toxics Loading
Inventory. The list will identify specific toxics
that are causing or could potentially cause damage to
living resources or habitats. This list will also be
updated every two years.
^
m
1
jo
8
0
0
i
5
5
O
5
i)
j
—
£
o
I
CD
£
2
2
£
OJ
O)
§
•° - ^ ^ 3
Is ?i f fs
2c c ••-• E -o J2
.. . ' , '
0
1
§
1
si
S ra
1 £
XOV
*pt
« "S
IS 'Ji
is
fl
c
£
co c
CD 0
£ fj
Q. "Q
CD CC
o ^^
o w
OT ;> E
|||
o>
S
O
The objective of this project was to implement a
technical assistance program which would encourage
waste reduction practices in the electroplating
industry. The focus was on pretreatment technologies
for the metal and jewlery plating industry. Technical
assistance included workshops, audits, site visits,
and cost savings analyses. '
>,
S
1
c
co
2
CO
0)
to
1
.9 E
U™ O)
.1 £
<5 •""
||
| |
£ a:
1
c i
2 S "•§
O < "^
0^1
o Q- "c
CO 3
Ifll ;/
o? i2 i £
o>
1
O
An assessment of current chlorination and disinfection
practices at a sewage treatment plant on Narragansett
Bay was undertaken. The assessement included
experimentation with different chlorine dosages and
residence times. The results will be used to
recommend methods for minimizing chlorine toxicity in
treatment plant discharge water.
1
0)
2
CO
•*•* c:
ill
IS E
>"0 S
i « o
6 £; 0.
® E o
•2 co "E
-~ in ^
O < '3
-------
1
I
i
I
i
01
a
r
4
fc
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3
S
.
s
E
a
c? —
£13 CO
CO ^^»
o S
S3 Q-
2 CD
CO OJ
CO co
•• m
c8 55
pi wy
_j _ ,_
vy — .
UJ g g
Z CO •?
05
•5
0)
s
~ o>
111 ?
CO ^ OJ CO CO
5 jO W ,
cO
CO
2
§
1
S,
oZ
CD
n
&
co
C3
I
5j
c co
_ro -s
Q- s£
c ^
0 CO
^ §
CO
II
O)
_c
"O
o
Q.
C
O m TJ
52 §1
i 2 -r 1
This project is aimed at educating property 01
natural alternatives to seawall installation. Tt
program will work with permitting agencies to
that, where possible, natural habitats are mai
CO
m
CO
I
2
c
o
S3
e
Q.
!-
S
«
e
o
§•
DC
fo
c
f"
>,
CO
J5 o
§o>
o>
O)
_c
*o
Q.
i- 2 w
<= 08 "
A 30 acre intertidal habitat will be developed i
Coquina Beach. Approximately 10 acres of n
intertidal habitat will be restored as a result ol
project.
CO
CD
«
0
1
•Jj
"5"
Q_
5
s
2;
>,
*QJ
c/}
S
-------
-c
o
CO
UJ
E
<
o
I
UJ
cr
a
I
a.
m
<
i
Q
It
2
I
E
1
ll
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2
j£
CP
g
Q.
a
—
<
s>
rasota Bay Annual R
1990
to >-
co u.
3s
Q.
O
O
Students from New College removed an existing seawall
along a stretch of shoreline in the bay. The shore was
then returned to its natural state by planting native
vegetation where the seawall was.
>,
to
m
to
"Q
k.
(0
CO
c
,
cSSS
\v
^
/eston Bay NEP Ann
ort
•^ Q.
CO tu
C5 CC
TO
'o
TO
6
Smooth cord grass is being planted along the eroding
shorelines of Galveston Bay to minimize erosion and
restore the fringing water habitat.
to
CO
C
o
*
>
10
a
£•
CO
i
00
O
8 fi
& |
.!§
1 i
O <~
CO iS
§1 ^
O — — O)
2 <§ £L •?
TO
S
•^ J?" ^ '^
•— . > g g TO w
-o t: § ,D y •?
52l?il
issfiif i
T)
c:
3
5
s
m
<£
"S
CO
^^ CO
'E TO
07 O
5 c
§ ,2
O "cfl
0 £
i 1
r1 °"
a.
ll
Vj CO
-— <• o
II
=si
TO
c
o
TO
6
c E c
is = to =
= -^ S
a 'o* | « (S ^'
jiilll
•" y
I
ry
o
^2
TO
a
'
S
1
E
to
i
r^
e
to
a>
^.
*
-------
11
JZ
ft
LL
cH
to
1
fe
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
5
I
DC
CL
1
p
. tr
<5 jo
CO Pn
5 t:
1 1
BCD
CD
CO CO
CO CO
CD 2
111
CO
c
1
£
A task force made up of representatives from various
environmental, research, and state agencies will be
established. The task force will, among other things,
develop a list of priorities, programs, and protocols,
and be resposible for coordination, progress tracking,
and developing long term strategies for wildlife
management and habitat protection.
^2
8
CO
to
CD
3
Q.
J>
5
L>
ft
5
5
C
i- C
CO £
"5> —
> c
1 1
3 CO
O CD
CO CO
o co
§> 2
si d.
t- O Q.
CD
_C
C
%
The Department of Ecology will develop a guidebook for
use by local governments. The guidebook will detail ho\
to set up a wetlands preservation program at the local
level based on the results of a model program funded
by the DOE.
c
8
CO
1
3
0.
c
o
1
CD
&
w.
CO CD
*o c?
•§ •§
CD 3
§ o
co >»
1^ -3
en W
T- O
8 1
2 co
In S;
.Q Q)
^C *iz
.- CO
'o" •£>
CL <
•o
s
'5.
o
o
CD T3
Maps depicting anadromous fish utilization areas and
current impediments or blockage to fish movements wer
produced. These maps will be used by regulatory
agencies and developers to identify areas of concern an
to prevent construction action which might further
degrade the fishery by restricting fish passage.
o
.9
E
&
03
—
CO
E
o
to
o
E
2
73
CO
O
~ C
co o
c v^
O CO
t> .2"
^_ *£
to .c
£3
o o
Q. .9
co
II
<£ I
2 n
Q 5
CD
'6
O
| o |
ill
W "P CD
c 2i o)
§ £ ,e '
O CD 5
T) C 6
fill
•« s "i I"
iff!
iili
i- X> Q. S
'o
^
1 -
1O
£
1
i. •,
i
•g ^j
/? 8
o •=.
if
.Vl ^J
CD i;
•- c
CD O
o E
JC CD
co a
CD CO
co a)
•S T3 ^
>- co a?
Q C - "o
CD 3 £? CD
n Q> CO
§5 " ^
-y — ^ 0
IS*!
O 3 CO C
< o cc ai
CD
C
'o
CD
c5
This project addresses the problem of Habitat/Wetland
loss. A working model for land use planning for local
governments will be established. Critical habitat areas
will be identified and mapped and put into a local
planning data base. Results of the project will be
transfered to all other local governments in the region.
&
ui
Q
CO
O)
2
•o o.
= CO
CO CD
II
0 CO
to p
CD ®
.C CD
" S
« c
CC LU
-------
CO
lo
3j a.
II
C §5
c
•5
o
O
m
CO
o
I
-------
-------
Appendix A
Matrix of Projects by Category
-------
-------
I
3
I
m
i
i!
i E
if
! i
la
II
f!
• 3
il
! 5
B
! %
;i
il
ir
O 00 O
Q s: a £
ilh
li1!
1**I
-------
i
,1
k „
III:
i-
f i
II
•= &
111
-------
•S I'
!|.
II
STA
I
W
lity Progra
1
£
(
as Bay an
for C
ta! Pr
B
111 •
fi 2 » o
I'll |
I s S ?
£ £ I '•$
v _ *• 3
liiil
•» ^ ffl" iSf 2T
-------
'I
II
II,
II
1
II
III
s s
£«.
ti
'•«
ii
o
I
5
E
1
i •§
ii
5
3
I
i
!
9
i
i
|
i
5
c
•9
i ?
ii
ii
; S
i «
If
" J! 8
il[
II
iJli
jll!
i X + »
'•srs-y
-------
II
i
III
II
-------
1!
if.
II
I
I
i
I
ll
-------
Appendix B
References
-------
-------
REFERENCES
ALBEMARLE/PAMLICO STUDY
Albemarle/Pamlico Study. Annual Report Draft, May 1991.
Albemarle/Pamlico Study. Public Involvement Plan, April 1989.
Albemarle/Pamlico Study. Project Abstracts, Fiscal Year 1987-89.
Albemarle/Pamlico Study. Project Abstracts, Fiscal Year 1989-90.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: Urban BMPs - A Stormwater Control
Demonstration Project, June 1990.
BUZZARDS BAY
Buzzards Bay Project. Buzzards Bay CCMP Draft, May 1990.
Buzzards Bay Project. Management of Sanitary Wastes in Buzzards Bay, Fiscal Year 1989
Demonstration Project.
Buzzards Bay Project. Annual Report, 1988-89.
Buzzards Bay Project. The Buzzards Bay Project Newsletter, Vol 5, Number 3, Fall 1990.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Nonpoint Source Control: A
Guidance Document for Local Officials.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEP Updates: Management of Sanitary Wastes in
Buzzards Bay, June 1990.
CHESAPEAKE BAY -
Chesapeake Executive Council. Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy, July 1988.
Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy, December
1988. . .-.:--
Chesapeake Executive Council. Second Progress Report Under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. .
Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee. The State of Chesapeake Bay: Third
Biennial Monitoring Report-1989.
Maryland Department of the Environment, Sediment, and Stormwater Administration.
Stormwater Pollution Control Cost Share Program, January 1991.
DELAWARE ESTUARY PROGRAM •
Cumberland County Department of. Planning and Development. Action Now Project,
Cumberland County - Bay Area Rare, Threatened, and Endangered species Program.
DELEP. Gloucester County Water Conservation and Water Quality Program Proposal,
February 1991. "..,'.
DELEP. Local Government Committee Bylaws, Draft November 1989.
.DELEP. Public Participation Plan, January 1991.
DELEP. Red Clay Creek Demonstration Action Project Proposal. February 1991.
DELEP. Regional Plan to Increase Oyster Production in the Delaware Bay and Estuary,
February 1991.
-------
DELAWARE INLAND BAYS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: Stormwater Management
Implementation Project, June 1990.
GALVESTON BAY PROGRAM
Galveston Bay NEP. The Program in a Nutshell: Galveston Bay Projects.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: Coastal Preserve Status for Christmas
Bay and Armand Bayou, June 1990.
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON
Indian River Lagoon Program. Fiscal Year 1991 Annual Workplan.
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Florida Soil Conservation Service, A Proposal to
Demonstrate New and Innovative Pollution Prevention Technologies.
LONG ISLAND SOUND STUDY
Burgess, Robert. Data Report on the Results ofToxicity Tests and Supporting Chemical
Analyses of Environmental Samples from Black Rock Harbor, CT.
Semon, Jeannette. Action Plan Proposal, Biological Nutrient Removal at US Sewage
Treatment Plants. June 23, 1989.
Long Island Sound Study. Annual Report. Fiscal Year 1989/1990.
Semon, Jeannette. Nitrogen Removal at the Stamford, Conn., Water Pollution Control
Facility.
Long Island Sound Study. Priority Action Plan Demonstration Projects, Fact Sheet # 6, 1989.
Long Island Sound Study. Status Report and Interim Actions for Hypoxia Management,
December 1990.
Connecticut Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program and New York Sea Grant Extension
Program. Long Island Sound Study - Hypoxia Management Update.
NARRAGANSETT BAY
Narragansett Bay Project Project Scope: Pretreatment Toxic Waste Reduction Program.
Narragansett Bay Project Project Scope: Chlorine Toxicity Impact Assessment and Effluent
Limitation Program.
Narragansett Bay Project Project Scope: Land Management Project, Work Element #9.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Hazardous Waste Reduction
Program "An Industry Assessment" Brochure.
NEW YORK - NEW JERSEY HARBOR PROJECT
NY-NJ Harbor Estuary Program. Fiscal Year 1991 Workplan.
New Jersey Department of Environmental- Protection. Pilot Project to Encourage Proper
Handling and Recycling of Marine Debris at a Series of Small Ports in New Jersey • Final
Report, December 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: NY-NJ Marine Debris and Recycling,
June 1990.
PUGET SOUND
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 799.7 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
-------
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Public Involvement and Education Model Projects
Fund, 47 Success Stories From Puget Sound.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Puget Sound Urban Bay Action Program: A Focused
Toxics Control Strategy. January 1990.
Seattle-King County. Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan: Final Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Small Quantities of Hazardous Waste
in the Seattle-King County Region. August 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: Local Government Wetland
Preservation Program, June 1990.
Washington Department of Ecology. Focus: Sediment Management Standards, A Regulation
to Improve Sediment Quality Through Source Control and Cleanup.
Washington Department of Ecology. Moderate Risk Waste, A Progress Report, December 15,
1990.
Washington Department of Ecology. Planning Guidelines for Local Hazardous Waste Plans,
1987.
Washington Department of Ecology. Recommended Guidelines for Contaminated Sediment
Cleanup Decisions, Draft Report June 1989.
Washington Departments of Ecology and Revenue. Focus on Hazardous Substance Tax, April
1988.
Washington State Register, Issue 91-08. Chapter 173-204 WAC, Sediment Management
Standards.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: Field Tests of an Existing Artificial
Wetland Constructed to Control Stormwater Pollutants, June 1990.
SANTA MONICA BAY
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Waste Discharge Requirements,
Stormwater/Urban Runoff Discharge for LA County and Co-Permittees.
Santa Monica Bay Project. Bay Restoration Plan: Working Pre-Draft, June 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: Santa Monica Bay Enhancement Plan
for Ballona Lagoon Marine Preserve, June 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: Ozone Treatment for Urban Runoff,
June 1990.
SARASOTA BAY
Sarasota Bay NEP. 1991 Action Plan for Sarasota Bay.
Sarasota Bay NEP. Sarasota Bay Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1990.
Sarasota Bay NEP. State of the Bay Report, January 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: City Island Habitat Module Project,
June 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: Glower Creek Stormwater Control
Project, June 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEP Updates: Sarasota Bay Sea Grass Signage
Project, June 1990.
-------
TAMPA BAY
Tampa Bay NEP. Tampa Bay Fiscal Year 1992 Workplan.
Tampa Bay NEP. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Brochure.
OTHER SOURCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Journal, Vol 13, (July/August 1987). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Progress in the National Estuary Program, Report to
Congress, February 1990.
------- |