503888001B
C
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office ol Water
National Eatuary
Saving Bays and Estuaries:
A Handbook of Tactics
Introduction
Estuarieswhere rivers
meet the sea, and fresh
water mixes with saltare
among the earth's richest and
most productive habitats. They
serve as the principal spawn-
ing grounds and nurser-
ies for at least two-thirds
of our Nation's commercial
fisheries, provide irreplace-
able recreational and aesthetic
enjoyment, and are home to
valuable and diverse species
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
They are also
home to people. Already,
70 percent of the U.S.
population lives within 50 miles
of a coastline, and that
number is growing. But with
people comes pollution, and
our estuaries are clearly in
trouble, threatened by toxic
and bacterial contamination,
sewage discharges and agri-
cultural runoff, oxygen-
depleted waters, and loss of
fish and wildlife habitat.
Learning Through
The National Estuary
Program
There are no easy answers
to these problems, but we
have learned some lessons.
One is that estuaries are
complex ecological systems
with subtle dependencies
among many species and
habitats. If conditions change
in one area, they will also
change in others. In estuaries,
there are very few purely
local effects.
We've also learned that
conventional, "end-of-pipe" pol-
lution controls are not enough.
Agricultural runoff and
other nonpoint sources
contribute pesticides and
excess phosphorus and
nitrogen to bays hundreds of
miles away; the wind carries in
toxics that contaminate bottom
sediments in otherwise pristine
waters. Yet how do we
regulate homeowners who put
too much fertilizer on their
lawns? How does one State
control air pollutants coming
from another State on the
other side of the country?
Finally, we've learned that
saving our estuaries and
-------
,
v>EPA
Strategies for Protecting
coastal waters is a long-term
process. It will demand heavy
commitments of time, money,
and support from everyone
who affects or uses or benefits
from their resources. Just as
important, it will require a
fresh approach to solving
environmental problems, one
that recognizes we are dealing
with integrated ecosystems,
not clusters of isolated
problems.
EPA's National Estuary
Program provides an oppor-
tunity to apply these hard-won
lessons. Under the law, its
mission is to protect and
enhance water quality and
living resources in estuaries by
helping States to develop and
carry out basin-wide, compre-
hensive programs to conserve
and manage their estuarine
resources.
This handbook shares some
of the experience gained in
this process in estuary pro-
grams throughout the country
and demonstrates many
innovative tactics for
LIMIT GROWTH
IN SENSITIVE AREAS
UPGRADE/BUILD
SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANTS
ENCOURAGE OPEN SPACE
& FORESTED LANDS
ALONG THE
WATERFRONT
REDUCE TOXIC DISCHARGES
IMPLEMENT STRONG
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS
-------
and Estuaries
What a Management Conference Does
A management conference is a committee convened for a specific estuary
by the Administrator of EPA to decide what actions to take to protect or
restore the estuary. Under the law, a management conference must carry
out seven major tasks:
assess trends in the estuary's water quality, natural resources,
and uses;
identify causes of environmental problems by collecting and
analyzing data;
assess pollutant loadings in the estuary and relate them to observed
changes in water quality, uses, and natural resources;
recommend and schedule priority actions to restore and maintain the
estuary, and identify the means to carry out these actions (this is
called a comprehensive conservation and management plan);
ensure coordination on priority actions among Federal, State, and local
agencies involved in the conference;
monitor the effectiveness of actions taken under the plan; and
ensure that Federal assistance and development programs are
consistent with the goals of the plan.
CONTROL
STORM WATER
RUNOFF
INSTALL
BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES ON
FARM LANDS
IMPROVE
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
CONTROL
AGRICULTURAL
RUNOFF
IMPLEMENT NUTRIENT
AND PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS
'y'Jk
(j^3 > _ -i
PROTECT CRITICAL WETLANDS
AND SPAWNING AREAS
dealing with major estuarine
and coastal problems. Three
ecosystem management areas
are covered: water and sed-
iment quality; living resources;
and land and water resources.
Other areas of interest include
technical support and financial
resources.
The case study format is
designed to present infor-
mation clearly and quickly,
and also identifies sources of
additional information. We
encourage readers to use the
handbook along with the
Estuary Program Primer, a
manual for establishing and
managing estuary programs,
and hope that these case
studies will alert managers to
-------
innovative management tools
and help them avoid costly
mistakes. We also hope that
users will find new ways to
apply the lessons presented in
these case studies and that
participants in other programs
will share their experiences.
We plan to expand the
handbook as new approaches
and lessons emerge with
experience.
The National Estuary
Program welcomes comments
and suggestions for additions
to this handbook. For more
information contact:
Mark Alderson
National Estuary Program
Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection (WH-556F)
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)475-7102
4>EPA
The National Estuary Program
The purpose of the
National Estuary Pro-
gram is to identify nationally
significant estuaries, protect
and improve their water quali-
ty, and enhance their living
resources. Estuaries are to
achieve these goals through
collaborative efforts called
comprehensive conservation
and management plans
(CCMPs)', development of
CCMPs is carried out by over-
sight committees called
management conferences.
The legislation that estab-
lished the National Estuary
Program named 11 estuaries
to receive priority considera-
tion to be in the program.
These are Albemarle/Pamlico
Sounds, Long Island Sound,
Buzzards Bay, Narrangansett
Bay, Puget Sound, San Fran-
cisco Bay, Galveston Bay,
Sarasota Bay, Delaware Bay,
Delaware Inland Bays, and
New York-New Jersey Harbor.
Santa Monica Bay was added
to this list in the Fiscal Year
1988 Appropriations Act.
The Administrator of EPA
selects estuaries for the pro-
gram in response to nomina-
tions by State governors, or at
the Agency's initiative in the
case of interstate estuaries.
Estuaries are selected based
on their potential to address
issues of significant national
concern, as well as their
demonstrated institutional,
financial, and political commit-
ment to carry out protective
actions. Once an estuary is
selected, the Administrator
formally convenes a manage-
ment conference.
Management conferences
provide a framework for in-
terest groups to work together
to develop comprehensive
plans and timetables (the
CCMPs) to protect and
restore the estuary and
coastal areas. Conference
members must include citizen
and user interest groups,
scientists, government of-
ficials, and resource
managers from Federal,
State, and local agencies.
Representatives from these
groups sit on an oversight
committee that serves as tne
formal management con-
ference and oversees
development of the CCMP.
Other technical, policy, and
citizen advisory committees
may provide supplemental ad-
vice and help. This committee
structure approach was first
developed in the Chesapeake
Bay and Great Lakes pro-
grams and has worked very
well. We expect it will work
equally well for other estuary
and near coastal water
programs.
53*?*?;
^-^?*s±,
-------
i
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
National Estuary
Program
Point Source Controls:
The Potomac River Cleanup
Hesforing a river through cooperation and consensus
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
Characteristics
14,670 square mile drainage basin has approximately
100 tributaries
Large quantities (averaging 456 million gallons/day) of treated
effluent are released from the Washington. D C area
Approximately 3 million of the basin's 4 million residents live in
the Washington metropolitan area which is adjacent to the
estuary, population is projected to increase 20 percent by 2000
Resources
The river is a major spawning area for anadromous and semi-
anadromous fish species, e.g , shad, perch, and striped bass
1985 commercial finfish landings were valued at over $2 million
Recreational activities include sport fishing and boating
Municipal water supply withdrawals averaged approximately 370
million gallons per day (in 1985)
Issues
Municipal treatment plants are the only major
point-source loading
Nutrient loadings encouraged algal blooms, which have led to
low oxygen levels, fishkills. and changes to the ecosystem
Estuary cleanup has required a concerted cooperative effort
among the Washington region's principal local jurisdictions
MD
Treatment Plants Subject
To Stringent Controls In
Potomac River Basin
1 ALEXANDRIA
2 AQUIA
3 ARLINGTON
4 BLUE PLAINS
5 DALE CITY
6 LEESBURG
7 LITTLE HUNTING CREEK
8 LOWER POTOMAC
9 MATTAWOMAN |~T
10 H L MOONEY j ^
11 PISCATAWAY
12 SENECA
WASTEWATER
FLOWS
million gallons Def day
VA
Introduction
In the late 1960's, local, State, and Federal officials
began a coordinated and sustained effort to clean up
the Potomac River.
Historically, the Upper Potomac River Estuary had
suffered from severely degraded water quality. Noxious
odors, large mats of floating algae, blue-green algae,
depleted oxygen concentrations, and turbid water were
frequent conditions. Pollution-sensitive fish (such as
large-mouthed bass) and submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion had largely disappeared from the river. Bacterial
contamination and viruses prevented safe water con-
tact recreation.
Efforts by scientists and local, State, and Federal of-
ficials in the past 20 years to implement and upgrade
point source controls, however, have dramatically
reversed the trend of declining water quality. The States
of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia
implemented stringent point source discharge limits
based on analysis of the upper estuary's assimilative
capacity and the capabilities of wastewater treatment
technology. These actions have reduced biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and phosphorus discharges to
the upper estuary by 95 percent. Algal blooms are now
infrequent, and submerged aquatic vegetation and
many species of sportfish have reappeared in the river.
Potomac River area residents now benefit from com-
mercial and recreational river uses.
Overview and Characteristics
of the Problem
The Potomac River drainage area encompasses por-
tions of the States of Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Vir-
ginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland. About 95
percent of the land in the basin is forested or in agricul-
ture. In sharp contrast, the upper estuary, which ex-
tends 54 miles from the northwest boundary of
Washington, D.C. to Maryland Point, is highly urbaniz-
ed. The upper estuary receives the largest volume of
flow from treated wastewater discharges. Industrial dis-
charges are insignificant.
-------
The Potomac supports two critical water uses in the
Washington area. As a major water supply, the free-
flowing part of the river provides about 75 percent of
metropolitan Washington's drinking water. The
Potomac is also profoundly important to the area as a
recreational and aesthetic resource. The river supports
boating, fishing, and, in some areas, swimming.
Hundreds of miles of parkland border the Potomac, in-
cluding the Washington, D.C. Tidal Basin, site of several
major memorials and tourist attractions.
For much of this century the Potomac has suffered
from pollution stresses. During the 1950's it was
described as an open cesspool. Rapid development of
the Washington metropolitan region was a major factor
in the river's decline. Between 1940 and the early
1970's, population growth repeatedly outstripped
sewage treatment plant capacity, despite expansions
intended to meet demands for years to come. Raw or
partially treated sewage was regularly discharged into
the Potomac as a consequence of overloaded plants
and inadequate sewer capacity.
Of the 11 major treatment plants that serve the
Washington metropolitan area, the Blue Plains facility is
the largest point source to the estuary. This regional
plant, managed by the District of Columbia, serves the
city and some of suburban Maryland and Virginia. In
1985, the Blue Plains plant discharged about 309 mil-
lion gallons a day directly to the estuaryabout 65 to
70 percent of the entire wastewater load for the year.
Chronology of the Cleanup Effort
In the late 1950's conferees at the first Federal-State
Potomac Enforcement Conference meetings, con-
vened by the U.S. Public Health Service to address
water quality problems, recommended secondary
wastewater treatment. By 1965, however, water quality
in the Potomac had worsened because rapid popula-
tion growth and accompanying increases in sewage
flows had outstripped plant capacities. President Lyn-
don B. Johnson called national attention to the
Potomac when he proposed making it a model for a na-
tional water quality improvement campaign. Following
his appeal, Congress passed the Water Quality Act of
1965, which required States to establish water quality
standards. Jurisdictions in the Washington
metropolitan area agreed to adopt a fishable-swim-
mable standard.
The Federal-State Potomac Enforcement Con-
ference was reconvened in 1969. Conferees
developed discharge limits based on an assessment of
the estuary's assimilative capacity and available treat-
ment technology. Conferee recommendations, which
were strenuously debated, pushed treatment tech-
nologies to their limits. Nevertheless, the recommenda-
tions were formally accepted in 1970 by the District of
Columbia, Maryland. Virginia, and local jurisdictions
through the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on
the Washington Regional Water Pollution Control Plan.
upgrades to the Blue Plains regional wastewater treat-
ment plant, allocated capacity for the plant to the Dis-
trict of Columbia and its suburban users, and proposed
a schedule for siting and constructing another regional
plant to absorb the anticipated increases in treatment
demands on the Blue Plains facility.
What appeared to be a workable intermunicipal
framework for addressing Potomac pollution problems
quickly broke down as the population continued to
grow and sewage flows to Blue Plains exceeded juris-
dictional flow allocations. Threats of lawsuits to enforce
these allocations led to a new agreement in 1971 for in-
terim treatment at Blue Plains. In addition, building
moratoria established to restrict sewage treatment
demands were not strictly enforced, and demand for
treatment continued to grow. Thus, in 1973, the Com-
monwealth of Virginia filed suit against the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission (the agency respon-
sible for sewage in the suburban Maryland counties
and at that time the prime source of the excess flows).
Fairfax County, Va., the District of Columbia, and the
Federal government joined the suit.
The parties to the suit ultimately reached an
agreement in 1974, the basis for a consent decree
that, among other things, limited the amount of sewage
each jurisdiction could send to Blue Plains. It also es-
tablished a formula for jurisdictions using the plant to
take responsibility for sludge disposal. A key feature of
the decree, lacking in previous agreements, was ac-
countability. Violations, including delays, would con-
stitute a contempt of court and would be punishable.
Throughout the 1970's new treatment technologies
were installed and plants constructed and ex-
panded. Potomac water quality began to improve. The
upgrading of treatment plants, however, exacerbated
an old problem. Advanced waste treatment processes
produced substantially larger quantities of sludge than
secondary treatment alone had. Difficulties in locating
sludge disposal sites led to legal actions in which the
District of Columbia sued Maryland's Washington Sub-
urban Sanitary Commission to force disposal of sludge
as agreed in the 1974 consent decree.
Anxious to overcome the interjurisdictional squab-
bling and court battles of the 1970's, representatives
from area jurisdictions and treatment plant operators
began to form standing committees to negotiate agree-
ments, monitor progress, resolve differences, and plan
for future needs on a regular basis. The first and most
prominent committee was made up of chief administra-
tive officers (CAO's) representing the principal Blue
Plains user jurisdictions and agencies. This committee,
known as the Blue Plains CAO's, was organized in 1980
under the auspices of the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, which provided neutral
grounds for meeting and support staff.
The Blue Plains CAO's Committee undertook the
reworking of the wide array of existing agreements,
some of which dated back to the 1950's. Committee
staff worked diligently, and at one stage met weekly for
municipal agreement for managing sewage treatment
and sludge disposal through 2010. An informal but im-
-------
portant ground rule that has been credited with promot-
ing agreement was the commitment of all participants
to stay on at certain critical meetings until the issues at
hand had been fully resolved.
The resulting Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement
was signed by area jurisdictions in September 1985. In
addition to sewage and sludge management, the
agreement formalized annual funding support to a
coordinated program for monitoring and tracking
Potomac water quality. This program, managed by the
Metropolitan Council of Governments, provides a com-
mon and comprehensive data base to enable a scien-
tific approach to water quality planning and decision-
making. Another important component of the agree-
ment included the specification of conditions that
would regulate or stop a user's commitments for sys-
tem extensions if its sewage flows exceeded its allo-
cated capacity at Blue Plains. The lack of such a
provision in earlier agreements had been a significant
problem during the 1970's.
Another important group, the Potomac Studies
Policy Committee, was formed in 1985 to develop con-
sensus positions of common interest to the
Washington area wastewater treatment community.
The policy committee evaluates technical issues as-
sociated with Washington area water quality manage-
ment programs and standards. It addresses estuary-
wide problems and the contribution of upstream
Potomac pollution loading sources that affect regional
water quality, and provides a unified voice for negotiat-
ing with water quality regulators. The policy committee
strives to achieve balance between treatment technol-
ogy, costs to users, and water quality standards.
The Blue Plains and Potomac Studies Policy Com-
mittees have proven themselves to be valuable forums
for ongoing resolution of regional water quality con-
cerns and issues, preventing the crisis atmosphere that
pervaded the preceding decade. Participants are
pleased with the cooperation achieved between local
jurisdictions and wastewater treatment plant operators
thus far and are optimistic that it will continue.
Financing
The success of the Potomac cleanup to date has been
hard won, taking over 20 years of sustained effort and
more than $1 billion investment in capital facility im-
provements. The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control
Act's Construction Grants Program covered 75 percent
of plant construction, expansion, and upgrading
costs. Remaining funds came from local government
expenditures and State grant programs. The annual
operating costs to meet plant discharge requirements
now exceed $100 million per year at the Washington
region's principal discharges. These costs are financed
through local user fees.
Results
Although the original goal, established in the late
1960's, of obtaining fishable-swimmable conditions
year-round in the upper estuary remains to be fully real-
Comparative Wastewater Flows and Pollutant Loadings
To The Upper Potomac Estuary
Total Total
Suspended Solids Phosphorus
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
-------
ized, significant improvements in Potomac water
quality have been made. The improvement in the upper
estuary has, in turn, contributed to dramatic improve-
ment in the lower estuary.
Reductions of nearly 95 percent in biochemical
oxygen demand and total phosphorus point source
discharges highlight the accomplishments.This has
been achieved through stringent nutrient limits for
municipal wastewater discharges. For example, the
current effluent phosphorus limit for Blue Plains is 0.18
mg/L. Effluent limits assigned to Washington area treat-
ment plants could be met only by upgrading secondary
treatment plants to advanced waste treatment facilities,
which use additional filtration, nutrient removal proces-
ses, and chlorination. Improvements to other facilities
have also enhanced water quality in the basin. The im-
provements included increases in sewer transmission
and wastewater treatment plant capacities, and im-
proved operational procedures to substantially reduce
the incidence of wet weather overflows. Most of the
Washington metropolitan area's sewer system is now
connected to advanced waste treatment facilities,
either on-line or under construction. The Blue Plains
plant is one of the largest advanced waste treatment
plants in the United States.
Signs of a healthy river that were missing from the
estuary during the 1950's and 1960's are now reap-
pearing. Submerged aquatic vegetation and accom-
panying desirable species of fish and wildlife have
returned in abundance to many portions of the river. At
the same time, the growth of nuisance blue-green
algae has been greatly reduced.
As river water quality has improved, commercial and
recreational activities along the river have also re-
emerged. The waterfront now provides an attractive
location for parks, recreational facilities, and res-
taurants. Boating and fishing are common along the
urban stretch of the estuary.
Other sources of pollution have increased in relative
significance as Washington area point source loads
have been cut. Discharges of nutrients, biochemical
oxygen demand, and sediment loadings from
upstream point sources, nonpoint sources, and
nutrient releases and oxygen demand from river bot-
tom sediments all contribute to pollutant loading inputs
to the upper estuary.
The participants in the Potomac cleanup program
have turned their attention to meeting the new challen-
ges. The existing regional monitoring network and data
base are already being used, and the 1970 Memoran-
dum of Understanding has been revised and reaf-
firmed. The regional framework developed to confront
point source removal is providing a ready forum for ad-
dressing emerging issues.
While some pollution problems remain, further
progress will require improved wastewater treatment at
smaller facilities upstream and downstream of the
Washington, D.C. region. Implementation of effective
nonpoint source controls, particularly for agricultural
nonpoint source loadings, will also be needed.
Lessons Learned
The latest round of Potomac River cleanup activities
has taken two decades to reach its current level of suc-
cess. The effort has been difficult, but it has worked. Its
success was due to people who insisted on more than
the status quo. They invested in technologies required
to meet stringent effluent limits to protect the estuary.
They strove for cooperative agreements and held
others to them, going to court when necessary. It took
technical talent the scientists who developed the
models and analyzed the data, the treatment plant
operators and engineers who implemented the require-
ments. It took money a combined local, State, and
Federal investment exceeding $1 billion in capital
facilities, and user fees of over $100 million a year in
plant operation costs. Most important, the cleanup
succeeded because of the initiative, cooperation, and
sustained commitment of local agencies to hammer
out and implement the interjurisdictional agreements
necessary to make it work.
Improving conditions in the Potomac required an
enormous effort to overcome resistance to building
moratoria, legal suits, press coverage, and a charged
atmosphere among the participants. Ultimately,
however, a high level of cooperation among local
governments and the regulatory agencies led to the
dramatic improvement in water quality conditions that
area residents now enjoy. Through the efforts and bat-
tles along the way, a strong and lasting framework for
cooperation has evolved.
The Potomac's cleanup was facilitated under the
regional policy and technical committee structure
which evolved in the 1980's to track progress and
evaluate future water quality management needs. This
structure has proven quite effective as a forum for
developing consensus positions on regional water
quality management issues and programs. It derives its
strength and continuity through a collective local
government commitment to the support of a central-
ized technical staff, data base, and reporting function
dedicated to the assessment and resolution of
Potomac water quality issues.
But for all the achievements, the greatest lesson
from the Potomac's experience may be that strategies
for pollution control must be flexible and continually
evolving. New problems and questions have emerged
as a result of regional successes in reducing point
source loadings. For example, environmentally sound
and cost-effective sludge management programs, ac-
ceptable to both regulatory agencies and local com-
munities, must be found and agreed upon. Area
decisionmakers and residents must evaluate to what
extent they are willing to protect area water quality and
identify the most cost-effective, practical, and accept-
able management programs.
For further information, contact Stuart Freudberg or Cameron
Wiegand, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, DC, or Mark Alderson, EPA Project Manager,
Washington, DC.
-------
oEPA
United Stales
Environmental Proteclio
Agency
National Estuary
Program
A Phosphorus Strategy for the
Great Lakes
Improving water quality through intergovernmental agreements
UNITED STATES/CANADA
Characteristics
The largest freshwater bodies in the world, the
Great Lakes comprise:
-20 percent of the earth's fresh surface water,
-95 percent of North America's fresh surface water,
-6 billion gallons of water discharged per hour via
the St. Lawrence River.
Retention times for water in the lakes range from
less than 3 years to over 200 years
Resources
The Great Lakes are the center of U.S.
heavy industry.
$155 billion of economic activity occurs annually
$3 billion in recreational activity occurs annually
24 million Americans depend on the lakes for
drinking water
Issues
Loss of commercial fishing continues.
Aesthetics and recreation are impaired.
Drinking water resources are affected
Public health risks from food consumption continue.
CANADA
GREAT LAKES
BASIN AREA
CAKE SUPERIOR
QUEBEC
LAKE
HURON
1AKE
MICHIGAN
U.S.A.
/ LAKE
ERIE
LAKE ONTARIO
J
Introduction
Recognizing the importance of the Great Lakes, the
U.S. and Canadian governments have operated a long-
term intergovernmental program to control direct and
indirect sources of pollution, monitor conditions, and
assess trends in the water quality and biological health
of the lakes. By the late 1960's the effects of years of
pollution in the Great Lakes were alarming, particularly
in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Eutrophication - a
natural process of nutrient enrichment and silting -
was accelerated by high levels of phosphorus entering
the lake. As a result, oxygen depletion was widespread
and many previously abundant fish species and other
aquatic organisms were virtually eliminated.
By setting pollution control goals that the two
countries could agree on, the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreements of 1972 and 1978 have guided a
successful cleanup and restored a viable fishery for
the world's largest freshwater system. These joint initia-
tives address conventional pollutants (such as plant
growth-inducing nutrients) as well as toxic con-
taminants entering the lakes from land-based activities.
The nutrient control aspects of the program are dis-
cussed here.
Overview and Characteristics of
the Problem
The Great Lakes contain 95 percent of the fresh surface
water in North America. This vast resource supports
commercial and recreational fisheries, water supply,
shipping, and aesthetic enjoyment. The five Great
Lakes, their interconnecting channels, and the St.
Lawrence River outlet to the Atlantic Ocean are integral
components of the U.S. and Canadian economies. The
Great Lakes basin supports one fifth of all American in-
dustry. Over $180 billion in annual economic activity is
based on the Great Lakes: the Canadian portion of the
Great Lakes Basin accounts for $27 billion in economic
activity; the U.S. portion accounts for $155 billion.
-------
In the past 170 years, the population of the Great
Lakes basin has increased more than a hundredfold.
Today, the basin is home to nearly 37 million people,
comprising a third of the Canadian population and a
seventh of the American population. This growth was
accompanied by increasing point and nonpoint source
pollutant inputs to the ecosystem. By the 1930's, the
impacts of these pollutants were becoming apparent in
the biological, physical, and chemical components of
the Great Lakes ecosystem. Commercial fish species
(lake trout, blue pike, whitefish, sauger, and lake her-
ring) declined sharply; the once-abundant mayfly dis-
appeared from western Lake Erie, Green Bay, and
Saginaw Bay; and populations of opossum shrimp
vanished from Lake Erie. Algal production, however,
not only increased, but shifted from predominately
free-floating forms valuable as food for fish fry toward
more troublesome species typical of elevated nutrient
conditions. Long-term changes in both open-lake and
near-shore water chemistry reflected eutrophic condi-
tions from nutrient enrichment.
The dramatic changes in fish communities and other
aquatic organisms were directly linked to decreased
oxygen levels. Linkages were particularly well docu-
mented in western Lake Erie, Green Bay, and Saginaw
Bay. In the central basin of Lake Erie, for example,
roughly 70 percent of the bottom waters developed
pronounced oxygen deficits each year.
Program Development
The institutional framework for the Great Lakes clean-
up was actually established in 1909 by a Boundary
Water Treaty between the United States and
Canada. The treaty established the International Joint
Commission, which was asked in 1964 by the U.S. and
Canadian governments to study the water quality con-
ditions in Lakes Erie and Ontario (the "Lower Lakes")
and the St. Lawrence River. In 1970, the commission
reported its findings:
Lake Erie (and particularly the Western Basin) was already
in an advanced state of eutrophication, and the
eutrophication of Lake Ontario was accelerated. In both
cases, current and historic nutrient loadings were at fault.
Phosphorus is the only nutrient required for growth whose
level can be effectively controlled with current technology
such as widespread improvements in existing municipal
and industrial wastewater treatment plants.
_, The major phosphorus source to the lakes is municipal
sewage; agricultural runoff and industrial wastes are the
only significant nonsewage phosphorus sources.
Detergents contribute 70 percent of U.S. and 50 percent of
Canadian sewage phosphorus.
Based on these findings, the commission recom-
mended that the Governments of Canada and the
United States enter into agreement on an integrated
phosphorus control program, to include
1 An immediate reduction in detergent phosphorus content (to
a minimum practicable level) followed by the complete replace-
ment of detergent phosphorus with environmentally less harmful
materials, by December 31, 1972;
2. An 80 percent reduction in nondetergent residual phosphorus
in municipal and industrial waste effluents discharging to Lakes
KEY COMPONENTS
OF NUTRIENT
CONTROL STRATEGY
PHOSPHATE DETERGENT BAN
AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT
SOURCE CONTROLS
STRINGENT MUNICIPAL AND
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
CONTROLS
Erie and Ontario and the international portion of the St Lawrence
River by 1975, with subsequent reductions to the maximum extent
possible by economically feasible processes; and
3. General reductions in agricultural inputs of phosphorus to
Lakes Erie and Ontario and the international portion of the
St. Lawrence River.
The findings and recommendations of the commis-
sion indicated the severity of the problem, the need for
major pollution control actions, and the need for broad
political support. To meet these needs, it was deter-
mined that an international agreement must be forged
to implement a binational cleanup effort. As a result,
the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was
signed by the United States and Canada on April 15,
1972, agreeing to the need for a phosphorus reduction
program based on commission findings.
Then during the mid-1970's additional modeling
work was completed, which
Quantified how much phosphorus entered the system from
point, nonpoint, and atmospheric sources and determined
how many tons of phosphorus reduction per year would be
needed to meet the target reduction in each lake;
Set target phosphorus concentrations for each lake to
achieve a healthy ecosystem.
Using these modeling tools, a new agreement was
signed in 1978 that
Allocated these phosphorus reduction requirements to each
country, and
Determined how many tons of phosphorus reduction per
year would be needed to meet the target concentration for
each lake.
Control Program
Point source controls, especially on municipal waste-
water treatment plants, provided the basic thrust of the
phosphorus reduction program. A treatment level of 1
mg/L phosphorus in treatment plant effluent was est?L -
lished for all plants of 1 million gallons per day o-
greater capacity under the 1978 agreement Reaching
this level required plants to use advanced wastewater
treatment. It was also recognized that effluent control.
aione would not meet the goals, and additional reduc-
tions from agricultural nonpoint controls and phos-
phate detergent bans would be necessary.
-------
Although great progress occurred during the 1970's,
the 1983 update of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement mandated development of U.S. and
Canadian Phosphorus Management Plans. The
U.S. plan, submitted in 1986, states that if nonpoint
source controls do not achieve the necessary addition-
al reductions in total phosphorus loadings (to be deter-
mined in a scheduled 1988 progress review), municipal
treatment plants will be required to meet effluent phos-
phorus levels below the current 1 mg/L limit. The plan
further states that the water-quality based controls
mandated in the Clean Water Act will be implemented if
the combined effect of advanced wastewater treatment
and nonpoint source control do not meet the in-lake
phosphorus concentrations required by the agreement.
Responsible Authorities and
Financing
In the United States, the primary implementing agen-
cies are the U.S. EPA and the eight States bordering
the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes National Program Of-
fice was established within EPA to monitor the pro-
gress and effectiveness of U.S. efforts toward achieving
the goals of the agreement, as well as to provide techni-
cal and management assistance to States, counties,
and local jurisdictions in implementing the agreement.
In Canada, primary responsibility for implementing the
agreement rests with Environment Canada and
Ontario's Ministry of the Environment.
In the United States, new NPDES discharge permits
were issued for essentially all major point source dis-
chargers in the 1974-1975 period. EPA tracked these
permits with a compliance monitoring system to flag
frequent or large violations. Compliance with the per-
mitting system was high, but Federal and State-level
administrative enforcement (violation notices, com-
pliance orders, etc.) was also a major factor in the
program's success in achieving phosphorus load
reductions from point sources.
Nonpoint control programs have centered on con-
trolling soil erosion. A variety of programs conducted
by USDA entities (Soil Conservation Service, the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
Forest Service, Farmers Home Administration, and the
Cooperative Extension Service) to promote soil conser-
vation and erosion control have proven useful. Several
Federal/State/local cooperative demonstration projects
have been conducted to test farm management prac-
tices, such as conservation tillage. A major field test of
conservation tillage for phosphorus control was funded
through EPA's Great Lakes Program Office (under sec-
tion 108 of the Clean Water Act) in 31 counties in In-
diana, Ohio, and Michigan.
Results
Since 1972, over 1,000 municipal treatment plants have
been constructed or upgraded. At the same time, in-
Progress in Meeting Phosphorus Targets (m metric tons/year)
LAKE SUPERIOR Lake Superior's higher target
reflects lower initial loadings and
2650 3,160 3,400 its physical characteristics
1972 1982 TARGET
LAKE MICHIGAN
6,615
4,080
5,600
LAKE HURON
4,520 4,690 4 36Q
BH.
1972 1982 TARGET
21,170 LAKE ERIE
11,000
LAKE ONTARIO
17,530
7,000
1972 1982 TARGET
Lake Michigan's higher target
reflects lower initial loadings and
its physical characteristics
1972 1982 TARGET
1972 1982 TARGET
TOTALS
1972 52.485
1982 33,170
TARGET 31,360
-------
fluent phosphorus loads to these and other plants were
reduced through broad enactment of legislation to con-
trol phosphorus in household detergents. As a result,
most municipal wastewater point sources of over 1 mil-
lion gallons a day capacity have now achieved or ex-
ceeded the 1 mg/L effluent phosphorus limit and the
average point source phosphorus load reduction goals
of the agreement are being attained. As a result of the
phosphorus control provisions of the agreement, sig-
nificant decreases in phosphorus levels are reported in
all the Great Lakes. Excepting certain localized areas,
the Upper Lakes (Superior, Huron and Michigan) are
no longer overenriched. In the Lower Lakes, Lake On-
tario exhibits reduced overall phosphorus concentra-
tions and diminished algal biomass. In Lake Erie, the
levels of free-floating microscopic plants in the open
water have decreased and shifted toward species
found in balanced-nutrient systems. U.S. phosphorus
loadings to Lake Erie from municipal treatment plants
decreased by 62 percent from 1972 to 1978, and by
1982 the load had dropped to only 16 percent of the
1972 level. Within five years of the 1972 agreement, 64
percent of the municipal treatment plants and 76 per-
cent of the industries on the U.S. side were in com-
pliance with the point source limits established to meet
the goals of the agreement. The corresponding
Canadian figures were 89 percent and 50 percent,
respectively. To date, more than $7.5 billion have been
spent or obligated in the United States and Canada for
municipal sewage construction in the Great Lakes
basin (resulting in an 80-90 percent reduction in
municipal phosphorus loads), with another $1 billion
from local governments and industries. In the United
States, the majority of this money has been spent
through the section 201 Construction Grants Program,
under the Clean Water Act.
Lessons Learned
A principal reason for the success of the Great Lakes
phosphorus control initiative was the degree of com-
mitment made to its objectives at the highest levels of
the affected governments. This commitment was back-
ed with Federal legislation and a multibillion dollar
grant program.
Anotheweason for the program's success was the
commitment of the government to continual response.
Within two years of the International Joint
Commission's 1970 report, a point source control
program was in effect; within five years, enforceable
point source limits for all major municipal and industrial
discharges were in effect. Although many technical
questions were unanswered in 1972, responsible
governmental officials on both sides of the basin
decided that sufficient information existed to support a
coordinated, programmatic response. Further scientific
research on problem definition and understanding has
continued in parallel with, and with the financial support
of, the overall phosphorus control program.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement provides
the legal basis for nutrient management of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Under the authority of the agree-
ment, the Great Lakes National Program Office reviews
major municipal and industrial point source discharge
permits for adherence to the phosphorus management
goals of the agreement. This unique feature ensures
that local dischargers conform to the terms of the
agreement.
Development of Great Lakes
Phosphorus Strategy
A987
Co«^V70 "a**"*!IW xws
For further information contact: Dr. Martin P. Bratzel, Jr., Inter-
national Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario; or Paul Horvatin,
EPA, Chicago; or Mark Alderson, EPA Project Officer,
Washington, DC.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Estuary
Program
Strategies for the Preservation
of an Estuarine Watershed
Preserving watersheds through land purchases
and protective designations
APALACHICOLA BAY/FLORIDA
Characteristics
The estuary covers approximately 210 square miles.
The basin drains 19,600 square miles in Alabama.
Georgia, and Florida, with 12 percent of the basin
in Florida.
The Apalachicola River is the largest river in Florida
in terms of flow.
Forty percent of the Apalachicola Bay is suitable
for growing oysters.
Resources
The bay produces 90 percent of the Florida oyster harvest,
and 10 percent of the national harvest.
The bay is a major spawning ground for blue crab
and shrimp.
Annual seafood landings in Franklin County
(which surrounds the main estuary) are valued in
excess of $14 million.
The upper basin is an area of unusual biological diversity
Issues
The pollution and proposed dredging projects threatened
the bay's productive seafood industry.
Protection and preservation of the river and bay floodplain
and sensitive areas around the bay became a priority of
the State and local authorities.
Maintenance of existing flow from northern States was
threatened.
L
sc
GA
APALACHICOLA
RIVER BASIN
Introduction
The Apalachicola River basin may be the most
protected estuarine system in the United States. For
over 10 years the State of Florida, in conjunction with
Federal and local authorities, has taken a variety of ac-
tions to preserve the relatively pristine Apalachicola
drainage basin. The protection of the unique natural
resources of the Apalachicola system has been ac-
complished by three major types of actions including
(1) land acquisition, (2) establishment of protective
designations, and (3) basin management. Extensive re-
search to document the ecology of the Apalachicola
Bay system helped focus basin management actions.
The Apalachicola River is formed by the conver-
gence of the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, which
originate in northern Georgia. The river drains into
Apalachicola Bay which produces 90 percent of the
State's oyster harvest; is a major spawning ground for
blue crab and shrimp; and also provides a finfish (spot,
croaker, and sea trout) harvest. In the early 1970's the
Apalachicola system was threatened by proposed
navigation projects that would substantially modify the
river's hydrodynamics, clear-cutting in the lower basin
that would increase sediment and nutrient loads,
development pressures, and poor sewage treatment.
Overview of Boy Characteristics
and Problems
The Apalachicola estuary is located on the Gulf Coast
of Florida at the mouth of the Apalachicola-Chat-
tahoochee-Flint (ACF) River system. The estuary is a
relatively shallow lagoon and barrier island system. It
has an average depth between 6 and 9 feet, and covers
approximately 210 square miles. The waters of the ACF
basin are used for diverse purposes, including com-
mercial and recreational fishing; commercial naviga-
tion; recreation; hydropower; municipal, industrial, and
agricultural water supply; sewage effluent discharge;
and fish propagation.
The major urban areas are in Georgia and Alabama,
whereas the Florida portion of the basin is sparsely
populated. The six Florida counties adjacent to the
-------
basin have low population densities of 30 people per
square mile and are predominately forest.
rln the early 1970's, periodic closings of the oyster
beds in Apalachicola Bay threatened the viability of the
local seafood economy. The sewage treatment plant
often discharged raw sewage to Apalachicola Bay. At
the same time, the Corps of Engineers proposed con-
structing four dams in the Apalachicola River. Concerns
about the freshwater retention incorporated in these
proposals increased the interest of the local citizens.
Proposed land development for the area added to
these concerns.
Major Components oi the Program
Protection efforts focused on land acquisition, protec-
tive designations, basin management, and research.
Land Acquisition
Public land acquisition has proven to be a cornerstone
of the effort to protect the Apalachicola ecosystem.
Over 100,000 acres of land have been purchased for a
variety of purposes.There are currently two State land
acquisition programs active in the region: the State's
Conservation and Recreation Lands Program (CARL),
and the Save Our Rivers Program.
These programs have purchased lands along the
river floodplain, the lower portion of the river, the bay
front, and nearby islands.
In CARL, the State has purchased 14,475 acres for
$6.4 million. Under Save Our Rivers, the State pur-
chased over 35,000 acres of bottomland hardwood
swamp for $10.3 million and is negotiating for the pur-
chase of 42,000 more acres of floodplain. An additional
31,863 acres were acquired through an earlier program
at a cost of $22.8 million. Additional acquisitions around
the bay have a high ranking on the current CARL list.
The Florida Department of Natural Resources is
responsible for the selection and negotiations for land
acquisition; however, all final purchases must be ap-
proved by a six-member interagency committee that in-
cludes the Governor and his cabinet.
Protective Designations
State, Federal, and international protective designa-
tions have also been instrumental in protecting the river
and bay. Each of these designations serves a different
role in protecting the system. Together, they have
drawn attention to the system, which has impacted per-
mit, treatment, and land use decisions. The primary
designations used have been Aquatic Preserve, Out-
standing Florida Water (OFW), National Estuarine
Research Reserve (Sanctuary), Area of Critical State
Concern, and International Biosphere Reserve.
Basin Management
An effort to manage the basin as a system was
proposed by the Northwest Florida Management Dis-
trict in 1976, but received no support. In 1979, when
... /..^i^hi^i,, PRtnarv was declared a National
Major Protective Designations
Outstanding Florida Water
The majority of the Florida portion of the basin is designated as
Outstanding Rorida Water. This designation prevents a per-
manent point source discharge from degrading the receiving
water. The OFW designation imposes reduced allowances for
waste disposal and assimilation. It restricts new long-term pol-
lutant discharges such as sewage, industrial effluent, dredging,
and filling. OFW restrictions help to ensure that recreational and
ecological integrity of the area are preserved.
National Estuarine Research Reserve
Through the Office of Coastal Zone Management the lower
Apalachicola River and Bay was designated as a National Es-
tuarine Sanctuary, now known as National Estuarine Research
Reserve. The Apalachicola Reserve is the largest in the country:
193,758 acres, or twice the size of the other 17 reserves com-
bined. The Apalachicola Reserve includes floodplain, fresh and
saltwater marshes, open water, and barrier islands. Through
this program Federal and State funds are used for land acquisi-
tion, research, and education. The Apalachicola National Es-
tuarine Reserve Advisory Council (ANERAC), an 11-member
board, serves as a forum for coordination among local inter-
ests, State environmental agencies, and the Federal govern-
ment. The Estuarine Research Reserve plays a key role in the
effort to use scientific understanding to manage the resource.
Area of Critical State Concern
The Apalachicola Bay area was designated an Area of Critical
State Concern through the Apalachicola Bay Area Protection
Act. This designation allows for State oversight and control of
government decisions and ordinances. The intent of the act is
(1) to protect the water quality of the bay area, (2) to financially
assist Franklin County and its municipalities in upgrading and
expanding their sewage systems, (3) to monitor activities in the
area to ensure resource protection, and (4) to educate the resi-
dents of the area in order to preserve its natural resources. The
act also puts the Resource Planning and Management Commit-
tee in an advisory role to support Franklin County in enacting
land development regulations related to stormwater systems,
correct onsite sewage treatment systems, and develop a map
of pollution-sensitive segments of the critical shoreline Since
its designation the county has imposed an ordinance which
provides a buffer between land development and the estuary
The Apalachicola Bay Area Protection Act also provided money
to upgrade the municipal sewage system in Apalachicola.
Aquatic Preserve
The estuary was designated an aquatic preserve in 1975 This
designation requires the State to develop a management plan
to ensure the long-term protection of the aquatic resource.
International Biosphere Reserve
This international recognition for the area by the United Nations
was received in 1984
management was connected to the release of Federal
funds.
In 1982, interest in systemwide management of the
basin was revived by the Department of Environmental
Regulation. In 1983, an interstate Memorandum of Un-
derstanding (MOU) was signed by Florida, Georgia,
and Alabama to develop a basinwide drought manage-
ment plan, a water management strategy for the sys-
maintenance plan.
-------
o
In 1983, the Governor appointed an Apalachicola
Task Force to work under the Coastal Zone Interagen-
cy Management Committee (IMC) to deal with the
problem of frequent closing of the bay to oystering be-
cause of sewage. The task force membership includes
the Department of Community Affairs, the Department
of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Commerce, Department of Natural Resources, and the
Department of Environmental Regulation. This task
force was instrumental in developing the Apalachicola
Bay Protection Act of 1985, which designated the
region as an Area of Critical State Concern.
The Navigation Maintenance Plan helped resolve a
10-year-old disagreement between Florida, which
resisted year-round use of the river channel on environ-
mental grounds, and Alabama, Georgia, and the Corps
of Engineers, which felt Florida's resistance was sup-
pressing the regional economy. The plan allowed
navigation if no further degradation of the environment
occurred. Some proposed structural modifications
were abandoned and maintenance practices revised to
meet this goal. The Corps finally judged that, without
!'^e structural modifications, flow was not sufficient for
.ear-round use in most years.
Area Designated for Protection
Responsible Authorities
and Financing
Major funding and consistent research support have
come from the Florida Sea Grant College (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and Franklin
County Board of Commissioners. Supplementary
funding has been provided by private industry as well
as by State and Federal agencies.
Many of the initiatives to protect the system
originated in the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. In 1979, the Department hired a staff per-
son dedicated to coordinating and resolving problems
impacting the river and bay system. After a year, fund-
ing for this position was covered by a grant from the
Office of Coastal Zone Management until 1985 when
the position was made permanent by the Apalachicola
Bay Protection Act. Through this position the Depart-
ment has helped initiate a comprehensive program to
manage and protect the system. Money for the CARL
Program comes from taxes on minerals, oil and gas,
and possibly from real estate taxes in the near future.
This money is put into a trust fund for land acquisitions
and drawn on as needed. An estimated $40 million in
revenue will be put into the CARL program this year.
Process
In the early 1970's a broad-based effort to protect the
Apalachicola ecosystem was undertaken because the
people of Franklin County recognized the need for a
management program to protect this resource.
In 1972, a field monitoring program began in
Apalachicola Bay to gather scientific information for the
purpose of applying it to practical problems. Scientists
from Florida State University, United States Geological
Service, Fresh Water Fish and Game Commission,
Department of Environmental Regulation, and many
others have investigated biological, chemical, and
physical characteristics of the river and bay. Major
contributions for this research have come from Florida
Sea Grant College (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) and the Franklin County Board of Com-
missioners. This monitoring project has continued for
over 10 years and continues today.
Local efforts to protect the area have included adop-
tion of county-wide zoning regulations in the 1970's
and a comprehensive plan in 1981 in Franklin County.
The State and the Northwest Florida Management Dis-
trict efforts have included land acquisitions, a number
of protective designations, and a resource planning
and a management committee.
A critical factor influencing long-term protection of
the resource is communication and coordination
among all involved parties. Over the past decade, the
State has made a considerable effort to involve local
county commissioners, developers, the scientific com-
munity, and the public in the decisionmaking process.
In 1977, the Apalachicola River Committee was formed
to brina the Dp.narfmpnts nf Fnvirnnmpntal Rpnn!atinn
-------
xted
Key Steps in Preserving
Apalachicola Bay
Vss^S^rJf
y 1B-<5S^5S?»*"
Oa«»
1%£&S*£&£*
#&£&&
9«°
and Natural Resources and other State and local agen-
cies together to strengthen local planning efforts
through the provisions of data and technical assis-
tance. Representatives en the committee included the
six counties bordering the river, and State and Federal
resource agencies. It was chaired by the Apalachee
Regional Planning Council. The committee was espe-
cially concerned with navigation issues and since
Florida law required local government approval of
dredging permits, the committee wielded some power.
In conjunction with the Memorandum of Under-
standing adopted by the three States and the Corps in
1983, an Interim Coordinating Committee consisting of
representatives of each State and the Corps was estab-
lished. This committee was responsible for dealing
with interstate water management and navigation is-
sues and was intended to terminate after three years.
However, since the arrangement has worked well, all
parties agreed to continue the committee as the Inter-
state Coordinating Committee. The final Navigation
Maintenance Plan (NMP) adopted by this committee in-
cluded a provision requiring that before any measures
listed in the NMP are implemented in Florida, public
meetings would be held in the affected areas to provide
information and to receive public input.
Results
Efforts to date have left hope and optimism that the
foundation exists for the Apalachicola system to be
protected over the long term. Continued work is neces-
sary, however, and results are contingent upon the in-
volvement and acceptance of the effort by local
government and citizens.
To date the State has purchased over 85,000 acres
in the basin. At least 40 percent of floodplain is publicly
owned and by the end of 1987 it is hoped that almost
90 percent of the wetlands in the Apalachicola
floodplain will be publicly owned. Efforts to acquire
more land in the Apalachicola basin will continue, but it
is uncertain how much additional land will be pur-
chased. By the end of the land acquisition program the
State hopes to have the floodplain of the river intact
and in public ownership.
Protective designations have brought significant at-
tention to the system and have provided some
measure of protection to the area. These designations,
however, can lull the public into a false sense of
security. For example, many people mistakenly
believed the Estuarine Reserve would impose strict
limits and controls on anything and everything that
would harm the estuary. The Reserve actually has no
authority to regulate development, but instead
promotes research and education.
Perhaps most important, all parties are interested in
continuing and expanding efforts to protect the system.
Several State agencies have full-time staff specifically
assigned to working on the system, as does the Florida
Defenders of the Environment.
Lessons Learned
The Apalachicola experience shows that a river basin
can be managed and protected. Litigation, acquisition,
the State permitting process, the education of local
citizens, planning and management, and public pres-
sure have all played major roles in this effort. The com-
bined efforts of local, State, Federal, and university
programs in the Apalachicola River basin have been ex-
tremely important.
The education of all concerned parties has been a
key to the program's success. There has been little
turnover among State and Federal agency staff, with
many having five to 10 years experience working on the
system. Consequently, many have become quite
knowledgeable about the system. And, after dealing
with resource management issues in the basin for the
past 10 to 15 years, county officials have also gained an
appreciation for the system's ecology and have in-
tegrated this to some extent into the decisionmaking
process.
For further information contact Pamela McVety, Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee; Stephen Leit-
man, Florida Defenders of the Environment, Tallahassee; or
Mark Alderson, EPA Project Officer, Washington, DC.
-------
United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Estuary
Program
A Comprehensive Source
Control Program
for Protecting Shellfish Waters
Citizen action preserves shellfish resources
T1LLAMOOK BAY/OREGON
FCAL COUFORM
REDUCTIONS IN
TJUAMOOK RIVERS
Characteristics
The basin has five individual watersheds containing
363,520 acres:
-89 percent forestland
-6 percent agricultural land with intensive dairy
farming adjacent to the bay.
Annual precipitation averages from 90 to 150 inches
Resources
Tillamook Bay is the most productive oyster and clam
growing water in Oregon.
Lowland areas are used intensively for dairy farming.
Recreational activities (e.g., boating, fishing) attract
more than a million tourists each year.
Issues
Concentrated livestock wastes and the region's
wet weather create severe runoff problems and
contaminated conditions.
% REDUCTION
KILCHIS 30%
MIAMI 78%
TRASK 62% .
TILLAMOOK *" 58%
WILSON 53%
Introduction
The State of Oregon has implemented a program to
protect the shellfish in Tillamook Bay from recurring in-
cidents of bacterial contamination. Tillamook Bay is
Oregon's most productive oyster and clam growing
area-80 percent of the State's commercially har-
vested oysters come from its waters. The State
program, which has been supported by Federal agen-
cies and local governments, focuses on controlling
point and nonpoint pollution sources.
The towland areas surrounding the bay are neither
highly industrialized nor densely populated overall.
Several small towns exist, but most of the land is
devoted to intense dairy farming. Runoff from agricul-
tural operations in combination with sewage treatment
discharges from the local towns had created the bac-
terial contamination problems in Tillamook Bay. High
fecal coliform contamination threatened shellfish har-
vesting and the local economy.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
and others addressed the problem by implementing
best management practices on the dairy farms and
upgrading local sewage treatment plants to control
bacterial pollution. These actions have kept the bay
open for safe shellfish harvesting.
Overview of Bay Characteristics
and Problems
Tillamook Bay drainage basin is located 60 miles west
of Portland on the northern Oregon coast. Five major
rivers drain 97 percent of the basin and discharge to Til-
lamook Bay. Most of the bay is shallow. At high tide the
bay's average depth is just 6 feet; at extreme low tide,
water is confined mostly to the narrow channels. Ninety
percent of the basin is steep, mountainous, forested
terrain and sparsely populated. Eight percent of the
land area is relatively flat and devoted to agriculture
and population centers.
Shellfishing in Tillamook Bay includes recreational
and commercial clamming, and commercial oyster har-
vesting. Annual harvest approaches 600,000 pounds of
clams and 175,000 pounds of oysters. The bay and its
-------
tributaries support a good finfishery for salmonid
species (chinook, silver chum, salmon, and steelhead).
Because of the popularity of the northern Oregon
coast, many tourists camp, fish, and bike along the
bay.
In the lowlands, 118 farms with nearly 20,000 cattle
line the lower portion of the Tillamook watershed. Ap-
proximately 13,000 people live in the bay basin. A little
less than half the population is served by sewers; the
remainder uses on-site sewage systems. Together, the
presence of concentrated livestock wastes (280,000
tons of manure per year) and the region's wet weather
(average rainfall 90-150 inches per year) created
severe problems of bacterial poHution via runoff.
Following moderate to large storms, fecal coliform
counts were often high in the bay. Coliform bacteria
reside in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals;
their abundant presence in water indicates significant
fecal contamination. In addition, when fecal coliform
counts are high, other more harmful bacteria and
pathogens from warm-blooded animals may also be
present. These high bacterial counts are the basis for
closing the bay to shellfish harvesting. The bacterial
problem created a serious human health hazard and
threatened an important industry.
Problem Characterization
In 1979, a program between the Tillamook Soil and
Water Conservation District and the Oregon Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality was set up to monitor
water quality in the bay. This program included a
review of existing data and collection of additional
water quality data. Using information gathered during
the initial study, the Department of Environmental
Quality conducted a project to specifically identify the
sources, extent, and dynamics of fecal pollution occur-
ring in the bay and its watershed. During the investiga-
tion six major potential fecal sources were examined:
(1) sewage treatment plants, (2) recreation, (3) forestry
activities, (4) industries, (5) agricultural operations, and
(6) on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems. A
comprehensive Tillamook Bay Fecal Waste Manage-
ment Plan was developed for protecting the shellfish
resource.
The study concluded that fecal coliform bacteria
detected in the bay originated from farms (manure),
poor sewage treatment plants in the river subbasins,
and inadequate subsurface drainage. Of these, the
study identified malfunctioning sewage treatment
plants and dairy operations as the primary sources.
Process
The Tillamook study was conducted through a com-
bined effort of Federal, State, and local government offi-
cials and the cooperation of the local dairy industry.
Local citizens were actively involved throughout the
study and development of a management plan. A
group of citizens met regularly to review the data col-
Key Steps to Restore
Tillamook Bay
lected and analyzed by the Department. These same
people also worked cooperatively with the Department
and the Soil Conservation Service to develop the
management options for controlling the problem.
Dairymen working with the Soil Conservation Service
helped develop the solutions to the dairy problems.
County and State sanitarians developed control
strategies for the septic tank problems. Sewage treat-
ment plant owners and operators developed the
strategy for minimizing impacts from their plants.
Meetings as well as phone calls and personal con-
tacts with the study team have involved the public in
the policymaking process. Implementation of the
management plan was rendered less controversial and
more effective because the local citizens knew why a
control plan was necessary and were able to communi-
cate their concerns and contribute their suggestions
from the beginning. A local coordinating committee, in-
cluding both State and local officials, continues to meet
regularly to discuss the progress of the program. The
County Extension Service also organizes important in-
teragency meetings (EPA, FDA, DEQ). The Extension
Service conducts a comprehensive educational and in-
formation program, including media releases, talks to
civic groups, and tours. These tours are often for other
farmers from outside the county who are interested in
the practices being used in the Tillamook area.
-------
c
Management Plan Development
and Implementation
Interested citizens and the Department of Environmen-
tal Quality developed three management options to
control shellfish contamination: (1) closing the bay to
harvesting of shellfish until the problem corrected itself;
(2) initiating new types of corrective actions aimed at
reducing the pollution potential of the identified fecal
sources and developing harvesting criteria for the bay;
or (3) strengthening existing pollutant control programs
and developing harvesting criteria for the bay. The last
option was chosen because it was the most cost-effec-
tive and did not negatively impact the shellfish industry,
which already had self-imposed limited harvesting
during critical runoff periods.
Recognizing the need for immediate action to
protect the public health and the long-term nature of
the cleanup, the Department adopted a standard pro-
cedure for determining when to open or close the bay
to shellfish harvesting. This procedure relied on five
criteria that were developed by the Department of En-
vironmental Quality and State Health Department. Any
one of these criteria could be used to close shellfish
beds for 5 to 10 days. The bay is automatically closed
when a sewage treatment plant bypass or malfunction
occurs, during high river flow, and during periods of fre-
quent rainfall.
Since the dairy waste was considered to be one of
the most pervasive problems, the Soil and Water Con-
servation District and the dairy community developed
an extensive cleanup plan to address the animal waste
problem. The strategy relied on two principles: (1)
prevent rainwater and clean surface water from coming
into contact with manure, and (2) when this is not pos-
sible, prevent contaminated surface water from reach-
ing the streams or the bay. To implement the plan, 109
dairy farms were designated as critical dairies. To
achieve the goal of a 70 percent reduction in fecal
coliform loading, all critical dairies were encouraged to
undertake best management practices (BMP's). Each
farmer developed individual farm water quality plans.
Each plan addressed the water quality problems of that
farm, best management practices that would be used
to alleviate them, and a 3- to 10-year schedule for im-
plementing the practices.
To ensure that the most critical sources were treated
first, each farm was ranked based on factors such as
the distance of confinement areas to open water, the
acreage of poorly drained soils where manure is
spread, the number of cattle per acre, and the farm's
location in the watershed and floodplain. The BMP's
applied by farmers included installing solid and liquid
manure storage facilities, roofing animal manure ac-
cumulation areas, erecting streambank fencing, and
managing roof water.
The other critical problem identified in the plan
sewage waste, was addressed by the Department of
Environmental Quality. Sewage treatment levels were
determined to be adequate, but malfunctioning equip-
Controls Implemented
in Tillamook Basin
MALFUNCTIONS CORRECTED
IN SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
SEPTIC SYSTEMS IMPROVED
ADDITION OF GUTTERS
ON BARNS CONTROLS
RUN OFF
FENCES BUILT
TO KEEP CATTLE
OUT OF STREAMS
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS
INSTALLED
FOR MANURE
-------
ment problems did occasionally occur. To rectify the
problem, alarms and shutdown devices were installed
at the sewage treatment plant. The Fecal Waste
Management Plan instituted procedures to notify health
officials of malfunctions so that shellfish beds could be
closed. In addition, many failing septic systems have
been eliminated as a pollution source by the expansion
of a municipal sewer line.
The Fecal Waste Management Plan and Bay closure
criteria were adopted by local and State agencies in
July 1981. The criteria were implemented in 1982. Cur-
rently, the closure criteria are being re-evaluated based
on continuing fecal coliform monitoring results.
TILLAMOOK BAY
RURAL CLEAN WATER
PROJECT
LOCAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE
COUNTY
ASC
COMMITTEE
AGRICULTURAL
STABILIZATION
AND CONSERVATION
SERVICE
COUNTY
EXTENSION
SERVICE
SOIL
CONSERVATION
DISTRICT
OREGON
DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
SOIL
TILLAMOOK CONSERVATION
COUNTY SERVICE
CREAMERY
ASSOCIATION
Responsible Authorities and
Financing
Funding for the program came from a variety of
sources. The Tillamook Bay bacteria and water quality
management plan study were originally funded by U.S.
EPA 208 funds. Upgrades to the Tillamook sewage
treatment plant were financed through EPA construc-
tion grants. The nonpoint cleanup effort was funded
through USDA's Rural Clean Water Program, which
provided a cost-share of up to 75 percent of the land-
owners' costs. The local Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service has received more than $4 million
through this program to assist dairy owners in the im-
plementation of BMP's. The farmers have also com-
mitted more than $3 million of their own money to sup-
port this effort. In 1986, the Department of Environmen-
tal Quality and the Soil and Water Conservation District
began a new monitoring program funded by U.S. EPA
205(j) funds to assess the effectiveness of the manage-
ment plan.
Results
Water quality and fecal contamination levels are im-
proving basinwide from cleanup activities. Although im-
plementation is not yet complete, the project has been
able to show significant water quality improvements in
both the rivers and the bay. In 1985 bay closures were
invoked less frequently, and employment in Tillamook's
oyster industry was the highest since 1952. Industries
and dairy farming are still open for business.
Best management practices are working and water
quality conditions are approaching desirable levels.
Work on the farms is 45 to 50 percent complete.
Recent water quality data analysis shows that fecal
coliform contamination of the bay has already been
significantly reduced between 1980 and 1985. Based
upon the projected level of BMP implementation and
the decline of fecal coliform concentration already ob-
served, it appears that by 1991 Tillamook Bay will
routinely meet shellfish water quality standards, al-
though unusual weather conditions could cause a tem-
porary problem.
Lessons Learned
Continued improvement of the water quality is ex-
pected for Tillamook Bay and its tributaries. With the
knowledge of who, how, and when sources of pollution
operate and discharge in a watershed and bay, point
and nonpoint source discharges can be controlled to
protect a shellfish industry.
The success of the plan is attributable to a number
of factors:
The County Extension Service Soil and Water Conservation
District, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, Soil Conservation Service, and the Creamery
Association worked together closely from the beginning of
the program. These agencies worked cooperatively to
create strong public involvement. The involvement of local
citizens throughout all phases of the project fostered local
pride in the accomplishments and, more important,
fostered a pride in the livability of the Tillamook area.
Cost-sharing money became available and was adequate to
show immediate progress.
The project was very closely tied to an important resource,
which made the community highly interested.
The solutions were fairly easy to develop and implement.
Q
For further information, contact John E. Jackson, Department
of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR; or John van Calcar,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, OR; or Mark Aiderson,
EPA Project Manager, Washington, DC.
-------
i
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
National Estuary
Program
Maryland's Critical Area Program
Managing aquatic resources by controlling land-based activities
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Characteristics
The area includes 2,900 miles of shoreline and
614,000 acres of land.
Land usage includes:
-35 percent tidal wetlands
-25 percent agricultural lands
-28 percent forest
-12 percent developed area.
Resources
Over 200 species of finfish and shellfish inhabit the
bay at some point in their life cycle.
Bay produces 50 percent of blue crabs and 33
percent of oysters harvested in the United States.
Canada geese, ducks, and other migratory
waterfowl find winter habitat in the bay area.
Issues
Development is increasing in the critical area of coastal
counties at twice the rate outside critical area.
Loss of wildlife habitat is a continuing problem.
Nonpomt source pollution has been identified
as major problem.
Fish and shellfish resources are declining.
LAND AREA IN
MARYLAND'S CRITICAL
AREA PROGRAM
-\
Introduction
The Critical Area Law focuses on land-based activities
as a source of problems in Chesapeake Bay water
quality. It is a program designed to balance the pres-
sure for new development while checking its potential
to increase the amounts of pollutants entering the bay
from disturbed areas. Equally important, the Critical
Area Law emphasizes the need to preserve the bay
area's richly diverse habitats for fish, wildlife, and plants
and to use its resources wisely.
Historically, the Chesapeake Bay has provided
generous harvests of high quality seafood, abundant
water-based recreation, deep international shipping
lanes supporting Maryland and Virginia's industrial
base, and a haven for wildlife. Rapid population growth
and development and associated pollutant and sedi-
ment loads have threatened the bay's water quality,
natural habitats, shoreline, and commercial integrity.
In the early 1980's, subsequent to the release of the
Chesapeake Bay Program's research findings, con-
cern for the bay was high - as demonstrated by the
passage of 34 legislative and budget measures in the
State of Maryland for bay cleanup. The Bay Critical
Area Law was a major component of this initiative.
Overview of Bay Characteristics
and Problems
Located on the Atlantic coastal plain, the Chesapeake
Bay drains over 150 rivers in a 64,000 square mile area.
The lands surrounding the bay support diverse
uses: farming, forestry, industry, recreation, urban and
suburban development, and unique natural habitats.
Since the 1950's, these lands have developed rapid-
ly. In fact, in Maryland, 17 percent of new coastal coun-
ty development has occurred on only 9 percent of the
available land area within 1,000 feet of shoreline.
The health of the bay has been declining. Evidence
includes decreased stocks of bay anadromous fish
species and degraded water quality, particularly in the
upper Chesapeake Bay and tidal estuaries. In these
areas, increased nutrients have lowered available
oxygen for fish and aquatic life; sediment has
-------
decreased available light for submerged aquatic
vegetation and shipping lanes and other channels; and
toxic substances have reduced species diversity.
1 The Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area Law
By passing the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law, the
Maryland General Assembly recognized that land uses
near the water's edge have important consequences
for water quality and wildlife habitat. The law
Identified lands within 1,000 feet of mean high water or
landward of tidal wetlands as a "Critical Area";
Defined goals to reduce the impact of development on
water quality as well as on fish, wildlife, and plant habitats;
Created an intergovernmental framework for
comprehensive land use planning and habitat protection.
The law also established a commission of 25 mem-
bers to develop criteria for implementing the program.
The criteria established three broad categories for land
use. The law requires local jurisdictions to develop
programs to manage lands in the three categories as
specified by the characteristics and criteria developed
by the commission. The management of these lands is
to include measures to address land cover and imper-
vious surfaces; buffer areas; setbacks; open space,
water access, and recreation areas; and timber har-
vesting. Each jurisdiction must submit its program to
the Critical Area commission for review.
Goals
The implementation criteria, which were drafted by the
commission with substantial public contribution and
approved by the State General Assembly, address
three resource management issues: development,
resource utilization, and resource protection.
GOALS OF THE PROGRAM
MANAGING UTILIZING PROTECTING
DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES RESOURCES
Managing Development. The commission desig-
nated three broad land use categories: Intensely
Developed, Limited Development, and Resource Con-
servation Areas. In general, the rationale was to direct
new growth in the Critical Area to already built-up areas
because this would minimize the impact of growth on
protective land uses and natural habitat. In the Limited
Development Area, the existing pattern of development
could continue, but the commission developed criteria,
often in the form of performance standards, so that im-
pacts to water quality and natural habitats would be
Characteristics of Land Classifications in Critical Area, and Criteria for Management
Intensely Developed Area Limited Development Area Resource Conservation Area
Characteristics
Dense residential, institutional,
commercial, or industrial uses
4 or more dwelling units per acre
Public sewer and water serving 3 or
more housing units per acre
Applicable Criteria
Reduce pollutant loadings by at least
10% from predevelopment loads
Reduce nonpoint impacts to streams
and tidal waters from redevelopment
Protect remaining wildlife and fish
habitats
Characteristics
1 dwelling unit per 5 acres up to
4 per acre
Areas with public sewer, or water, or both
Mixture of land usagenot dominated
by agriculture, wetlands, forest, or
open space
Applicable Criteria
Replace cleared forest land on an
acre-for-acre basis
Restrict removal of existing forest land
to 20% when development occurs
Restrict impervious areas to 15% of
the land area being developed
Encourage clustering of dwelling units
to conserve natural habitats
Characteristics
Housing density of less than 1
dwelling unit per five acres
No public sewer or water
Primarily open fields, wetlands, forest,
and agriculture
Applicable Criteria
Limit residential development to an
overall density not to exceed 1
dwelling unit per 20 acres
Encourage agriculture and forestry
-------
/
t
minimal. The Limited Development Area was defined to
include areas containing the protective land uses and
natural habitats. The commission then considered the
question of how to accommodate some development
in the Resource Conservation Areas but still maintain
such uses.
The law required local jurisdictions to assign their
lands in the critical area to one of three categories by
December 1985.
The criteria also allow for development of pre-exist-
ing lots and subdivisions through grandfather
provisions and for expansion of development. Intensely
Developed Areas and Limited Development Areas may
be expanded by up to 5 percent of a county's land
area, excluding the acreage in tidal wetlands or federal-
ly owned property from the formula. No more than one-
half of this allocated expansion may occur directly in
the Resource Conservation Area.
Utilizing Resources. The law also calls for improved
management of forests, agriculture, and water-depend-
ent facilities within the Critical Area. Specific require-
ments are
Commercial tree harvest operations affecting one or more
acres per year must have a forest management plan; limita-
tions are imposed on timber harvesting within 1,000 feet of
mean high water of the bay or perennial tributary streams;
Only 5% of Land May Be
Reclassified to More Intense Use
Limited Development or
Resource Conservation Area
Soil conservation and water management plans and
implementation of best management practices are required
within five years on agricultural lands;
A 25-foot filter strip must be established along tidal waters
and streams until a soil conservation plan is implemented;
Feeding or watering of livestock is prohibited within 50 feet
of the water's edge; and
New development within 100 feet of shoreline except in
water-dependent communities, and new marinas are
prohibited in Resource Conservation Areas.
Protecting Resources. The last component of the
Critical Area Program provides for protection of non-
tidal wetlands, threatened and endangered species,
species in need of conservation, and plant and wildlife
habitat. These habitat and wildlife protection measures
require local jurisdictions to
Inventory and protect fish spawning grounds, threatened
and endangered species habitat, colonial water bird nesting
sites, historic waterfowl staging and concentration areas.
and forest-interior-dwelling bird habitat;
Create wildlife corridor systems to ensure that any new
development in the Critical Area will preserve existing
habitats;
Establish a minimum 25-foot buffer zone around nontidal
wetlands to prevent any future habitat modification; and
Establish a minimum 100-foot naturally vegetated buffer
strip around the bay in all nondeveloped areas.
Responsible Authorities and
Financing
Implementation of the Critical Area Program is based
on a well-defined State/local government partnership.
Each of 60 local jurisdictions (16 counties and 44
municipalities) is to develop its own program to imple-
ment the Critical Area criteria. The commission per-
forms an oversight function to ensure that these plans
meet the stated goals of the criteria and coordinates
implementation among the local jurisdictions. The
operation of the commission and development of local
plans are financed
Intensely
Developed Area
through general State
revenues. The State
provided funds to
develop the maps and
local programs.
Process
The Critical Area Law is a comprehensive approach
that builds upon earlier Maryland programs, including
flood plain management, sediment control, stormwater
management, wetlands protection, and coastal zone
management.
In 1983, the results of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program were released.
These findings, combined with facts uncovered by
State and local research, provided powerful evidence
that a comprehensive planning approach was required
to protect the fragile and economically important
shoreline areas.
Following this report, the Governor of Maryland
created an interdepartmental task force to respond to
the findings of the bay study. The Critical Area Program
was one of the legislative and budgetary measures
proposed by the task force. Local government p-3'-
ticipated early in the drafting process through the
Maryland Association of Counties and the Maryland
Municipal League. Committees of the Mary.'a^d
General Assembly also reviewed the bill frequent:,
throughout the drafting process. The bill was enacted
on June 1, 1984.
-------
From its early stages, the bill's intent was to maintain
local planning authority. The enacted legislation
provides for both a carefully defined local implementa-
tion process and comprehensive State oversight. The
membership of the Critical Area Commission was im-
portant in developing the criteria, and local jurisdiction
played a strong role. Of 25 members, 11 are residents,
elected officials, or appointed officials of coastal coun-
ties; 8 members represent the commercial, recreation-
al, and environmental interests of the bay. Only six
commission members are from State agencies. All
members are appointed by the Governor, with State
Senate approval. The commission's executive director
is selected by the commission chairperson.
Prior to drafting the criteria, the commission held
seven public hearings during December 1984, at loca-
tions around Maryland's bay coastline, to enable local
citizens and bay interest groups to voice their opinions.
Throughout the criteria development process, the
commission continued to conduct formal meetings and
public hearings. Commission members and staff also
made numerous appearances before General Assem-
bly committees, spoke at meetings organized by the
many interest groups concerned with bay issues, and
conducted television and radio interviews.
Following a final series of nine oublic hearings during
July 1985 to review the proposed criteria, the commis-
sion substantially modified the criteria to address public
concerns. The revised criteria were signed into law on
May 13,1986, 22 months after enactment of the Critical
Area Law. These criteria are now guiding local jurisdic-
tions in their development of Critical Area land use
plans.
Program Status
Local jurisdictions are developing program plans and
amending their zoning ordinances as needed to meet
Program goals. Final approval of all local plans is ex-
pected shortly.
The positive results of this process can be seen in
local jurisdictions now working together to develop
coordinated plans and continued support by citizens at
their local government levels. Perhaps as important is
the increased contact between State agencies and
local jurisdictions particularly the small jurisdictions
which has improved intergovernmental relations.
Lessons Learned
The Critical Area Program the Critical Area Law, the
commission, and the criteria is a reality. It
demonstrates that support for managing coastal
development can be generated; that comprehensive
State-level land use restrictions, typically fraught with
controversy, can be established; and that a process of
local implementation complemented by State oversight
can be defined.
Origin and Development of the
Critical Area Program
The active involvement of local officials and the
public, the clear definition of respective State and local
roles, and the protection of local planning authority
were fundamental to this program's success.
The Critical Area Program may still face areas of
resistance. If fully implemented, however, the program
will fairly balance diverse interests and preserve the es-
sential rights of local jurisdictions. By bringing local in-
terests together with State regulators, a strong program
was devised to protect the recovery of the bay. For
Maryland, a State-level response worked; elsewhere a
multi-county or multi-State program might be ap-
propriate to protect estuarine environments.
For further information on this program, contact Dr. Sarah
Taylor or Dr. Kevin Sullivan, Maryland Critical Area Commis-
sion, Annapolis, MD; or Mark Alderson, EPA Project Manager,
Washington, DC.
------- |