WATERSHED SUCCESS IN REGION FORUM PROCEEDINGS ------- WATERSHED SUCCESS IN REGION 6 TUESDAY - THURSDAY April 18 - 20,1995 Le Meridien New Orleans, Louisiana SPONSORED BY U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Terrene Institute The Lower Colorado River Authority Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation FINAL AGENDA ------- WATERSHED SUCCESS IN REGION 6 Russell Bowen U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Susan Branning U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Carlton Dufrechou Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation Steve Gorin Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation Lisa Grayson Terrene Institute Cis Myers Lower Colorado River Authority Stacey Satagaj Terrene Institute Sheila Schayot Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation Lori Vitek Lower Colorado River Authority Karen Young U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 For additional information contact Terrene Institute 1717 K Street, NW Suite 801 Washington, DC 20006 202-833-8317 fx 202-296-4071 ------- SUCCESS IN REGION 6 his conference will highlight the watershed protection approach to meeting water quality goals, especially the identification of all priority problems in the watershed and the forging of partnerships with all parties who have a stake or interest hi implementing solutions. Participants will gain new knowledge of the full range of methods and tools available for a coordinated, multiple organization approach to problems, with special emphasis on the analyses and solutions that are already bringing success to ongoing watershed projects in Region 6. The conference is designed to encourage watershed management, address all significant problems in watersheds and to show how we can use the resources and expertise of multiple agencies to protect and restore water quality. AQUARIUM OF THE AMERICA'S RECEPTION Tuesday, April 18 from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. the aquarium will be open exclusively for our reception, making this evening a great opportunity to visit the aquarium at your leisure. Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation members will be invited to the reception to give attendees the opportunity to mingle with members and learn of their activities. The St. Clement of Rome Jazz Band will be performing. The Aquarium of the Americas is located at Riverfront Park just 2Vz blocks from Le Meridien. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN FIELD TRIP The Lake Pontchartrain Basin field trip participants will visit several sites demonstrating a variety of water quality activities unique to the watershed. See page 10 for a more detailed description of the field trip. The buses will depart from Le Meridien, Thursday, April 20, at 8 a.m., and return by 2 p.m. A lunch break will be scheduled. Please wear comfortable clothes and good walking shoes. The buses will load and drop off at the Canal Street entrance. ------- DESCRIPTION C oncurrent sessions are presented in three tracks that include important components in support of the watershed protection approach. TRACK A: Regulatory Programs m The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Process m Permitting, Basin Planning, Stormwater and Confined Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFOs) m Compliance as a Watershed Protection Tool TRACK B: Federal and State Programs ° The Watershed Approach in the Nonpoint Source Program ° Ground Water in the Watershed Approach ° The Clean Lakes Program — Watershed Success Stories 0 Wetlands — An Integral Component TRACK C: Widening the Circle — Involving all Stakeholders in the Process I Integrating/Streamlining Programs and Providing Grant Flexibilities in Support of the Watershed Approach I Tribal Water Quality Planning I Watershed Team Building and Interstate Watershed Issues I United States/Mexico Border Watershed Issues WATERSHED SUCCESS IN REGION 6 ------- TUESDAY, APRIL 18 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. Registration 8-9 a.m. Continental Breakfast lie De France Foyer He De France Foyer 9-10 a.m. Opening Remarks: Watershed Protection He De France II & III — Creating the Links JaneN. Saginaw, Regional Administrator, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Robert Wayland, III, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 10 - 10:20 a.m. Break He De France Foyer 10:20-11:45 a.m. 11:45 a.m. - 1 p.m. Watershed Roundtable lie De France II & III ^"'Representatives from agriculture, industry, fisheries, local, state and federal government will discuss pollution prevention and water quality strategies in the context of a watershed case study.~ MODERATORMark Rose, General Manager, Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX PANEL Myron O. Knudson,P.E., Director, Water Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Mason Mungle, Executive Director, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, OK Ed Joiner, Chairman, Dairy Advisory Board, Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Franklinton, LA Cliff Glockner, Commercial Fisherman, Concerned Crabbers of Lake Pontchartrain, Lacombe, LA Richard Metcalf, Health, Safety and Environmental Coordinator, Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas, Baton Rouge, LA Robert Hastings, Director, Turtle Cove Biological Research Station, Hammond, LA Lunch LUNCH SPEAKER: lie De France I Nancy McKay, Executive Director, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA ------- (continued) 1-2:30 p.m. TRACKA TRACKB TRACK C WATERSHED SUCCESS IN REGION 6 CONCURRENTSESSIONS The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Process — Part 1 lie De France II ~This session will provide an overview of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process including a case study on Grand Lake, OK, and information on preliminary coliform bacteria studies in the Tangipahoa Basin, LA.~ MODERATOR/PRESENTERTroy Hill, TMDL Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Russell Dutnell, Environmental Engineer/Water Quality Modeler, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, OK TEAMPRESENTATION: Mike Waldon, Research Associate Professor, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA Elizabeth deEtte Smythe, Research Assistant Professor, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA Addressing Ground Water in the Orleans /Rosalie /St. Claude Watershed Approach ~This session will discuss the role of ground water pollution and prevention in the watershed approach including presentations on source water protection in Roosevelt, OK, and the Edwards Aquifer.— MODERATORtPatty Senna, Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Program Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Wayne Jordan, Director, Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX Brad Cross, Team Leader, Source Water Protection Program, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX Blaine Reely, P.E., President, Envirotech Services, Inc., Enid, OK United States/Mexico Border Watershed Issues lie De France III "-This session highlights cooperative international efforts using the watershed approach including a presentation on the Rio Grand/Rio Bravo Watershed Alliance.~ MODERATOR:Terri Buchanan, Leader, Watershed Assessment Team, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX Don Cook, Director, Office of Rural Affairs, Texas Department of Commerce, Austin, TX Gary Levings, Program Manager, Rio Grande Valley National Water Quality Assessment (NA WQA), U.S. Geological Survey, Albuquerque, NM Gail Rothe, Coordinator, Regional Assessment of Water Quality in the Rio Grande Basin, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX Domingo Gonzales, Border Coordinator, Texas Center for Policy Studies, Brownsville, TX ------- 2:30 - 3 p.m. Afternoon Break He De France Foyer He De France II 3 - 4:30 p.m. CONCURRENTSESSIONS TRACK A The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Process — Part 2 ~The second session of the TMDL Process will look at case studies including Crooked Creek, AR, and Little Deep Fork Creek, OK.~ MODERATOR:Troy Hill, TMDL Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Martin Maner, Interim Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology, Little Rock, AR Richard Smith, Senior Environmental Planner, Indian Nations Council of Governments, Tulsa, OK TRACK B Wetlands Orleans / Rosalie / St. Claude ~This session will address wetlands issues and their unique role in comprehensive watershed protection programs. It will also include presentations on the Tensas Watershed, the Nature Conservancy Report on the Lower Mississippi Delta Wetlands and the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program.~ MODERATORfieverly Ethridge, Chief, Wetlands Protection Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Mike Adcock, Tensas River Basin Coordinator, Northeast Delta Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc., Winnsboro, LA Lisa Creasman, Executive Director, The Nature Conservancy, Baton Rouge, LA Steve Mathies, Program Director, Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program, Thibodaux, LA TRACK C Tribal Watershed Activities He De France III ~This session will address a variety of tribal water quality activities, such as developing water quality standards, and it will include a discussion of the Illinois River Watershed Pollution Prevention Project in the Cherokee Nation.~ MODERATORPetuuche Gilbert, Tribal Councilman and Land Coordinator, Pueblo ofAcoma, Acoma Pueblo, NM Blane Sanchez, Water Quality Control Officer, Pueblo oflsleta, Isleta Pueblo, NM Linda Baker, Special Assistant, Native American Liaison, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stillwater, OK David Mullon, Jr., Director of Law and Environment, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, OK ------- (continued) 6:30-9:30 p.m. RECEPTION meet at the Aquarium Aquarium of the Americas! Riverfront Park, 111 Iberville Street, New Orleans The aquarium is located just 21/2 blocks from Le Meridien and is a short walk down Canal Street. r^-> The aquarium will be open exclusively for our reception, making this evening a great opportunity to visit the aquarium at your leisure. Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation members will be invited to the reception to give attendees the opportunity to mingle with members and learn of their activities. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Registration 8-9 a.m. Continental Breakfast 9 - 9:45 a.m. General Session: Watershed Protection and Property Rights He De France Foyer lie De France Foyer He De France I MODERATORCis Myers, Senior Environmental Coordinator, Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX Martin Cancienne, District Director, Office of Congressman Billy Tauzin, Gonzalez, LA John Duffy, Counselor to Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC 9:45 - 10 a.m. Lake Pontchartrain Foundation Field Trip He De France I Preview Presentation Carlton Dufrechou, Executive Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Metairie, LA 10-10:15 a.m. Break lie De France Foyer WATERSHED SUCCESS IN REGION 6 ------- 10:15-11:45 a.m. TRACKA CONCURRENTSESSIONS TRACK B TRACKC He De France II Permitting Activities Supporting the Watershed Approach — Part 1 ~This session will discuss how controls and permitting programs initiate and support the watershed approach. The session will include a review of whole basin planning and the ecoregion approach to water quality standards.'^' MODERATORLaura Koesters, Deputy Director, Office of Water Resource Management, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX Stephen Bainter, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Mel Vargas, Project Coordinator for Watershed Texas, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX Emelise Cormier, Program Manager, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, LA James Lewis, Water Quality Monitoring/NPDES Supervisor, City of Austin, Austin, TX The Clean Lakes Program and Orleans / Rosalie / St. Claude Citizen Monitoring —This session will present how the Clean Lakes Program and citizen monitoring contribute to the watershed protection effort through coordination and education.^' MODERATORMike Bira, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Gayla Campbell, Texas Watch Program Coordinator, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX Keith Owen, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma City, OK Gregg Patterson, Director of WET Program, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology, Little Rock, AR Clifford Kenwood, Project Coordinator, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Metairie, LA Watershed Team Building and Interstate Watershed Issues lie De France III ~This session will share watershed team-building successes and new ideas for implementing watershed protection activities in your community.'"-' MODERATORCis Myers, Senior Environmental Coordinator, Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX Nancy McKay, Executive Director, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA Patty Murto, Member, Board of Directors, St. Louis River Board, Duluth, MN Richard Volk, Program Director, Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program, Corpus Christi, TX John Hassell, Director, Water Quality Programs, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, OK Bob Morgan, Engineering Supervisor, Nonpoint Source Management Section, Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission, Little Rock, AR ------- AGENDA — WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19 (continued) ll:45am-l:15pm Lunch on your own 1:15-2:45 p.m. TRACK A TRACKB He De France II CONCURRENTSESSIONS Permitting Activities Supporting the Watershed Approach — Part 2 ~This second session on permitting activities will discuss stormwater watershed controls and innovative controls for Confined Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFOs).~ MODERATORLaura Koesters, Deputy Director, Office of Water Resource Management, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX Larry Caldwell, P.E., Director, Engineering, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Stillwater, OK TEAMPRESENTATION: Marnie Winter, Director, Environmental and Development Control Department, Jefferson Parish, New Orleans, LA Gordon Austin, Chief, Environmental Affairs, Sewage and Water Board of New Orleans, LA Nonpoint Source Watershed Activities — Part 1 Orleans / Rosalie / St. Claude ~Nonpoint source pollution is one of the greatest threats to our nation's watersheds. This session will share nonpoint source program case studies, partnerships and successes from Region 6 and other parts of the country including the Great Lakes, the Buffalo River and the Tangipahoa River.~ MODERATORRussell Bowen, Chief, State Programs Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Tom Davenport, Nonpoint Source Program Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, Chicago, IL Sandi Formica, Inspection Engineer, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology, Little Rock, AR Jan Boydstun, Nonpoint Source Coordinator, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, LA TRACK C Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation He De France III WATERSHED SUCCESS IN REGION 6 ""The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation will share the history of the development and success of cooperative efforts in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin.~ MODERATORiCarlton Dufrechou, Executive Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Metairie, LA Steve Gorin, Program Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Metairie, LA Anne Rheams, Education Coordinator, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Metairie, LA Neil Armingeon, Environmental Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Metairie, LA 2:45 - 3 p.m. Afternoon Break lie De France Foyer ------- 3 - 4:30 p.m. CONCURRENTSESSIONS TRACK A Compliance as a Watershed Protection Tool He De France II TRACK B TRACKC —A discussion of how positive change is brought about in watersheds through regulation and enforcement. Presentations by the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Enforcement operation and the Lower Colorado River Authority will highlight regulatory and enforcement success.~ MODERATOR/PRESENTERterry Saunders, Chief, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma Compliance Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Pam Phillips, Regional Enforcement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Rusty Ray, Environmental Coordinator, Rural Environmental Outreach Program, Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX Bruce Hammatt, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water Resources, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, LA Nonpoint Source Watershed Activities — Part 2 Orleans / Rosalie / St. Claude ~This second session on nonpoint source watershed activities will discuss the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service's role in watershed protection. It will also characterize nonpoint source pollution sources in coastal watersheds and provide a presentation on the Upper Highland Lakes NPS Ordinance in Texas.'-' MODERATORMike Bira, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Carl Hutcherson, Natural Resource Conservation Service Liaison, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Tom Curran, P.E., Senior Environmental Coordinator, NPS Pollution Control Program, Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX Frank Shipley, Program Director, Galveston Bay National Estuary Program, Webster, TX Programmatic/Grant Flexibilities in Support He De France III of the Watershed Approach — Working Session '-This practical session will discuss effective ways to streamline grants and integrate programs to achieve your watershed protection goals.'-' MODERATORRichard Hoppers, Chief, Water Quality Management Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas TX John Janak, Manager of Federal Funds Coordination Section, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX John deMond, Environmental Quality Coordinator, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, LA Russell Bowen, Chief, State Programs Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Kerry McCullough, Program Manager, Water Planning and Assessment, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX ------- THURSDAY, APRIL 20 7-8 a.m. Registration 7-8 a.m. Continental Breakfast lie De France Foyer He De France Foyer 8 a.m. - 2 p.m. Lake Pontchartrain Field Trip Buses depart Le Meridien at 8 a.m. at the Canal Street entrance and return by 2 p. m. t-**t The Lake Pontchartrain Basin field trip will include the Bonnet Carre Spillway, site of a proposed freshwater diversion; the adjacent La Branche Wetlands, and the wetlands restoration efforts; the stormwater drainage canals and levee system that protect the area from flooding; a visit to an Orleans Parish pumping station; a ride along the lake front; an overview of the fishing camps along the lake; a look at the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet and its impact on the local wetlands; and finally, a visit to a pumping station in St. Bernard Parish to see the dramatic revitalization of stressed wetlands resulting from the introduction of stormwater runoff. A lunch break will be scheduled. 2 p.m. Conference Adjourns WATERSHED SUCCESS IN REGION 6 ------- WATERSHED SUCCESS IN REGION 6 CONFERENCE April 18, 1995 Opening Remarks; Watershed Protection - Creating the Links (9:00-10:20AM) Speaker: Myron Knudson, Director, Water Management Division, U.S. E.P.A, Dallas, Texas Good morning and welcome to the Watershed Success in Region 6 Conference. I'm Myron Knudson with EPA in Dallas. I am happy to say that this event is being sponsored by, not only EPA Region 6 but by the Terrene Institute, The Lower Colorado River Authority, and the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. So we thank all the sponsors for all the work that they've been doing. We, at EPA, think that the states, river authorities, council of governments, and local governments have done a tremendous job in our region, as well as farmers, dairymen, and other types of confined animal feeding operations. We have, we believe, a good agenda to exchange watershed information, and discuss success stories, which is the goal of the conference. First, on the agenda, we'd like to have Stan Meiburg, who is our new Deputy Regional Administrator, talk to you a little bit about watershed protection from the Region 6 perspective. Stan was appointed in this month as the Deputy Regional Administrator. Previous to that he was Director of the Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division in the region. Before that he was in Headquarters and also at our facility in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. He's had the privilege of being the Executive Assistant to the EPA's Deputy Administrator and he's also had the distinct honor of working in the Office of Policy Planning & Evaluation. Stan has a B. A. degree from Wake Forest University and a Master's and a Ph.D. from John Hopkins University. Stan, welcome. Speaker: Stanley Meiburg, Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. E.P.A., Region 6, Dallas, Texas I really am glad to be here and to welcome you to this conference. I think it will be a successful and productive meeting to discuss the Watershed approach to an ecosystem protection. But what I thought I would use my time for this morning is to try to put this in a little broader context of some of the overall changes and activities going on in EPA. It has not escaped our notice that this is almost 25 years to the day since the first Earth Day in 1970, and the goal of the original Earth Day was to demonstrate through education and Page 1 ------- citizen action two key points. The first is that environmental problems are serious and they affect all of us. And the second point is that we can all be part of the solution. Now in 1970, things were a little easier in some ways because we could focus on obvious air and water pollution. And, in 1970, it was pretty easy to do. We had cities who were choking on smog. You had rivers that were catching on fire. You had threats to species like the bald eagle that were very, very significant and important to many people. And these all came to symbolize our national problem. Bob Perciasepe says that one of the things we can use to measure our progress is that while we may not have made all of our rivers and streams fishable and swimmable, at least they're not flammable. And we've accomplished many other things to make the world a safer and a healthier place-- banning lead in gasoline, for example. We have banned many dangerous, widely used pesticides such at DDT. We've helped to make recycling a household habit in many communities in the country. We have reduced toxic air emissions and established tough pollution standards for new cars. We've established strong public health protection for drinking water. We have eliminated or virtually eliminated the direct dumping of raw sewage into our rivers, lakes, and streams. We've cleaned up once dead waterways. Even in the Houston ship channel, which is a pretty heavily used waterway, you can now find fish and other aquatic life. We have seen dramatic decreases in the levels of air pollution while we've expanded economic activity and also expanded automobile use. If you look at vehicle miles traveled in cars, for example, you find that since 1970 vehicle miles traveled have doubled, and the air pollution for most cars is less than it used to be. So if it sounds like we are very proud of EPA's roles in these activities, it's because we are. We think we have a lot to be proud of. But at the same time, we still have plenty of work left to do. Forty percent of our rivers, lakes, and streams are still not suitable for fishing, swimming, or drinking. Two in five Americans live in areas that experience unhealthy air. And many citizens worry about the safety of their drinking water or about whether former industrial sites may be contaminated with hazardous waste. But, in the face of these problems, we're finding that we are now running up against the limits of what EPA can do. We're also finding that the nature of our work is changing. Twenty- five years ago, we could point to the obvious need for clean ups at large industrial sources like power plants, municipal treatment plants, petroleum refineries, pulp and paper mills, and so forth. Now that many of these sources have been addressed, we find that our emerging new problems are somewhat different. You have ground water issues versus surface water contamination, stratospheric ozone depletion rather than billowing smokes from smoke stacks, consumer versus agricultural pesticide use. We find, in many cases, that some of our biggest Page 2 ------- pollution problems can come from indiscriminate use of such common products as lawn care pesticides. You have problems, well known to this group, of non-point source water pollution. What's significant about all of these problems is that they require changes in behavior by individuals, not just remote corporations. For example, we're now asking individuals to get their cars inspected for emissions—a very controversial program. We're now looking for individuals to recycle their trash or dispose properly of their household hazardous waste — all those cans of paint thinner and old paint and turpentine and what-have-you solvents that you have lying around the house that need to be properly disposed of ~ or used oil. People are being asked to take their own actions to reduce wasteful water consumption habits. And we're asking people to change agricultural practices that they've followed for many, many years. These are significantly different things in that they involve individual changes and that change can be both difficult and tune consuming. In addition, when you look back 25 years, the political situation was quite different hi terms of federal and state responsibilities and administrative capability. Twenty-five years ago, EPA had to act because, in many cases, states had not established effective environmental protection programs. Things are now quite different. You'll hear a lot in the course of the conference about how states now operate substantial and, in many cases, very sophisticated environmental protection programs of their own. The need for direct federal action is not nearly as great as it was in the past two to three decades. For us at EPA, it means that we are having to rethink what we do. And I'd have to say I think we are struggling somewhat with these changed realities and the kinds of actions they are going to require from us. For many years, ever since the founding of the agency, EPA has been internally divided between air, water, hazardous waste programs. Our main jobs have been the implementation of prescriptive and rather lengthy statutes that have been passed by the Congress in each of these particular areas. Now as I discussed above, this has produced a tremendous amount of progress for the United States in the quality of our environment. But at the same time, we need to ask ourselves if this is the kind of agency we need for the 21st century. We're getting a lot of help in thinking about this both from inside and outside the agency. Internally, we've been working on our own strategic planning to adopt a plan that has seven guiding principles. Most of these will be pretty obvious to the people in this room. 1) Ecosystem protection. We recognize that environmental problems are interrelated. Just as an example, in some watersheds, they're finding that air deposition can be a major source Page3 ------- of contaminants, both for pesticides, potentially in metals or other kinds of — or nitrogen loading. 2) Environmental justice. We find that all people in our communities that are affected by pollution must be involved in decision making about how these problems can be corrected. 3) Pollution prevention. This is really a central ethic of the agency based on the very simple principle that it's easier to stop a problem from occurring than it is to clean it up later. 4) Strong science and data. We need meaningful baseline information and risk analysis. Even if we recognize that we will never have as much as we would like, that's no excuse for not getting all that we can. 5) Another principle is partnerships. We cannot go it alone. We must work together with partners at the state level, local level, with industry, with consumers, all of whom can contribute to achieving our goals. 6) Another principle that we follow is environmental accountability which recognizes that our compliance and enforcement programs are part of what it takes to make sure that we're all doing the job that we need to do. In particular, those who are doing their job and following the law should not be penalized by people who are not doing that job and trying to save money at their expense. 7) And finally, one of our key principles is to reinvent EPA management. We are embracing the whole movement toward the reinvention of government and looking for ways to become more customer oriented and results driven. Now this last point, about reinventing EPA management, very much relates to activities EPA is conducting under the auspices of the National Performance Review which is a very high administration priority for reinventing and re-looking at the federal government. I would like to stress this because I think this is a trend that we will be living with for some time which goes beyond this particular administration. The public is clearly speaking to us and asking for a government that works better and costs less. And EPA has an obligation as an agency whose actions affect the lives of almost everyone in the United States in some way, shape, or form. It's amazing when you think about it just how many ways EPA affects people's lives. With that role that we have, there's a special obligation for us to look at how we can make the agency's processes work better and cost less. The first phase of this began over a year ago. It focused on how we could simplify some truly bewildering regulations, eliminate the obsolete ones, and orient government towards customer service. A tough word for government agencies -- customers. And finally, use common sense and flexibility in how we do business. Page 4 ------- Now, a month ago, this challenge was renewed by the President to EPA and he gave us some very direct instructions for a second phase of this effort. And being good bureaucrats, of course, we would let no initiative go past us without inventing an acronym for it. Since the term for mis initiative was Reinventing Government P4me H—we now ^att it REG& II. What this includes is a heavy emphasis on regulation reinvention as a way to better serve the nation including line by line reviews of our regulations. Asking three questions: Is this obsolete? What can be privatized or why is the government doing this at all? And if we are doing it, can it be done better at a different level of government, be it state or local? The President has also asked us in EPA, as well as the rest of the government, to actually get out of our offices and go and talk to customers, our partners, and other stakeholders and listen to their suggestions. We've been responding in this region by hosting a series of roundtables to gather input from and listen to the stakeholders, industry groups, business groups, environmental leaders, state and local leaders, city and county representatives. All of them are trying to provide input on how we can better do our job. EPA has also issued a report on regulation re-invention which lists 25 areas specifically that we're working on as special high priorities. One area is effluent trading programs, which I know you'll be talking about here in this group on watershed management, and which are modeled on some of the emissions trading programs under the Clean Air Act. Another area is refocusing our hazardous waste regulations on the highest risk waste. Other areas are cutting paperwork requirements by 25% and using a new approach called Project XL, for Excellence in Leadership, where we are going to be looking for pilot companies who want to demonstrate that with increased flexibility in meeting their requirements they can actually go beyond their compliance requirements and produce additional benefits for the environment. We always hear about how people could do better if they just had more flexibility; this will test where we can see examples of this principle and how we can make it work for the environment. We're also continuing to pursue our common sense initiative. The Administrator has established a formal advisory committee structure in six industrial sectors to see if consensus can be reached on common sense ways to both improve environmental protection and reduce costs. And this isn't really new~this is something that's been going on for about a year now. The six sectors include iron and steel, electronics and computers, metal plating and finishing, printing, auto assembly, and one which Jane Saginaw, our Regional Administrator, co-chairs is very important to this region of the country ~ petroleum refining. Now believe it or not, I haven't catalogued all of the different initiatives going on in the area of re-invention at EPA. But I think this will give you some sense of the scope and magnitude of the kind of things that we're working on. The link among all of these things is that we are trying to find ways to better use our judgment and discretion in how we do our work. We're Page 5 ------- supporting a lot of experimentation and we're looking actively for suggestions about how we can better exercise flexibility and our interpretation of regulations and statutes. We're also trying to work very hard on our ability to listen. I think this Watershed Conference today is really very timely in light of all of these other initiatives and fits right into our commitment to want to learn, to listen, and to exchange information. There are lots of terms used now to describe the watershed approach to ecosystem protection. I've heard whole basin planning or ecoregion protection or geographic focused approach or placed based protection. The common theme in all of these terms is the focus on natural resources as a system and not as a bunch of separate components that we need to protect. In its purest form, the watershed protection approach represents a renewed emphasis by EPA on addressing everything that puts stress on hydrologically defined drainage basins. In some ways, this is not a new program, I think, competing with on-going work. In fact, this kind of sounds like Back to the Future, because it's reviving with far, far better tools than we used to have, approaches that even pre-date the 1972 Clean Water Act. I think the time is right now for us to use this approach to help refocus our own work efforts. In the past, we've focused on permitting, enforcement and planning. We've made a lot of progress on specific point sources of pollution. And in recent years, we have been paying more attention to the non-point sources as well and recognize what kind of loading we're seeing from non-point sources. I think we're now ready to begin to integrate these activities on a watershed basis. When we've looked around the country at other areas, we've seen a lot of positive results from many watershed oriented program activities. An example, of course, is the Chesapeake Bay program as well as some of our national estuary programs in this region. I think we've learned from them that we need to improve our own operations to make them work better for state and local people. Our vision for the watershed protection approach is for clean water and healthy sustainable ecosystems that are a result of comprehensive and tailored water resource management everywhere. We will have achieved this vision when our work is driven by environmental objectives rather than program requirements. There are a few key principles that I want to articulate before passing this on to the rest of the speakers. One is obvious. When you're talking about watershed protection, you're talking about a geographic focus. That means that we need to coordinate all our activities within a particular geographic area. Second, we need to establish clear environmental objectives and then drive our activities by those objectives — not by how many specific activities we can conduct. Third, is we need to do this through developing partnerships with local, state, and federal agencies. The final principle is that we need to have a good set of coordinated priorities and a common set of integrated principles that we follow in all of our activities, so that they are all well oriented towards achieving the environmental objectives that we set. Page 6 ------- This last point is really critical to provide an integrated set of priorities and to use feedback from real data on how our activities affect the environment. The National Academy of Public Administration just released a report last week that catalogued some of EPA's activities and how it's run, and one of the key points they make in that report is that EPA's planning systems need to be tied together better in terms of the environmental priorities that we're trying to reach. We need to set better decisions about what those priorities are and get feedback on how what we're doing actually affects the real world. And that's absolutely consistent with the overall theme and activities of this conference. In closing, all of these are very noble sounding and worthy objectives and we fully support them. But I must confess to you that (and this will not be a surprise to most of you who know EPA) that we do not have all the answers and don't pretend to have all the answers about how to achieve all of these goals. We are very much looking for your help. And again, that's one of the reasons this conference is so well timed. I believe, we are ready to listen. And we are anxious to learn from you. Thank you very much. Speaker: Myron Knudson Thank you, Stan. Next I would like to introduce Dave Davis the Deputy Director of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Dave was previously in charge of the Office of Wetlands Protection and Dave has a B.S. and M.S. in Micro-Biology and a Master of Business Administration. So while he's a scientist, he's also an administrator and has done a good job over the years. Speaker: Dave Davis, Deputy Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds It's a great pleasure to be here, despite the fact that it wasn't on my agenda until rather recently. Bob Way land was looking forward to this and apologizes for not being here. So without further ado, I do have some slides. Basically, what I want to talk about is the new directions for EPA, something about watershed and other place based approaches, a little bit about the Clean Water Act Reauthorization, something about EPA's activities to encourage place based management. And finally, a little bit about progress and success. With regard to new directions for EPA, I think it's really important to understand that as Stan said, there's some re-invention of government involved here. But in fact, some of the things Page? ------- that we're talking about with regard to EPA really almost predate the current Administration, which is not necessarily to take anything away from the Administration, but rather to point out that these are not just ideas of the moment, but rather things that we've thought about for a while. And I think first and foremost in that regard is this common sense approach, which may be new terminology, but it's an old idea. And the idea there is that we really have to approach things less from a theoretical or an abstract kind of way of dealing with them, and get down to the way ordinary people deal with them and using common sense hi its simplest terminology, and that includes clarity of purpose, stakeholder involvement, cost effectiveness, realistic expectations, and a number of other things as well. I think the second major new direction for EPA is this approach using ecosystems or places as our primary orientation. And the place based approach really isn't magic. First of all, it's comprehensive. We are looking at pollution control in all of its manifestations and resource management. It's important to stress the latter. We are not talking about just chemicals. We are talking also about fish and wildlife resources, forest resources, soil resources, water as a resource, rather than water as a medium to be polluted. There's also a focus on the landscape unit which is quite new for us. We really haven't done that as much hi the past as some other agencies have traditionally. I know there's some folks here from some of our sister federal f agencies and their state counterparts, for whom this is old business. But it really isn't for | EPA. EPA has traditionally been a chemical pollution control organization. So focusing on the landscape unit of one sort or another, which can vary both in its definition and its size, is critical to the whole ecosystem or place based approach. Stakeholder involvement is really a common issue there with the common sense approach. And finally, and I think Stan said this too, it's goal oriented. Instead of dealing with prescriptive standards, we're trying to deal with achievement of particular environmental goals. Just to tell you a little bit about the watershed approach and how we got to where we are. Certainly, the Clean Water Act itself sets up the basic objectives or goals with fishable, swimmable, drinkable waters. There we've made substantial progress in dealing with all the various municipal and industrial sources. But we've come to recognize that we need a more holistic, a more ecological approach to include wetlands, non-point sources, biological criteria, ecological risk assessment, and a host of other things. Things that really were not taken into account, at least in any great detail or with great significance, in the earlier phases of EPA's activities. And even though a lot of these ideas go back a long way, at least for the EPA central policy apparatus, they don't go back very far. They only really go back to the late 80's. ! In fact, to be a little more candid than I should be, it was in about 1987 or '88, maybe '89, that we decided while meeting among the office directors hi the water program, what we were going to do for the next year's budget. People were thinking of what are some nifty ways in which we can maybe grab off some more resources. And somebody said, "Well, what about PageS ------- •watershed management. That's been talked about by other agencies and, you know, we dabbled in it a little bit with the old 208 Program, and it seems like a good idea. Gee, maybe we could package something there that we could sell to OMB." And it was about that cynically that it first came up-.- So^ve tried it ^ut initially as a budget gambit. It didn't work. But the more we thought about it, the more we realized it was the right thing to do. So that was the genesis. Now what happened next. We also recognized that by focusing almost entirely on pollutants that we really were losing sight of the resource itself. That we were looking at factories. We were looking at discharge pipes. We weren't looking at the forest, at the wetland, at the riparian vegetation, at the farm, whatever happened to be adjacent to the river. We had a tendency to stand on the riverbank and look into the water, and so part of the trick was to reorient ourselves a little bit to stand on the riverbank and look away from the water at all the sources that were contributing to the problems within the water itself. An idea that was slightly ahead of its time that captured many of the same notions was the Section 208 Program — the Areawide Waste Management Program. Now a lot of people think (hat was a failure. Some people think it was a success and it depends very much on where you are in the country and what the local history was. But we think now the time is right. We think that the tune is right to go back to this kind of approach. Well what's different? Are we just going to repeat the same mistakes of the past? Well, unfortunately, we probably will repeat some of them. That tends to be the nature of human civilization. But there are a lot of things that are different. First of all, we've got a lot of baseline pollution control behind us. We've already made a lot of accomplishments in that area. We've also got better science and methods to work with than we did in the 60's and 70's, especially with regard to ecosystem processes. We don't have all the answers there by any means, but we know an awful lot more about them than we did before. We've got a lot of better tools to work with. We've got geographic information systems. We've got rapid information sharing through Internet and other kinds of systems like that. Most professionals now have personal computers on their desk tops so that they can manipulate and play with all of these kinds of things in ways that really weren't possible in earlier times. We've got some new concepts and paradigms to work with. Things like landscape ecology which has really come on us in the last five or so years for the most part, which creates some whole new ways of thinking about things with regard to fragmentation, corridors, connectivity, adjacent land uses, and all these kinds of things that really were not the general stock and trade even of ecologists not so many years ago. We've also got some new (what I guess I would call) political or social philosophies that are different than in the early 70's. I think we've moved away from the good guy/bad guy approach to the world, and to some degree from the pure command and control approach to environmental regulation. There's a new sense, you know, that life ain't that simple. It never Page 9 ------- was. But at least in those early days, I think a lot of people felt that was the only way we could get there. We're also moving away from the single medium kind of idea of just dealing with air pollution or just dealing with water pollution. We're moving away from the idea that technology or hard engineering is the solution to all problems. And we're also moving away from the notion that fixing the environment is government's job. For a long time, that was the prevailing idea that only government could and should deal with environmental protection. I think we now have come to recognize that it's everybody's business. It is absolutely everybody's business. It doesn't matter where you sit, what you do for a living, how you view the world, or whatever. It is everyone's responsibility. Well, we've established some momentum now that we think is important. There has been some outside impetus. Clearly, this didn't all happen from within EPA. Water Quality 2000, which some of you recognize, was a large consortium of many different organizations and points of view that tried to come together to figure out what the blueprint for the 21st Century ought to look like in the water quality arena. Primary recommendations were, first, that they wanted flexibility. There should not be prescribed any particular management form. Second, ' we should build upon existing watershed mechanisms. Let's don't completely start over. An interesting quote is where appropriate watershed planning and management institutions should be nested reflecting the multiple orders of progressively larger watersheds. And for those of you who deal with watersheds and hydrologic units that's a very natural concept. It is a nested hierarchy. Some people don't fully appreciate that. They think that these are things we just make up by drawing lines on maps. But in fact, watersheds, as compared to ecoregions and physiographic provinces and other things like that are very finite units. If you can find the top of the ridge, you can find the boundary of the watershed. And most people can do that. You walk uphill until you find yourself walking downhill and at the point that you've changed direction, you've probably found the top of the ridge. Now it's not exactly that simple in all landscapes, but at least the concept works. And little ones are within bigger ones which are within bigger ones which are within the biggest. It is a fairly straightforward concept. Water Quality 2000 was very big on that notion. AMSA and the National Governor's Association have echoed many of these same things in their proposals for Clean Water Act Reauthorization. And a lot of other federal agencies are now working with place based management as well. I think virtually all the resource agencies that we normally deal with are themselves embracing some form of ecosystem management or watershed management. There are obviously many existing watershed projects underway. EPA recently completed a progress report that catalogs about 130 projects. Here is a map that was drawn up from that inventory that we completed. What this is designed to represent is those place-based ecosystem watershed kinds of projects in which Page 10 ------- EPA has some significant involvement. It is by no means an exhaustive listing, because clearly there are lots of other projects that are going on that we're not significant players in. We don't pretend any perfection here. The little black dots are the smaller watershed projects and then the big^olored or shaded areas are 4esigned to show the larger Mnd of ecosystem level projects. You can see there are a lot of them within this general region; many of which are overlapping. The pale yellow is the Gulf of Mexico program. The horizontal baring is the Great Plains initiative. The brown is the Rio Grande, Rio Bravo. Some of the little dots along the Coast are National Estuary programs. There's a light red vertical patching going up the Mississippi River which is the forested wetlands initiative. There is a lot of overlap. Clearly, none of these things are absolutely complete and comprehensive. But what the map shows is that there's a heck of a lot of stuff going on out there and that's only the things that EPA is significantly involved in. If we layered onto that all of the other things that you folks are involved in and lots of people who aren't represented here, I think you'd recognize that this isn't an initiative that somebody just thought of and someday we're going to start. This is real life. This is already going on. It's not perfect yet. The benefits of watershed management — let's turn to that for a minute. First of all, we think that there's a lot more efficient use of resources with the watershed approach. And I think a lot of that is probably fairly self-evident to people. By looking comprehensively at these problems, you can recognize how you can start to put the pieces together in ways that are cost effective. Not only from a dollar standpoint, but from the standpoint of people's time and expertise. There are lots of economies of scale. Also, you get more resource efficiency through promoting stakeholder involvement because you get more informed decisions. You get better buy in. You get people pulling together rather than pulling in opposite directions. We lose an incredible amount of environmental progress all the time by fighting each other over things that, hi the end, don't need to have been fought over. They could have been worked out in the beginning if we had approached our job a little differently. To continue a comprehensive study of the watershed may also reveal some unexpected information that's critical for action. Sometimes the problems that we think we're facing on the surface are not really the problems or may even be the driving problems. For example we found in a number of cases recently that atmospheric deposition of air pollutants is, in fact, the major cause of some of the degradation of water quality. The Chesapeake Bay and the nitrogen inputs is a classic example. Forty percent of the nitrogen input to the bay is coming out of the air. It's not coming out of runoff like we suspected. You know, we figured that was probably 99%. Well, it's less than 60%, because there are some point sources as well. In Canaan Valley, West Virginia, a pristine high mountain southern boreal system which is the home of the newest National Wildlife Refuge in the United States and the first and only one for West Virginia, they found that an off-road vehicle race was a major contributor to water pollution. The solution was to move the course about 100 yards. The thing was Page 11 ------- running right along the Blackwater River and creating an enormous problem. They didn't have to cancel it. They didn't have to completely relocate it. They simply had to move the course a little bit. It was a really cheap solution to what was considered a significant problem. In the Santa Anna River Watershed in Southern California, they found that a particular reed, Arundo donak for those of you who are botanists, was actually a significant cause of the problems there. So now they've set up a team to try to figure out how to eradicate this particular exotic plant. One other thing I want to hit on here is the Edgewater Consensus — so named because it was a meeting that took place in Edgewater, Maryland at a Smithsonian research facility, a little over a year ago. It was really the first time EPA's senior management team, including the administrator, got together to decide that, as an agency, we were going to significantly embrace the concept of what was then called ecosystem management — which sort of transmogrified during that meeting to place-based management so that it didn't get too hung up with precise ecological definitions, and has now changed again to community based environmental protection to give us some political cover from a Congress that doesn't like ecosystem management. So when you hear those terms, they're all kind of interchangeable. They tend to be somewhat, either big "P" or small "p," politically motivated. But one of the central tenets that came out of the Edgewater meeting for EPA was that every place on the landscape, on the map, is a place. Every place is a place. Now what kind of nonsense is that? The point is that we wanted to move away from the notion that what we were doing was just focusing on a few high priority, high visibility areas, like Chesapeake Bay, South Florida, and the Pacific Northwest. We wanted ecosystem management or watershed management to be applied across the entire United States because every place merited that same kind of an approach. Again, remembering that this is not EPA doing it. This is EPA supporting it. Just a couple of months ago, the group met again to review progress and to talk about where we were and where we should be going. The administrator articulated a little formula for how EPA ought to operate which is now known as the 10-10-80 rule which I think a very good approach. It recognizes that EPA doesn't have the resources, doesn't have the mandates, and frankly, doesn't have the business of being in charge of everything that goes on in this country that involves place-based management. Well, what she felt was that probably in about 10% of the cases we really should be leaders. And I think we've probably already met or exceeded that 10% where EPA really is in the lead on particular geographic projects. There's another 10%, probably, where we ought to be partners or major participants. We ought to be at the table, major players. Again, we probably come pretty close to that. But the important part is the 80% which is basically that we ought to help other people do place-based, watershed management by doing three things. Empowering them through our own policies and procedures. Developing tools and information they need to do a better job. And third, getting Page 12 ------- out of the way, and not trying to get in there and muck around or run it. I think that's a very significant new way, if you will, of looking at EPA activities. Bob Perciasepe, the Assistant ^Administrator for water who is- the Presidential appointee heading the Water Program at EPA, articulated some of his priorities this fall and placed watershed management as the central theme of what the Water Program ought to be. Clearly this is going to be a major theme for the Water Program. Some of the major opportunities that we've identified are establishing goals and standards and I don't necessarily mean prescriptive numerical standards. We mean the kind that help you move in the direction that you want to go; help set priorities; and work with data gathering, management, and assessment. A lot of that has to go on. Also, better or differently defining responsibilities, implementation, and enforcement. And working more on communications, conferences, publications, and training. The kinds of things we're trying to do, for example, with this conference. We're trying to reach out to all of our partners to help them better do the things that they need to do. We're also developing programs — as in water, air, pesticides — and regional ~ as in EPA Region 6 — strategies to implement this process. In other words, some more detail. The Deputy Administrator has required those to have been completed by the end of March. The idea is we're going to try to have a few iterations of feedback there to make sure everybody's operating in the same direction. We're also going to try to recognize and redirect efforts among different players, headquarters, regions, states, Indian tribes, local governments, and other local stakeholders. Obviously, we've got to determine some funding and programmatic adjustments that are going to have to be made to really facilitate the full carrying out of this approach which is different and will require some adjustments. In his statement about where the Clean Water Act ought to go, President Clinton did include watershed management as a central tenet. The idea there was to vest the major responsibility in the states with a federal role that would be supportive of the states, and to provide great flexibility and some incentives with regard to the way we operate our regulatory programs to make it worthwhile for states to seek and carry out such a role. Let's turn to HR-961, the House Clean Water Bill. Bob Perciasepe, in a letter to the Congressional leadership, referred to the Watershed Provisions of HR-961 as "hollow". There was a little bit of a shell, but nothing that would really help us. Reauthorization would be very helpful clearly in a lot of ways. But we don't believe it's critical. We think it could build on the progress that we've already made, but we do think there's a lot of flexibility in the Act already that will allow us to move forward with watershed management. We have proposed to the Congress and elsewhere some funding accountability, flexibility in both of those areas and some streamlining incentives. We believe that synchronizing the NPDES Page 13 ------- permits, for example, can be done within the current law. We know that Texas and Oklahoma already are moving in that direction. The President has indicated that he is going to provide strong support for a good Clean Water Act and that he's going to push back on private property notions which can get in the way of watershed management. They have more severe effects on wetland regulatory programs and endangered species programs, but it can also become an impediment to watershed management particularly if some of the more extreme versions of legislation pass. Then, finally, I just want to say a couple of things about the EPA region that we're in. Region 6. Really should have said EPA Region 6, because obviously some of you in the room have different regions. But there's already a lot of progress here and that's one reason that we were pleased and honored to have the opportunity to join you uMhis conference. Let me just mention a couple of things. Arkansas — the Buffalo River Watershed Project -- already has a major initiative dealing with swine waste management problems in that area. The lady who manages that project is here with you today. There is a Lower Mississippi River Wetlands Conservation Plan that's being developed in Arkansas. There's also, I think, some people representing that group here. Louisiana is developing a general watershed strategy with Region 6. There are already some important pilot projects in Lake Pontchartrain in the Tangipahoa River. Tangipahoa River, for example, has a lot of cooperators working with it. The Louisiana D.E.Q. the Natural Resource Conservation Service, formerly S.C.S., of the federal government. The major problem there is dairy waste and that's one of the earlier Region 6 pilot watershed projects. I should also mention that there's some important work going on in the Tensas, and there is a gentleman here from that group, as well, that I met this morning. Oklahoma is developing a Statewide Basin Management approach; and has been working in the Illinois River watershed for several years. New Mexico has the Gila River Watershed Project which involves mainly nonpoint source problems from rangeland over-grazing. A lot of bank stabilization work is going to be necessary there. Texas is implementing the Texas Clean Rivers Act (which provides the kind of authorities that we're talking about); developing a geographic information system and a good basin-by-basin system. There are lots of folks here from the Texas state government, and I'm sure many of them will be on the program. Page 14 ------- Finally, many of the Indian tribes within the region are also doing some important work in this area. In many cases, that involves initially getting water quality standards programs in place that can help set the benchmarks and goals. But we're pleased that there are some tribal representatives participating in this conference and that they're going to be making as much progress as their colleagues in state governments. And finally, very finally, what do we mean by success in watershed management? What is successful watershed management? I think Stan touched on this a little bit. I just want to echo a couple of points. First of all, we'd like to make watershed protection the norm, not the exception. In other words, we're trying to get away from the idea that this is a little showpiece kind of thing. It's a quote "initiative." It's a pilot. It's a demo. Again, it's "every place is a place". We'd like every watershed to be treated comprehensively as a watershed. And when I say we, I'm speaking kind of as the watershed management community, not as EPA. Again, EPA is not running this. I hope that I haven't said anything to confuse that issue. This is not a program. EPA is not in charge. Those are remarkable words. I mean, you're probably not used to hearing them. This is a right thing to do that most of you have already bought into, and I'm here trying to represent, if you will, a national movement, more so than a federal agency, in some of the remarks that I'm making. We also need to get beyond convening to action and results. A lot of people think that once you form the Watershed Management Council you've done your job. Well, that ain't so. If that council or committee or management entity, whatever, doesn't achieve something, then the whole thing has just been window dressing. So we've got to move beyond that. Success is also networking among practitioners. It's getting away from the days when the ground water guy and the surface water guy and the wetlands protection folks and the fish and wildlife people didn't even know each other within the same watershed. That won't do. We've got to get to the point where all those people are working together as colleagues. And finally, it involves integrating the programs themselves to achieve protection, which has probably always been a goal, and restoration, which is a newer goal. Ultimately, bringing all of the United States waters to their full potential from both a water quality standpoint, traditionally defined, and an ecological integrity standpoint is the real goal. Many of us think that watershed management is the way to get there. And, I thank you. Speaker: Myron Knudson Now, if anybody would like to ask any of our speakers to elaborate upon their topics—I'll entertain a couple of questions before we go on a break. Page 15 ------- Question: I somewhat hesitate to drop a hot potato on you, but I'll do it anyway. I noticed that representative from Representative Tauzin's office was unable to participate. Do you know why? Response: Myron Knudson Martin was planning to be here and he called our office Wednesday of this week, saying that something had come up and he was unavailable. We tried to get some other folks. Only last Thursday we were calling and seeing if some of the other Congressman or Senators could provide a representative. They had already made commitments. So we apologize for not having other people here, but that's the way it goes sometimes. Speaker: Myron Knudson % Any other comments? l Question: You talked for a moment about providing increased flexibility and discretion, presumably in applying rules. How do we square that with the need to maintain some minimum standards across the nation so we don't have one state playing off against another to try to compete for economic development? Response: Stan Meiburg I'll take that one but I'll use it probably more as reference to the Air Program and that may help at least clarify some of what that means. Really when you're talking about flexibility, you really have to start translating that down into particular activities before it starts to mean something. In the Air Program, we have two sets of standards that really do apply across the country. We have the national and the air quality standards that set consistent national levels across the country of what constitutes clean air. And then we have requirements and states develop plans to show how those areas are going to get to clean air. The Clean Air Act itself is quite prescriptive about what the contents of those plans might be and what we've been trying to explore in that area is to try to find ways to keep the goals the same way they are, whether it's obtain the air quality standards, reduce toxic emissions by 15% between 1990 and 1996. But at the same time give states more flexibility in how exactly you get to that as long as you get to the same environmental result. I think you'll see the same kind of consistency that you need so that you don't have, as someone referred to it, a race to the bottom in environmental standards, as long as the standards themselves, the pollution reduction Page 16 ------- objectives, and the environmental quality objectives remain consistent. Where I think you can find a lot more flexibility is that EPA with the great assistance of the Congress has gone into great detail about specifying not only what to do but how to do it, and I think there's a lot of room for us to give more flexibility in those areas. Response: And as translated into water, we're not talking about backing off technology based limits, which is the same in the Clean Water Program as the Clean Air. What we're talking about is how do you get to that next level in which many of the cities and some industries are having to meet water quality base limits, which are more stringent than how do you do that and are there other ways other than just regulating one industry to accomplish the goals for a whole basin. As you know—the President a couple of weeks ago came out and said that we would entertain the concept of trading, which Stan mentioned earlier. Well, a way we could translate that is a city who is discharging, and working with farmers or with other city people to reduce the amount of nitrogen coming from runoff, instead of taking the nitrogen out of the treatment plant itself. Those are the kinds of things we're talking about. We are not talking about getting away from protecting the basin. If you heard what Stan said, one of the things he said was how much farther the companies can go from where they are, but allowing them flexibility within their plant. In other words, bubble the plant and don't be so prescriptive on what each process has to accomplish. And that's the way we do with technology based limits. Just bubble the plant and say, "You've got this goal to meet. This particular waste —plant might have twice as much because discharge, so to speak, but if the whole plant has less discharge, that's okay." That's what we're sort of looking at. Response: Can I add just a little bit to that? To maybe describe in the context of a somewhat different kind of program — the wetlands program. There we're not dealing with a sort of an absolute standard that's as easy to describe perhaps as in the air and traditional water programs. But the same kind of principle applies in that we're looking more at protecting the wetlands within a basin using basin wide mitigation banks, for example, as a way of dealing with some of the compensation, rather than the kind of site by site, discharge by discharge, approach that we've traditionally employed. So even though the working operation in the field is different, the principle is the same. It's how are we going to attain the same ultimate goal, but perhaps in a slightly different way of doing it, that takes greater cognizance of the larger ecological realities and not just the single site discharge pipe or whatever. And then on a slightly different spin, there's another kind of flexibility that's important, too. It's not just flexibility in terms of how we meet standards and limits, but also flexibility in the Page 17 ------- way we administer a lot of things like grants, for example, paperwork requirements, information collection and so forth. We're trying to streamline, consolidate, simplify all of that in ways that will better facilitate management on a geographic basis. Page 18 ------- Watershed Roundtable (10:30-11:45AM) Speaker: Myren Knudson, Director, Water Management Division, U.S. E.P.A; Dallas, Texas We would like to start this session and this will be chaired by Kolleen Wilwerding, who's representing Mark Rose. Kolleen is the Director of the Environmental Quality Division of the Lower Colorado River Authority. She's been involved in water quality activities for the past ten years and including not only LCRA, but the City of Austin. So with degrees of Bachelor and Masters in Geography, she is well suited for this particular job and is also the Manager of the Integrated Natural Resource Planning. Thank you for pitch hitting for Mark and I'll turn the program over to you, Kolleen. Speaker: Kolleen Wilwerding, Director of the Environmental Quality Division of the Lower Colorado River Authority; Austin, Texas Thank you, Myron. I guess you realize that I get to introduce you in a minute. I do want to send Mark Rose's regrets. He is busy with the Texas Legislature. Something that we get to track every couple of years, and he would have liked to be here, but he's got his hands full there. I'm pleased to be moderating the panel this morning and I would like to welcome all of our panelists. In reviewing the bios on the plane yesterday, I have no doubt that we're going to have a lively and interesting discussion based on the depth and diversity of the experience of our panelists. What I'd like to do is briefly introduce each of the panelists this morning and then run through the questions or the scenario that we've set up to facilitate the discussion this morning. And then leave a few minutes at the end of the panel for some questions from the audience. So if you want to jot down some questions or thoughts as we work through this, that would be helpful. Starting on my left, Mason Mungle was named the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission on January 30, 1986. His experience as a dairyman, a Conservation District Director, and an Oklahoma Conservation Commissioner gives him a unique understanding of the problems agriculture faces, as well as an understanding of the need to conserve and protect Oklahoma's natural resource base. Bob Hastings is a profession of zoology and Director of the Turtle Cove Environmental Research Station here in Louisiana. He was awarded the Conservation Educator of the Year Award in 1993 from the Governor's Conservation Achievement which is presented by the Page 19 ------- Louisiana Wildlife Federation and, in addition, the Conservation Award in 1995 from the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. I also understand that he's the State Chair of the Sierra Club. Ed Joiner is a third generation dairy fanner. He has held several positions with the Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation. He is currently the Tangipahoa Parish Farm Bureau President, State Board Member of that association, Chairman of the State Dairy Advisory Committee, and also the representative to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. Cliff Glockner has been a conservationist for the past 20 years. Involved in the commercial crabbing industry for the past 45 years, he has worked on various environmental projects for the Lake Pontchartrain Foundation, including serving as their Fishery Advisor. Richard Metcalf is the Health, Safety, and Environmental Affairs Coordinator of the Louisiana Division of Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. Mid-Continent is a trade association which represents individuals and companies, who together produce, transport, refine, and market approximately 90% of Louisiana's oil and gas. Mid-Continent has represented the oil and gas industry in Louisiana since 1923. And finally, Myron was appointed Director of the Water Management Division in May of 1979 at EPA. He is responsible for the implementation of the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and Solid Waste Disposal Act in the Region 6 states. Before 1979, he served as Director of the Environmental Services Division, Region 6, and as an Engineer with the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in Regions 1,4, and 6. As far as the panel goes, what we've done in preparing these gentlemen is asked them to think about several issues and questions relative to the topic of watershed management given the following scenario: The State Legislature has just created a new River Authority to manage a fictitious watershed. I've just been appointed the General Manager. (That's what I really like about this panel.) And my Board of Directors has asked me to draft a White Paper on the environmental protection of the watershed. What I need from everybody this morning is some input from the stakeholders or the interest groups in trying to help me develop this White Paper. The goal is to reach a consensus that I can take away in drafting the issues on paper for my Board, and I think we all know how difficult that is. So let me just briefly run through the questions and then I'm just going to throw them out and you all can respond in order or as you want to, and also just give you a sense of kind of where we're headed with the discussion. Page 20 ------- The first question is: can we agree on a common definition of a watershed or watershed management and what does that really mean to the average citizen, to an industry representative, to environmentalists, to regulators, and to policy makers? That might sound fairly basic, andgiven Dave and StanVcomments mis morning, I think they flid afeirly good job of laying out conceptually what that is. But, in my experience, it's obvious to me that watershed management means many different things to many different people, and so I think it would be rather interesting to hear from such a diverse group of folks about conceptually, what does that really mean and how does that translate into strategies for water quality protection? Also, I'd like to hear some thoughts on what should our strategy or approach be on watershed protection for this fictitious watershed? Should it be a regulatory approach? Voluntary? Land use? Are we talking about ecosystem protection? Kind of the kicker, I suppose, of the whole concept of watershed management is how do you balance — can you use watershed management to facilitate environmental improvements and environmental protection at the same time facilitating sustainable economic development? And I think there's an interesting local issue, I understand, in the legislature right now about should we ban gill nets. I think that's probably a good example of that kind of balance. Also, is the concept of watershed management misused or misrepresented? I think we're seeing an awful lot of changes, not just in Texas, but at the federal level relative to environmental regulations and environmental protection. I'd like to hear about whether or not the panel feels that ecosystem management or watershed management is just another way for environmentalists to stop growth and development. Finally, who pays for watershed management and how should it be paid for? If we don't do a watershed management approach, then what alternative approaches should we be employing? So with that, I'd like to throw open the first question which is hearing the various views and definitions of watershed management. What it might mean to the average person. Mason? Speaker: Mason Mungle, Executive Director, Oklahoma Conservation Commission; Oklahoma, OK Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here this morning. In Oklahoma, we have concentrated our efforts in particular watersheds, priority watersheds, to work with the landowners and other stakeholders within a priority watershed. At the Partnership Meeting in Dallas last fall, I was frustrated to hear about the definition of a watershed. You heard Mr. Davis this morning talk about walking uphill until you walk Page 21 ------- downhill. You have to work within a manageable size watershed in order to achieve your goals. You cannot look at the whole Mississippi River or Red River but prioritize smaller tributaries to work within. When you plan within a watershed for nonpoint source water quality, private property rights should be a very high consideration. The voluntary approach should be the guiding principal. Providing a good cost share program for the stakeholders in that particular watershed is very, very, important in order to achieve your goals. In Oklahoma, we have been involved in the small upstream flood control program since the 1940s. The only way that we were able to initiate a flood control program within a basin was to work with the property owners in that area for watershed protection. With that kind of history, we've been able to blend in a watershed approach for water quality much more efficiently. One last statement I would make is that there is different shareholders within individual watersheds. You have the private properties, the dairies, the hog operations, the chicken operations, homeowners, riparian management, all of those deal with the individual needs. Then you have the larger ones such as municipalities and industries that are also contributing to the water quality within the watershed, and if we don't look at all of the contributors or the whole picture you may not be able to accomplish your goals. Speaker: Bob Hastings, Director, Turtle Cove Biological Research Station; Hammond, LA I would first of all emphasize that in many places you have a very definite watershed, but in Louisiana, you don't have uphill and downhill. You just have wetland. And so sometimes it's very difficult to see the boundaries between watersheds. That certainly confuses the issue here. In response to the question about what the average citizen thinks of watershed management, I would just emphasize that I think the average citizen has no idea what a watershed is and certainly has no idea what watershed management is or should be. And so with this River Authority, I would say one of the major functions that it would have to serve initially would be education to tell the average citizen what is involved in protecting a watershed and especially what agencies are involved. And emphasize, I think, that this is not a simple issue of stopping pollution or protecting aquatic life or whatever. It's a very complex issue of integrating many different agencies and their approaches to water protection, to wildlife protection, to farm land protection, and all of this has to be coordinated in some way. So I would think that this River Authority might have as its main function to try to coordinate all Page 22 ------- of these different diverse activities to bring together a coordinated approach to protecting the watershed. Speaker: Ed Joiner, Chairman, Dairy Advisory Board, Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation; Franklinton, LA Being from the same flatland as Bob, when you're talking about watershed approach, individuals may not understand that. We understand drainage down here. We understand canals, ditches, and flooding. I've been of the contention that when you get back to water quality in some of the local situations, people prefer dirty water in the river rather than hi the house. And that, sometimes, conflicts with what we're trying to do as far as overall compliances with current laws or developing future plans. My understanding of the watershed approach would be that we take our limited resources and try to identify our main sources of pollution and really try to address those issues rather than take the shotgun approaches that have been used in the past. I think from the agricultural community you would find a lot of agreement in that. We had, as Bob said, a lot of education process to go through — not only of the citizens in the watershed that we're trying to develop, but of the regulatory authorities ~ those who work with the local people to try to improve quality. There's been misunderstandings and lack of understanding from the regulatory side. As far as we can determine, sometimes, you're sitting in your office situations looking at a regulatory situation and you may not have an understanding of why we're having a hard time to develop compliance in an area. I'm a dairy farmer and in our region to understand the situation that we have, you have to understand the development of the dairy industry. The dairy farmers, in my area, are much like the black athlete today in NFL or the National Basketball Association. Through working through a specific area, you achieve economic progress. Both my grandparents started during the Depression Era when there was no employment. Much of our industry developed in this nature as a way to take a poor area, develop their own self-employment skills and industry, and from that standpoint, that's how the dairy industry and the Florida parishes developed. In West Texas, New Mexico, the background is completely different. You would find a different economic base and reasons for dairying and probably a different way you would have to attack those folks as far as getting them to understand their positions in this watershed approach and driving their efforts to help your efforts. Definitions, again, by location, you would probably have to have some education on both sides of the fence to have success, and you would have to find who you could form the alliances that you make to make these programs successful. There's probably a diverse group within each watershed. I know that when we started out in our particular situation, Bob's Page 23 ------- group and my group probably didn't see eye to eye on certain things, but as we worked through some of our problems, I believe we learned to respect and work with each other's groups much more closely with a common solution. So I don't know if there's any one answer to all those. Kolleen Wilwerding: Let me break in for a second and as a dairyman and a producer, what does watershed management mean to you? What does it mean in terms of how you manage your business? Ed Joiner: We're heavily regulated in many aspects and today it means compliance with the EPA regulations first of all. How do we from the business standpoint do what we have to do to bring ourselves into compliance? How do we afford to do it? How do we afford to maintain that situation in the future? From an economic standpoint, some people are having to determine whether they want to try to operate under that situation or change their operation or go out. But first of all, it's going to be from an economic standpoint. Kolleen Wilwerding: Cliff? Speaker: Cliff Glockner, Commercial Fisherman, Concerned Crabbers of Lake Pontchartrain; Lacombe, LA Watershed to the average person (I echo with Bob) it means very, very little. But to the commercial fisherman the first thing he's going to think is this is another agency and how is it going to effect my pocketbook. That's the first thing he's going to say. Education, I find, is lacking in this state. A fisherman can tell you what water means to him, whether it be clear or what we call druggy water or any other type of water that you get out of waters or tributaries out of the Gulf. We know what this kind of water means to us because we use it every day to fish. But the average person doesn't know what water really does hi our industry and how it affects us. One of those, I guess I can give you a for instance. There was the Bonnet Carre project which was supposed to enhance wetlands and to increase oyster production at the Cabbage Head Reef. That was going to completely destroy Lake Pontchartrain. The fishermen knew it, but it seemed like the scientists couldn't come to a consensus. Even the environmentalists agreed that this was a good project. It took us about five years to change their minds; that it was a Page 24 ------- bad project. So it seems to me that a lot of scientists and a lot of environmentalists and a lot of agencies really don't know sometimes what the systems needs or how much of it it needs. Cause this time if they would have done it like it was originally planned, it would have backfired big time. So it's--not only citizens mat have to be educated ^f what good water quality means. I think agencies need to get more in contact with people that deal hi the environment every day, such as commercial fisherman, before they make judgments. Because we're the ones that have to live with it. Speaker: Richard Metcalf, Health, Safety and Environmental Coordinator, Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas; Baton Rouge, LA I think in the industry it is bringing about a new mentality. I mean, I concur with what everybody else has said. For roughly 25 years, we've been very end of pipe oriented environmentalists. What was coming out of the pipe was the bottom line number. Nobody really thought past that. And what it's now doing is it's making us look at the area as a whole. This is where we live. You know, we don't just work here. We live around these areas. We play in these areas. We fish. We hunt. You know, we do things. So it's bringing about a different mentality, I think, within the industry, slowly but surely, to look at the big picture. I think the thing that's most exciting to us is it will bring about, hopefully, a more cost effective way to improve the environment. Once again, we've been very selective; EPA, the states, whomever write rules, targeting certain groups, and there are limited dollars. We could take those same dollars and put them in a pool and spend them a lot more wisely. Get a lot more bang for the buck, and get a lot of improvement. We've spent a lot of money and yet some people have said, "Gee, things haven't improved any." Because they really can't see the improvement. Because we've probably not spent a lot of the money the right way. So like I said, it has brought about a new mentality in industry or is bringing about a new mentality, and we see it as a way to more cost efficiently spend the few dollars that are out there. Kolleen Wilwerding: Myron. Speaker: Myron Knudson, Director, Water Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX I guess I'm supposed to speak as a regulator. Page 25 ------- Kolleen Wilwerding: Also, Myron, if you wouldn't mind, I know you're going to give us your thoughts, but I'd also like you to kind of summarize the concept and what everybody said at this point. Myron Knudson: I think that as a River Authority, the River Authority has the ability to do what Mason was talking about. Bring things down to a more finite area — more finite than the state government, certainly more finite than the federal government. A Council of Governments could do the same kind of an operation. But I think the average citizen as Bob, Cliff and Ed mentioned, doesn't really know what watershed means, but they do. And I think Cliff pointed that the average person really knows what they are. I say average. I'm talking about the average user. Those that are affected, like fisherman, know what is right and what's wrong. And Cliff, I do confess, I do now know that Lake Pontchartrain needs to be protected. He was just getting back at me for not understanding how important Lake Pontchartrain was. But we now have religion and we're working with you. Anyway, the average citizen is the one that pays the tax bills, if you will, and does keep us going. They're the ones that really are the customers and so I think the River Authority, if it's going to continue to exist should, provide a good, prompt service. Those that don't will be sunsetted, so to speak. That certainly is the way it should be. I mean, if we're not providing a good service, we bureaucrats and regulators, then we ought not be there. We ought to move on to the new paradigm as Stan Meiburg was talking about. We need to change the way we think and do business, and I think the average citizen will see that with this new River Authority if the River Authority takes the position that its job is to facilitate the understanding of the average citizen on what that citizen needs to do. That's what we're getting down to. How the individual behaves. Ed, you were talking about how it affects you. It's how you behave on your property. I mean, that's what we're talking about, and we're helping a little bit. But there are a lot of people who aren't big enough for us to help, so to speak, in issuing a regulation that says "Thou shall." There are a lot of dairy farmers who aren't now necessarily covered by regulations who are small operators; but with education, would do the right thing. We know that they do that. Mason has been involved, in his organization for years, educating people on how to apply the manure, chicken litter, or whatever to the land properly so that you don't have the runoffs. So in essence, the farmer doesn't lose his cash product, which is out on the land and he doesn't really want it in the stream or in the lake either. He would rather have it on the land doing good than washed off. So I think if we change the way we do business Page 26 ------- and education, and I think the new River Authority would do well to have that as a central theme to help the public understand all these things. KoHeen, I hope feat summarized. I teiow I left industry out, but industry has always — done its thing, basically. They're in compliance with all the rules and regulations at the present time in the U.S., at least in our region. Since 1977, industry's been in compliance. Cities basically came into compliance in '88, and since then, we've been looking to see how to improve the water quality on the margin. And we can't get there. As you just heard, EPA and the states can't get there by ourselves. We have to do it a different way and I think the River Authority could provide that mechanism to reach down into the communities and do the work at the community level. Kolleen Wilwerding: Thanks, Myron. Listening to the comments, one of the things that struck me was one of the key issues, it seems to me, is how do you set up an equitable process when you talk about watershed management? Because private property rights are important, there's a lot of different things to consider and balance. As general manager, I would like to hear your thoughts on what process we should be running here? And secondly, what are the key components of a watershed management plan? Are we talking about regulations or voluntary? One of the things that I'm hearing is that there's not enough education out there. LCRA is in the process right now, amidst all the regulatory reform, of trying to pass a nonpoint source ordinance for one of our downstream counties. And you can believe that that's hot a real popular idea. But we're running a fairly open process and it's been very difficult to even get the issues on the table. So I'd like some advice on that. Mason Mungle: In order for the shareholders to understand what the watershed is, you must delineate the boundaries. This should be a visual delineation, preferably a map. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) will help with this visual identification of known information. What is the past monitoring activities in that watershed? What is available through the conservation districts and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as far as land use and soils information? What are the additional needs within that system? By using this delineation the shareholders may want to prioritize smaller watersheds within the basins in order to accomplish their goals of water quality improvement. The shareholders within a watershed must consider regulatory and voluntary approaches. What industries or municipalities are permitted under a regulatory program? Page 27 ------- Kolleen Wilwerding: Mason, do you feel that the agricultural community has bought into the concept of watershed management? Mason Mungle: Each particular watershed is different. We've had good education program with landowners that bought in and those that didn't. Those that bought in, bought in big time. Up to 95 % of the landowners within the watershed implemented practices. Those that didn't buy in, we recognized a different mind sent plus a lot of landowners that weren't living on the land. They were landowners that may be out of state, so we had a problem with communicating with the landowners and the land managers. You must look closely at the problems of the watershed plus the constituency of the watershed. Kolleen Wilwerding: Bob. Bob Hastings: I guess I'd like to address the question of what is the process of developing a watershed management program. I'm not sure I can answer the question, but I think I can at least put it in perspective, at least from my opinion. We're going to manage our watersheds one way or the other. We're either going to develop a good comprehensive, well thought out management program that works, or we're going to mismanage our watershed, which is also a type of management, but certainly in the wrong direction. And it's going to result in a management program that responds to crisis, not to the up front solving of problems before they develop into a crisis. And I think we see that very clearly in this area; probably in all areas really. It certainly applies to the upper Mississippi Valley as well as to the lower Mississippi Valley and Louisiana. But if we don't manage our watersheds and we let people develop and build houses or other developments in wetlands areas that are prone to flooding, we're going to come back later on and we're going to have to bail out those people. We're going to have to help them solve their problems of flooding and water pollution and wetlands degradation. We're going to lose resources that we could have protected up front. And so I think that a main part of this process, and the educational process that goes with it is to convince people that we've got to do that management up front rather than waiting until the end to try to solve all these crises. Page 28 ------- Ed Joiner: One thing that I believe you'll have to do up front in establishing a watershed is to identify all the major players. If youdon^do this, either they will identify themselves and may develop as an opposition to what you're trying to accomplish or you'll have to bring them in later. Major players will identify themselves. You need as much grassroots participation from that standpoint as possible. I know in our particular situation, when the agricultural industry got involved, there was an initial confrontation. Later, we helped develop an education process for our industry and promoted that particular process. I feel we were very responsible in doing that. But we weren't in the initial emphasis in the Florida parishes. As far as regulatory and mandatory against voluntary, from an industry standpoint, I think this is where some of the mood of Congress has changed in that mandatory regulations, when you look at property rights, a lot of individual's property rights, property owners look at regulatory situation and mandatory situations as regulatory takings of property, and I believe this is where a big emphasis is taking place in Congress. If a property owner has to go through an economic expense for the common good of all, but as far as his business situation, very little economic benefit to himself, it's a real disadvantage, and voluntary cost share is a viable option. This doesn't rule out when you have a bad actor clause or whatever in the situation for somebody who will not clean up his act. But again, if we're doing something for the benefit of all, it should be a common expense incurred. Cliff Glockner: Let me tell you about a success story with wetlands, dealing with about 4,000 acres near my house. For years, I watched these wetlands almost get developed — housing projects. I knew one day somebody, somewhere, sometime, would come up with the money and all this wetland would go. About 12-14,000 acres of it would be wiped out. But these people been having these wetlands for years and years. I know them. I know the Parreters. I know the Plaunches. All of them that own these wetlands. Been paying taxes for years. They lease the land for trapping. They leased it for duck hunting to try to regain some of these monies that they spend on the land every year. Sometimes it's barely enough to pay their taxes. The majority of the time it's not enough. My personal feeling is I can't go up there and say to them, "You can't do anything with your land to regain your money. Because it's valuable to me as a commercial fisherman. This is where my fisheries come from." 1 couldn't do that. These people got a lot of money invested there. So we did something new. We got businesses to come together, environmentalists, sport fisherman, commercial fisherman, all, and we worked with the foundation and we bought this property and set it aside. Made it a refuge. Instead of fighting flash fires, stopping this person from developing just a little small patch of wetlands, we chose to go the opposite way. Try to find the monies to buy thousands of acres and put it on the side. Now business is elated with it. Because all these housing projects are going to join up right up the Rails to Trails in a national wildlife refuge. The real estate is Page 29 ------- going to boom in St. Tammany Parish just by doing just that, and I think these things can be done in other parts of the country, too, not just in St. Tammany. We can put wetlands aside and rivers aside and make it scenic waterways for the future generations. But we also have to protect the land owners and we have to repay them some kind of way, whether it be some kind of tax break or something. People have spent a lot of money over the years and they need to recapture some of this money back, and I recognize it to be that way and I can sympathize with them. We own 120 acres of marshland ourselves. There's no way you can develop this land, nor do we want to. But we pay taxes on it every year, and we know what a burden it can be sometimes to pay these taxes and get no money back. Richard Metcalf: I concur with an earlier statement that you really need to involve everybody and everybody early. But you need to understand what their needs are in the area. In industry, what are industry's needs. I mean, as much as some people don't like us, we need to exist. But what are those needs and then what are their constraints? You cannot sit back and impose a requirement that is outside the bounds of that industry or that group or that person to pay for. So you need to really understand and get out on the table what is needed by the groups involved and then what are their constraints. You also need to know where you are, where you're starting from. A lot of times we've never looked at exactly where we're starting from. What's the quality today. And then you need to set a goal of where you want to go. You might not want to go as far as being able to swim in it, drinking water quality, whatever. But some of you might; some of you might not. So I think you need a clear understanding of where you are today and a clear understanding of where you want to go. And then you just prioritize what are the things you need to get there? I would like to say that there would be no need for regulation. I, as an environmental lobbyist, would be out of work if there was no need for regulation, so I'm not that stupid. So I think there would be a need for regulation, but it is a need for smart regulation. There are concepts that are used in the air programs and non attainment areas where it allows for new industry to come in, allows for expansion, but for every unit of pollution they add or emissions they add, they take away 1.2 units from somewhere. Such that there's always a net benefit to the activity. In a broad regulatory scheme like that where yes, you can come in; yes, you can make changes; but when you make those changes, we want you to offset those changes to some degree, not necessarily at your facility, in the most cost efficient manner, but then take a little bit more away. That, I think, makes good economic sense, is a good expenditure of our dollars, yet lets everybody still play and meet the needs that they have. Myron? Page 30 ------- Myron Knudson: Well, process of watershed. Development, activities. Obviously, what we're talking about. You just heard all Ae speakers say really we're talking about riow^oes everything relate «id interact in the watershed—it's an interaction of industry and agriculture and people in living our lives, and then how do we work as a team to manage that activity? I think we have to adapt. The watershed approach in Oklahoma is going to be a little different than the watershed approach in Louisiana, Southern Louisiana anyway. So again, I think we're coming back to how do we provide that information so that the public can make conscious decisions on what is best for their area. One of the things I'd be remiss in saying is when we say watershed, as Dave Davis said, we're talking about things other than surface water here. He talked about getting down the river and looking back up. Well, we're talking about that. The habitat and the related activities that are adjacent to land are extremely important. Those of you involved in the wetlands know that if you plow right down to the edge of a wetland and you farm all around it, that wetland isn't worthless, but it sure isn't worth very much as far as wildlife is concerned. Because you need the uplands to go with the wetlands hi order to provide that protection, nesting, and other related activities. So it's a more holistic look. Then the other activity that we shouldn't forget about is, maybe not especially here in Louisiana, but in other parts of our region, ground water plays a significant role in the watershed because that's the base flow in the stream; most of our river streams hi summer are from ground water. So whatever happens to the ground water is also going to be picked up in the bays, estuaries, rivers, and lakes. So I'm really not adding anything because it's already been said. I just wanted to try to summarize it. I would say that, bragging a little bit, we have a document out called The Region 6 Watershed Strategy and if you look at the six guiding principles, these folks in one way or another have touched on those. This is a little succinct document that I would encourage you all to look at and we're going to give this to the new River Basin Authority so that you as general manager will know how to do this. Kolleen Wilwerding: Thank you. Thanks, Myron. Well, a couple of things that I took away from those comments were that it's real important to get everybody to the table in the beginning. That's not always very easy. There's an awful lot of dancing around that goes on. So I think that what you've noted, Richard, is real important, and that is that you really need to define what the issues are Page 31 ------- up front an give yourself a goal to shoot for. What is the collective goal of the group in a watershed management plan, and I think we spend an awful lot of time and money pursuing the concept of the plan without really defining those goals up front. So I think your comments are right on. One of the things I'd be interested in hearing about, and then we'll hopefully open it up for questions here in a minute, but who's going to pay for watershed protection plans and how do you ensure that that's an equitable process as well? Myron, why don't you start on that question? Myron Knudson: Okay. Typically, in society, since we're not a socialistic country, everything isn't going to be equitable and even. I submit even in socialistic and even communist countries everything is not equal either. As regulators, we tend to ask people who have the ability to pay to pay more than those who are more diffuse. In other words, it's easier for a regulator to tax discharge point sources than it is to tax the thousand — as Mason said earlier — the thousand people hi the basin. It's a lot easier to tax those three or four that he talked about. So I think it's inevitable that we will always have a user fee or permit fee to run the watershed approach, just because that's the way it's convenient. I really don't know how to do it other than as we do. In some of the agencies, including EPA, we operate off of general funds, which in essence taxes those thousand people. But I don't see that as the way that this particular mood of government is going to continue. I think if we have a watershed approach, I think you'll have to see how that is paid for more locally than from either the state government or the federal government. So I think we just have to start being more realistic that if the people can see the benefit I think they will do something. I just mentioned one thing that is very expensive and that is a household hazardous waste collection program. It's extremely expensive to cities to operate. But some cities have been doing it for several years because that's what their public wanted and the public was willing to pay for that. So I think those were educated communities where that occurred. We are now helping people, so to speak. In several state agencies, most of our states now give small grants to cities to set up a household hazardous waste collection program to try to get them going. Get it started, and then it would be -- in essence, the people in the watershed would pay for keeping out hazardous wastes that would get in the storm water or go down the sewer line and eventually just go right through the treatment plant. So I think the watershed approach is so many things. But I think household hazardous waste is a very good example of what the public is willing to pay for out of their own pocket, even though it might cost a $1.00 or $2.00 a month -- and they understand, if they're educated, that they would like to Page 32 ------- have a way to get rid of what they use in the kitchen, in their yard, and in the shop in an effective and easy way. fo Dallas, Tm^till looking^er^ way 4o^et rid^f my antifreeze — there's some people that collect oil and filters, but nobody will pick up antifreeze. And as you all know, antifreeze is one of the most toxic things. You can kill the hell out of a whole stream by just pouring a gallon of antifreeze in it. So I'm maybe a generator of hazardous waste. I don't know. I'm getting so many bottles in my garage, but I'm looking for the day that I can get rid of antifreeze. Dallas will, shortly, I hope, get religion. Kolleen Wilwerding: Richard, let me just preface your comments by asking you a couple more questions. How does the oil and gas industry feel about how equitable you think the costs are distributed for something like a watershed management plan or kind of environmental protection regulations in general? Then secondly, I'd like to hear your take on the legislation that's been introduced and has sailed through the House and Congress on cost benefit and risk assessment. Do you think that's going to contribute to better regulations or is that just going to be another rabbit trail that we're all going to argue about for the next two or three years? Richard Metcalf : I'm not sure which one's the easy one. Basically, industry, I don't think, has a problem paying fees for "services rendered. " You need to get permits. Discharges basically are not natural. You are creating them. And to pay a fee, basically, to exist, I don't think industry has a problem with it. In fact, it's kind of funny. Louis Johnson, from the D.E.Q. is sitting in the audience and we're battling over fees as we speak — proposed fee schedule increases. Most of the industry's concern is where you're going to spend the money. If I'm going to pay a fee, I want at least a good majority of that — knowing that this is not an equitable world — to go to activities dealing with me. I don't' want pay a fee to hire an inspector who's going to inspect municipal runoff or something that's not dealing with me, because then the fee starts to become a tax. While there's an anti-tax mood, there's not exactly an anti-fee mood. And so as long as the service — and although it doesn't have to be 100% — as long as roughly what we're paying for we're receiving in services from the agency ~ site permits, guidance, direction, management, whatever — we generally don't have a problem with fees. And I don't think people have a problem with fees if they see progress, and I think that's been part of the problem with this anti-tax mentality is they just don't see progress for the money they're paying or benefit from the money they're paying. But I think if you go to the people with a specific program like recycling or whatever, and say, "This is what I'm going to spend it for and you're going to see something happen. " Then I don't think people have a problem with fees. Page 33 ------- Our basic position on money would be everybody should pay. Everybody who contributes should pay, whether it's one for one; no, it will never be that. It's a lot easier to charge fees on industry or people who are nameless and faceless. But like I say, as long as everybody contributes to some degree, and frankly, we've gotten away from that in Louisiana at the D.E.Q. The public's out of the equation. The general fund tax money has disappeared. At one time there was roughly $14 million, up to a third of the D.E.Q. 's budget. Now it's zero. I mean, it's EPA grants, your tax money coming from the feds, and it's industry or the communities who pay fees So to some degree, if everybody is involved, I think industry doesn't have a problem paying a little more or a little extra. Once again, we want to see the money used efficiently, wisely, not abused, and we'd like to see everybody contribute. The legislation in Congress. There is also legislation in Louisiana's Legislature, as we speak, put in by the multiple trade associations that represent industry. Will it slow down things? Sure. I mean, I probably would be lying if I said, gee, it would be business as usual. I've been in this business of arguing regulations for almost 12 years. It is very rarely the goal that we argue about. You know, what are we trying to accomplish by a regulation? It's basically how the regulation gets there. There's roughly an old adage that says, 80% of the reduction can come at 20% of the cost. And it's generally that last little 20% where all the money is, is what we're fighting over. And so I would hope that the goal of legislation is more let's look and see if we're spending money wisely. Are we giving people options to do other solutions? If your goal is to reduce Benzene emission by 10%, are they given the flexibility to do it in the most cost efficient manner? That has not been the case. We've been in a command and control mode. You will cut it 10%. You will cut it this way andyou will put these bells and whistles on it. And we've spent a lot of money where we could make the same 10% cut for a lot less money. This is a personal opinion, I'm not involved in that legislation, but I think if it just allows more flexibility in how we spend money and are we spending money on the right types of things versus the easiest targets to pick on, then it's good legislation. If it is intended to monkey up the works and slow things down and be another hurdle just to be a hurdle, then I think it's bad policy; and as all policy and laws and regulations, it's in the hands of the people who implement it. Let's just see how it turns out. Kolleen Wilwerding: Gentlemen, do you have anything to add to that? No? Yes, Mason? Page 34 ------- Bob Hastings: Yes, I'd like to comment on this question of who pays. I've always been sort of an idealist whenit^omes to economic issues. £o maybe I'm not merest person to answer the question of who should pay. But let me go back to what I said earlier and that is we're going to manage our watersheds one way or the other. We're either going to manage them properly or we're going to mismanage them. If we look at that in economic terms, I could also say we're either going to pay for managing our watershed or we're going to pay for mismanaging them. We either pay the fees up front to properly regulate industry, municipalities, individual citizens, and regulate the pollution going into our waterways or we're going to pay to clean up that pollution downstream. Or, if we don't clean it up, we're going to pay in lost benefits such as recreational opportunities, fishery reductions, and aesthetics. Somebody's going to pay. I think this is one thing we really have to emphasize to the average citizen — we're paying. I can relate a local example which is a perfect example of what I'm trying to say. I've been actively involved with a local grassroots organization called Citizens for a Clean Tangipahoa. The Tangipahoa River has been cited as one of the prime programs for EPA and we've had a tremendous success record on trying to get the Tangipahoa River cleaned up. But if you go back to 1987, the Tangipahoa River was worth $4.5 million to the local economy, and that's a conservative estimate. There were tremendous recreational opportunities on the Tangipahoa River. The camping, tubing, and swimming industry brought a tremendous amount of money into the local economy. In 1987, the Tangipahoa River was posted. It was closed to swimming and recreational activities. So in effect, $4.5 million was taken out of the local economy and somebody paid that $4.5 million. We paid it in lost benefits as well as economic benefits that we could have been enjoying on the Tangipahoa River. Mason Mungle: I would like to give you an example of shareholder buy in. I'm a dairy producer. I'm at the top of the watershed. The river authority tells me that I've got to put in a lagoon. I already have a small lagoon that's taking care of my dairy barn. I've got to put in a lagoon that's going to cost me $10,000. I've got to put in a new septic tank. I've got to buy a new manure spreader to spread the manure or to pump it out of the lagoon. The total figure is going to cost me $50,000 to change my operation. I can barely send my oldest child to college, much less the next two children. I have to get loans to send them to college. You're telling me that I've got to spend $50,000 to help people that are 15-20 miles away or even downstream at the end of the Mississippi River. I'm not buying into that. I'm not going to buy into that! I may go out of business, go into town and get a job, and take my family into the city. Page 35 ------- How do you get those kind of people to buy into a water quality program? There has been some suggestions of trading of nutrient credits. If the regulatory and voluntary shareholders consider trading credits, how does this transfer to funds for a cost share program? I'm willing to help with the water quality. I'm willing to put in a system. I'm willing to do my part, but I'm not willing to cough up $50,000 to do something that's going to benefit the public downstream. Ed Joiner: You're misunderstanding why people are still dairying and you're out of it. We're doing it for the fun of it. We love to get up at 2:30 or 3:00 in the morning and smell like a cow for most of the day. But we don't have to deal with most people like you, except for issues like this. That is in the mind set of a lot of agriculture. It's a definite situation. Got to remember, now, in agriculture, as far as the illustration that you just had, I don't know what it is in Oklahoma, but in Louisiana the average of the dairy farmer is 60 years of age. It's an old industry. Again, relating back to how I describe dairy farmers in our area. They have ascended the economic scale through hard work, making it on their own, and, all of a sudden ~ even though the situation's been the same ~ the rules have changed on them. How do we pay for this? I was thinking something from my youth when I was trained in an old Southern Baptist church. I remember a passage from the Bible. I can't remember where it's from, but I know it's there. The poor will always be among us. How do you pay for all this? We're going to have to utilize resources we have. But we also need to make sure that we're killing the right dragons. The scenario that Dr. Hastings just discussed is true. We lost a $4.5 million tubing industry. From someone who was raised on the banks of the Tangipahoa River, a property owner, some property owners, I know, feel good about that. You look at the river and about Tuesday the yellow tint in the river changes back to the natural color of the river because all the Budweiser released during the weekend tubing activities has finally passed. But that's a selfish motive as a property owner. Located next to my farm is the Southeast Research Facility ~ the research dairy facility run by L.S.U. They're running some studies on coliform as far as nonpoint runoff on their farm. And they are using what they call a basin, a pristine piece of land that adjoins them, across the road. There are no animals. There are no homes. There are no people. When there is a rain event, and they take a sample, that pristine runoff is out of standard. I don't know what pristine means. When I was raised on the Tangipahoa River, we had a rule as far as swimming in the river. When the river is up, you don't swim. When the river is down, you can go swimming. This Page 36 ------- doesn't mean that the river is not showing signs of some pollution. But as the gentleman from the industry states, the last 20% of the pollution, is it effective to kill that last 20%? Do we have the resources to do a job completely because of some standard. I don't know. I know swimming in the river 3ttimes4& not healthy, but at omer times, I don't feetlike there's a health problem. The dairy industry in Tangipahoa Parish is worth $300 million a year. For a $4.5 million tubing industry, it's not worth killing a $300 million industry. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a tubing industry, cause I do enjoy tubing myself, and it should be an activity for those people who don't have the opportunity to visit and live in a rural environment. I don't think Bob and I are that far apart on it and we know there's some common solutions. But within those common solutions, we need to make sure that they are feasible solutions and that we can come to a determination of what's got to be done with the dollars we've got to use. Cliff Glockner: I think every watershed has got to tell individual programs what the people want. How much is it worth to the people hi the community? Just like the tubing industry out there and the dairy industry. Both of them are important. I think they need to reach a balance. The fishing industry and the oil industry. Both are important. The fishing industry was at one time — billion plus. It's since gone down. One of the things that comes to mind when you talk about money to pay for these things and who is liable. They put a channel through. It's called the M.R.G.O. Destroyed 170,000 acres of wetlands in just a little over seven or eight years. It went from pristine, fresh water and brackish marshes to pure salt. Totally unproductive. The fishing industry collapsed in this whole area. The people were promised that the ship channel would come through and it would be a big boom. All of New Orleans would prosper. But it didn't materialize. But who pays now? The taxpayers are paying $20,000 a ship, right now, to use the channel. The fisherman are paying with their livelihoods. They don't have them anymore. They're going totally out of business. Who pays for that? Does the responsibility fall on the whole United States, because Congress said this is a good project? And everybody knew it was a bad project hi Louisiana. I don't have the answer. I don't know who should pay. Like the oil companies. Oil companies drilled in our state — natural gas and oil. We need oil. I used oil getting to this place today. I use oil every day I go out. We all need it. We depend on it. But these canals and navigation channels that cut through the marsh, that salt water intrusion is coming in. Our fishery is depleted. Who pays for that? Every one of you comes from different states. Gentleman, here from Oklahoma, has a dairy farm. Oil and natural gas conies from here — keeps his lights going, tractors going, trucks going. Should he pay for it? Page 37 ------- Maybe so. Maybe everybody should chip in to help rebuild what has been torn down in this state. I've seen a lot of destruction in this state. I know we need the profits. But there's got to be some balance, some thin line drawn so that industry can survive and natural resources, renewable resources, can survive too. I know we need oil and natural gas, but we need these i resources, cause they're renewable. One day the oil companies will be gone. It will be a dry f hole. But we don't want our renewable resources to be gone with them. j Kolleen Wilwerding: Thanks, Cliff. Richard has one more brief comment. Richard Metcalf: Yes, I just want to make one brief comment. We're getting down to who pays and basically we know we all pay. It's hi the prices of the products we buy; whether it be gasoline, whether it be milk, whether it be shrimp, whatever. I mean, it's funny, but there's a lot of people who say they're environmentalists, but squawk when the price of a gallon of gasoline goes up a penny. So until the mentality of all of us, in this room and outside this room, changes and we are willing to accept a little higher cost to do some of the things we need to do, we're going to have the same debate we're having today. That's the only comment I wanted to make. Kolleen Wilwerding: Question? Comments? I know enough of you in the audience that I could call on some people if we don't get any volunteers. Question: One of the things from this morning's talks that struck home was that we don't seem to have a benefit going to the watershed approach that will stick to everybody — all the stakeholders. We've talked about that the prescriptive method won't really work. Then we talk about the costs and nobody wants to pay the cost or raise the fees. Is it possible that allowing more flexibility and staying away from prescriptive approaches is really where the watershed approach may be? Right now we have it where without some force to push us to do stuff, like the federal government, everybody says, "Well, that doesn 't have to be done yet. We can wait on that." Avoiding the prescriptive approach by either the federal government or the state, is that a way that the watershed approach can really get implemented? Page 38 ------- Response: Let me see if I can deal with that a little bit. I think it's important to first look at the watershed approach. I don't think, looking back to one of our flood control projects, that we could have taken the whole Washita Basin and said we're going to have flood control unless we went into individual watersheds and tried to prioritize where that flooding was coming from. The same way with the water quality. We have to look at what the problems are and where some of those problems are coming from. Certainly, they could be from a municipality or from the agriculture sector. We should be able to bring those stakeholders together. That's what we were talking about here — the River Authority can act as a sounding board for the people; to bring them in and talk about what benefits it provides. Well, one benefit is recreational economic development. Another benefit is providing jobs for industry, for agriculture, and other people. So I don't think that we can afford not to take the watershed approach and deal with issues that we need to deal with, because there are benefits. There's a benefit to the general public. There's a benefit to the community that's discharging into the river. There's a benefit to land owners within the watershed to improve their economic situation through better technology and better land practices being implemented. So it's multiple benefits and we have to look towards that goal. Kolleen Wilwerding: Can you make it quick, Ed? Ed Joiner: Yeah, to say the watershed approach may not be good or whatever, looks to me like from the time that I started my involvement in this process that the watershed approach has taken great steps forward in that type of approach than from a regulatory blanket issue ~ "we only solve a problem by this" just doesn't work. It's a great advancement. Myron Knudson: Okay. I'll take over, if you don't mind, and tell everybody that we're going to lunch now. Page 39 ------- Lunch Speaker; Nancy McKay (11:45AM-1:OOPM) Speaker: Susan Branning Nancy McKay is the Executive Director of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. We asked Nancy here to talk about the unique watershed protection activities ongoing in the Puget Sound Area. And so with that, if you would please join me in welcoming Nancy McKay. Speaker: Nancy McKay, Executive Director, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority; Olympia, WA It's a real pleasure to be here. From listening to the sessions this morning I can tell that you are concerned about many of the same issues that concern us hi Washington. I would like to share with you what we've been doing hi Puget Sound. Puget Sound is a very, very beautiful part of the United States up in the very northwest corner. We border on Canada, so we have some interesting similarities there with those of you from Texas and New Mexico, in that we are working very closely with the Canadian government. The Puget Sound basin includes 2,300 hundred miles of shoreline. It's like a fiord. It's very, very deep, up to 930 feet in some of the deepest parts of the Sound. We work with 12 counties that surround the Sound, about 120 cities. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority is a non-regulatory agency that was created by the state government in Washington in 1985. Why was it created? Because people were concerned about what was happening to the Sound. There was increasing growth. There were dead whales showing up on our beaches. We were seeing tumors in the livers of some of the fish on the bottoms of our urban bays around 'the cities of Seattle and Tacoma. Citizens went to the legislature and said, "Well, it's time to do something." The legislature created the Authority. We were asked to look at the institutional setting. There were 500 units of government—federal, state, tribal, local as well as, drainage districts, sewer districts, and others. Each had a little piece of the puzzle of Puget Sound. Each has some control over what happens to the Sound. The legislature directed the Authority to develop a comprehensive plan to protect the Sound. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority is, hi essence, the think tank for Puget Sound. We had to look at what all those different agencies were doing. We also looked at the science of the Sound and we looked at what needs to be done to protect Puget Sound for the next 50 to 100 years. Page 41 ------- We began our work in 1985. We were directed by statute to address a number of issues. The first plan was adopted in 1986 and we've revised it three times since then. The plan covers a number of different issues ranging from ambient monitoring to research, habitat and wetlands protection, nonpoint source pollution, municipal and industrial discharges, and contaminated sediments and dredging. The priority problems that we identified includes toxic contamination; some of the programs that I just mentioned address that issue. The growth of the Puget Sound region is another tremendous challenge. Our growth rate was 23% in the last ten years. We now have about 3.2 million people living in the Puget Sound Basin and that number is expected to grow another 23 % before the turn of the century—so phenomenal growth and all the potential effects to water quality that come with that growth. So what have we been able to do? We have adopted the first set of standards for sediment quality in the United States under this plan. We have new standards for septic systems which are being implemented by the 12 counties with which we work. We're doing a lot of work on septics because, in our part of the world, septics are going to be the choice for sewage treatment in the future. We can't really accommodate the kind of growth that we're facing with traditional sewage treatment plants. Much of our new growth will rely on septic systems. In addition many of the systems installed before 1973-74 are failing. We're working with the State Board of Health and local public health agencies to improve operation and maintenance programs, to improve installation of septic systems, and to study alternative technologies for treatment. Puget Sound is home to hundreds of thousands of boaters. We've been successful in getting funding to put in pump-outs at marinas, state parks, and even several floating pump-outs. Under contract with us, the Northwest Yacht Brokers Association that developed a prototype for a portable pump-out, which is being used in various parts of the country now. We call it the honey wagon, and it's much easier for boaters to use because they can yank it down the dock, pump out, go back, empty the stuff, and they're done. Fifty of those little pump-outs are in use. Louisiana was the top shellfish producing oyster growing state in the Country. Washington has now surpassed Louisiana. I've had oysters here and they're wonderful, and so are ours. We have a $50 million oyster growing industry in Puget Sound. It is very important to the future of the Sound. We view oysters as canaries in the cage that tell us whether we're really succeeding in making a difference in water quality. When we began work in 1985, we had very sad statistics telling us that we had lost 40% of our commercial shellfish growing area to pollution and loss of habitat and wetlands. We have stemmed that loss. The rate of loss has slowed considerably in the last 10 years, and for the first time in 30 years, six commercial shellfish beds in the Sound were upgraded. I was listening to Stan and others talking this Page 42 ------- morning about how we measure success. How do we measure results? We measure results by exactly that kind of information. If we have shellfish beds where we couldn't harvest and sell those shellfish, and now we can, that is success. In all of those areas where our beds have been reopened, we faced^mix of sources of pollutants, and^ everybody—farmers, boaters, landowners, local governments—had to step up and help out. And they have to continue to do that. One of the things that's critical to continuing this is that we can't rest on our laurels. We have to keep at it, especially in the face of the kind of growth that we're experiencing in the Sound. Storm water is one of the biggest threats to the Sound both because of growth and because most storm water is untreated and goes directly into the Sound. When we started hi 1985, three cities hi the Sound had storm water utilities. Now 71 % of the local governments hi the Puget Sound Basin have these utilities. This might be a good moment to note that the Puget Sound Plan is not mandatory and the Authority has no regulatory authority. What the authority was designed to do, and I think does effectively, is to bring people to the table to discuss various issues and seek solutions to address them. We're effective because we're small and flexible. We have a staff of about 30 people and a board of 11 people. Ten of the members are appointed by the Governor. What we have to do is get people involved in the front end developing the solutions so that they're with us as we march down the road to try to implement those solutions. Bringing people together, some who you wouldn't have dreamed of putting in the same room—is absolutely critical to protecting whatever you're working to protect. So how do you measure success? We've been looking at that question for the last couple of years. It's important to know what's working and what isn't working. You want to be able to say, "Well, that approach to reopening shellfish beds really failed, so let's try something different." We also want to measure results so we can talk about them. We can actually say, yes, we've done something, or no, we haven't, if that's the case. Measuring results is very difficult. I'm sure any of you who have begun to struggle with this understand that you can take a plan, and you can even go back up to the process that you used to create the plan and say, "Well, that's success. We got these people in the room together and they talk to each other." Well, then they wrote it down. That's success isn't it? That they could actually get it on paper in a 200-page document. That's pretty good. Well, is it success then that you begin to get committees together in watersheds to begin to implement some of those things in a basin? Is that success? Yes, it is. Is it success that you actually get a rule adopted that sets new standards for septic systems? Yes, that's success. Are the septic systems actually being upgraded? Did you get the money to help make that happen? Maybe. Is that success or not? And finally, is the water quality improving? Have we slowed the loss of habitat or not? We think it's important to measure at each level. There's almost a grid that Page 43 ------- you want to go through looking at each one of those things, because improvement to Puget Sound and improvement to water quality in the Sound is not going to happen unless you back up the steps that I just described. You might say, "Well, those are sort of bureaucratic process j steps," and they are. But they're critical to getting to the end which is the place we all want I to be. Which is when we can say, "What we did made a difference." Now the toughest thing I about all that is making the links back and forth. For example is the fact that the legislature : created a Puget Sound Water Quality Authority really improving the water quality in Puget j Sound, or would that have happened without an Authority. Those kinds of questions are very j interesting. j Building in steps to measure and evaluate as you plan and implement a plan is very important. j Otherwise, you can't talk about what you've done or figure out where you should go next. We've learned some other lessons. It's tremendously important to build partnerships, to welcome in new players, to be looking for them, to mine creative ideas. One of our most successful programs is one we call the Public Education and Information Fund. In our state, a portion of our cigarette taxes pay for water quality projects. The authority received some of that revenue and we've turned it around hi 200 contracts over the last ten years with trade associations like the general contractors, the realtors, the dairy farmers, the dry cleaners, the graphic designers and printers, the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks; groups like the Audubon Club, the Sierra Club, and other environmental groups; schools; hospitals; local governments; tribal governments; and others. All of those projects have been designed to use the creative ideas and raise public awareness. Many projects focus on peer-to-peer education. It's people who are members of the general contractors association teaching other members how to manage construction sites to protect water quality. Dry cleaners teaching other dry cleaners. The graphic designers are a wonderful example. A couple of them got together and said, "We should be doing something here to protect the Sound." They organized themselves and said, "We want to investigate whether we can design beautiful brochures and posters without using toxics and by using recycled products and papers." They found out they could do it. They designed four beautiful posters. Each one uses a different paper product from a different paper company. A different printing company produced each. There are graphic designers all over the country and they're all participating in training programs that were seeded by this little idea that three or four people had. That kind of creative energy is marvelous. One other quick example. We had a group of kids, parents, school teachers, and artists who live in one of the watersheds in Puget Sound who decided to pool their talents. We gave them about $10,000. They built a 30-foot fiberglass salmon. It's huge. It's hollow on the inside and it has all the flora and fauna of that watershed painted inside. Kids and adults—if they crouch—can go inside this salmon and see what the watershed looks like. And the salmon is Page 44 ------- a symbol of what protecting the watershed will preserve. We were so delighted with the salmon that we bought wheels for it and it now rolls from school to school all over Puget Sound. It's been on the ferries. It's been in parades. When you're feeling like you cannot listen to one more person tell you why they can't do something or why it's impossible to make any progress, go out and talk to somebody you haven't talked to before and say, "If you were trying to do this, what would you do? Have any good ideas? What would you try to do in your watershed? What would you do?" You'd be amazed at the kinds of great ideas that people come up with. Funding has been critical to our efforts to implement the Puget Sound Plan. We try to figure out three different approaches to funding, and if two of them fail, you'll still have one left. In our case, we've been successful in, as I said, getting cigarette tax money to support water quality projects. That goes to local governments which are critically important to implementing our Plan. We have federal funding coming in from EPA and from several other federal agencies. State General Fund dollars fund 11 different state agencies to carry out tasks under this plan. Storm water utilities have been created, as I said, by 71% of the local governments hi the last 10 years. We also have some private money coming in through foundations. All of us are aware that there's competition for resources. In my state, right now, the legislature's meeting and trying to figure out how it's going to stretch a budget over how many needs. We need new prisons, schools, and better health care. There are clearly a lot of other important issues that we face as a society. Therefore, wherever you're working on a watershed plan or building a watershed protection effort, get to as many people in that watershed as you possibly can and make them a part of what you're doing. I think that is what is going to turn around places where we're having difficulties with pollution. I think that's what's led to the successes that we've enjoyed in Puget Sound more than anything else. It's just critical. If you don't have the people there, it doesn't make any difference. All the good science and good ideas that the scientists have, which are critical, are not going to go anywhere unless you have the energy of citizens to put things on the ground and make them happen—for people to hang in there over the long-term. So to summarize. Measure and evaluate what you're doing. It isn't painful; it's important; build it in; get used to doing it; make sure you don't put all your eggs hi one basket; look for a variety of funding sources, a variety of groups, a variety of approaches, and test them out and be willing to say, "We made a mistake. This isn't the right way. Let's try something else." That is not bad, wrong, or anything else. That's smart, positive, and thoughtful. Build coalitions. Look for unique partnerships. Mine energy and creative ideas from anybody you can run into who has them. And above all, keep your eye on what it is you're trying to do. Page 45 ------- I wish each of you all the best in making progress and feeling good about what you're doing and working with each other. Page 46 ------- The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Process - Part 1 (1:00-2:30PM) Moderator: Troy-HSU, TMDL Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Dallas, TX My name is Troy Hill and I work with the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 out of Dallas, and I'm the TMDL Coordinator for Region 6. We're going to talk a little bit about TMDL's and how it fits into this watershed approach that we've all come here to talk about today. What I will do is give a general overview of the concept, what we mean when we say "TMDL", where does it fit in; and then, we'll have some case studies of some work that's currently on going in this session, and then there's another concurrent session after this. What you will find is that we're learning as we're going, and keep that in mind. These are not perfect examples but they're perfect examples in the sense that we're learning from our mistakes and we're gaming a lot of knowledge as we go. So keep that hi mind, and if you have a question any time during my presentation, feel free to raise your hand. Speak loudly or you can go to the microphone—whatever you're comfortable with. I'm going to try to keep my comments to about 15-20 minutes with a few questions, and then we'll move into the case examples, which are what we're really here for. I work hi the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program and a lot of people have different understandings and ideas about what this critter really is. As we talk about water quality problems, what I would like you to get from this little presentation is that it is a water quality problem solving process. It is not a complex model. It is basically a problem solving process. This isn't a new idea. Many of you hi this audience have been solving water quality problems for many years. A lot longer than I've been around. There are some fundamental steps that we all go through in trying to solve water quality problems, and when establishing TMDL's. First we identify our problem. Then we establish a goal of what we're trying to do as far as solving the problem. Then we determine existing conditions. What's going on in that particular water body or watershed that would be causing the problem? Get an idea of what's going on out there today. Then we determine what we need to do to achieve our goal, and then we implement what's needed to meet our goal. Whether it be hard regulatory controls, voluntary controls, or whether it be altering the physical characteristics of an unstable stream. The TMDL process applies to the chemical, physical, and biological properties of a waterbody. We want it to be able to do whatever you need it to do to solve the problems. Where does the TMDL Process fit into the Clean Water Act? We start with water quality standards and the States and Tribes have the authority to establish standards for their waterbodies. The TMDL process steps in when a waterbody is not meeting water quality standards. The process develops a plan for a waterbody to meet its water quality standards. Then after we've got this plan hi place, we come up with the controls. This is where a lot of Page 47 ------- people wish that a TMDL was a big stick, something that we could just come back with and bop whatever is going on in that watershed into compliance with what we think is appropriate. But in reality, the TMDL process is more a plan. It's a plan of what needs to happen. When we talk about water quality standards, that's really the foundation of everything we're dealing with and there are a couple of components in the water quality standards that I want to cover just briefly. There are three parts: designated uses, criteria established to protect uses, and then an anti-degradation policy. These are all components of water quality standards, and each State establishes their own water quality standards. When we talk about uses, we talk about fishable. We talk about shellfish protection. We talk about wildlife protection. We talk about industrial uses of waterbodies. We talk about recreational, navigational, and agricultural uses, and this is kind of a pun, if some of you get that hi the audience. We don't directly mean the cattle are supposed to be in the stream, but there are uses established by states to facilitate agricultural type uses. And there are a few extra uses that some of our local people actually add to the waterbody and these are bags of trash. I think everywhere we go there is a perception that waterbodies are used for transportation of trash. But when we talk about these designated uses, this is really the fundamental thing that we're trying to protect with the TMDL. Are we protecting the fishable, swimmable, navigational, and industrial uses of a waterbody? This is really what we're trying to protect and maintain. When we talk about criteria, states also adopt criteria that are necessary to protect uses. They can be numeric and they can also be narrative. A narrative would be free from toxics effects, free from foaming, frothing. Things that are kind of hard to quantify are nutrients. Most of our states do not have a numeric nutrient criteria, but we can use the narrative and say, well, it should be free from excessive algal growth, and we can back into a quantifiable goal. When we talk about an anti-degradation provision, this is something we need to look at. Can the waterbody actually have any degradation? The states establish different tiers for waterbodies. A Tier 1 waterbody would allow you to degrade a waterbody down to the specified criteria that was established by the state. An example would be dissolved oxygen. If you have a dissolved oxygen standard of five milligrams per liter on a waterbody, you would be allowed to take that D.O. down to five milligrams per liter with the activity that you're planning on allowing to happen in the waterbody. A Tier 2 waterbody is a little bit higher quality waterbody, and it gives you a few more hoops that you need to jump through. If you want to add a new source to the waterbody or add additional activity that would increase load to the waterbody, you would want to make sure that it had an economic or social benefit for that waterbody. The states have these processes established in their water quality standards of how to jump through these particular hoops. A Tier 3 waterbody is a waterbody that basically says there shall be no degradation. No degradation should be defined in the Page 48 ------- states water quality standards. No degradation may mean 10% degradation; it all depends on what the State's water quality standards specify. One of the things feat1*4 lik&to^tress is that you need to start with^the State' & water quality standards. Look at what uses waterbodies have. Look at the criteria that have been established to protect the uses. In addition, see what type of anti-degradation policy applies to the waterbody, so that when you're developing this strategy or problem solving process, you understand and protect the water quality standards. When we talk about TMDL's and TMDL process, there's a difference. And so what I'd like to stress here is we're going to talk about the process of how we come up with a TMDL. The Clean Water Act requires that every two years each state develop a 303(d) list. The 303(d) list includes waterbodies that are not meeting water quality standards. In addition, the states are required to prioritize the waterbodies and target them as to what they feel are the priorities and the areas they need to work in. Now, how do states come up with this type of information? They look at any current source of information they have—whether that be ambient water quality monitoring data, whether that be intensive surveys, whether that be somebody's professional judgment saying that waterbody should not be purple and we've got a problem. That's how a waterbody can be added to the 303(d) list. One reason a waterbody does not have to put on a 303(d) list is if there's some type of strategy already in place where somebody has said, "We know this waterbody is not meeting water quality standards, however, we have a plan in place to meet the standards and we're implementing it. And this is it. We're laying it out." Basically, they are saying, "We have already developed a TMDL for this waterbody." The 303(d) list process also requires that the states take the list for public comment. This is where the public gets an idea of where the State feels its priorities are, and they have a chance to comment if they agree or disagree with what's going on there. Typically, we're not getting much response from our public on our 303(d) list in Region 6. We get a little bit of interest from the industries to see if their waterbody is on the list, but other than that, we're not getting a whole lot of public comment. This is a chance for our public to become aware of what we feel our priorities are and where we should be working. This is an analysis of the 1992 303(d) list and you can see the problems that were targeted or were included on those lists are basically the ones we've been working on for a long time. We're talking about nutrients; we're talking about BOD; we're talking about D.O; we're talking about turbidity—things that we're dealing with and have been dealing with for a long time. Now when I talk about TMDL, a TMDL equals the sum of all the wasteload allocations, which are basically point source loads, plus the sum of all the load allocations, which are the Page 49 ------- loadings coming from nonpoint source and background, plus a margin of safety. So if somebody comes to you and says, "We have a TMDL for this waterbody," basically, they have established a target and that target says that we are going to maintain—let's say it's dissolved oxygen—we're going to maintain five milligrams per liter of D.O. in this waterbody. The TMDL will actually outline all the different components, the wasteload allocations, the load allocations and a margin of safety in the plan. So you can see how all the pieces fit together. It's very difficult for somebody to come in and say, "Well, our TMDL is five milligrams per liter and it will never change. So we have a TMDL for that waterbody. We don't ever need to look at it." The problem is our waterbodies are continually changing. Our loadings are continually changing. The activities and management activities in a watershed are continually changing. And our TMDL should be something that we come back and look at. How does this particular activity fit in? If it comes in at this tributary, is it going to impact the water quality standards and make it so we won't maintain water quality standards? Or if it was to come in at this other tributary, would it be all right? These are the types of things we want to see. As I talk about TMDL's, a waterbody can have more than one TMDL on it. It can have a TMDL for copper. It can have a TMDL for dissolved oxygen. It can also have a TMDL for habitat, such as a riffle pool ratio. A waterbody can have a number of different TMDL's. What we're trying to stress here is that you, basically, look at the different problems going on in a waterbody and then prioritize which ones need to be looked at first, and go ahead and try to solve these problems. Some of the other problems we have when we establish TMDL's, is how are the loads allocated? Who has the authority to allocate loads within a TMDL? That is a state call. Some states have set policies and other states are a little more flexible. But the way it boils down is that EPA cannot come in and say, "This industry receives this many pounds of a pollutant and this activity in this watershed gets this many." That is a state call. That's something that's done hi the TMDL and that's why the TMDL needs to be developed in a local atmosphere with the local state agencies and local community involved. Now, as we talk about TMDL's, you see how some of these steps fit right in with the problem solving process. We contain a quantifiable measurable target. That's where we're identifying our problem, setting our target, and our problem solving process. It specifies load reductions. That's where we're determining what needs to be done in the waterbody. We figured out what's going on and what needs to be done to meet that particular water quality standard. Then we include some type of an implementation plan. What type of activities are necessary for the waterbody to maintain the water quality standards that we're trying to protect. In addition, we don't always have a good handle on the process that are going on in these waterbodies. We may think that if we implement this activity or this management strategy that we may reduce the load. However, the only way we're going to know is to go back out and Page 50 ------- monitor, and monitor appropriately. If we're looking at habitat, we go back and look at the habitat. Chemical water quality data won't always give us the answer. Whatever we're trying to solve, we need to go back out and look at that particular area. As I said just a second ago, we don't understand all the processes going on in the streams and systems we're working with. So what we've asked people to do is make their best judgement. This is what we're calling the phased approach. Use the best available information and data that you have at this time. Go ahead and come up with a TMDL, allocating the different loads to the different activities and point source discharges. After you do that, go ahead and implement with the understanding that we're just going to see what's going on and see the response of the system. Then, if we need to modify, go back through the process again and modify it. It's an iterative process. One of the questions that's commonly asked is if we do a phased approach TMDL, can we just implement new permit limits on our point sources? Is that a phased approach? Well, if your TMDL basically states that your main contributor is a point source and all you need to do is put new limits on that particular point source and you'll meet your goal or your standard, that's not a problem. But if your TMDL suggests you need to do some type of control strategy on both point and nonpoint, the phased approach means you do both point and nonpoint. Now the schedule part is kind of interesting in that typically when we're looking at wasteload allocations, after the TMDL's developed, the limits go into a water quality management plan. Whenever the permit comes up for renewal, that's when the limits are put into the permit. However, for nonpoint source, the TMDL, recommends some type of control strategy. We recommend that you include some type of schedule for implementation. We understand that the systems aren't going to respond next week. It's going to take a long time to get the cooperation of the particular landowners, the different activities that are going on, and the different groups that perform those activities. What we need is some idea from the people who are proposing the TMDL as to the time frame to meet water quality standards. In summary, when I talk about the TMDL process, I basically am talking about solving a water quality problem. You identify the problem through the 303(d) list process that each state does every two years. After you identify the waterbodies that have problems, you go out and figure out what's going on in that waterbody. Then you develop some type of a strategy to bring the waterbody back into compliance. This is basically the TMDL process. The TMDL is a planning tool to meet the water quality standards in the stream. Russell Dutnell will give us a presentation here on some work that he's been doing on the Grand Lake Watershed. I met Russell a few years ago. He was working for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. And since then, he has moved over to work with Page 51 ------- Oklahoma Conservation Commission. Russell has a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering and we've talked many times about how he got hooked up in water quality modeling. But since then, he is pursuing a Master's Degree in Environmental Engineering or Civil Engineering trying to get a better idea and understanding of some of the things that we're trying to deal with on a daily basis. Speaker: Russell Dutnell, Environment Engineer/Water Quality Modeler, Oklahoma Conservation Commission; Oklahoma City, OK I'm going to talk about some work that we're doing up in Oklahoma on the Grand Lake. The effort is to develop a Grand Lake Basin Management Plan, and in order to do that, we've taken a phased approach to develop a TMDL. In the first phase we're trying to identify the critical areas for future work and eventual implementation. It's a joint project between us at the Oklahoma Conservation Commission and Oklahoma State University, funded mostly by EPA. Grand Lake is in Northeast Oklahoma in Mays County. One of the most interesting things about it to me is it has the longest multiple arch dam in the world. It was built in 1940 at a cost of just under $29 million, which is really a bargain if you've ever seen the dam. The lake was constructed for flood control and recreation and hydropower with a shore length of 1,300 miles and quite a large drainage area of just over 10,000 square miles. I have some pictures of the lake showing the bridge over on the north side of it coming over the Neosho River. As I said, the lake is used for recreation. Sailing is popular on the lake, as well are fishing, water skiing, and boating. The Grand Lake basin covers four states: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas with the largest area occurring in Kansas. The stream systems that feed the basin consist of the Spring River coming out of Missouri, in the light orange, and the Neosho River coming out of Kansas, the Elk River that comes out of Kansas mostly, but with some contribution from Arkansas, and then the Grand Lake Basin itself, which is in Northeast Oklahoma. The main objective of the project is to maintain or improve the water quality in Grand Lake. Because that is quite a large objective, we needed to focus that a little bit. So the problem that we're currently working on is deteriorated water quality in the lake, basically, as applies to accelerated eutrophication or algal growth. Some previous work has indicated that the algae growth in the lake is limited by phosphorous, so at this point we're keying our work on phosphorous. That doesn't mean in the future we won't consider other parameters as well, but at this time we're just looking at phosphorous. So we're taking the phase TMDL approach. Page 52 ------- As Troy pointed out earlier, all this is based on water quality standards and Oklahoma, like many other states, does not have a phosphorous standard. So what we're doing is looking at a narrative criteria, basically the nuisance condition. We have a provision that says that waters can't be in a nuisance condition, and we^onsider accelerated eutrophicationte^ea nuisance condition. The reason we looked at the phased TMDL approach is because, as Troy said, it's a logical problem solving process. We're looking at all phosphorous sources, point and nonpoint. The good thing about a phased TMDL is you can implement or take action after the initial assessment. As you refine your TMDL, those actions may be modified, but it's a process that you can start working now rather than putting it off until the science dictates what you really need to do. The Phased TMDL approach also requires continuing assessment and additional implementation if necessary. So for the first Phase of the TMDL, work was done by Dan Storm, mostly, with some help from the geography department—Daved Waites and graduate assistants. What they did is take the whole basin and use geographical information systems. They determined land use, soil types, and digital elevations hi the area. They put that into a GIS system and came up with a sub-basin total phosphorous load from the nonpoint sources. Again, this is the way they subdivided the basin to do the work. It really needs no further explanation. So they got the land use classifications in it. Again, the land uses on the previous slide were changed from this AVHLRR land use images, and the elevation maps from the basin showing the elevation gains/losses. That's just an elevation and a loss. I mostly put these in because I thought they were so pretty. I like looking at them. What they came up with was the main phosphorous loading by watershed in the basin, and as you can see, most of the sources—or the largest source is coming from right here in the southwest quarter of Missouri and the southeast quadrant of Kansas, with some other sources coming from down here and very minor in Arkansas. What I did next is go through and do an assessment of all the point sources hi the basin and added that to the GIS database; summed up the loading from both the point sources and nonpoint sources; you could see the nonpoint source loadings are almost 80% and the point sources contribute 20% of the almost 20,000 pounds per day of loading. That isn't the loading to the lake. That is just the loadings coming from these sources at this point. Breaking the loadings down by basin, you can see that Basin 8 & 9, which represent Spring River, 1 through 4 is up in the upper end of the Neosho River. The outfall from Basin 4, basically, is Lake John Redman Reservoir. Basin 5, 6, 7 are the lower Neosho. Basin 8 & 9 is the Spring River. Basin 10 is the Elk River. Basin 11 is just the Grand Lake Basin itself, where water doesn't flow into any of those rivers, but flows directly to the Grand Lake. Breaking the loadings up by point and nonpoint source, you can see that nonpoint source is the dominant loading as the pie chart earlier indicated. The most striking feature to me is the Page 53 ------- nonpoint source in Basin 9 and the Spring River is higher than any of the total loadings from any of the other basins, and the point source loadings are significantly larger. It probably would be more meaningful to have this on an aerial basis. That wasn't done. But the areas in each of these basins are fairly consistent. There is some variation between it, but not the significance that you see there. So taking this point source and nonpoint source information, the output which was the nonpoint source phosphorous loads. We combined the point source loads. We established kinetic rates and hydraulic characteristics to do some water quality modeling to see what the fate in transport of the phosphorous being delivered to the system was and how much of that would end up in the lake. What we did is we started with the Qual-2E iterations, which many of you are familiar with, and since we weren't addressing some of these other parameters right now, we just concentrated on phosphorous. We took these phosphorous routines that are hi here that address these factors: alga respiration rate, the growth of the algae, the settling of the algae, any source of phosphorous that might be in the sediments or benthos, and organic phosphorous settling rate, the decay rate in the phosphorous, and the phosphorous content of the algae itself. I developed a spreadsheet with that iteration and the way the spreadsheet functions is you'll take the output from the GIS that tell you about the point source and nonpoint source loadings, and then each of these is a sub-basin, and each one is a separate spreadsheet file, using Quatro-Pro. Basin 6 is an 8-meg file. This is the flow from the basin. As I said, Dan Storm did the nonpoint source loading but those nonpoint source loadings did not include flow. So the flows came from USGS. So all that information was funneled into each basin. Basin 5, the output from Basin 5 goes into 6, from 6 goes to 7, and then 7 goes to Grand, Basin 8 goes to 9 and down, Basin 10 just goes straight into Grand, and Basin 11 goes into Grand. No further explanation is required on that. The results of all that are quite amazing in that I didn't really see what I expected at the initiation of the project. This graph is somewhat difficult to understand. But what each one of these individual bars represents is the loading, in this case, if the basin loading was reduced by 0%. So this is Basin 1 through 4, if you don't reduce it, you get 100% of the loading to the lake. Same with each one of those. On the other extreme, this pink one over here is if you reduce the loadings in every single basin by 50%, you get approximately a 50% reduction to the load to the lake, which is what you would expect. Coming across the other way, okay, if you reduce the loads in Basin 1 through 4 by up to 50%, you can see, you don't see that much reduction, and that's if you do Basin 5, that's if you do Basin 6, that's if you do Basin 7, and that's if you reduce the phosphorous loadings in the Neosho and every basin by 50%. Well, that's not really attainable, because when you come back to these basins 1 through 4, that's up above John Redman Reservoir, which we don't really have any control of. One is its a stream model. We didn't really take into effect what was happening in the lakes, so for Page 54 ------- that upper end, we just took what was coming out of the lake, the data that happened there and was coming out. So we can't really address those issues. If you look at Basin 40 & tt, whicfcare right here, mat' & Basin U, Basin -10-,- you 4on' t really see that much reduction in the loading to the lake even if you reduce the loadings to those basins by 50%. Where you do see some fair amount of reduction is if you start targeting Basins 8 & 9, which are the Spring River. So for the 1st Phase of what we are planning to do is take all this information, come up with a total phosphorous loading, and hopefully eventually establish a phosphorous TMDL with that. So what's next? We think we need to do more monitoring. The data availability is very limited for phosphorous. From the wastewater treatment facilities, none of the facilities have phosphorous limits, so they don't do any monitoring for phosphorous. So we don't have any idea what loadings are actually coming out of those plants. For the study I used, National Eutrophication Study results, as loadings for the different facilities. We also need in-stream monitoring data, because there really isn't enough data existing to calibrate a model. So the model that we have run so far to this date is just based on textbook values for the kinetic rates and things of those sorts. Phase II modeling—we need to implement to get a better idea of what's happening in the basin, to better assess the loads, and the system response to those loads. We think one thing that should come out of that is a phosphate ban based on the fact that even though the point source loadings are only 20% of the loading to the lake, if you implement phosphate ban, again using NES results, you get about a 7% reduction in the total phosphorous to the lake. This is quite significant considering the whole point source loadings are only 20% to begin with. Another thing we recommend is that phosphorous limits be set on current dischargers. It might be a little preliminary at this time, but I feel the minimum we should do is at least monitor those facilities for a year and maybe implement limits based on what they're currently discharging and consider reducing those loads if future work shows that that's necessary. Again, the work should focus on the Spring River. The second phase that we envisioned at the onset of the program was to link GIS and water quality modeling work. We're currently involved in a project with some people out of Temple, Texas that are using the SWAT model, have linked the Qual-2 iterations inside of SWAT and it all works within the GIS framework, and eventually this will result in a TMDL for the basin. And the next step, of course, is to go fishing, and we hope to preserve the lake for future generations. And an added benefit of protecting the lake that isn't discussed very often is that downstream sources will also be protected so you can continue to have beautiful sites like this. Page 55 ------- Troy Hill: Our next presenter will be Mike Waldon. Mike is a professor at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, the Department of Civil Engineering Center for Louisiana and Water Studies. Mike will be talking about some work he's done with bacteria fecal coliform which is very interesting because a lot of people come up with waterbodies on their 303(d) lists that have fecal problems. So Mike will share with you some data and information he's collected on the Tangipahoa River. In addition, Mike has quite a bit of experience behind him. Mike received a Bachelor of Science in Bio-Medical Engineering in 1970. In 1972, he received his Master's in Bio- Engineering and his Ph.D. in Systems Engineering in 1979. I know from looking back through all the records that we have as far as modeling and survey activities in Louisiana, Mike's name is always associated in one way or another with them. Mike has a lot of knowledge about this area that we're visiting today and I think you'll learn some interesting things from what he's going to present. Mike. Speaker: Mike Waldon, Associate Professor-Research, University of Southwestern Louisiana; Baton Rouge, LA Thank you, Troy. Today I'm discussing the Tangipahoa River, which we heard a little bit about this morning in the earlier session. Tangipahoa is a beautiful river. We think it's especially beautiful here in Louisiana because we have so few rivers that really have good flow and slopes. The Tangipahoa is a place where you can actually go ride in a tube and go down river and flow along and you don't have to paddle too much. It's widely used for recreation. It's captured in this picture that I pulled out of a DEQ publication. The caption says "The Tangipahoa River was one popular recreation site for tubing, swimming, and other activities as seen here in 1981." There are many activities on the Tangipahoa River. The impact of some of those activities have been studied by us at the Center for Inland Water Studies at the University of Southwestern Louisiana. Elizabeth Smythe, who is the co-presenter today, was unable to attend today. Other members of our team include Dr. Paul Richards, head of our center, Max Hebel and Madeline Rogers, our research associates who have done a lot of the real hard effort to get this work done, and Gianna Cothren who was a summer student that interned with us a couple of summers ago, who actually did the QUAL2-E model that I'm going to mention as part of the work that we've done. In addition to this, I would really be remiss in just saying this is the entire cast of characters who have worked on the Tangipahoa River. In fact, there have been many people involved with the Tangipahoa and in solving problems on the Tangipahoa. Faculty from Southeastern Louisiana University, a faculty member from the Tulane School of Health, Dr. Ann Anderson, many citizens, and certainly DEQ personnel have worked extensively here. Page 56 ------- The work that we have done has been funded by the DEQ and EPA through grants to the DEQ and to the Center. I will say, however, one of the things about asking a professor to talk is that he can say things that nobody gets blamed for except him. So whatever I say today is really my opinion and even my associates here should not share the blame. The Tangipahoa River is located in the Lake Pontchartrain basin on the north lake shore. It's a perennial river. It has about 1,000 CFS as an average flow and a median flow of 638 CFS. So it maintains a pretty good flow for a little river, and it is perennial, so you can go there anytime and see good flow. The land use is primarily agriculture, forests, and wetlands. Very little urban area is in the Tangipahoa drainage, and there are only a few small dischargers. You may have seen on a map the City of Hammond, however it is slightly outside the watershed. So the only point source discharges are in the small towns like Amite and Independence, a total of about 11 point source discharges. Before 1987, there were 200,000 recreational users each year who were using the river. Another use is waste assimilation for 242 dairy farms in the Tangipahoa Basin, and a cow basically makes about two and half times as much fecal coliform every day as a person. So when you consider a couple hundred cows on a couple hundred farms, they make far more fecal coliform than the people in the very rural watershed. Agriculture and forestry are the two major land uses. In the northern part of the basin you would find a more dairy use. Just to show you what people think of when they think of Tangipahoa Parish, this is a soil survey, and right on the cover they've got pictures of cows. You think of the dairy industry when you think of Tangipahoa Parish as well as the Tangipahoa River. We also think it's a beautiful place to canoe. The problem: at times there are excessive levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the river. Excessive in terms of current water quality criteria which is approximately, 200 fecal coliforms per 100 milliliters as a geometric mean. So 200 is a good number to keep in mind. This problem came to the public's attention in 1987. A student at Southeastern Louisiana University, SLU, at Hammond, did her Master's Thesis and took samples from the Tangipahoa River and found that there were elevated levels of fecal coliform in the river. The Girl Scouts have a camp on the River, and questioned whether it is safe to swim in the River. They also asked DEQ, "What are you doing about it?" So what happened in 1987 is the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) along with the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) issued a joint advisory which said, "No, it is probably not safe to swim here. You are advised that it may be a hazard to your health to swim in this river." This effectively shut down all the primary contact recreational uses on the river. Shutting down all those little Mom and Pop operations that were renting canoes and inner tubes to play in the river. Page 57 ------- Since then, a lot of action happened at DEQ, at other agencies, and with other investigators. What I'm going to talk about today is what happened among the people that I have worked with, especially the Engineering Section of the DEQ Office of Water Resources. Also, there's a nonpoint source pollution program which has done work, so you could almost say that there's another half to this story. Jan Boydstun is going to be giving a talk tomorrow. She's going to talk some more about the implementation of BMP's in the Tangipahoa. But what I'm going to talk about today is the approach that we used in looking at the problem. You know, one of the things that I was thinking as Troy was doing his presentation is that you can logically think the TMDL process in these steps, but in practice — at least here at our agency and I think probably in most ~ it all kind of happens in one big mixed up mess with lots of different groups working the different parts. For example, some DEQ surveillance personnel said, "I'll bet if we visited those sewage plants more often, they'd be sure to always keep their chlorination operating." It was suspected that the sewage plants were often not properly disinfecting. Inspections were performed and almost immediately water quality probably unproved. A milking parlor is also called a dairy barn. It is the building you think of when you think of a dairy farm. The cows are sent in there twice a day for their milk. First the cows are washed to remove manure or whatever material that might be on the cow. The cow would also do what a cow does everywhere, lay manure down all over the place. So at the end of the milking operation, they wash off the concrete stands and the really nasty looking water is discharged. Previously the way the farmers were told to do it was to build your dairy barn near a stream and wash the waste into the stream. Today, we hope that there will be some kind of treatment that will occur prior to discharge. We had some initial bacterial monitoring studies, especially at three DEQ monitoring sites on the Tanguipahoa River. We have emphasized the downstream site. Recreational use is heaviest near that site. We developed a GIS. It located where the point source discharges and the dairy milking facilities were located. We selected a specific sub-basin for intensive study. That was the Big Creek sub-basin. Finally, after all that was done, we planned for what we thought we needed-extended monitoring, modeling, and TMDL development for the entire basin. Let me start with the initial statistical study that we did. One of the first things that I think anybody would do when they look at a problem like this is say, "Well, let's get all the data together, put it in the computer, and see what correlates with what." So here are correlation coefficients between fecal coliform and stream discharge. The USGS monitors stream flow or discharge daily at exactly the same location as our downstream DEQ monitoring site, which is monitored monthly for fecal coliforms. Here we Page 58 ------- find that there's a very high and significant correlation between stream discharge and fecal coliform levels. There's a positive correlation. We also got a very long period of record from a whole group of climate stations or weather station data from around the basin. We were able {^construct what's called^ Thornthwaithe-Mather Water Budget, wnietis actually*very simple runoff model and soil moisture storage model, which we found very useful in nonpoint source modeling. It's very useful because it's a very simple model. It doesn't need hourly data. It doesn't use a lot of complex information. It doesn't always give you really good quantitative results. But it seems to give us results that are good enough for many of our purposes. The correlation coefficient between Tangipahoa River discharge and fecal coliform levels was 0.58, and 0.65 between calculated runoff and fecal coliform level. When we correlated fecal coliform with total soil moisture storage, we found that coliforms are somewhat correlated with total soil moisture and storage, but very highly correlated with runoff. More highly correlated with runoff calculated from a water budget model than it was to the stream flow, and we thought that was a clue also. Because it suggests that it's not just the amount of water that's coming down the stream, but the water running off the land surface that's leading to the high levels of coliform bacteria. Also there was a slight negative correlation to temperature which is expected. Fecal coliform disappear more rapidly—at least according to the literature—hi higher temperature water. This is a graph of fecal coliform level. This is actually the common log of fecal coliforms versus the log of discharge in the stream. You can see that, indeed, as discharge goes up, fecal coliform appears to go up. When we looked at the log of fecal coliforms versus the runoff calculated from the water budget model, which is based on temperature and precipitation data, you can see that there's even a better correlation here between the amount of runoff and the coliform data. Based on the water budget, we classified daily conditions. We said that anytime the water temperature is below 20 degrees, we'll call it cool. When the water is above 20 degrees, we'll call it warm. Now that's for two reasons. One is that's about median temperature of the waters and that splits our data in half. But also and mostly, people don't do recreation when the water is colder than 20 degrees. So it seems like a good spot to split the data. We also looked at what we called dry days and wet days. Water budget runoff continues to happen after the rainfall has stopped and the runoff continues sometimes for a few days, sometimes for a little longer, and what makes the difference there is how moist the soil is and how much soil moisture you have as an antecedent condition to the rainfall. And also, what determines it is how much evapotranspiration occurs. That's loosing water up back into the atmosphere and in warm weather, you get a lot more evapotranspiration, so runoff doesn't last as long as it does in cool weather. Dry is when the water budget calculates zero runoff. Wet is defined as when we calculate that there is some runoff. Page 59 ------- What we found is that with all the data you get a geometric mean of 694 colonies per 100 ML. 694, as you know, that's quite a bit over 200. But when you divide the data into cool and warm, you get considerably more in cool weather than you do in warm weather. This is logical because of the two things that I just mentioned here. The extra evapotranspiration prevents runoff in warm weather, and because the disappearance rate is higher in warm weather. Another thing you can look at is the coefficient of variation. That is the ratio of standard deviation divided by the mean value. The coefficient of variation with all the data is 355 %. Now that's very important to us if we're designing a monitoring program. Because the power of the statistical test is how good it is at seeing a change. The power of the statistical test is often very much related to the coefficient of variation. So if you can find a way to decrease the variability of your data, you can increase the power of your statistics. And we see here that when we do divide the data up by classes, and here we've got it divided down to four classes, the coefficient of variation is greatly reduced. Which means that if one of our purposes is to monitor and see how much of a reduction we've made when we implement BMP's or we implement other important actions, if you will take into account this classification, you should be able to have a much more powerful statistical test that can actually and specifically see the changes that are happening. If you just take all the data together, I can guarantee you there's going to be so much variation that you're going to need many, many, many more years of data to look at! So it's very helpful to be able to divide your data up as we did here. And finally, a point that I would make is that we can see that the geometric mean in the dry, warm weather is only 137. Actually, quite well within the water quality criteria. So if I was thinking that this is a good criteria for determining when to go swimming, I would say as long as it's warm~you know, and I don't usually swim when it's cold~as long as it's warm and the stream's down, it's probably pretty safe. Which is~I thought interesting—exactly what we were told before the study began. A local user said, "Well, this is what my daddy always told me." This is the chronological graph of all the data that we have on fecal coliforms from 1978 to 1992. Here's the data that's just from the warm and dry period. You can see that a lot of the variability (this is logged, so the y-axis this is 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 and so on) has gone away. Then in warm and wet weather, we catch a lot of high fecal coliform. So we feel that this really gives us a lot of clues about what's going on out in the basin. A second project was a GIS development. In our GIS development, we set up a database of all the dairy farms, including the name of the dairy farm, and the number of animals that were on the farm as of the time of the study. This database is all geographically referenced. On Page 60 ------- our map each dairy farm has a number over it, the map I.D. that leads back into the database. You can see from the map that there are a lot of dairy farmers in the Tangipahoa Basin. Big Creek is the sub-bashvia which we are 4oing our specM^tudies. We wanted 4a determine in the sub-basin what was the actual impact of the BMP's in reducing the loading from the dairy parlors by having a no discharge lagoons. Also, we wanted to see where the other coliform bacteria were coming from in this basin. We chose Big Creek because there are no point sources. There are some people that live there, but they're mostly just the farmers who live on the farms and a few small schools and such. It's a very, very rural area. Big Creek is also a very pretty stream. We wanted to develop an uncalibrated model to help us to understand what's going on here. We also wanted to make this a prototype that could help us test the way that we hoped in the future to build models of the whole Tangipahoa watershed. We hope that the results from this will apply to our future Tangipahoa work. In 1992-93, we went out and did all these different studies just in the Big Creek watershed. This gives you an idea of the kind of work we're going to have to do to do the whole watershed of the Tangipahoa River. Although, we hope that we can transfer some of these results and we won't have to do this much in every little watershed. But it took a lot of work to just do this preliminary work in the Big Creek Watershed. The last study which I will present is located in Greensburg, and is not even in the Tangipahoa Basin. This study was done at the LSU experimental dairy farm. The results I mentioned this morning. We sampled the runoff that comes off the dairy farm that goes into their no discharge treatment pond. So that's what we used to characterize the load going into streams without BMP's. We also used our GIS to give us a list of all of the farms, and there were 38 dairy farms in this watershed. One of the things that we had to do was develop a way of estimating the time-of-travel of water in the streams in the Tangipahoa River and Big Creek basins. This is our calculated velocity versus our observed velocity using dye tests. You can see that it doesn't do too badly, especially apparently at lower velocities, and I rationalize this by saying that maybe at higher velocity the water is coming downstream pretty quickly and it just won't matter that much whether it's a foot per second or a foot and a half per second. That's very rough. We may need to do a lot more work on hydrology and time-of-travel in the future. We also looked at monitoring data that was available on Big Creek, and here are some of the monitoring data that are available. One problem that we ran into here is that this is in part most probable number (MPN) data. The first data that we used is MPN of fecal coliforms. Those data tend to be incredibly variable by themselves. If you took two samples and ran MPN on them — on two samples out of the same waterbody, you likely will find numbers that are different by a factor of two. So there's a lot of variability that's inherent in the method. The first work, we're graphing on a log scale here, so this is going from 100,000 at the top. Page 61 ------- You can see, in general, when there's high flow in Big Creek, the station in Big Creek which is at the bottom of our study area, MPN center around about 10,000 and at low flow, you get a very great variability in value. At low flow, you can actually get some relatively low values, but you can also get some high values. In fact, some of our highest values are at low flow. Also, when we looked at our studies looking at coliform levels coming off the different areas, the pasture land at base flow had concentrations around 270, which were just above the criterion. When there was runoff, typical numbers were 13,000, which is way above 200. We were fortunate that there's a state wildlife preserve right there in the Big Creek Basin, and coming off the wildlife preserve there's a little stream that just comes out of the wildlife preserve and doesn't drain anything else. At base flow conditions, we found it down around 120. But when you get a real rainstorm, based on limited data, we estimated that the typical value was about 12,000 fecal coliforms per 100 ML coming off the wildlife preserve. From this we conclude that because we have criteria which are 200 per 100 ML, if the whole basin was transformed into a wildlife area, we would observe counts of about 12,000. This is a problem in doing a TMDL. If we went back to the most pristine land use, which I would say would be that wildlife management area, we're not going to meet that criteria during rainfall runoff. We need to decide, based on this, if criteria should be applied during rainfall runoff, or if somehow the criteria need to be made more appropriate. Based on those results, we estimated parameter values for a QUAL2-E model of the Big Creek Watershed. The model was run at two different water temperatures, 15 degrees and 25 degrees. Estimated that the water coming off the milking parlors has 4,400,000 colonies per 100 ML in that water coming off the milking parlors. We estimated a total CFS per cow passing through the milking parlors. The results are plotted against stream miles measured upstream. At the upstream end, there's very little flow, very little dilution. As you get further downstream, there's tune for the bacteria to die and there's also pollution of further downstream dairy parlors and so we find that with no runoff and no BMP's these are the model projections. But with BMP's and under the same temperature conditions and no runoff, the model projects that concentrations are actually going to be very low. With 1,100 CFS runoff, which is a pretty big flow in Big Creek, the model projects that it will have higher numbers up at the head waters. With runoff numbers around 10,000 are projected. That's not surprising because that's near the 13,000 which runs off pasture land. With the BMP's present, this is what we project it would look like. We project that with no discharge lagoons in place, we will see greatly reduced levels of coliform in Big Creek at low flow. However, during periods of runoff we project little improvement will result from this BMP. Page 62 ------- All this work has led us to planning for what we want to do next. We want to extend the monitoring on the Tangipahoa River to an event driven of monitoring design. Just as we do in dissolved oxygen TMDL intensive surveys, we want to do some intensive studies on the Tangipahoa Basin^dur4ng^Qmestorm^v£nts^^4uring^some base flow events. Right now while we've got years and years of data from three stations, that's really not appropriate for model calibration. We need to do some different kinds of studies, and we just need two or three of those to be able to set a model up that will tell us a lot more about the system. We need to have a much better understanding of how our streams flow and under dry conditions. One of the reasons that we may be seeing some very low numbers at low flow, may be because there's so much evaporation that many of the intermittent streams that the dairy milking parlors are discharging to actually are dry in dry weather. That's important. It's very important to our model. That means that essentially in very dry weather it's like those milking parlors weren't there, because they would wash off the pads, the water would dry up and it would never go anywhere. It never got down to our station, and that's probably the reason we were seeing very low numbers as well as very high numbers at low runoff. We need to have a much better understanding of that. One of the things that the model showed us is the fact that "Oh, here's something that I need to know". We want to go to a dynamic model. We need to consider the various sources of bacteria, and we need to consider in our TMDL the temperature, rainfall, and runoff. Normally, I haven't considered temperature and rainfall hi previous work on TMDL's. That modeling can also be a valuable tool for improving the statistical design and the power of statistical studies and monitoring throughout the BMP and TMDL development. Fecal coliform modeling can provide management information that we need to better manage our systems. We need to look at additional BMP's, perhaps or pasture land, and try to look at how we might be able to reduce coliform levels during runoff. Perhaps some small weirs in the intermittent streams that would delay the flow might be an answer. Maybe we need to put more beavers in the stream and let them make ponds in some of those intermittent streams. There must be some answers. But also, we need appropriate fecal coliform criteria or a new and more appropriate interpretation of the existing criteria. Obviously, if the wildlife management land has 12,000 during a rain storm, you're just not going to be able to meet 200 in the stream. Nationally, we also need to look at coliform criteria itself. The coliform criteria was developed based on human sewage contamination of lakes and swimming areas. Now we're applying them to storm water runoff in agricultural areas and rivers. There just is no epidemiological evidence that coliform bacteria levels are an indicator of health problems or risks in the stream. We need epidemiological studies to determine if there are health risks Page 63 ------- related to increased fecal coliform. We have high coliform levels due to runoff from agricultural and wildlife areas. Certainly you can talk to farmers who tell you, "Well, I've been wading in this stuff for years and it hasn't made me sick." On the other hand, there are definitely diseases related to animal waste. Those are well established too. This is national — states can't do this. EPA should pick up the ball here and do the epidemiological studies needed. We need to establish a scientific basis for the criteria. Troy Hill: Thank you, Mike. Do you have any questions for Mike? Question: On segregating the storms, I've done some studies in the Austin area and we found something similar — that similar segregations of the data, and you're right. I mean, undeveloped areas j with no agriculture or anything would still have high fecal coliform. But one of the things I ! was concerned with, especially in your case, where maybe it's a smaller storm where maybe you wouldn't even generate runoff from that wildlife management area, but maybe a half inch, you know, three-quarter inch storm might generate runoff from the feedlot from the dairy farm, not the management area. Then you would be getting an extra source there. That maybe there's really a three-step segregation where you go base flow, small storm, large storm, and you may find a bigger difference between the storms. Mike Waldon: That might be. We really need to understand better how much rain it takes to get the intermittent streams flowing, and it may be different in an estuary than in a pasture land. Comment: I mean, if there's five inches of rainfall, you shouldn't be swimming in there. It's dangerous to swim in there anyway. So it probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Those small storms where maybe somebody could be swimming. You know, you may be getting runoff from those dairies there. Troy Hill: We invite you to come back to second session. There will be some similar interesting topics discussed. If you have any questions for any of the presenters, come up and ask them during the break. Thank you. Page 64 ------- Addressing (Ground Water in the Watershed Approach (1:00-2:30PM) Moderator: Patty—Senna-,- Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Program Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Dallas, Texas This afternoon we'll be discussing ground water in the Watershed Approach. Presently, ground water fits into the watershed protection approach when the quality of ground water contributes to the overall condition of a watershed, and may serve as a transport medium for potential contaminants. Now it didn't seem like, in this morning's session, that very many people understood that ground water was part of a watershed. You don't take ground water into consideration very much when you hike up a hill and then hike back down again. But thanks to Myron, he actually brought ground water into the watershed and he's been doing a good job of remembering that ground water is down there. There is a natural give and take between surface and ground water. An exchange, that in many cases, forms a rhythm which responds to the climatic conditions. In other words, during periods of high rainfall, water enters the ground, and during dry periods, water is given back to the surface. The transfer of contaminated water between surface and sub-surface environments is most obvious in the areas where the natural materials are highly permeable, like the cavernous limestone areas of the Edwards Aquifer. In the Edwards, water may flow back and forth between the surface and sub-surface several times. For those of us who don't live in that area, it's hard to tell which is which. To effectively address ground water in a watershed, we need to first delineate the boundaries, and some of the people talked about that in this morning's session, to establish a watershed management unit. If ground water provides a significant flow contribution to surface water within a proposed unit, then the ground water recharge area should be defined and included within the watershed unit. If the water sediments and dissolved materials in a watershed dram to an aquifer, the aquifer and recharge area should be included in the designated watershed protection unit. Bob Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Water of EPA, said hi order to be comprehensive, the watershed approach requires consideration of all environmental concerns including needs to protect public health-drinking water, critical habitat (wetlands), biological integrity, surface water, and ground water. Mr. Perciasepe recognizes that ground water is a critical part of any watershed. Ground water/surface water interaction should be taken into consideration when delineating these watershed management units, deferring to wellhead protection areas and aquifer recharge areas when appropriate. Page 65 ------- Dr. Elaine Reely, on our panel, will discuss the ground water/surface water interaction as it occurred in the community of Roosevelt, Oklahoma. David Terry, from TNRCC, will discuss the wellhead protection approach in Texas. As Myron alluded to this morning, nationally on the average, 40% of the stream flow is from ground water. In some parts of the country, most of the year, nearly all of the stream flow is from ground water. Dr. Jordan will discuss this j relationship and how you can evaluate this using DRASTIC mapping. DRASTIC mapping, j as some of you know, can be a valuable tool in analyzing ground water contaminants such as j pesticides and their effect on ground water in a given watershed. In an attempt to include } ground water activities into the watershed approach, TNRCC has been gathering ground water data in the Rio Grande Basin and incorporating that into a geographic information system or GIS. They're also looking at the potential contaminant sources in that area, and given the size of the Rio Grande Basin, that's no small task. Steve Musick will tell us about that, in a few moments, and about their new initiative Watershed Texas. This afternoon we'll be discussing all these issues. So let's get started. We'll hear from each of our speakers and then we'll open the floor to questions and discussion. Our first speaker is Dr. Wayne Jordan. Dr. Jordan is Director of the Texas Water Resource Institute located on the main campus of Texas A&M University in College Station. He received his B.S. and M.S. degree from the University of Illinois and a Ph.D. from the University of California at Davis. He's been with Texas A&M since 1968 in a variety of teaching, research and administrative positions. He was Resident Director of the Blackland Resource Center in Temple, Texas before moving to College Station in 1984 to assume the Director's role with the Institute. Dr. Jordan is a Fellow of the Crop Science Society of America and the American Society of Agronomy. In 1983, he received the Deputy Chancellor's Award for Distinguished Performance in Research for the Texas A&M University System. His current activities involve planning, implementation, and evaluation of water research programs for the Institute and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Dr. Jordan. Speaker: Dr. Wayne Jordan, Director, Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M University System; College Station, TX Thank you Patty for the kind words of introduction. The workshop organizers asked me to share a few thoughts with you about the difficult task of incorporating ground water into watershed protection plans. How difficult the task can be will be illustrated using the Edwards Aquifer Region as an example. Finally, I will use the DRASTIC map of Texas to support the need for special consideration of alluvial aquifers adjacent to rivers and surface water bodies. The Edwards Aquifer Region is one of the most unique water resource systems in the nation. The Aquifer is about 180 miles long extending East from near Brackerville in Kinney County, Texas in the West, to near Kyle in Hays County in the East. The limestone or kartic aquifer provides the sole source of drinking water for the city of San Antonio with about 1 million residents. The Aquifer Page 66 ------- is recharged by stream flow, springs and seeps from a 4,400 square mile area of the Edwards plateau, known as the catchment area, organized into several major watersheds or drainage basins. Streams and rivers arising in the catchment area flow southeastward toward the Gulf of Mexico, where they provide iresh water inflows Jo^oipportseveral estuarine ecosystems. Qn4he way^these jdver^cross the Balcones Fault Zone, a 1,500 square mile area of fractured and cavernous limestone exposed on the surface allowing large quantities of water to recharge the Edwards Aquifer. Water flows eastwardly in the Aquifer beneath surface watersheds to major discharge points comprised of wells and springs. Incorporation of ground water into watershed protection policies and plans for the Edwards Region presents both technical and institutional problems. First, the legal right to divert and use surface water differs from ground water. In Texas, surface water is property of the state while ground water is subject to the right of capture by landowners. Separate institutions have evolved to manage surface and ground water. River Authorities are regional governmental entities charged with management and protection of surface waters. Underground Water Conservation Districts are chartered separately under Texas water law and District boundaries may not follow aquifer boundaries. This means that there is no single legal or institutional structure with responsibility for conjunctive management of surface and ground water throughout the region. An Act passed by the Texas Legislature in 1993 created the Edwards Aquifer Authority to consolidate aquifer management in a single office, but the new authority still has no legal basis in dealing with surface water. As of this date, the authority is still not a reality due to a legal challenge to the Act. Secondly, flows in the Aquifer are rapid (by ground water standards) resulting in subsurface interbasin transfers of large quantities of water. Both quality and quantity of water in the aquifer are affected by activities on several surface water basins. The water is a fugitive resource transmitting impacts of contamination rapidly away from the source. Sinkholes allow a variety of contaminants to enter the Aquifer unaltered by the normal filtering action of soil. Since local flow patterns are largely unknown, sources of contaminants are difficult if not impossible to identify. Ground water emerging in distant watersheds as springflow creates opportunities for transfer of contaminants regardless of policies and plans in the receiving basin. Thirdly, water quality protection cannot be separated from quantity issues. As noted above, water and contaminants are transmitted quickly to points of discharge. There is also concern that overpumpage from the Aquifer will result hi salt water intrusion from adjacent formations. At this time, legal authority to restrict pumpage is lacking. While this may be a unique water resource system in Texas, karstic aquifers are widespread and important sources of drinking water for this nation. Some of the issues cited above may be unique impediments that Texas must overcome, but complex surface-ground water connections present challenges for all who would incorporate ground water into watershed protection plans. A more common example of surface-ground water interactions is one of alluvial aquifers hydraulically connected to surface flows of rivers and streams. The hydraulic connection allows Page 67 ------- water to flow to or from the aquifer according to river stage. Some estimates suggest that ground water may contribute as much as 40% of dry weather or base flows of rivers. The fraction of surface flows originating as ground water would be expected to vary widely, and estimates of local or site-specific contributions rarely exist. Globally, flood plains are some of the most productive agricultural regions and are farmed intensively. Intensive farming is almost universally accompanied by applications of large quantities of mineral nutrients and water as irrigation. These practices have led to contamination of shallow aquifers by nutrients, especially nitrogen, and pesticides throughout the Midwest. Hydrogeologic conditions where a high potential exists for chemicals applied to the soil surface to leach to underlying aquifers are evaluated through EPA's DRASTIC procedure. An agricultural DRASTIC map has been published for the state by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The map identifies river floodplains, especially in the eastern half of Texas, as having a high potential for contamination from agricultural chemicals. While indicating a high potential, it is important to note that this analysis says nothing about actual chemical use in those areas. Unfortunately, there exists little direct information on site-specific agricultural chemical use. Incorporation of alluvial, riverine aquifers into watershed protection plans appears feasible. Some of the same limitations noted for the Edwards Aquifer are issues here as well, especially ownership of the water resource. Since the official ground water policy of the state is one of nondegradation, TNRCC has the authority to protect ground water from contamination of all types. However, since few private wells have been sampled for pesticides, especially in shallow aquifers, there is little evidence of contamination upon which to base regulatory action. A final point is worthy of mention. Upon discovery of chemicals in shallow, alluvial aquifers, the presumption is usually that the surface landowner or operation is to blame. This is not necessarily the case with those aquifers hydraulically connected to surface streams subject to flooding. High water elevations in streams causes river water to flow into these aquifers so that the rivers themselves may become the sources of contamination. Also, flooding may contaminate wells and shallow aquifers if the floodwaters are themselves contaminated. For example, Atrazine was found in floodwaters of the Mississippi as they spread across the upper Midwest. It is likely that Atrazine will be detected in private wells and the alluvial aquifer throughout previously flooded areas even though the surface landowner may never have applied the chemical. If ground water is to be included in watershed protection plan, those responsible for regulation of water quality must have the resources to resolve these issues and many others. Presently, this is not the case in Texas where investigations of ground water problems remain complaint driven. Presently, EPA funds to implement comprehensive ground water monitoring in all states are clearly inadequate. More extensive, regulatory-mandated testing requirements of public drinking water suppliers will provide some of the needed information on organic contaminants in ground water, but shallow aquifers are often not included. Implementation of pilot monitoring programs as part of Page 68 ------- EPA's Pesticide Strategy will again provide some information, but the extent of these pilot studies is grossly inadequate to characterize water quality in the aquifers of most states. In conclusion^ I believe we arejiisi now in the initial stages of thinking about how to develop integrated, realistic watershed protection programs that incorporate ground water into the total water resource picture. In Texas, we have both legal and institutional impediments to holistic management of our water resources. In some instances, technical limitations preclude clear legal separation of surface and ground water in alluvial aquifers near rivers. In others, surface waters recharge aquifers that discharge into surface waters miles away creating jurisdictional problems for existing institutions. The challenge to put hi place appropriate institutions and develop pertinent data remains largely before us. Because of limited funding, alternatives to command and control policies will be essential if our state is to adequately protect all of its water resources. Patty Senna: Thank you, Dr. Jordan. Our next speaker is Steve Musick. Steve received his Bachelor's Degree in Geological Sciences from the University of Texas at Austin and began his professional career as an Assistant Geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. He's been with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and its predecessor agency, the Texas Water Commission, since 1981, where he initially worked in the Underground Injection Control program. Since 1986, he has worked hi the areas of ground water management, ground water protection, program development, and the assessment of nonpoint source impacts on ground water. His work included critical area ground water studies and water quality protection and water supply issues for the Edwards Aquifer. Boy, a lot of people work in the Edwards Aquifer around here. Mr. Musick is currently the manager of the Ground Water Assessment Section hi the Water Planning & Assessment Division of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. He will tell us about his work hi the Rio Grande Basin. Speaker: Steve Musick, Manager, Ground Water Assessment Section, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; Austin, TX What I'd like to talk about today is a project that I've been working on for the last couple of years. I'm going to talk about a project that we have to assess the water quality in the Rio Grande Basin of Texas. There are two interesting, major aspects that are important to our agency and to the folks hi Texas. One is concern about water quality in the Rio Grande Basin. As a part of another state program, we assess the total impact of discharges, both nonpoint source and point source, in the basin. Our agency is committed to looking at water quality, both surface water quality and ground water quality in terms of assessing what the water quality is, what the problems are, and eventually management practices to address those problems. The second part of this project, which is interesting to me, is that we're using the Rio Grande Basin as a test case to figure out how to integrate ground water concepts into the Page 69 ------- watershed approach for basin management. This integration effort is what I'm going to touch on today rather than a lot of detail on the Rio Grande Project. The Rio Grande Basin covers 50,000 square miles, includes 30 counties, and has five major cities on the Texas side. It includes El Paso and Juarez across the border, Del Rio, Brownsville, Matamoros, Laredo and Nuevo Laredo on the other side, Midland and Odessa. It is a significant economic area for the State. The approach that we took in the Rio Grande Basin was to begin to look at how you integrate ground water into a basin approach. What we're working on is a simplified approach and basically one that involves taking existing water quality data, geologic data, ground water availability data, and data on man's activities, and mapping this data. Mapping is used as the tool to overlay or integrate the ground water data with the surface water data. And what we've done, hi the first step is to focus on the ground water data and put it on the map of the basin. We can then use the mapping as an integrative approach and one to analyze the situation in terms of a basin approach to ground water. The problem with integrating ground water and surface water approaches the different hydrology. The basin is obviously oriented with the natural flow of surface waters from the northwest to the southeast, and the orientation of most of the eight digit watersheds are in that direction. The ground water, however, trends in a crescent from southwest to northeast. We have five major aquifers and seven minor aquifers that are mapped and there are quite a few shallow near-surface aquifers that have not been put on this map. The point is that it makes for a very complicated situation. We have a lot of ground water resources. Many of these are aquifers~the Hueco bolson and the Edwards-Trinity Plateau aquifer—radically different aquifers. They behave differently in how they transmit water and how you get water out of them when you pump from a well. Then they also differ in where the water is actually flowing. So while you have the surface water moving this direction, the ground water may be moving another direction. The differing flow paths make for a somewhat complicated picture. One thing we want to do is try to make the approach simple. We decided to look at the aquifer resources and then look at the activities that would impact the water quality of these resources. One of the approaches is the linking of the mapping of the aquifer and the data. There is not just the area that's shown on the map, but also the ground water availability of that aquifer. How much ground water is there that can be produced? How much is recharged? We're also looking at the quality of that ground water and it will vary considerably from one aquifer to the next. Then we're also looking at water levels and the ability to get that water out. That is the value of GIS mapping of the resource and having Page 70 ------- access to the information hidden there. We don't see it on the map, but it's attached to the delineation of these ground water areas in the GIS data base. The second concern that we have, of course, is what are the potential sources of contamination? In other words, where does man's activity fit into this particular picture? And then, how do you relate those two? Well, our approach on this has been to map the resource. Then map man's activities which are primarily going to be point sources. A good link which we are employing on this project is aquifer vulnerability mapping. Dr. Jordan made mention of the DRASTIC methodology and showed a map that we have for the whole state. What we've been doing most recently is mapping on a county level. And the vulnerability map allows us to link the resource that we're protecting with the kinds of activities that may be taking place and giving us an idea of whether those activities may potentially impact the aquifers. These counties, Terrell, Val Verde, Webb, Hidalgo and Cameron, are counties where we have done county level DRASTIC mapping. We've also done one in El Paso, but we do not yet have the data in our GIS. So we're gradually working our way through the basin to map the vulnerability. The areas that are yellow, red-orange, the brighter areas are the ones that have the greater vulnerability. The Rio Grande alluvium, right along here, shows up to be the most vulnerable aquifer. So the DRASTIC maps give us a technique for looking at the aquifers and then prioritizing them based on their pollution potential. We can then focus our monitoring or our data gathering efforts or our management efforts first in those places with the greatest vulnerability. This is our regional map of man's activities and this includes the Colonias which are in white. There's quite a few down in here. Those are residential communities or groups of people that have no water or sewage service and are very low on the economic scale. Then we have public water supplies in red. You'll see there are quite a few in El Paso and they are all over the place. Those are areas where, even though you have a regional ground water source, you've got a point where you're taking that water out and using it. So it's important to know where those points are in relation to other points, such as landfills, toxic releases, SuperFund sites, which are also mapped on the area. Unfortunately, when you overlay these, it gets real busy. So we're not going to show too much of that. Let me focus in on El Paso County for just a moment here. This shows a broad outline of the county here with the Hueco bolson and then the blue lines here are showing streams. So we've overlapped geology, the county boundary, the actual streams that are in the area, and then the orange line is the magnified~or at this scale, that's the eight digit hydrologic unit area (HUA). So this begins to show us where we can focus our work on taking a surface water area, the HUA, and then finding out where the streams are in it and then where the ground water resources are in it. So then we come in and we put in man's activities here as point Page 71 ------- sources. Yellow are public water supply wells. David Terry will talk a little bit more about this when he talks about wellhead protection, because that's a technique that can then be used, once you have this information, to go in and identify in more detail the contamination sources and also identify and work with local government to develop management techniques for addressing those problems. Blue here is potential sources of contamination which could be landfills or PST's. In any case, this gives you a relatively succinct picture of El Paso County, the aquifer as a whole, the exact points where water is being taken out, and potential contamination sources. What we have done, in this set of slides, is to take the resource and then overlay the point sources of possible contamination. Now we're going to change the scale. So we have started with the Rio Grande Basin. We've got a regional picture, and now we've blown that up and we've come down to a particular set of two eight digit watersheds that we can focus on in more detail. Here the yellow dot is a well. So it's very specific. And the blue dot is a very specific contamination source. So the map gives information for both our agents and local government as to possible problems and where we focus our efforts. Let me switch gears here for just a minute. What I've gone over summarizes our project to date. We've been working about a year and a half to review data and possible ways of presenting it. Our next step is to go to a finer level of detail. The importance here, and Dr. Jordan eluded to it and I've seen it discussed in other places, is what is the exact on-the- ground site specific relationship hi the ground water/surface water interaction? Because if you take it down to a spring or a well, then you have a point source. Is the water moving from the point source to that well or, if there is ground water contamination at that point source, is it moving towards the surface water body? And is there a likelihood that ground water will discharge into the surface water and cause a contamination problem? To answer that, you have to have more detailed information. What we're hoping to do in our next effort, in the Rio Grande Basin, is to more clearly identify specific areas within those aquifers where you have either recharge to the ground water from title stream or you have discharge from the ground water to the stream and focus on that particular interaction. This slide is a pretty good example from the Seymour Aquifer in North Central Texas—north of Abilene, closer to Lubbock than to Dallas/Ft. Worth. What we have here in white is the Seymour Aquifer and it's a water table aquifer. The water level hi the aquifer is shallow. The red dots and these numbers are particular wells that have been located and are in use hi the aquifer. Then we have the depth below the surface to the water table. So you see, we've got 18-feet here, 23-feet here, 27' over here, 37', and 29'. So you see that the water level in the aquifer is higher in this area and shallower here. So the water is moving in that direction. Page 72 ------- We have also mapped the spring discharges in this particular area and, of course, the springs are near streams. You see them located here along these streams. This is the major watershed in the area through here and those are tributaries coming down from this higher ground where the aquifer is. Se this slide presents a good depiction ef *he ground water, surface water interaction. This area is a very significant recharge zone. It is a sandy, very permeable aquifer. It has shallow water levels, so you have a short travel time from whatever activity you may have at the surface to the ground water table, and then a very short travel towards these springs. The then springs discharge to these smaller creeks which then find their way into the major ones. This slide illustrates what we would like to do with a lot of the areas in the Rio Grande. That is to be able to take this data, generate it on maps, and be able to use it as an assessment tool. In summary, these mapping techniques (and we're lucky enough to have a good GIS system and we're also lucky enough to have a large amount of data for a number of aquifers in Texas) enable us to take the data, a wide range of data, both water resource data and man's activities and overlay them. We can then prioritize our efforts both in terms of further monitoring and further assessment. One can also prioritize activities in terms of management practices to address these problems, and then gradually refine the detail of it. One can then analyze the data comprehensively to see if we are having success stories, if we are cleaning it up or not. The mapping techniques give us the basic data and the tools to do that work. Thank you. Patty Senna: Dave Terry received his B.A. from Texas Christian University in 1985 and his Masters in Environmental Science from Miami University in Ohio in 1988. Since that time, David's worked in the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and again, its predecessor agency, Texas Water Commission. Administering the National Flood Insurance Program, and since 1989, the Wellhead Protection Program. Mr. Terry provides technical assistance, public education, and guidance to local communities who are interested in wellhead protection. He also trains volunteer groups like the Retired Senior Volunteers to conduct contaminate source inventory surveys for wellhead protection programs. Speaker: David Terry, Environmental Scientist, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; Austin, TX I want to talk to you about the wellhead protection program. I'm going to avoid the details as best I can and just give you an overview of how wellhead protection can fit into a management routine of a watershed basin. Now we have been doing wellhead protection for almost nine years in Texas. It's a voluntary program. The state provides technical assistance and guidance. Implementation is done at the local level. Now on that note, be forewarned that in Texas the only folks who have any enforcement powers whatsoever are going to be Page 73 ------- cities. The majority of water systems that use ground water are going to be entities like water supply corporations or MUD's who do not have enforcement power. So we have to be very flexible and very receptive to innovations at the local level and how to implement best management practices. In addition to implementing the BMP's at the local level, that's where the actual work is done in cataloging what potential sources of contamination exist. That's important, as you recall earlier when Myron mentioned the relationship between ground water and surface water, and of course, the presentations by Dr. Jordan and Steve on the potential contaminants and mapping. We rely on the local level to provide us that information in establishing a wellhead protection program. Now the first thing we do, with respect to a wellhead program and especially with respect to a watershed basin, is delineate wellhead protection areas around the public water supply wells for a given community in a watershed. Now what we're trying to do is identify the area around the public water supply well that is most susceptible to contamination. We use a five- year time of travel to define that. Now once we identify that area, we need to identify the potential sources of contamination. The wellhead program is a preventative program. It's not a reactive program. Basically, the best way to keep your public water supply wells safe from contamination is to identify anything that could potentially contaminate it. What we do is delineate these water protection areas and train volunteers to inventory areas for potential sources of contamination. Once we get this material back, we will access Steve's data and we're just now starting to access GIS technology. This is where I'm going to be tomorrow to try and put together a database of potential contaminant sources and some recommended best management practices. An example of what we recommend is if they've got a leaking underground storage tanks, get it registered with the commission, and remove them. This has been a rather hot item at times, given the frequency of leaking tanks in Texas. In Lubbock, we have confirmed several cases of free contaminant plumes floating on the ground water. We're getting ready to do a full scale project where we do GIS and GPS to identify every one of these plumes. This will give the city a management tool with which to better protect their drinking water supply. We can recommend steps such as removing underground storage tanks, overseeing the operation and installation of these things. As an example, the City of Sweeney, which is a little town of about 4,000, was able to shut down a gas station which had some leaking tanks by using a wellhead protection ordinance. And by doing that, they had the tools at hand to limit whatever contamination was occurring. As a result, they were able to curtail any contamination of the ground water. Page 74 ------- Contingency planning is vital especially in areas like the Galveston Bay watershed. There is a lot of petrochemical processing industry down there and a lot of shipping. If you have one well incident, you're going to have a major one. What we tell our folks is the wellhead program is ttesigned^to prevent contamination, but accidents can and will happen. Tnewise thing to do is to have a contingency response plan in place—if contamination does happen, have a plan of action. We have some communities which have developed contingency plans which we provide, with their permission, to any community that's interested for their adoption. That way we kind of spread the wealth of knowledge, and in the cases where it has been put into action, it has worked. There are always some things that need some tweaking, but we've been able to put in different communities' hands a response plan. We hate to see it when they have to use it, but when it has been called into play, it has functioned well. The average citizen has got to be pulled into your wellhead protection program if you're going to make it work. Again, this is a voluntary program in Texas. This is not an enforcement approach. We have to have public support in order to put this in place, and the way you do this is to make it worth their while. You've got to show them the benefits. You've got to get them involved. What we do is pull into the program citizen volunteers, and in this case here, we've got a group of volunteers up in Lubbock out doing their inventory, bedecked in then- official wellhead protection program volunteer T-shirts. What we're doing here is not making this a state program. It's a local program. It is being operated by citizens. It is being implemented by citizens. When they're going door to door, talking to folks, doing this potential contaminant source inventory, they're not asking on behalf of the state, they're asking on behalf of their own community. Another management tool we have to put in place are just some road signs. We found that if you just put your hands on a road sign or something that physically marks the perimeter of a wellhead protection area, you've given the citizen, you've given the public something that he can deal with. If it's just on a map, that's a little bit too abstract. If it's sitting in an office, then it's virtually useless from a public point of view. To get the public involved and to get them behind your wellhead efforts, you've got to put it out there to where they can see it. Steve and Margaret Hart, Jeff Blass, and I were able to put some signs together and were able to put out a collection of these things to a few communities statewide to see how they faired. The folks loved them because they had something they could use. These things have been provided without charge just to see how well they operated, and so far, I haven't heard anything negative. Page 75 ------- Now once we identify all of these recommendations for minimizing or preventing contamination, there are going to be some areas which fall into kind of a grey shaded area, and one of those areas is old pesticides and old pesticide containers. What are you going to do with them? Well, one of the aspects of the wellhead program is to try and link up with other programs to maximize the benefits of these programs and to get them out of the waste stream. What we try and do is get folks in the wellhead program to participate in the empty pesticide container recycling program. The State comes out and holds a collection event. These containers collected are chipped, bagged, recycled, and turned into things such as plastic railroad ties. The old pesticides such at DDT, chlordane, etc., are collected and incinerated or landfilled in approved facilities. Public education. We do seminars all over the state. Again, we've got to build support and get people behind the program. But we've also found that you have to maintain a fairly high profile. The issue attenuation cycle dictates that what is current today will not be tomorrow. It will be put down at the bottom of the list. So we have to maintain a constant exposure to keep the program alive and keep people behind it. And in communities that have adopted the program in very sensitive watersheds, such as the City of El Paso, they have one of the most successful wellhead programs hi the country, having now gone across into the City of Juarez, and in Houston, which is now expanding and attempting to go into the entire watershed. I'm going to turn it over to the next speaker, thank you. Patty Senna: Our last speaker, but certainly not least, is Dr. Blaine Reely. He's a partner with Envirotech Services and his corporate offices are located in Enid, Oklahoma. He received his B.S. in geological engineering, M.S. in civil engineering from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and a Ph.D. in civil engineering in hydrology from Oklahoma State University. Over the past 20 years, he's been involved in a broad spectrum of environmental programs. For the past 10 years, he's focused his efforts on the area of water resources and water supply systems managements. Dr. Reely has been actively involved hi designing energy management systems for water and wastewater utilities, and recently participated in a review of the water supply system for the kingdom of Jordan. Dr. Reely served as a project manager for two EPA wellhead demonstration projects in the state of Oklahoma that I worked on with him. One was the City of Enid and the other the town of Roosevelt, Oklahoma. The town of Roosevelt derives its water supply from three supply wells located on islands in the Tom Steed Reservoir. There's a lot of ground water surface water interaction in there, and Blame's going to tell you about that right now. Page 76 ------- Speaker: Elaine Reely, P.E., President, Envirotech Services, Inc., Enid, OK The town of Roosevelt, Oklahoma, is located in Kiowa County and has a population of approximately 350 people. Duringihe process of gathering information for inclusion in the application to be submitted for the demonstration project, I conducted an on-site visit to the Town of Roosevelt to inspect the water system and the wellfield. The wellfield is located in the middle of Tom Steed Reservoir, which is a fairly large lake in southwestern Oklahoma. It is necessary to drive on a very narrow levee road out to two (2) of the wells. However, a rowboat is necessary in order to reach the third well. Originally, these wells were actually drilled in the terraces of a fairly large stream in the late 1970's or early '80s. When the Bureau of Reclamation announced their intention of building a dam, they agreed to provide islands and levees to insure sufficient access to the wells. Therefore, there is obviously historical evidence of a ground water/surface water connection. When the proposals were prepared reflecting this ground water/surface water connection, the EPA awarded a demonstration project to the Town of Roosevelt. We began this project by studying the topographic mapping, and it appeared that the watershed for the Tom Steed Reservoir was somewhat manageable. It fell on the Otter Creek Watershed and after closer inspection, we determined that a diversion structure and canal were built as part of the Tom Steed Reservoir and it diverted a much larger watershed, the Elk Creek Watershed, into the Tom Steed Reservoir. After delineating the watershed that actually contributed water to the Tom Steed Reservoir, the watershed was in excess of 700/sq. miles and extended from the Town of Roosevelt to the north approximately 60 miles. It is 58 miles long and 5 to 18 miles wide. Basically, we followed the traditional approach that is utilized in a wellhead protection project and applied it to a watershed evaluation and management study. We characterized the water supply system as well as delineated and characterized the wellhead protection area. This vast watershed incorporates a significant number of industrial complexes, military complexes, and a broad variety of other activities. Generally, the watershed is about 85% agricultural. There is a significant amount of wheat and cotton grown in this area, as well as cattle grazing. Since this area is located on the western foothills of the Wichita Mountains, there are also some rugged and undeveloped primitive areas in the watershed. Approximately five percent of the total land use is devoted to various municipal, commercial, and institutional purposes. Therefore, the watershed is primarily controlled, from a water-quality perspective, by nonpoint source contaminants, i.e. agricultural sources. Initially, we felt that we were going to be dealing primarily with nonpoint source problems resulting from fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. To inventory contaminant sources in a 700/sq. mile area was a major project hi itself. However, we utilized available federal, state, and local databases, and we relied heavily on word-of-mouth networking in the rural Page 77 ------- community which allowed us to have one-on-one communications with the various parties associated with the watershed. This communication enabled us to have a very good understanding of activities taking place within the watershed and specifically, potential contaminating activities. A contaminant transport analysis (or well developed surface water drainage system) was developed. Essentially, a surface water tributary transects every square mile of the watershed. The contaminant transport mechanism in this watershed is, should a spill occur, in a stream within a very short period of time (i.e., hours to a few days.) Once in the stream, it is washing downstream into the Tom Steed Reservoir and therefore, it can potentially impact the water quality of the town of Roosevelt. Upon completion of the transport analysis, we developed a contingency and management plan. We relied and borrowed heavily from the contingency and management plan which was created by the State of Oklahoma, with the prime author being Mr. Mike Houts. We, then, customized this plan for use by the Town of Roosevelt. We recommended water quality monitoring be performed that could easily be incorporated into what the Town of Roosevelt was currently doing; public education which could easily be incorporated into what the state and county were already doing; and continued updating of the contaminant inventory so the databases in the state were so efficiently put in-place that they can be easily accessed and updated. Also, a specific recommendation was made that there be information transmitted to the local farming community to transfer information on "Best- Management Practices" (BMP) for agricultural chemical usage. In the state of Oklahoma, the OSU Extension Service and the State Department of Agriculture are very involved in this continuing education process. In fact, the results of our water quality analysis and conversations with the farming community indicated that BMP's were currently being utilized and put in place and therefore, we detected no major concern with regard to the existing water quality. The future outlook appears very promising from the perspective of the Town of Roosevelt. There are a number of larger communities using water from the Tom Steed Reservoir. The Town of Roosevelt is currently working on creating a task force among all of the water users in an effort to bring communities together to work collectively on facilitating the short and long term recommendations. Patty Senna: We have a few minutes for questions if anyone has any questions for any of the panel members. I probably can't answer them, but our panel members can. Page 78 ------- Question: How about this volunteer involvement? How do you address liability? David Terry: What we have typically done is gone through the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). In terms of liability, while the volunteers are working on an RSVP sponsored project they are covered by that organization's liability insurance. In terms of training, I physically come out and train the volunteers. What I ask of the community is that they set aside a time and date for me to come and do a training seminar. It takes about half a day. And I'll go through the routines of explaining the program to them; how they fit into the big picture; what the benefits are they hope to receive; and how to actually do the inventory. Now hi terms of quality control, what we do is take the inventory forms and do a random sample to double check the inventory results. After having done this for the past five years now, we have seen that their results are very accurate and it's quality work. Patty Senna:. The RSVP in Texas have put together a how-to booklet also. Communities all over the country are using the booklet on how to do this. Patty Senna: New Mexico is starting a very active wellhead protection program. The lady who coordinates it is Jennifer Steinbaugh. She works for New Mexico Environment Department, and I don't have her number off the top of my head, but if you'll see me later, I'll get your name and phone number and give that to her if you'd like the information. I'm sure Dave would be happy to supply you with a copy of the RSVP's booklet. Page 79 ------- Page 80 ------- The Total Mam'i^i^n Daily Load fTMDL) Process - Part 2 (3:00-4:30PM) Moderator: Troy Hill, TMDL Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Dallas,TX Is there anybody new in this session that wasn't in the last session? Okay. Briefly, I'll talk about the TMDL process and how we're approaching it and that will lead right into Martin's presentation. We're looking at the TMDL process as a problem solving process, in that we're focusing on water quality standards being our goal that we're trying to achieve and maintain. Historically, we have focused just on point sources and coming up with a strategy to meet water quality standards. But now we're expanding to include nonpoint sources and focus on the chemical, physical, and biological aspects of the stream. So we could be looking at a chemical criteria or a goal of habitat or maybe biological diversity, depending on what we're trying to achieve. With respect to that, Martin Maner, who is now the Interim Deputy Director of Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology (ADPC&E), is working in conjunction with the numerous staff from ADPC&E, Mike Rogers being one on a TMDL, which we're calling a non-traditional TMDL, looking at the actual physical side of the stream and what's going on there. Martin has been working in the water quality field for a long time. He is one of the people at ADPC&E who has a lot of knowledge and experience hi things that are happening now and have been happening for a long time. He's a good resource. Martin is doing some interesting things, not only as the Interim Deputy Director, but as an engineer in the Fayetteville area. So with that, Martin, we'll turn the time over to you and move forward. Speaker: Martin Maner, Interim Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology; Little Rock, AR Thank you, Troy. Troy went over the TMDL process and this project doesn't fit the normal Total Maximum Daily Load concept. This all started when Troy set up a conference about a year ago with Dave Rosgen. He's a stream restoration specialist and a fluvial geomorphologist who works out of Colorado. If you remember the National Geographic water issue out about a year ago, he was featured hi it. He was sitting on a bulldozer wearing a cowboy hat doing in-stream channel restoration. In the Ozark Highlands region of Arkansas, we've established ecoregion based water quality standards. The Ozark Highlands are primarily an upland area and they're underlain by calcareous rocks of limestone and dolomite. Due to the nature of the streams, they have a lot of gravel in them. In-stream gravel mining is widely practiced, so we wanted to put together Page 81 ------- a project that checked into what effect in-stream gravel mining was having on the streams. The stream that we picked is in the Ozark Highlands. It's called Crooked Creek, and it's the best small-mouth fishery in Arkansas and probably one of the best in the nation. Gravel mining has been going on in the stream for quite a number of years, since at least back in the '30's. To give you an idea of the quantities that are mined, it's estimated around 500,000 or more cubic yards are mined annually, and that's around 13.5 million cubic feet. If you can imagine a square a quarter mile wide on each side and you stack the gravel up eight-feet deep, that would be about the volume of gravel that's mined out of the stream. I don't know if you are familiar with some of the concepts of stream geomorphology, but basically, a stream reaches a stable state based on its flow, climatic conditions, and amount of erosion and sedimentation that's taking place within the stream. It reaches a steady state and will basically stay within that unless something perturbs it. So you can imagine if 500,000 cubic yards of gravel are taken out of the stream annually, it's going to adjust its channel and start eroding banks or whatever to account for the load that's taken out of the stream. We received a small grant from EPA to purchase equipment to do this survey. We're trying to evaluate the changes in the stream's channel morphology, the stream channel stability, it's substrate size distribution, and the sedimentation rate. This is between the least disturbed sites, the disturbed sites, and downstream sites. The information will then be used to assess the impact on the small-mouth fishery including loss of suitable habitat, smothering of spawn, and other factors. The result of the study, as I said earlier, won't be a traditional Total Maximum Daily Load in the sense of limiting a pollutant load or mass, but should provide a rational basis for managing an activity~the gravel mining—within the watershed. We're hoping this methodology will let us assess the impact in-stream gravel mining is having on the streams and then we may regulate or restrict the gravel mining practice, perhaps below a certain water elevation or stream elevation, to prevent any damage to the streams. This next graphic is Crooked Creek. You'll notice it has large meanders until you reach the town of Yellville and then it's fairly straight. The watershed is around 460 square miles. It has a total channel length of around 83 miles. The gradient is around eight to ten feet per mile. An unusual feature of Crooked Creek is it loses all its flow in the summer. It's a perennial stream upstream of Yellville. In this portion where the channel is dry, gravel miners use bulldozers and front-end loaders in the channel itself and mine gravel. The gradient of the stream is what drives the velocity in the stream. The higher the slope and the higher the velocity the more energy the stream has due to velocity. The energy within the system is dissipated by friction with the stream bottom, turbulence, erosion, and sediment transport. The processes of erosion and deposition are the dynamic factors that determine the stream's morphology, geometry and shape. Page 82 ------- Next overhead. This is a plot of the elevation per river mile. It starts off at 1,200, but actually the stream heads up at an elevation of around 1,600 feet mean sea level and flows into the White River at around 400 feet mean sea level. It has a good gradient and energy for its size. I'll briefly discuss the field methods we did to assess the channel geometry and some of the things we're doing to check for channel stability within the stream. Transect measurements will assess bank full width, bank full mean depth, the deepest point in the stream, the flood prone width, and establish a temporary bench mark, at each site, so that we can measure stream elevations in relationship to the bench mark to see if the stream is down-cutting or depositing material at each site. Bank full flow determines the channel shape. It's the flow that transports the most sediment within the stream. Because of the frequency of the occurrence of the bank, full flow is the one that transports the most sediment. Some of the physical features that identify the bank full depth elevation are the top of point bars, changes in vegetation, and grade changes. The methodology that we're using was developed by Mr. Rosgen, and it's also work done by Luna Leopold. Mr. Leopold was the Chief Hydrologist for U.S. Geology Survey for a number of years. We're also measuring the flow, mean velocity, cross-sectional area, and pebble count. Okay, Mike, get the lights now. Ready for the slides. This is a typical Ozark Highland stream. This is the Buffalo River. It's the watershed just south of Crooked Creek. This is Crooked Creek at a near or bank full flow. This will give you an idea of what a bank full flow looks like. This is hi the lower portion of Crooked Creek in the losing stream section. For about 23 miles there's usually no flow in the summertime. It's really amazing to go out there and see all this flow of around 60 or 75 cubic feet per second upstream, and then just drive downstream a few miles and see a dry stream bed. This is an aerial photograph of an area that has had intense gravel mining hi the past. This area right here, if you see the water in that area there, was mined two years ago. The original channel used to flow around here. Two years ago, they went in and mined over here by the trench method. The next time the stream came up, it jumped over into the excavated channel and has basically stayed in that channel ever since. We have established a transect at this point. You can see this area here is quite a bit wider. This is that same area that was shown in the aerial photograph. This is the channel that was mined, on the right. This was the original channel over here. Look at all this substrate that's exposed that was habitat for macro invertebrates and darters, etc. It's now high and dry. This is also the original channel. See the cobble rock here next to the bank. Note all the fine material that's settled in there. Silt and sand has completely smothered the bottom at this point here. This is the same site again. Page 83 ------- This is a shot at a bank fall flow. To give you an idea of what we're talking about when I use the term bank full flow, see this mid-channel bar here? It's almost covered up. That's another feature of the bank full elevations, bars are just covered. This is a site in Crooked Creek that was mined over 30 years ago, maybe 40 years ago, based on some of the trees that have grown back into the spoil areas at the site. This slide was taken this March. Last summer, the flow was coming through this way. So within less than a year, the channel has jumped at this location, and is still unstable. You see a lot of debris. Here's an uprooted tree. There's a lot of debris and trees that have fell into the stream. I'd say 30 or 40 really large trees have fell into the stream because the channel has down-cut and it's moving laterally eroding under the trees root mass and they just fall in. This has been going on probably ever since they quit the gravel mining. Again, more debris in the stream. This was a slide taken the first part of March. Notice this bank that's eroding—this high bank. That's in an earlier slide that was taken last summer and you can see it has eroded quite a bit. This is another shot. See the trees up here? The root mass? The stream has down-cut this much from the instability of the area that was caused by the gravel mining. Another shot showing the trees. That's a root wad of the tree that eroded and fell in. This is that high bank shown in the earlier shot. This tree is just about ready to get washed out. This is another shot showing how the channel has down-cut. You can tell by the way the tree roots are exposed. That's down-cut probably a foot or so. More debris, trees that have fell in the stream from the mining activity. This is the laser level that we used. You can barely see it, but that is the target there. You can either slide that up and down the level rod or you can put it on top of the level rod and raise the level rod to match the elevation of the laser beam to establish your elevations of the stream channel. This is showing transect work. A surveyor's cloth tape is stretched across the channel and then we take a shot every 10 feet or at breaks in elevation within the stream channel. First, we have to determine what the bank fall elevation is, and I would say it would be somewhere right in here. It's partially a subjective determination that you have to make. We record the elevation of the bank fall height, and then based on that elevation, we can make some other geometry measurements. I'm not really going to get into the details of that, because the main idea here is just to show you how you can do a TMDL that's not really within the normal concept of a TMDL, and what we hope to apply from what we learn from this. Page 84 ------- This is a tributary of Crooked Creek. I wanted to show this because it shows some classic features. This is a point bar here. You can see that the bank full elevation would basically be at the top of this point bar. The vegetation starts. There's a little bit of a change in the slope at Ibis -point—¥eu--ean-'t-see it because the^Hde is ^oo^ark, but thcre'-s- ft corresponding mark over on this bank. This is one of the interesting things of how a stream adjusts its channel. This stream is undergoing lateral or sideways migration. Probably the reason why is because the riparian vegetation has been removed —just nothing there but grass. You can see as the flow gets up to a bank full flow, it starts eroding this bank over here, and at the same time, deposition takes place on the point bar. So the relative width of the channel will basically stay the same, even though this whole complex is moving over to the right. This is another feature we're trying to assess in Crooked Creek. What's going on concerning lateral stability of the channel. This is one of the high banks on Crooked Creek at the site that was mined over 30 years ago. That's about a 15-foot level rod, to give you an idea of the height of the bank. To measure the lateral stability we drive in a rebar horizontally into the soil bank, flush with the soil. Then come back, say six months later or one year later, and measure how much the bank has eroded by measuring the length of the rebar that's protruding from the bank. You can get a rough estimate of what the lateral migration of the bank is and make an estimate of how much material is being eroded and going into the stream. These are some of the cross sections from the survey work we're doing. This is at a site called Kelly's Slab. At this site the bank full width was around 110 feet. The ratio of the width, 110 feet, to the depth was around 50. The channel is about 50 times wider than the mean depth. That's what we're finding is fairly representative for a least disturbed site. This is the cross-section plot at the disturbed site. The bank full width is around 320 feet. The width to depth ratio at this site is 135. What happens at these mined sites is the channel gets much wider and the width to depth ratio increases. This channel type is very unstable. It's a wide, fairly shallow, cross-sectional area. It can't transport sediment very well. With the gravel substrate, that site is always going to be unstable and shifting around. All the fine material gets picked up and carried downstream. There's a pool about a quarter mile below this site that has filled in with fine sediment. Here's a level rod for reference. You can see the gravel there, it's completely filled in with sand and silt. All the interstitial spaces that would normally occur in this type of stream, where you find insect larvae, darters, and mad-toms is gone. These are ideas that people have found before, but they really hadn't been quantified. What we're trying to do is quantify some of the changes that are taking place. This is a cumulative particle size graph. This is the percent of cumulative here. In other words, these numbers Page 85 ------- here actually correspond to ~ that's one millimeter, that's ten millimeters, 100 millimeters, 1,000 millimeters, etc. For example, at the yellow line, it would be about 40 millimeters. What this is showing is at the least disturbed site the material that's less than one millimeter in size (sand, silt, and clays) is around nine percent. But at the disturbed site, and at the site just downstream of the disturbed site, it's almost 30% fines. Thirty percent of the substrate is less than one millimeter in size. There's a real difference in the particle size of the fine material. That's the last slide. We can have the lights on again. As I had mentioned earlier, we're just getting started on this work. We've been out in the field two tunes and we'll develop the particle size distribution at all our sites. We're going to have about eight sites. We'll also be able to monitor through tune at these transect elevations we've established whether the channel is cutting down or filling in. We'll be able to measure lateral stabilization. What we've already seen is that fine material increases at the mined sites. It fills in the interstitial spaces and creates embeddedness. It also can increase turbidity when the stream velocity gets up and suspends these particles. And of course, when you fill in the interstitial spaces with sediment, that eliminates the habitat for the macro invertebrates and some of the small fish like darters and mad-toms that live in those areas. The width to depth ratio increases significantly. The other thing that really surprised me is that site where they stopped mining 30 years ago. It's still unstable. It's still moving around. There are trees falling in. In fact, it may be that it is inherently unstable from here on until—I don't have any idea how long it would take for it to become stable, but it's been unstable now for 30 or 40 years. It doesn't look like there's any process going on that would stabilize it, because the stream has down-cut and got below the root mass of the trees. There's nothing to stop the lateral migration. Even though there's riparian vegetation here, the stream is down-cut and can go underneath the root mass of the trees, undercut the trees, and they just fall in. I don't see that process stopping. Probably the only thing that would get it stopped would be to go in and do some channel restoration like Mr. Rosgen does. Well, that's it. I'll be happy to answer any questions anyone has. I've got some handouts up here that you're welcome to have. It kind of gives an overview of the field methodology and what we're trying to do, and then some of the results that provide more detail of what I went into during my talk. Question: Have you done any biological monitoring to go with this like the rapid-bio assessment or upstream or downstream to those sites? Page 86 ------- Martin Maner: No. We intend to do that though. We received a small grant from EPA--I think we failed to mention this—and just bought 4h& equipment last JalL We wilLprobably staridoing^ome-of the macro invertebrate this summer. Thank you. Moderator: Troy Hill Thank you, Martin. Our next presentation will be by Richard Smith, and Richard works with the Indian Nations Council of Government. It's one of the 11 substate planning districts located in Oklahoma in the Tulsa area. Richard will be talking to us about the Little Deep Fork Creek Watershed. This project has been a project that has evolved. Initially, it started out as a simple wasteload allocation project, and this was before Richard actually got involved. I don't know if he volunteered to get involved or not, but he got pulled in after we had discussed that maybe we couldn't solve it by just looking at point sources. So this has been going on for a while. But there are some interesting concepts and procedures that are going on that will be useful, I think, in a lot of our nonpoint source type watersheds. So, Richard, would you show us what you know? Speaker: Richard Smith, Senior Environmental Planner, Indian Nations Council of Governments; Tulsa, OK Good afternoon. Little Deep Fork Creek is actually in an area of Northeastern Oklahoma between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. It's a tributary to the Deep Fork of the Canadian River. In 1989, INCOG performed a wasteload allocation study on behalf of the City of Bristow and the Town of Depew. These towns were renewing permits or discharge from wastewater treatment facilities. The standard wasteload allocation process relies on an intensive survey which collects water quality data relating to nutrients and dissolved oxygen. A computer model is then calibrated based upon the data set and wasteload allocations are set based upon future design criteria for the plants. During the survey, we found several areas that had anomalous dissolved oxygen problems that seemed to be unrelated to the wastewater discharges themselves. Above where the Bristow Treatment Plant comes in, even fecal coliform counts were about 10,000. We had some unusual dissolved oxygen readings. For example, our control site had dissolved oxygen maximum percent saturation of well over 150%. So even at our control site, we had some problems upstream, and we had not anticipated this in our original data collection set when we planned for an intensive survey. Page 87 ------- Both the D.O. swing and the percent saturation increase rather dramatically as you go downstream from the control site. The control site also had severe D.O. swings and high percent saturations. We had some real anomalies in terms of dissolved oxygen in the data. As a result of these kinds of problems through the finalization of our wasteload allocation process and talking to EPA, the recommendation was made to perform a phased TMDL on this site in order to characterize the nonpoint sources that appeared to be contributing to the D.O. stream deficiencies. The original scope on the TMDL phase included organizing interagency participation, developing a quality assurance project plan, characterizing existing nonpoint sources, performing an in-stream monitoring, developing reference streams, performing the TMDL to set wasteload allocations, and then implementing best management practices and education programs in the watershed. The Bristow Wastewater Treatment Plant is an extended aeration facility. The design capacity is a little under a million gallons a day. The present discharge is about 350,000 gallons a day, and the population, when we did the original study, was projected to double in 20 years. Based upon the 1990 Census data and new projections, the city of Bristow's population is now projected to remain about the same for the next 20 years. The town of Depew, which is upstream of the discharge from Bristow, is a town of about 500 population. They have a small lagoon facility with no mechanical aeration. The design average daily flow is 0.149 MOD. The present flow is only 30,000 gallons a day. The Depew population is projected to decrease just a little over the next 20 years. INCOG has revised the population estimates subsequent to the original study in 1989. The minimum dissolved oxygen criteria varies within the watershed, and is based upon the beneficial uses assigned to the stream. Depew discharges to a small tributary, which has been designated as habitat limited aquatic community. This designation has a lower dissolved oxygen standard applied to it. There is a section of Little Deep Fork Creek downstream of the Bristow Wastewater Treatment Plant that also is habitat limited with secondary recreation. Therefore, different kinds of dissolved oxygen criteria must be met within the watershed. The Soil Conservation Service, now the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), has collected land use data within the area on a ten acre grid. This data was used by the NRCS to develop a summary of the land uses in the area with respect to vegetation type. Within the watershed there is about 40% forest and 40% pasture, with only a small amount of urbanization in the area and about 15% row crops. INCOG used 1991 aerial photographs that were also available on a 1" to 400" scale to determine land use characteristics. Page 88 ------- Within the watershed there is open pasture that is interspersed with dense forests. In some areas the tree canopy is very sparse. Most of the area has marginal or small scale ranching. There are also several large scale ranches with high intensity cattle production. Oklahoma has joint NPDES permitting authority with EPA for establishing NPDES permits for discharge from wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the Little Deep Fork Creek was placed on the state's 303-D list as a high priority watershed for dissolved oxygen, salinity, pesticide, sedimentation, and nutrients. In terms of the watershed itself, there is about 37 inches per year of precipitation. The riparian zone consists of bottomland forest with upland forest and woods outside the riparian area. The watershed has gently sloping terrain. The soils are sandy and silty loams, and very erodible. This adds to the nutrient problem and the difficulty of really characterizing algae production in the stream. The drainage area for Little Deep Fork Creek is approximately 260 square miles. In the Oklahoma water quality standards, the beneficial use of warm water aquatic community is considered capable of supporting intolerant species. Primary recreation is capable of supporting full body contact and swimming. Habitat limited aquatic community are areas that have some kind of a natural or irreversible limitation on the habitat, while secondary body contact recreation would be for boating and wading only. The Soil Conservation Service in the 1950's developed a plan to establish 54 flood control lakes hi the watershed. The distribution of these is throughout the watershed of Little Deep Fork Creek. These obviously affect the flow as they are designed to retard extreme flooding events, extreme runoff events, and to discharge the water more slowly. When INCOG initially developed the TMDL scope as a result of the final INCOG modeling report INCOG re-examined the 1989 data set that had been collected. The original study was not designed to examine nonpoint sources of pollution. A review of the data set determined that there were several areas of possible nonpoint sources. The control site had a very high D.O. swing, and the middle reach also had slightly increased amounts of nutrients and D.O. problems. There was a third area that was just upstream of Bristow, which had high conductivity, possibly coming from oil field production areas. But since it didn't seem to impact the D.O. in any way, we are not going to consider it further in the TMDL. The last site, an area downstream of the Bristow Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge, has excessive nutrient problems and high D.O. swings. Regarding assessing the problem, we realized that there were no water quality data available prior to the 1989 data set. Also, the Little Deep Fork Creek was ranked as a high priority watershed because the modeling results indicated that both treatment plants would have to Page 89 ------- maintain or be elevated to an advanced secondary treatment level, and also because of the D.O. problems found during the 1989 data survey. Subsequent to the original data survey, dissolved oxygen profiles have been collected over the past two years to see how stable the original survey data was. The more recent dissolved oxygen maximums are very similar. These measurements were made five years apart. This strongly indicates that the 1989 data set collected for the original calibration study was not just an anomalous event, but reflects a steady state condition. In addition, one of the Phase I elements is characterizated of land use activities. There is a lot of cattle influence throughout the area. Many areas have direct cattle access to the stream. There is evidence of cow manure in the stream itself. Much of this occurs in the upper portion of the watershed above the original control station. What was anticipated as a relatively clean rural area is in fact an area that is heavily influenced by cattle production. The areas downstream of the Depew tributary have fewer cattle access points. The banks are very j steep in those areas, limiting the number of access points. j In order to complete the TMDL process, INCOG is working with the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC). The OCC has obtained a grant that will allow them to complete the other phases of the TMDL. Part of this process is to put together a number of the participants that will be immediately involved in the process, including the two towns that are affected, watershed land owners, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and EPA. Re-examining the original data set with respect to dissolved oxygen stress in the stream, one would expect to find high chlorophyll concentrations where the D.O. swings are the greatest. However, the water column had virtually no chlorophyll in it. But the D.O. swings were obviously due to algae production. Mechanical aeration couldn't account for the saturation of upwards to 200%, and there is not much macrophyte production in the stream. It was concluded that it had to be periphyton assemblages (as attached algae). Certain areas were identified where this was most likely. The original wasteload allocation study did not characterize periphyton beds. In fact, they were very difficult to see. One can usually see much filamentous algae in streams in areas of high nutrient enrichment. However, there is little attached filamentous algae like this in Little Deep Fork Creek. Mostly what is seen is a green/grey sand, which has high concentrations of diatoms and blue/green algae. But it is extremely productive. The stream bed itself is mostly sand and silt, so there } is little substrate for the filamentous algae to attach to. This results in mostly diatom j communities that can intermingle with the sand particles. j In setting the final wasteload allocation process, the nonpoint source loading from the cattle | loafing areas must be estimated. The 1989 model (QUAL-2E) will be recalibrated. QUAL- j I Page 90 ------- TX maybe used, because it has a nonpoint source function that is not flow related. We will assume for future conditions of modeling that there will be significant decreases in nonpoint source loadings in the stream. The point source controls in the stream will be driven by the wasteload allocation process itself. The nonpoint source control measures in the stream will consist of demonstration projects, implementation of best management practices and education programs within the watershed. This will be coordinated through the Oklahoma Conservation Commission in cooperation with other participating agencies. To summarize, there are three sub-categories. Project start-up consists of establishing cooperative agreements with the participants, creating a project advisory group, and developing a quality assurance plan for all participants. The data collection and wasteload allocation phase will consist of performing reconnaissance surveys and water quality monitoring. Stream modeling for load allocations and wasteload allocation development will then be performed. Watershed education meetings will be conducted and best management practices and demonstration projects will be implemented. Follow-up water quality studies will be performed to determine the effectiveness of BMP implementation, and if needed, to revise the TMDL. Question: How do you plan to characterize the nonpoint source loads? Richard Smith: Well, we had originally planned to conduct periphyton surveys, and measure nutrients from field flows during rainfall events, and dry weather flows. We really overextended ourselves to be honest. We just weren't able to do all this. What we plan to do now is work with the Conservation Commission through their 319 grant process and establish baseline studies under both wet weather and dry weather condition for nutrients. One of the issues that we need to nail down is the phosphorous loading into the stream, because the Bristow Wastewater Treatment Plant, like most treatment plants, discharges a lot of phosphorous. We need to see if phosphorous controls need to be implemented on the treatment plant. We don't know that at this tune. So one of our goals up front is to try to characterize that, as well as examine the influence of the cattle production in the stream. We don't have the data yet. We're looking at trying the Generalized Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF) Model. It's a desk top model that will estimate nutrient loads from a field into a stream. As Troy pointed out in his presentation, the goal at this point is to develop the TMDL. Continue with the studies. If the TMDL needs to be revised or refined, then we'll do that and we'll implement control measures as we proceed. Page 91 ------- Response: Troy Hill I think that an interesting point in this one is that they're going to develop a plot transect. Similar to a vegetation transect. We determine percent cover based on vegetation. They are going to do a plot transect, where they are actually determining the loads based on transects in the stream. Because one of the concerns is that in the upper quarter of the watershed a lot of that loading of the loafing cattle is coming during critical conditions (low flow and high temperature). Because we're getting a lot of nutrient loading there. So to quantify that, we do a plot by plot test which will be transects. That's being developed through the Oklahoma Conservation Commission as they are doing research on quantifying that. Question: Is this one of those possibilities? That you might have point source nonpoint source trading because you have problems upstream at the treatment plant that you might be able to take care of by cost sharing as opposed to treatment plant modifications. Richard Smith: That's a good possibility. And that's something when developed as a concept, you can take to the municipalities and offer as a possible alternative to just simply upgrading their treatment facilities which can be very costly. I guess the biggest drawback we would have is that Bristow is only about 4,000 population and Depew is only 500. Resources are very limited in the cities, but they're going to be limited anyway. So being able to provide nonpoint source control measures possibly at a fraction of the cost of a standard implementation of a treatment plant upgrade is going to help. Response: Troy Hill This project is unique in that it has a large 319 Grant associated with it to help build and take off what Richard's doing. There's approximately a $400,000 319 Grant to do implement these recommendations-whether that be cattle exclusions, alternate watering sources, that kind of thing. So basically, the state agencies have all come together and said, "How can I help. Well, I can get 319 money and I'm an implementing agency. I'll go ahead and apply for that," while Richard is working on the more technical side in conjunction with them. Page 92 ------- Wetlands (3:00-4:30P]Vn Moderator: Beverly Ethridge, Chief, Wetlands Protection Section, U.S. Environmental P^^otection Agency, Region 6; Dallas, TX Wetland zealots claim credit for flood protection, wildlife habitat, fisheries, forest production, water quality improvement, attenuating low flows in the streams, and all of those things. Ten years ago or so, we started to claim credit for our ability to even participate hi the point source treatment arena with constructed wetlands. Just to let you know that we've not been sleeping on our laurels, we now see that the wetlands and the watershed have a roll in such things as global air improvements and protections, like ozone and CO2. So you can always count wetlands people in if you're talking watersheds. I say that because I come from EPA. Historically and even as we speak, our agency is in large part an agency of engineers who tend to focus on water quality in the water column. I hope that our session will give the opportunity to start to look at the broader landscape issues. We've got a very representative panel. You will hear these folks speak to the roles of wetlands in the watershed. You'll also hear them discuss the various partnership building mechanisms and what they might have done differently if they knew then what they've learned since they got their projects going. We have a speaker who represents the local level, one who represents a state-federal level, and a representative of a non-government organization. Each of our presentations will focus on the Mississippi River and the lower Mississippi Delta as it goes down into the Coastal area. This area once had as much as 21 million acres of bottom and hardwood forests and wetlands, but through clearing for agriculture, these numbers have now been reduced to less than five million acres. Water quality and quantity have been severely degraded and limited. The navigation channels and flood protection levees in the lower Mississippi have decreased the overflow of the rich sediment laden river water. As you no doubt are aware, as much as 25 square miles or so of the Coastal wetlands are eroding annually. So we'll begin by hearing from Mike Adcock. Mike is from the Northeast Delta RC&D. Mike has a B.S. in Geology. He's sort of a petroleum recruit that we got during a dip in the oil economy. For the past two years, Mike has coordinated the multi-agency organizational land owner effort in the Tensas River Basin Initiative. Addressing the environmental, ecological, agricultural, and socio-economic problems and opportunities in the Tensas River Basin of Northeast Louisiana. The directions of this initiative were to describe the basin's existing resources, document the most significant problems and concerns of the citizens, and develop treatment options addressing the problems that were locally acceptable. Page 93 ------- I also want to add that once our three speakers have done their presentations, we will have a very informal discussion session. I've got note cards that I'll be happy to pass out for any questions that you've got. Then we've the pleasure of having a couple of representatives out of our Washington Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Office who also have designated the Mississippi River as a priority area. But let's begin with Mike's presentation. Speaker: Mike Adcock, Tensas River Basin Coordinator, Northeast Delta Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc.; Winnsboro, LA Thank you, Beverly. I'm Mike Adcock. I'm the Tensas River Basin Coordinator. I work for Northeast Delta Resource Conservation and Development Area. It's a non-profit organization. We're located in Winnsboro, Louisiana. I'd like to thank Cis Myers and Beverly for inviting me to the conference and allowing me a few minutes to tell you all about the work that's going on in the Tensas River Basin. The Tensas River Basin is located in Northeast Louisiana. It encompasses the three parishes, East Carroll, Madison, and Tensas Parish. It's approximately a 750,000 acre watershed and it lies entirely within the lower Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Plain. The Tensas is representative of the numerous watersheds located up and down the Mississippi Delta, and the Tensas is one small part of the total lower Mississippi River Valley ecosystem. The Tensas has been characterized as one of the richest ecosystems in the country in terms of production and diversity of plant and animal species. But at the same tune, much of this land has been recognized as some of the most productive agricultural land in the country. Historically, over 90% of the Tensas River Basin was covered with bottomland hardwood, forested, wetlands. At present, less than 15% of these remain an 85% decline. Land use changed primarily to facilitate row crop agriculture soy beans. As a result, the Tensas is experiencing numerous environmental and ecological and socio-economic problems that are normally associated with the loss of wetlands. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the positive functions and values of wetlands. Well, if you'd like to see the negative impact of a loss of wetlands, the Tensas is a good model for that. Well, in an effort to address these environmental problems and opportunities and to avoid potential land use conflicts, a core group of concerned agencies and individuals met in the Tensas in 1991. They had the grand idea of taking a watershed approach in formulating a natural resource management plan for the Tensas. This core group included Ms. Beverly Ethridge with EPA, Lisa Creasman with the Nature Conservancy, Ms. Jan Boydstun with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Mr. Marlin Jordan with the USDA-SCS, now NRCS, Brad Spicer with the Louisiana Department of Ag & Forestry, Bob Strader with Page 94 ------- the Fish & Wildlife Service, and also representatives from the local soil and water conservation districts. This group all agreed tha^sinee the resource problems in the Tensas were so complex that a piecemeal approach wouldn't work. It was going to take a comprehensive group effort to address the concerns and the problems and opportunities in the Tensas. If there was going to be any ecosystem management improvement, then it was going to need a coordinated effort and these were limited resources, time, and funding, no one responsible agency to take on a project like this. So we formed a technical steering committee. It's a 19 member steering committee made up of representatives from local, state, and federal agencies and organizations. All had a direct interest hi the well-being of the Tensas. Representatives from the core group—all the people I mentioned earlier, plus USGS, Forest Service, other USDA agencies, and the Farm Bureau. It's a 19 member committee. It's pretty well a cross section of all the representatives throughout the Tensas Basin. Now the project had a committee or a group to work on this, but there was one thing missing. That was the public's input or the local concerns. The core group agreed that since over 90% of the Tensas Basin was privately owned, that for this initiative to be successful, the land owners, the land users were not only going to have to be involved, but they were going to have to support and promote the project. So how do you get land owners involved in a watershed project? First of all, we invited farmers, land users, and concerned citizens to serve on the steering committee. There were six farmers. All the conservation districts were represented as well as the Farm Bureau. This is a slide of Mr. Shepp Krigler with a plaid shirt. He's a Tensas Parish farmer. He's the Chairman of the committee. He was the 1994 Young Farmer of the Year. Other ways that we solicited the public's input was through an aggressive public awareness program that included newspaper articles, newsletters, TV coverage, and field days. This is the Field Day we hosted last year. We invited land owners and representatives from state and federal agencies for mainly two purposes. One, to show some of the people that are not familiar with our area what farmers are doing. What they can and what they can't do. And also, to open up a line of communication between some non-traditional partners that normally don't sit down and talk. It gave them a chance to visit with people and ask questions that they wanted to ask, but they didn't want to call across the country to talk to someone. They felt a little more comfortable here on their farm. We hosted land owner workshops, and demonstration projects. This is a wetland demonstration project on private land where all we're doing is managing the water on this Page 95 ------- property after the fanner harvests his crop. We hold the water on it—or the land owner does— until he's ready to get back in the field, releases the water, and monitor the benefits from it. We've had one-on-one discussions, model farms, and public meetings. All our public meetings have been advertised and solicited input. We formed a land owner advisory committee. This is our watershed agricultural group and the man that kind of heads it up. That's Jay Hardwick. He's one of the Tensas Parish farmers also. And this group assured us that we were getting input from the agricultural community. It's made up of the Farm Bureau Parish Presidents, local soil and water conservation districts, agricultural chemical dealers, agricultural equipment dealers, and local district conservationists with NRCS. And this gave us a chance to get feedback from the agricultural folks on some of the things they would like to see or some of then* concerns. Well, for the past two and a half years, this steering committee has been working and putting together a plan or a study. They have completed this Resource Management Plan or Study. The plan included a resource inventory of existing resources in the basin, identified the problems in the basin, and also came up with a list of solutions to the problems that were identified that were locally acceptable. Problem identification includes (I'm going to run through these pretty quick) water quality problems, primarily related to agricultural land, use practices, or ag runoff. Loss of habitat. This is one of the most famous in the Tensas. This is the Louisiana black bear. This is the one that President Roosevelt made famous when he came down and hunted in the Tensas. This is the teddy bear. Flooding. This is showing some agricultural land. This was in '93. Which we had a serious flood in '91, but this is land that people are trying to farm. It's low-lying land. It was once bottomland hardwoods. It's flooded forever. It never was a problem when it was in bottomland hardwoods. But now that people are out trying to make a living on it, it's a problem. Another problem we identified was static socio-economic conditions. The area is poor as most of the Delta is. This is a slide showing what's left of Chicago Mill's lumber yard. This was at one time — late 50's, early 60's ~ the largest hardwood sawmill in the country. It's located in the Tensaw. There were several sawmills in the basin, but now they're down to one small one, and they import most of their wood for lumber purposes. This mill employed over 500 people just at the mill, not counting what they had in their field operations and their hauling operations. But the area has become dependent solely on the fluctuating market conditions of agricultural commodities. But you can see most of the problems that were identified can be tied directly back to the extensive loss of our wetlands in the area. The steering committee also came up with a list of recommended solutions to address the problems that they identified. These were broken down into four different groups. The first group would be land treatment options or BMP's. These are nothing new. They've been around for years. But we wanted to make them fit the problems that we have in the Tensas. We wanted our locals to tell us which ones would work Page 96 ------- and which ones wouldn't work. Again, this is one of the on farm work shops. This is a farmer explaining to the other farmer some of the integrated pest management, nutri- management techniques he was using. Other practices we're promoting are conservation tillage, filter strips, kufter strips, «nd again, these have keen around forever or been around for a while. But we tried to size them to fit the problems that were identified there in the Tensas. The second group of solutions we had were structural or engineering. This is just a close-up of a drop pipe—a water control structure. You can see the benefits here. We hold the water over the winter and allow the silt and sand to settle before it runs off into the stream. Plus, it creates a lot of habitat for our wetland wildlife species. The third solution was public awareness. We need to continue an aggressive public awareness information program. Find out what individuals are involved, what is their impact, how what they do affects the conditions of the Tensas, what they can do to improve the conditions, and what incentives are available to help implement some of these recommendations. The fourth recommendation we had was reforestation. We feel like this is going to be the most beneficial over the long run. It's been pretty well accepted throughout the Tensas as far as the wetland reserve program. But this is also an expensive method, and with some people, it's controversial. Presently, the Tensas is in transition from the study to the implementation and monitoring phase. Future plans include targeting our efforts around these four recommendations. The steering committee has agreed to stay together to implement the recommendations. The local agricultural watershed groups will stay together through implementation. We identified two groups that we didn't really target in the first phase (the study phase) and that was our corporate farmers and limited resource minority farmers. Both of those will be targeted for implementation. Now the good or the fun part—the successes which I think this conference is about. It gives us a chance to brag a little bit about some of the things that we have done. Some of the successes in the Tensas are going to be hard to monitor. It's hard to tell public awareness or public participation. Some of the other methods are easily monitored such as acres restored, those type numbers. But what we felt were some of the successes in the Tensas were where we improved the overall condition, coordination, and communication between all stakeholders. Partnerships were developed not only between state and federal agencies and organizations, but also between non-traditional partners, our farmers. The EPA, other agencies and foundations have helped fund this project which has been a major success. We're hoping they're going to continue through the implementation phase. We've completed a comprehensive natural resource management plan with input from the stakeholders. We've Page 97 ------- increased public involvement. We felt like since this program was all voluntary that for it to be successful we had to have public involvement-even more so as we go into the implementation phase. We've improved public awareness of the natural resource issues, problems and opportunities in the basin, and most importantly, implementation of the recommendations. The study is completed, but it's not sitting on a shelf. We're out trying to get the recommendations that came out of it implemented on the ground. Some of the things that we have done as far as land treatment options: the first is there are more conservation practices being applied today than I would think anytime in the past-structural or engineering methods, the risers and drop pipes. There's a backlog of land owners wanting to install these water control structures on their property. They are just waiting for the material to come in. Public awareness. Reforestation. And over the past four years, thanks primarily to the Wetland Reserve Program, there's been over 17,000 acres of prior converted wetlands that have been converted back to bottomland hardwoods, or are in the process and have contracts signed on them to be converted back to bottomland hardwoods. That has been through the Wetland Reserve Program. If you're familiar with it, it's a permanent easement on it. Meaning that this land will perpetually stay hi the bottomland hardwoods and will never go back into agricultural land. Beverly Ethridge: Thanks, Mike. Mike's being modest. During the first year of wetland reserve program sign up in this 500,000 acre watershed, there were 50,000 acres offered up! Now he's talking to you about the numbers that have accumulated over the three years of the program—17,000. But ten percent of the landscape got offered up for wetland reserve the first year. Not bad. Our next speaker is Lisa Creasman, who is the Executive Director of The Louisiana Nature Conservancy. Our acquaintance with Lisa began about four or five years ago, after she had just authored the Ecosystems in Crises pertaining to the Mississippi Delta. Lisa comes to us with a vast background of experience. She's had a lot of hands-on experience with education. She's done work on research vessels in the Antartic Ocean. After a one-year position in the Louisiana Governor's Office as Technical Assistant on Environmental Affairs, she came to work with the Nature Conservancy. Her position involves coordinating the seven state Delta initiative, fund raising for the project, implementing on the ground projects, promoting protection and sustainable use of the ecosystem's natural resources, and working with land owners. Lisa will address the whole lower Mississippi Delta. Then we'll get back to Steve and he will talk about the Coastal portion. Page 98 ------- Speaker: Lisa Creasman, Executive Director, The Nature Conservancy; Baton Rouge, LA. I would like to clarify that 4t lias changed a little bit sow that I am in the State Director's position. Cindy Brown is the new coordinator for the Mississippi River project and she's here in the audience, too, if anybody would like to meet her. Before we begin with the slides, I would like to tell you a little bit about the Nature Conservancy and how we got involved in ecosystem conservation. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Nature Conservancy, it's a private non-profit, non-governmental organization. We often describe ourselves as a land conservation organization. That's tied to our mission which is rather lengthy, but is to preserve the plants and animals that represent the diversity of life by protecting the land and waters they need to survive. So basically, what that means is we protect habitat so we can protect the plants and animals that need that habitat to survive. The Nature Conservancy used to do inventories to find out where these species were located on the ground, and work through voluntary measures with land owners to protect that habitat through a variety of ways. For example, we may find an area where there is an endangered community of some plant, and if the land owner is interested in participating and wants to sell that land, we would try to raise money, buy that and say, "Okay, now we have a Nature Conservancy Preserve." We thought, well, that's one way you can be sure of success. You own it. You manage it to maintain whatever you want there. We would go out and put our little signs around the perimeter saying, "This is Nature Conservancy Preserve," and we thought, "Okay, we've at least achieved our goal there. Let's move on." But what we weren't doing is considering that preserve in the larger context of the watershed or the ecosystem. And over the long term, we weren't achieving our objective. So the Nature Conservancy has started moving towards ecosystem conservation. We still don't know exactly what that means. It's just like I'm sure we all encounter. Conservation biology and those types of things are very conceptual, and figuring out how to translate that to on the ground work is very difficult. But what I'd like to do is just talk a little bit about the Lower Mississippi Valley, how we got involved there, and a couple of lessons that we've learned through our work there. So if I could go ahead and have the slides, please. These are somewhat redundant of what Mike has shown, because the Tensas, as he said, is representative of what you find in the Lower Mississippi Valley. But I'll just run through these briefly and end with a map that is a focal point. The forested wetlands, as we're talking about wetlands here, are characterized in the Lower Mississippi Valley by Cypress Tupelo swamps, and the areas that are slightly higher and Page 99 ------- dryer, but still considered wetland, the bottomland hardwood forests. These areas in the Lower Mississippi Valley historically contain dense thickets of cane or cane breaks, and they had massive hardwood trees. This drawing was done in the 18th Century, and even at that time, hi the late 1700's, you could see that they were cutting the trees and floating them out during high water times. So they were harvesting timber at that time in the 1700's. Between 1776 and 1936, over 50% of the Lower Mississippi Valley was converted to other uses; predominantly to cotton production. Then during the Korean War and World War II, the demand for timber took the last of the virgin timber from the area. Then as Mike talked about, in the late 60's and early 70's, conversion to soy bean further reduced the extent of the forested wetland habitat. What that means on the landscape is a big change of what was historically forested wetlands and the wetland functions and values. Now you find patches of forest separated predominantly by large fields of agriculture. That has had an impact on wildlife habitat. I don't know if you can see hi this slide, right there is an ivory billed woodpecker. This was taken in Northeast Louisiana. That was the last sighting of the Ivory Billed woodpecker. That bird depends on older forest structure, and because all of the virgin timber has been removed--! don't want to say old growth forest here, so I'm avoiding that— that species is now extinct. And the Florida panther is no longer found in the Lower Mississippi Valley because it depends on large contiguous tracts of forest and there's not many of those that remain, and also the Louisiana black bear, that Mike mentioned, is now federally threatened. But not only, as we all know, is wildlife habitat affected, but the ability of these areas to retain flood waters and release them slowly downstream. So what you see are flooded agricultural fields or flooded residential areas. You also see degraded water quality. This is two sources of muddy water coming together. Water quality issues there don't just affect recreational opportunities. I think, too, that they affect commercial fisheries that may exist in the Lower Mississippi Valley. But also, sediment is the primary water quality problem in the Lower Mississippi Valley, so when these sediments run off of the fields into the streams, they reduce the capacity. They fill up the streams and reduce the capacity of them to carry the water off the fields. So you have even increased flooding. So it's a rather vicious cycle that occurs there. This is where we are now. The map on the left is the historic extent of forested wetlands. This is based on the extent of alluvial deposits or deposits from the river and the extent of backwater flooding prior to the construction of the levees. So what we're talking about here really isn't a watershed, but the floodplain of the Lower Mississippi River. That area was 21 million acres that Beverly referred to. On the right is the current extent. That's 1991 satellite imagery. There are about 4.9 million acres of forested wetland in that. It's a 77% decline from the historic extent of forested wetlands. Page 100 ------- So the Nature Conservancy came to this area and they said, "Well, we're interested in the species that reside there. We think that there are some incredible natural communities remaining of bottomland hardwood forest that we're interested in preserving." So the seven states that parallel4he^ive^got together and they^said, "Well, the way we're setup i^ much like the government. We kind of have state offices and then a regional office and then a national office." So the Louisiana office got together and said, "The Atchafalaya is important and the Barataria-Terrebonne and the Tensas, so we'll work in Louisiana on our part. And then hi Mississippi, you guys work on the Yazoo Basin. Then in Arkansas, you work on your part." So basically, what we were doing is saying this was one ecosystem, but everybody was going to go home and work on their separate parts, and we realized we weren't going to achieve our objectives there. So we said, "What we need to do is address this as an ecosystem," which is a huge commitment and an undertaking. And talk about trying to measure success at that scale, that's very difficult. So basically what we did is we said, "What are the issues~what things can we achieve?" To begin with—and everybody has said this today—in listening to all the talks, we all realize the importance of working hi partnerships. There's no way the Nature Conservancy can achieve just our objectives by working alone. So we all know we need to work together in partnerships. I think, too, we realize the importance of education—kind of shared education. We need to learn from the fanners and the foresters how can we achieve our goals with the people who are depending on those areas for economic growth and development. There's also the issue of economics. How can we do this in an affordable way? One of the speakers on the panel this morning said, "You can't get me to pay $50,000 to improve water quality downstream. How can we make this economically practical?" I think we all agree that that's an important issue. So I was thinking what is something we've learned that I could provide here that maybe other people haven't encountered, and that's the issue of scale. I think that it may be a very simple matter, but by looking at the ecosystem scale, there are things we can achieve that you cannot achieve at the watershed scale as easily. At the ecosystem scale, the things we're concerned about looking at are policy issues. How does agricultural policy and wetlands policy affect your ability to on the ground make change happen? Not that we can make policy changes. But it's more easily addressed and a more appropriate thing to tackle at the ecosystem scale. There's also the issue of wetland functions and values. How did this system originally operate as a wetland? How does that affect your ability on the ground to restore those functions at a specific site? So there's kind of the academic knowledge, the research capabilities at the ecosystem scale that will benefit people on the ground. I think a third benefit from working at the ecosystem scale is the cumulative knowledge that exists. There maybe something that they've done in Kentucky that we could benefit from in Page 101 ------- Louisiana and visa versa. So I think there is the opportunity to communicate those lessons that we've learned over that whole ecosystem. Whereas, if you were working in isolation in a watershed, you may not be able to take advantage of that. And that's not to say that everybody doing a watershed project needs to go work at the ecosystem scale. I think that originally we at the ecosystem scale thought we're going to do everything from this level. We learned that's not going to happen. There's certain things we can achieve at the ecosystem scale best. If we drop down to the state or the watershed level, then we can work there better achieving those goals. Then to do the true on the ground implementation, you have to work with the individual land owner. S So I think that it's—and I don't know if that's come across as a lesson learned, but I think j isolating your objectives so that there are things -that—instead of trying to achieve everything j at the same level, you can really use your time most effectively. As the speaker at lunch said, you really need to stay focused on your objectives. I think when we came in and we looked at such a large area, instead of getting anything accomplished, we just kept feeling \ overwhelmed. So what we've done is try to achieve things by—and this is the same meeting | that Mike was at—by working through partnerships and meeting with people. Federal j agencies, foundations that like to work on big projects. Those types of partnerships that you can form at the ecosystem level and affect change there. But then drop down to the watershed level and you work with a totally different group of partners and you have totally different sets of objectives there. Then when you drop down to on the ground, you're going to have different objectives and different people. It used to be I'd go out to a farmer and say, "See this ecosystem. This is important. Here's what ecosystem management is." And it was an inappropriate application at that level. So I think that if anything, that's maybe a lesson that we've learned in working in the lower Mississippi Valley. But again, we're just at the beginning of this. We're interested in learning as we go with everyone else. Thanks. Beverly Ethridge: Our next speaker is Steve Mathies, who is the Director of the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program. Steve received his Master of Science Degree from Northwestern State University in Natchitoches, Louisiana, and his Ph.D. from Mississippi State, and was a biologist with the Corps of Engineers, and then has gone out the state level to work in the Barataria-Terrebonne NEP. Welcome, Steve. Page 102 ------- Speaker: Steve Mathies, Program Director, Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program; Thibodaux, LA Thank you. I appreciate thelnvitationto be here today, hi the opening remarks this morning Dave said that it's hard to figure out the physical boundaries of watershed. I was thinking that in South Louisiana that's really easy. You just walk to the top of the levee and you look to the other levee. Right? I'm here to talk about the National Estuary Program, and in particular, the Barataria- Terrebonne Program in Louisiana. I'll tell you a little bit about the National Estuary Program from a nationwide perspective and I'll tell you a little bit about our program. But then I want to get into the good things that we have done in relation to watershed planning. Let me begin by saying that I'm a wholehearted supporter of watershed planning. I'm a believer in getting the user's involved and that's why I was so excited about joining the National Estuary Program, because that's the focus of the Program. Let's be perfectly clear about one thing, the National Estuary Program is not a regulatory program. Everywhere we go, because the name has National in it and people know that EPA is involved, they think we have to be a regulatory program. When we talk to land owners or citizens groups, they figure that we're about dreaming up new laws and regulations. We're not. The National Estuary Program was authorized in 1987 as part of the Clean Water Act. In the first round of NEP's that came on line was Puget Sound. Our guest speaker today, Ms. Nancy McKay, is the Director of that particular Program. The main mission of all NEP's is to work with local communities to develop a management plan for that specific area. It's not the federal government coming down from on high and mandating what you're going to do. That's a unique approach, especially when a federal government is involved. For us here in Louisiana, the Barataria-Terrebonne Program was selected to become part of the overall national program in 1990. To become part of the national program, you have to meet two simple criteria. One is that the estuary has to be of national significance, and the other is that the estuary has to be threatened. In our case, estimates are that nearly 20% of the commercial seafood catch nationally-that's for estuarine dependent species—nearly 20% of that catch spend all or part of their life cycle between the Mississippi and the Atchafalaya Rivers here hi Louisiana. That area is the Barataria-Terrebonne Basin. That makes our area nationally significant. That's not including the oil and gas that comes from this area, or the value of the area to water fowl, navigation, sheet metal fabrication, building oil rigs to go offshore, the nearly 200,000 acres of sugar cane, or anything like that. The second criteria was that it had to be threatened. In our case, in that little sliver of Louisiana, between the mid 1930's and now, nearly 400,000 acres of productive marsh have Page 103 ------- converted to open water. For those of you that are not from Louisiana, when I say 400,000 acres, that's probably more wetlands than you have in your whole state. That's truly amazing. So yes, it is a threatened resource. Our program is like all the other National Estuary Programs in that is it's not administered by one particular state or federal agency. We are governed by a series of committees, and all the members of these committees are volunteers. We have a management committee. We have advisory committees. We have groups of scientists. We have local government folks. We have citizens. We have many special interest groups represented. Those would include the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, League of Women Voters, Oil & Gas, Sugar Cane League, and on and on. All in all, there's about 110 folks that sit on our committees. The way that we started our process three and one-half years ago, was that we sat down with those 110 folks and said, basically, "What do you want to accomplish for this estuary? You live here. You work here. You plan on spending your lives here. What do you want to accomplish for this estuary? What's you vision of what we're going to be like 25 years from now?" From the development of that long term vision, everything that we have done and all the management measures that we propose, are weighed against that overall vision that all 110 people agreed to. So by doing that, it took it out of the realm of just the oil and gas guys representing the views of oil and gas, and putting forth what the oil and gas industry wanted to see in 25 years; or the environmental groups, or the agricultural industry. It was something that we all worked on together and agreed that was our mission, our focus, and what we were going to accomplish. Where are we today? It's time that we're all in this together and that everyone is getting along real well. We've worked together for three and one-half years. There's an enormous commitment. We have committee meetings every month. Now that we have begun crafting the actual wording of our management plan it has required meetings every other week of different work groups. And so there are some people on those committees that meet three or four times a month. That's days a month that are committed to work on the program. I don't think there's any way that someone can dedicate one day a month of their work life to a program for three and one-half years, then spend two or three days a month for six or eight months, and not be totally committed to the outcome of that program. Our job is not to develop a real nice plan that looks good and then sits on the shelf. We've done zip if we do that. We have expended an enormous amount of public good will for people to come for such a long period of time to develop the plan. If it goes nowhere, we would have been better off if we never started. So of the 110 people that were involved in our program, we've only lost about eight or ten folks and that was because they were reassigned with their jobs or moved away. I don't think we've lost one person because they got frustrated with the system or frustrated with the progress. Page 104 ------- So now we've built a small army of 110 people that will ensure that when the plan is completed it will be implemented. These are people in key sectors, whether it be private or public, that have invested five years of their lives, and they're not going to let it fail. Our subject today is comprehensive watershed planning and wetlands, so let me just back up a little bit and tell you what our program is doing related to wetlands. From a technical standpoint, one really good thing that we've done is developed predictive models that will predict how our remaining coastal marshes will respond if you change the hydrology. The landscape model that we're using was a model that was developed for the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate the potential impacts of extending a segment of the Atchafalaya Basin levee system. We've expanded that model to include all of Barataria at this point. That model is on line now and are currently working on 50 year predictions. We will have a series of management alternatives that will be evaluated, using the model, to see how the landscape will respond. Some of those are large scale projects like the proposed Davis Pond Diversion. Other projects are smaller scale like those proposed by the Breaux-Johnston Act. But several projects can be evaluated in conjunction with one another. Another exciting proposal being considered relates to the amount of frustration felt by small land owners when it comes to the permitting process. We know that we can't change federal law, but what we can do is make recommendations to ensure that they are implemented most effectively here in Louisiana without adding to the frustration level. Our folks got together and came up with three things that we can do. If you want to build a house or open a small seafood outlet, and you're a small land owner, how do you get information about how to apply for a water quality certification permit? How do you find out about the requirements of obtaining a 404 Permit? Or a Coastal Use Permit from DNR? You have to go to those agencies and sit down and talk with those folks. We came up with an idea of working with local governments to set up information offices. So if a person wants to find out if he needs a permit and what to do to get a permit, he has a warm body to talk to and say, "What do I need to do in Jefferson Parish? This is where I want to build my house. Is it a wetland? Is it not? If it is a wetland, what do I need to do? Who do I need to talk to? Who is the point of contact at DNR?" Other things would include agency performance reviews, where agencies would sit down and evaluate how the other agencies are performing. Something that's not normally done at this point. And also, we would look at ways of involving citizens in the promulgation of regulations. Is there a point where a person can sit down at the table and discuss their concerns with people that are preparing new regulations. There are things that we're doing that are a little bit different than things that have happened in Louisiana before. The bright spot that I want to bring to you is that before we as Page 105 ------- government do anything, we need to get people involved. We owe it to them to have them sitting at the table from the very first meeting. That includes land owners, environmental groups, civic organizations, whomever we're going to affect. They need to be sitting there from the very beginning and not brought into the cycle once you have your plan already formulated and your mind set as to what you're going to do. What are the next steps for our program? Well, we're in the process of setting up public meetings. These public meetings won't be your typical government public meetings. For example, we want to talk to the folks in Vacherie, Louisiana. So how do you set up effective public meetings in Vacherie, Louisiana? What we did was go, sit down, and talk to the farmers in Vacherie and we said, "You tell me. What works in Vacherie, Louisiana to get people out?" After talking to folks for about an hour, I was surprised when I left. What I was left with was them saying, "Well, the place you need to have it is at the Lion's Club and you need to do it on Monday night, and I'll go to the Lion's Club and make the arrangement, because my brother-in-law is the President, and if you want 50 people here, we'll assure you that each one of us will bring 5 to 10 people to the meeting. So then you've got from 60 to 120. And I'll take the flyers to my parish church, and I'm going to give them out after mass and so on and so on." The thought I'd like to leave with you is that we need to get away from the "us versus them" mentality. But the only way we can do that is if we do it as a team and we get all involved. Thank you. Moderator: Beverly Etheridge I'm going to ask Rose Lew, from our headquarters office, to step on up at this time. Speaker: Rose Lew, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Washington, DC Thank you, Beverly. I'm here today with my colleague Walter Brodtman, who's sitting in the front row over there. We're both in the Office of Compliance at Headquarters and we have another colleague here, Cathy Clark, who's with the Office of Regulatory Enforcement. We would like to thank Beverly for inviting us and giving us the opportunity to exchange information. This includes sneaking a few minutes for us at this meeting to tell you what we, back in Washington, are trying to do that relates to the Mississippi River. I think that will make more sense if I tell you first about the reorganization that occurred about a year ago in the former offices that dealt with enforcement. We are now an Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. A major purpose of the reorganization was to try Page 106 ------- and start addressing environmental problems more holistically. To get away from people working strictly in programs related to single statutes and to get work more looking at multi- media. The way in which the management decided to try and do that is to organize along sectors. ^Sowe have an Energy & Transportation Sector, Commercial Services Sector, and Manufacturing Sector. Walter and I are in the Agriculture & Ecosystem Division. In that division, there is a very tiny group. We represent two-thirds of it. It's called the Ecosystems Team. When the reorganization took place, the Ecosystem Team was charged with the ultimate responsibility of trying to come up with an ecosystem protection strategy for the Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance. Then back in last May, a great deal of interest hi the Mississippi River started. It had filtered all the way up to Headquarters in Washington. This was a meeting that took place where a lot of U.S. attorneys got together with a number of EPA attorneys and, as Cathy said, our Assistant Administrator came. They decided to target the Lower Mississippi for enforcement cases. But the next thing that happened was that the OECA management decided that we should take a step back and look at the problems of the Mississippi on a broad scale. And so our small group, the Ecosystems Team, tried to explain to management what the environmental problems really were hi the Mississippi River, what their causes were, and ultimately how we could use our compliance and enforcement resources to better address the environmental problems. So, where we are now is that, we have done an analysis based on existing available information, a number of really good studies that came out in the past couple of years, and USGS studies. We have a preliminary understanding of what some of the problems are. And also, we have a very good understanding that EPA can only address these problems in a very limited fashion. And certainly, EPA and Headquarters and OECA can only address these problems in an extremely limited fashion. Therefore, the most important thing that we can do in terms of the process to get to our ultimate goal of better using enforcement and compliance resources to foster ecosystem protection goals is coordinating, developing, and supporting partnerships with those activities in the Mississippi River. So that's really why we're down here. To begin exchanging information and to get feedback and input from Region 6. Question: We are particularly interested in the nutrient loading problems in the Mississippi River and the dead zone that is in the Gulf of Mexico. Is that being talked about at the national level? What can we expect from EPA in regards to that? Page 107 ------- Rose Lew: Well, that's certainly one of the problems that we're aware of and that we've identified based on other people's work. It's something that we will be talking about in greater detail tomorrow. It's somewhat complicated for me to talk about because my understanding is that at this time the agency has chosen to have the Gulf of Mexico program take the lead on assessing what the sources of all the nutrients to the Gulf are. There's a lot of information and several reports that I understand have attributed the primary sources of the nutrients to agriculture. The Gulf of Mexico program, while not ignoring that information, believes that further studies need to be done in order to quantify and better identify all the sources of nutrients in the region. They have recently involved five regions in beginning a program to address all the sources of nutrients within those five regions. Beverly Ethridge: Just for anyone who is not aware, it is estimated that about 90% of the nutrients that go into the Gulf of Mexico come down the Mississippi River. Steve, about what is the current size of the dead zone which in the Gulf is also attributed to nutrient pollution? Rose Lew: We had the opportunity to be at a recent meeting where this was discussed, and usually they say it's about 3,500 square miles. But a year or two ago, when we had the huge floods, the size of the dead zone about doubled to 6,000 square miles. Beverly Ethridge: Part of the complications that Rose refers to, of course, is that data shows that about 80% of whatever nutrients are hi the river already are in the river when the river passes Cairo, Illinois. Part of the reluctance to jump right in and name themselves as the problem definers and solvers has been that it's difficult in an office based in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi to talk about what our farmers need to do to control nutrients off of corn fields. So it's very, very complicated and I think we'll just have to have, as Rose pointed out, those five regions working together to help define the issues or solutions. Rose Lew: But I would like to say that regardless of how the quantification turns out in identifying all of the sources and how much contribution comes from what sources, it seems pretty clear that agriculture is a large contributor. Since Walter and I happen to be in the Agriculture & Ecosystem Division, that's an area which my particular group can try to address within those Page 108 ------- constraints of compliance and enforcement. We actually have a proposal for an Agricultural Compliance Assistance Center that is supposed to get underway in about three months. It's based out of Region 7 Kansas City office where we'll try and provide information to the agricultural community through networking witk others who do outreach on their regulatory requirements and also on best management practices. One of the areas that will undoubtedly be addressed will be nutrient reduction measures. So we don't necessarily have to wait until all the final scientific answers are in before we feel we can try and start to do something. Question: Steve had mentioned the Breaux Johnston legislation. Could you say a little bit more about that? (SIC - Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act) Steve Mathies: Well, that was special legislation in which Louisiana ends up with about $35 million a year to actually go out and build restoration projects to restore vegetated wetlands. There are a number of federal and state agencies involved, and they have come up with four priority lists of projects to date. Ron: Correct and five federal agencies. Steve Mathies: There is a maximum of $35 million from the feds. Louisiana has had a problem recently providing the 25 % match. Beverly Ethridge: I would also like to introduce Ray Bryant. Ray is the Executive Director of the Delta Center, which is co-located with the Agri-Center in Memphis, Tennessee. That office is an outgrowth of then Governor Clinton's Economic Development Plan that was developed for the Delta. It goes far beyond simple economics and looks at socio-economic issues, industry, wetlands, natural resources, water quality, all of that. Page 109 ------- Page 110 ------- Tribal Watershed Activities (3:00-4:30PM) Moderator: Petuuche Gilbert, Tribal Councilman and Land Coordinator, Pueblo of Acoma; Acoma Pucblfr, NM My name is Petuuche Gilbert. I'm from Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico. I've asked each panelist to introduce themselves and I'll proceed to do the same thing. I'll just talk a little bit about some questions that I think need to be asked of Native Americans regulating their land and their natural resources. Acoma is a small community located about 60 miles west of Albuquerque. We're a community of approximately 6,000 people on a land base of approximately 591 square miles. In the concentration of our small river valley, there are three small communities, and a small stream running through. It is traversed by an Interstate Highway and a railroad. Through the last probably 20 years as we've begun to really try to regulate what happens in that small river valley, we've found it to be very difficult. Maybe almost 10 years ago, we attempted to establish water quality standards, which we've never finished. Even at one time, we had a suit against a small community, by the name of Grants, upstream from us, against the state, against EPA over the issuance of an NPDES permit and the lack of compliance by this small city. So we saw the real need to do something about protecting our stream quality, but yet even at this date, ten years later, I don't think we're that much closer to having established water quality standards. But along the way, the New Mexico Environment Division, that's what it is called today and the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission established stream quality standards for the same stream. But because of the conflict of jurisdiction, the tribe never adopted these standards. But it's something that the tribe could do. So it's one of those questions I would like to raise to the panelists. How do we live cooperatively together? As has been stated this morning, you know, we are all stakeholders, as people living in the same environment, living in the same region, and living in the state. And how do we as separate sovereigns, as people who want to decide their growth, their destiny into the future, how do we cooperate in these stakeholding activities? I believe that it is as one forester says "if you are all going to be successful, it's going to take cooperation, coordination and communication." As simple as it might be, it's politics that I think gets in the way. It's our own basic differences that inhibits us really from having effective communication. As I see, having not achieved successful water quality standards establishment, I begin to try and reflect why isn't it that we can't be successful in the short term. I would like, again, for the panelists to consider what is it that we have to have in order Page 111 ------- to develop good regulatory frameworks? What are some of these resources, both in people and in money? One of the things the tribes bring up is the issue of sovereignty and the issue of self- determination. And almost something as strong as autonomy or as powerful as a separate nation state, that the tribes I think still espouse. How does private industry accept something like that? Or even can they understand it? In the same respect, what about the states? Who feels that within the state of New Mexico, that the state proclaims ownership and benefit for the public; ownership over all waters. How do tribes really educate the public at large about the sovereignty over their territory and over their land and people? Again, this begins to question can there be a sovereign within a state? Again, it all goes back to this coexistence. How do we coexist peacefully and still respect each other's territorial rights. So it's a question, again, I would like the panelists to consider in terms of how do we work these sovereign issues through? Another issue I'd like for all of us to consider. As tribes establish their own framework of regulatory regulations, what are the results? What good can come about? What are some of the negative side effects that industry might feel? Sometimes I see states and tribes, for example, conflicting over taxation. Tribes want to tax. State wants to tax. And yet, it may be the same private industries doing the same thing within the state and within the tribal reservation. So again, it just really points out this cross-jurisdiction respect and I think understanding that it is needed. Finally, getting back to what I started out with. How do we cooperate? If a tribe enforces or establishes and enforces regulations, how can the state support us in this? In the same respect, how can we even adopt certain state regulations that we want as tribes and try to get the state assistance in that? In the last meeting that I was at and in recent discussions there's been a lot of talk about block grants to states. I think hi the same respects, it's the same kind of monies can go—and they really need to go directly to tribes in order for us to set up all of the rules and regulations and laws that we need in terms of establishing a natural resources standards. Some of the panelists here are going to talk about not only water quality and watershed management, but those other things that are necessary in order to regulate a community that is going to live permanently in that same place into the future. That it's not really going to migrate from that area simply because they are Native American people settled in their own communities. If you look at your list of panelists that are on here, the only one that isn't here is Mr. Terry Williams. Each person, again, will introduce themselves and talk about their topic. I think Page 112 ------- we've got some slides. Let me just go down the line from here and I think Ms. Linda Baker wants to make some opening remarks and then have Mr. Treat give the presentation. Linda. Speaker: Linda Baker, Special Assistant, Native American Liaison, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Stillwater, OK Hello, everyone. I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Linda Baker. I'm the Native American Liaison for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. We are a federal agency. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Natural Resources Conservation Service. We were the Soil Conservation Service. The reason I'm here today is to let you know of this new position that I'm in. We're very proud of it. It's a newly developed position, and hopefully, with the reorganization, we hope to share this position with Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. It's an outreach program to Native Americans, and being a Cherokee myself, I couldn't be more pleased. My husband and I were in the Air Force for 20 years and so I've come home. I'm now in Tahlequah, Oklahoma and the Cherokee Nation has graciously consented to house us. They provide us with an office, office equipment, and we're there for visibility and accessibility. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is a technical service. We've been in existence, like I said, for 60 years. But now we see that there's many ways to partner up with people and to share functions, to share people, to share knowledge, and that's what we hope to do. I have a responsibility for all tribes in Oklahoma, but the Cherokee people were kind of favored by me, so I wanted to be over there, and I think it's going to be a great success. Mr. Mullon is also from the Cherokee Nation. He will expound on the technical part of what the Cherokee Nation is all about. So I won't try to get on that particular situation. But I'd like to let you know a little bit about Mr. Ron Treat. He is our Water Quality Specialist and he's in Stillwater, Oklahoma. That's our state office. He has a degree in Agronomy, a B.A. Degree. Graduated from Oklahoma State. Oklahoma State is very dear to my heart, because my son will graduate from there in May and be with the Natural Resources Conservation Service as an engineer. Thanks to Larry Caldwell. And Ron has also been with NRCS for 33 years. He served as District Conservationist, Area Resource Conservationist, State Water Quality Specialist, and that's in various places in Oklahoma. Right now, he's been working on the Illinois River Project, which is what he will talk about today, and that is located hi the Cherokee Nation. He's worked with several Indian land owners, and I'd just like to say, Ron, thank you very much. I appreciate being here. Page 113 ------- Speaker: Ronald Treat, Water Quality Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service; Stillwater, OK Thanks, Linda. In order to set the stage for my talk, I think it would be appropriate for the Cherokee Tribe Representative to talk about the tribe and then I'll follow him with my presentation. Speaker: David Million, Jr., Director of the Legal Division, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, OK Good afternoon. I am David Mullon. The agenda there identifies me as the Director of Law and Environment, but I'm not. I'm actually the Director of the Legal Division of Cherokee Nation. I have a lot to do with the environmental programs one way or another. So I guess that's why they picked me. Although, there were several other people who could probably give this presentation. I'll try to be brief. I thought I would start out by discussing or giving you an overview of what Cherokee Nation is. Very briefly, where it came from and how we got to be where we are right now, and then a sampling of some of the environmental programs that we are conducting currently and are getting into that relate to water quality and water quality management issues. Then maybe touch on a couple of problems or barriers or obstacles that we have to deal with in the future in connection with water quality. The Cherokee Nation is the second largest federally recognized tribe in North America. We have about 170,000 tribal members. We're behind Navajo in tribal population. We are located in Northeastern Oklahoma in an approximately 14 county area in Northeastern Oklahoma. In that part of Oklahoma which used to be known as and used to be Indian territory. We were removed to Indian territory back in the 1830's and the early 1840's in what is popularly known as the Trail of Tears, which was the forcible resettlement of the Cherokee people during the Jackson Administration. The Cherokee Nation owned its land there. It's an important concept for 20th Century and 21st Century natural resource issues. We actually owned our land in fee much in ways that are very similar to the ownership of the land that the Pueblo Indians, own their land, which is a very different kind of ownership and title holding than the reservation tribes which had their lands reserved out of what the federal government considered to be the public domain and set aside for the Indians. But we were fee owners of our lands. We received fee patents to Indian territory from the United States of America. Page 114 ------- Despite provisions in our treaties to the contrary, at the time of statehood, the Cherokee Nation was nearly dismantled and its land was allotted out to individual Indian ownership. Much of the land was allotted out to individual Indian ownership. As a consequence of that and^tfaer events during the 20th Century, if you look at what the tribal land base in the year 1900 and compare it to today, it's a very depressing thing, at least from the standpoint of Indians. Much of our land has passed out of Indian ownership into non-Indian ownership. A substantial amount though does remain as Indian land that is individually Indian owned land subject to federal restrictions against alienation. Much of it is tribal trust land and also tribal fee land. We have a little over 100,000 acres of tribal trust restricted and fee land in Oklahoma, which a lot of people find surprising, because they view Cherokee Nation as a non- reservation tribe. In fact, we have hundreds of thousands of acres of land that we own—much of which is directly underneath and on both sides of one of the greatest rivers running through that part of the country—the Arkansas River. We own the land underneath and on the side of and up to the high water mark and sometimes even much farther beyond that—about a 95 or 96 mile segment of the Arkansas River. Other navigable streams within Cherokee Nation are still the bed and banks of those rivers are still owned by Cherokee Nation. They are held by the United States of America in trust for the Cherokee Nation. We are a three branch government much like the United States government. We have a strong Executive Branch. An increasingly strong legislative branch. And within the Executive, we have a tribally legislated Environmental Protection Commission which is the oversight and regulatory body for a number of different environmental media and programs. It's a three member commission and has a staff which is comprised of something called the Office of Environmental Services. That gives you a snapshot of what we are right now. I thought I'd cover a few things that we are currently involved in. We are not really organized. Our overall environmental regulatory approach is really not a media based approach. It's a little bit more comprehensive. We do not have the sort of media oriented boundaries between programs and people that you might find in the EPA, for instance. One of the areas that does a lot of environmental work is something called the Environmental Health Services and this is an IHS Indian health service. This is largely funded by the Indian Health Service Program which responds to any sort of pollution problems that might occur on tribal land that might affect the health of Indian people or tribal members. It funds and operates a fairly sophisticated water quality laboratory in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. It is a testing laboratory. It also does things like it drills drinking water wells and develops fresh water springs into drinking and domestic use water sources within our jurisdictional area. Also, we have another department that works fairly closely with Environmental Health Services. As a matter of fact, both of these are run by the same person who's sitting in the back there. It's the Office of Environmental Services. They are currently involved in a number of different tribal regulatory water quality and water management programs. We are Page 115 ------- operating a superfund program—a multi-media program which addresses almost any source of pollution that is related or is caused by the improperly disposed of hazardous waste. And it identifies, accesses, and ranks potential super-fund sites. Much of its work is, in fact, water quality type work, because-well, if anyone is familiar with that process, you would realize that one of the prime ranking characteristics is the impact of the potential source on ground or surface water resources. The Office of Environmental Services is also rather deeply involved in something called the Sequoia Fuels Decommissioning Project, and that is a rather long-term project that involved at a nuclear fuel generating plant that it has been decommissioned or going through a process of decommissioning for a number of years. It's a proceeding that is currently pending before the NRC. It's a long-term problem that the Cherokee Nation right now is involving itself in as an interested party in the regulatory proceeding. But which we are thinking we may have a more formal involvement with the NRC in the near future. That whole decommissioning problem, the Sequoia Fuels Problem, is really a water quality, ground and surface water quality problem more than anything else. The plant was used to generate. It used radioactive materials and other chemicals and hazardous materials of a variety of different kinds. They were stored in a somewhat haphazard way over a large area of land that is right next to the Illinois River, very close to the confluents with the Arkansas River. There are a number of sites on that facility that contribute to very serious surface and ground water problems. Right now the Office of Environmental Services is completing or is just about to complete or has just completed a Clean Water Act Section 104-B3 NPDES water quality grant program. It was a training grant for the development of tribal water quality program. In that respect, we're a long ways behind Isleta. But we'll be catching up pretty soon. We are right now just beginning to plan for our tribal comprehensive watershed protection program. We intend to focus (for beginners anyway) on our wetlands program to identify, delineate, and classify wetlands on tribal lands or individual restricted lands and within our dependent Indian communities; and also to remediate where necessary once we've done that, and begin drawing up our wetlands regulatory program. We anticipate that will be—well, we're already starting that right now. But we'll be well underway within the next year or two on that program. Incidently, we deliberately chose to focus on a wetlands program in the beginning because of the impact that a number of different sources have had on our cultural resources that are very important to the traditional Cherokee people who live back in the hills in Eastern Oklahoma. A lot of the biotic resources are in trouble. We have a very significant wetlands problem, so we are focusing on that to begin with and various, I guess what you would call, environmental | justice issues. Prominent right now are both the illegal and the legal clear-cutting of forests f on our tribal lands and individual restricted lands. We see this as the beginning of a fairly j drastic water quality problem in our streams in Northeastern Oklahoma. f Page 116 ------- Those are just some of the things that we're involved in. There are a number of other different quality and water management programs and activities that we are undertaking. I don't want to take more than my allotted time. I will mention some current issues that I think are probably sort of the thematic issues^mafrufrcommonly from one tribe jo another. One is we are in the middle of a—I'm not going to say a dispute, but there are ongoing state tribal jurisdictional disagreements over both the ownership and/or the regulation of water resources and other natural resources. This is an inevitable fact. It is a direct result of the allotment era, where there is so much non-Indian ownership within the boundaries of the Cherokee Nation's historical area that the state's interest is, from their perspective, predominant. From our perspective, it is secondary. But nevertheless, it is a strong interest. The flux of jurisdictional—our relationship with the state and how to live with each other—that is not only as a people, but as two regulatory bodies and two governments—has not been completely worked out and that will probably take some time. Either by agreement or by disagreement, it will eventually be worked out. But we have ongoing water quality management and water quality standard setting issues that we'll be addressing in the future that are not going to be easy to resolve. Fundamentally, the Eastern Oklahoma tribes are known to hold substantial water rights in the streams. Those have never been adjudicated. There's a great deal of disagreement as to the extent of the tribal ownership of that water. And the ownership of that water is definitely a relevant factor under programs that are available to tribes under the Clean Water Act. The tribal water rights are completely untouched in Northeastern Oklahoma. There are not any cases, that are lower court cases or appellate cases that have purported to limit or to determine the quantity, the extent, the nature of the tribe's ownership or its regulatory authority over water resources in Eastern Oklahoma. That will be a future issue of significant proportions, and already has become one. It almost came to a head a couple of years ago when the State of Oklahoma endeavored to sell several million acre feet of a lake in Central Eastern Oklahoma on what was, I believe, Choctaw and Chickasaw territorial area. They were going to sell it to a municipality down in—or a metropolitan water district of some sort down hi Northern Texas. And the tribes jumped in and asserted their rights, but the deal fell through before any litigation was commenced. The tribes in Eastern Oklahoma have a sort of chronic~or will have~a problem of whether or not, and to what extent, they are entitled to participate in programs under the Indian provisions of the Clean Water Act, Section 518, because of the reference in there to federal Indian reservations. Some regulators don't realize that, in fact, the original reservation lands of the five tribes in Northeastern Oklahoma are still in tact, and have been determined to be so by court cases. So we have kind of an administrative issue that hasn't been completely Page 117 ------- resolved within EPA. We're working to resolve that problem through a number of different mechanisms. Finally, I'm a lawyer and I've been one way or another interested in Indian provisions of the Clean Water Act for a while. I've never felt like they were altogether fair to begin with to tribes. But nevertheless, there are opportunities under the current reading of the Clean Water Act for tribes who do substantially very good things. And depending on your perspective, I would cite Isleta Pueblo as an example. But there are always forces that are trying to limit even further the tribes abilities to regulate their own water resources and generally those are state or non-Indian interests that are interested in limiting that authority. Right now, there is a bill that has just been recommended out of the Committee on Energy and Environment in the House that has language in it which would make it more difficult for Indian tribes to achieve treatment as state status and to operate programs. It would give immediate federal jurisdiction to district courts without going through any appellate procedures over controversials determinations by the EPA, even non-final actions. Any action or decision made by the EPA under these amendments that were involving the Indian provisions could be immediately brought to suit in district court by the state or any affected party. That's going to be a troublesome provision if it gets through and is adopted within the new reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. Speaker: Ronald Treat, Water Quality Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service; Stillwater, OK I hope you all remember Linda's introduction now. I'm Ron Treat. I'm the State Water Quality Specialist or Water Quality Program Specialist for the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and I am going to talk about one of our many water quality projects. This one happens to be right in the heart of the Cherokee Nation. Contrary to popular belief, Oklahoma is not all plains, buffalo, and longhorn cattle. We do have approximately one-third of the state that is similar to the Arkansas Ozarks. It has several streams that are clear and beautiful. When Linda asked me to give this presentation, she said she needed some help on a program to describe how the NRCS is helping the Cherokee Nation implement their water quality program. Well, I have to be honest. I had a lot of difficulty coming up with something to show that we are helping the Cherokee Tribe. I have learned a lot just visiting with the tribal representatives. I went to Tahlequah, the capitol or headquarters of the Cherokee Nation. I talked to Pat Gwynn, who is an environmental specialist. I realized that even though we had talked to members of the tribe at various times, we had not involved them in our project. I think this is the perfect opportunity, with Linda's new position and my new awareness that we Page 118 ------- can work them into the project. They can help us with our program, and NRCS can help them with their water quality program. fcet-me-back-up-.--The Illinois River is located in Northeast Oklahoma, east of Tulsa. The green area is the Cherokee Nation boundary. So it's in the heart of the Cherokee Nation. The watershed covers about a million acres. Half of it is in Arkansas and half of it is in Oklahoma. This is a blow up of the basin. You can see the Arkansas/Oklahoma line going through the middle. The river travels about 130 miles total. It's not to be confused with the river in the state of Illinois. I guess there are several Illinois Rivers in the United States. Near its confluence with the Arkansas River, there's Lake Tenkiller which covers 13,000 acres. Lake Tenkiller is one of the most beautiful lakes in Oklahoma. It is very clear or it used to be very clear. Recreation on the Illinois River historically has been an important aspect of the river. The area is poor economically. Recreation has always been an important economic factor. In the past 20 years, poultry and other agriculture industries have moved into the area. The poultry industry has probably taken over as the number one economic factor in the basin. There are literally millions of chickens in the basin. Unfortunately, with all the chickens we have, I could not find a slide of chickens. This slide happens to be of turkeys. These are figures that were developed for a base report that we prepared during a study of the basin. They're probably two or three years old. It shows annually there are 230 million poultry units produced in the basin. This may be closer to 250 or 300 million right now. This poultry produces a lot of waste. Most producers apply this waste to fields in the watershed. The terrain is hilly, and they spread it all over the watershed on any area that is cleared. It produces a lot of forage and hay. With the increased forage production, there has also been an increase in dairy operations and cattle operations. There is so much waste hi the basin that it is very difficult to figure out what to do with it. Eventually, it has a potential to cause pollution problems. Some of the recent studies, indicate that nutrient levels exceed standards. The recommended standard for phosphorous in the streams is .05 milligrams per liter. We're coming up with .8 milligrams per liter in a lot of these streams. We look at phosphorous, rather than other nutrients, because we feel like it is the nutrient that causes the biggest problems. The results of this waste being applied can be pretty obvious. These slides show algae blooms, and periphyton in the streams. This is the upper end of Lake Tenkiller. I've lived in the area for many years. I've hunted and fished around Tenkiller Lake. It was always one of the clearest lakes in Oklahoma. Scuba diving was a popular sport. This is the upper end of it now. The slide really doesn't Page 119 ------- do it justice. It really reminded me of pea soup. It was a lot greener than what the slide shows. In order to try to correct some of these problems, the NRCS and several other state and federal agencies have developed special project areas. What we hope to do in these project areas is to concentrate our efforts into high priority watersheds to make people aware of what they can do to improve their management and hopefully this will result in improved water quality. The upper red area is two projects in one. It's the Battle Branch Creek Hydrologic Unit Water Quality Project. This is a USDA/NRCS project, along with ASCS. Within that project, is the Battle Branch Creek Special Water Quality Project, an EPA State project. Then we have the West Illinois Project which was just initiated in the last year. The Peacheater Creek Hydrologic Unit, which was initiated in 1991. The Battle Branch and the Peacheater projects have been going on four or five years and now they're being extended. Within these projects, there's several organizations that work together to try to improve the management of the producers and improve the water quality. The Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cooperative Extension Service, and Conservation Districts. We have three conservation districts involved hi Illinois' River Basin Project. We have the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, and Consolidated Farm Services Agency, formerly ASCS. Each have their own specialty. The NRCS assists in water quality practice implementation. The CES provides education and information. This is an outline of what some of our programs are. In the USDA Hydrologic Unit area technical assistance is provided by NRCS, and CFSA has 80% cost share to install water quality practices. The CES gets special funds for information and education. Within all of these areas, we also have a USDA Water Quality Incentive Program Project. This is rather an unique program. The CFSA pays incentive payments for improving the management. Normally, when we think of cost share, we think of paying for installing conservation practices. But the WQIP, administered by CFSA and the technical assistance provided by NRCS, actually pays for improved management. Then we have State EPA grants which the Oklahoma Conservation Commission and the Conservation Districts implement. They have 90% cost share on many practices, and they also piggy-back cost share funds with the USDA funds. The NRCS provides technical assistance on these 319 programs, incidentally, without any reimbursement. We use our local field offices staff to provide assistance. The cornerstone of our program has been education and information. We hold tours. We publish newsletters. When I say we, I mean all of the cooperating agencies. We have a quarterly newsletter. We have had numerous tours throughout the watershed trying to get people aware of what the problems are and what some of the solutions are. Probably our most Page 120 ------- successful efforts are individual land owner assistance. We have contacted all of the producers and land owners within these target watersheds. We now have over 70% of the producers in the watersheds implementing conservation plans to some extent. We still have to evaluate how effective they are implementing these. The poultry industry has cooperated with us. Tyson, Hudson, various poultry companies are working more with us every day. They also have their own programs and work with their producers. As I said, one of the biggest problems is applying waste on fields in the basin to utilize the nutrients. Many of the fields are 10 to 15% slopes and very close to the stream. Nutrient runoff is a big problem. When we first started implementing the project, we had a lot of data on cropland runoff soil erosion, but very little data on how much nutrients were hi the runoff. So we obtained some funds through our national office and asked the Oklahoma State University Agriculture Department to help us study how much of the nutrients actually ran off of these fields. Then we could make recommendations as to what rates to apply. This is a picture of a rainfall simulator. It's actually a machine that can duplicate certain rainfalls over a certain period of time. If you look closely you can see four plots. This shows the runoff that was collected off of each plot. It's pretty dramatic evidence that there are problems out there. On the left is a check plot where we didn't have any waste applied, and on the right is where we had 800 pounds per acre applied. This shows particles carried in runoff progressively gets worse with increased application rates. The only problem is the data is not conclusive enough that we can make recommendations from it. So they are still carrying out the study. They are working in the lab now, have set up plots in the lab, and are doing simulated rainfall on the plots. Here are some examples of what we're doing as far as practices are concerned in the watershed. Many of the dairies looked a lot like this with their holding areas on steep slopes near streams, and a lot of the waste running off into the streams. We have convinced most, if not all, to install sewage lagoons to catch this runoff. We still haven't really figured out a way to address cattle loitering in the streams. This is a serious problem hi the area. You can see it everywhere you drive through the watershed. What we try to do is limit access to the streams by providing alternate water sources and fencing. Another problem we had in the beginning was the way most of the producers got rid of their dead poultry. They carried them to the back of the farm and threw them in ditches or just anyway they could get rid of them. We had a tremendous eagle population, because eagles like to feed on these carcasses. Now, almost everyone in the watershed has installed a composting system where they compost manure and the dead poultry carcasses. This really works efficiently. Some of them are even going to freezers now. Page 121 ------- We've been working on these projects for approximately five years. Have we accomplished anything? To be honest, I don't know that we can show that we've accomplished much. But we're in the process now of using model data, producer surveys, bio-assessment, and water samples, to hopefully, document improvement. Bio-assessment or stream evaluations is one of OCC's latest efforts. They plan to evaluate all the streams in the watershed. Another way we hope to show that we have accomplished something is through the use of computer models. Using soils input, water quality data, and land use, we will use various computer models and a program that the Extension Service has developed called Simple, to predict that if we install certain practices, then we will improve the water quality. One of the tools we're using is GIS. This is the small Battle Branch Creek Watershed showing land use, and as you can see, we have mostly pasture and very little cropland. A lot of areas even on the pasture are not really suitable for application. One of the aspects of the Extension Service's program was to go around to all of the producers and soil test then- fields. In many cases, they came up with over 800 pounds per acre in some of the soils test. You can see the red areas there. That's over 300 pounds. That's 130 to 300 pounds per acre. Many producers have accumulated phosphorous and are still applying more waste. I still think that a key to our evaluation is going to be how the land owners have implemented their practices and how their attitudes have changed. We are in the process of doing a survey of the land owners. The gentleman just before me indicated that many of the producers out in this area are ancestors of the original Cherokees that were moved to Oklahoma. They are fiercely independent and do not always like to cooperate with federal agencies. I think it's an opportunity for us to work with the Cherokee Tribe representatives and get these people to trust us more. Then we can implement all the practices that we would like to see done and maybe our program will be more successful. As I said before, I think we made a big mistake by not getting involved with the Cherokee Tribe long ago. I didn't realize they had so many assets that we could utilize. Hopefully, with all the programs and cooperation with the Cherokee Tribe, we can solve the water quality problem. Thank you. Moderator: Petuuche Gilbert Thank you very much, Linda, Ronald, and David. Mr. Elaine Sanchez is going to talk about the Isleta experience. Isleta is another Pueblo Tribe in New Mexico. He will talk about the situation that they are facing downstream of a big urban community. But are there any questions related directly to the Oklahoma or Cherokee presentations? If anybody wants to ask a question now before we go on, and, later we'll give you more opportunity for a more general type of questions. Page 122 ------- Question: I've got a question for the first gentleman. The bill you're referring to that may cause some problems for like tribal water quality issues in the future, is that the Shuster Bill? David Million: Yes. Speaker: Blaine Sanchez, Water Quality Control Officer, Pueblo of Isleta; Isleta Pueblo, NM Thank you. I'm Blaine Sanchez from the Pueblo of Isleta. I'm their Water Quality Officer. I've been given the responsibility to develop a water quality program for the Pueblo to monitoring and oversee if the Pueblo's surface waters are meeting their established water quality standards. Long before the arrival of the European, the indigenous people of this region depended on the Rio Grande. In this arid land, the river was the lifeblood that provided for our existence. Along this river, we planted corn and other crops, hunted game, raised our children, performed our ceremonies, and drank its water. Isleta once did not distrust the Rio Grande for the different uses it provided. But times have changed. Isleta will continue to make use of the river, because it is part of our tradition, culture, and we have life. Isleta is the southern most remaining original Pueblo settlement on the Rio Grande. Isleta is south of Albuquerque. The rest of the other Pueblos are along the Rio Grande from the Northern Pueblos above Santa Fe, and below Santa Fe, which are the Southern Pueblos between Santa Fe and Albuquerque. Other Pueblos west of Albuquerque, includes Acoma and Laguna, and the Navajo Tribe. Isleta's imposed reservation boundary is nine miles north to south and 40 miles east to west. Isleta has a population of approximately 4,500 tribal members. This slide is an aerial shot from the shuttle. The green ribbon that you see there is the Rio Grande and the Bosque Cottonwood Forest. In the middle is Albuquerque. The white capped areas are the Sandia Mountains. The thin white line is the escarpment and edge of the Rio Grande Valley. The watershed boundary is from the escarpment to the top of the Sandia Mountains. The Sandia Mountains have an elevation of 10,000 feet. Page 123 ------- To the north of Isleta lies New Mexico's largest city and metropolitan area with over a half- million people and all the potential pollution impacts that can be generated. Wastewater discharges that is sometimes the majority of the river flow in the river, urban storm runoff, by-products from industrial and governmental research facilities, all contribute to altering water quality of the Rio Grande and the associated aquifer. This is why Isleta was the first Indian Tribe to develop water quality standards under the Clean Water Act amendments in 1987 to protect our uses associated with the river. Isleta's water quality standards are based on those designated uses that the Pueblo has determined for all surface bodies of water within the exterior boundaries of the reservation. The Pueblo has identified 34 surface bodies of water. They range from ephemeral intermittent streams found hi the mountains to the Rio Grande, irrigation, canals, wetlands, and manmade fishing lakes. The Rio Grande here is being diverted for irrigation at Isleta. The Rio Grande isn't as large as the Mississippi by any means, but it is the main river system in New Mexico and provides the volume of water for all of the irrigation and agriculture going on in the Rio Grande Valley. As you can see by these petroglyphs shown here the Pueblos have been present hi this area for quite a while, past and present. This is a picture of Isleta from the top of the hill looking down toward the valley. You can see that green ribbon depicted in the earlier slide shows that the green area is pretty limited and confined mainly to the valley region. The uplands and rangeland are pretty dry. We probably get one-eighth of the precipitation that you get here locally — eight inches of rainfall a year. So in that respect, water quantity is also an important consideration. Being very limited places it with a higher value. The uses of the Rio Grande that the Pueblo developed include fisheries, primary and secondary recreational use, industrial use, agriculture water supply use, and most important, primary contact ceremonial use. Protecting primary contact use is where Isleta1 s water quality standards generated controversy with the City of Albuquerque. Does water quality perspective really differ that much between the Pueblo and the state is a question that I asked in a previous presentation that I gave. As far as the water quality standards go, both are promulgated using EPA's criteria. Both implement water quality standards to support a national goal of restoring and maintaining the physical and biological integrity of the nation's water. Both have anti-degradation policies. Both have similar designated use. Where the designated uses differ is in the category of primary contact ceremonial use for which New Mexico does not have a similar use. The definition of the Pueblo's primary contact ceremony use is "the use of a stream, reach, lake, or impoundment for religious or traditional purposes by the members of the Pueblo of Isleta. Such uses involve immersion and intentional or incidental ingestion of water and it requires protection of sensitive and valuable aquatic life and riparian habitat." In comparison, New Mexico's Page 124 ------- definition of primary contact use that is related to protecting primary contact recreation reads as follows: Primary contact means any recreational or other water use in which there is a prolonged and intimate contact with the water such as swimming and water skiing involving considerable risk-ofingestion^fwate^ k^quantities^ sufficient to pose ^ significant health hazard. Though the definitions read differently, the bottom line is that they both provide an individual with a standard of protection. Under primary contact use that allows for immersion, whether briefly such as for ceremonial or for an extended period of time such as swimming and some ingestion of water, protection should be equitable for alike uses. New Mexico does not recognize primary contact for that segment of the Rio Grande which flows through the Pueblo's jurisdiction. However, I like to note that New Mexico has included ceremonial use as part of its primary contact definition in their recent water quality standards triennial review which was adopted and approved January of this year. So the state does recognize ceremonial use in their definition of primary contact. A little bit about the implications that resulted from establishing Isleta's water quality standards. Basically, EPA was in the process of reissuing an NPDES permit for Albuquerque's waste treatment facility located approximately five miles north of Isleta's boundary. The EPA waited to issue a permit until Isleta's water quality standards were approved. After Isleta's water quality standards were approved in December of '92, EPA prepared an NPDES permit to meet both the Pueblo's and the state's water quality standards. At that time, the city filed suit against EPA and challenged approval of Isleta's water quality standards. In that suit in the federal district court, the court found hi favor of the Pueblo and EPA. That ruling found that EPA followed all the administrative procedures in adopting and establishing those water quality standards for the Pueblo. At this time, there was discussion about how long this might possibly be dragged on in court. So it was discussed between EPA, the state, and New Mexico that perhaps a settlement agreement could be reached; that a permit could be issued with some restrictions less stringent than fully complying with Isleta's water quality standards, but nonetheless, more stringent than what was previously issued for the waste treatment facility. That negotiated agreement was presented to Albuquerque for their approval and was accepted. As part of the settlement agreement, a study was to be performed to determine the background levels for the certain questionable metals in the Rio Grande. These four metals are arsenic, aluminum, cyanide, and silver. Of the four, aluminum standard is New Mexico's. Basically, the study is to determine what the natural background levels are for the four metals in the Rio Grande, and what future discharge limits the City's Waste Treatment Facility will have to meet. Currently, that study is being contracted to USGS and we're in our first year of study. As part of the study, we're also looking at arsenic accumulation in fish tissue in the Page 125 ------- Rio Grande that potentially poses health concerns for the general public and Isleta community members. I'd like to point out the continuing potential implications for differing water quality standards that may be established by tribes. Conflicts may be generated similarly in Isleta's and Albuquerque's situation. But it provides a continuing impetus in arriving at a national goal. So it can be both good and bad. One good thing that has happened with Isleta's water quality standards establishment is that the Pueblo has gained a new respect in dealing with water management issues in the middle Rio Grande, and hopefully, for the rest of the tribes across the country. I would like to point out, an interesting note, that during the process of negotiating this NPDES permit, the city really complained about the stringency of the water quality standards. They were arguing that the standards we were imposing on them were drinking water standards. But that isn't true because drinking water standards are covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act and not the Clean Water Act. But nonetheless, that was one of the city's media plays used to confuse the public that Isleta wanted sewage effluent to be drinking water quality. This is interesting to note, because of the ground water situation in the mid-Rio Grande Basin. It's been found to be a limited supply and that there's possibly a 20 year supply of ground water. Albuquerque is looking at implementing conservation efforts to stretch that water out, and is also looking at other means to come up with additional water source for its growing population. One of the endeavors that Albuquerque is pursuing is an agreement with Intel Corporation to look at how they might recycle some of their waste water. Intel uses approximately nine million gallons of water a day to clean their computer chips. In that process, once their computer chips are clean, that water goes straight to their treatment facility. What Intel is working out with Albuquerque is to see how they might reduce their consumptive use of that water, possibly recycle it, and use it within its manufacturing process. This same concept is looking at being extended to (the technology) the treatment facility where potentially that water can be cleaned up to drinking water quality and be reinjected into the aquifer to help augment its recharge. But what's really interesting, and kind of funny, is the city was protesting about cleaning up their effluent to drinking water standards, but because of water availability, they nonetheless, may have to clean their water to a higher quality anyway to reinject it into the aquifer. So it's kind of ironic how that played out. Isleta was indirectly showing them the direction they might have to face anyway. Some of the respect that has been gained from this process is that Isleta is considered the leader in this area. We've been discussing with the other Pueblos (Southern Pueblos) about developing a water quality monitoring network-kind of similar to a citizen's monitoring network, but involving individual Pueblos in that capacity. Hopefully, we can develop some water quality information that can be used by the other Pueblos in helping them decide if they Page 126 ------- want to develop water quality standards. It also provides filling in gaps of data that the New Mexico Environment Department could use, in their assessment of the other segments of the Rio Grande. The State doesn't have the staff, time nor funding to monitor continuously those portions of the Rio Grande. So by developing this Pueblo monitoring network we can provide data for the Pueblos, but also for the New Mexico Environment Department and the public as a whole. We hope to maybe in the future, if this monitoring network with the Pueblos is successful, to extend it to the northern Pueblos. This potential monitoring network would consist of the 16 Pueblos up and down the Rio Grande. There are some Pueblos that are removed from Rio Grande. We would have a monitoring network from Taos down to Isleta. Other recognition is being received by state, federal, and regional institutions and in the respect of participation in the regulation of water resources. Some partnerships are being developed between Isleta with the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, Fish & Wildlife Service (a program called Partners with Wildlife) and other higher educational institutions. We're having some geologic mapping done on the Pueblo that has ties to ground water recharge and possible sites that can be mapped for that particular purpose. Also, the Pueblos and especially Isleta, are major players in the management and recovery of certain habitats associated with the river. The Rio Grande Bosque, which is a cottonwood forest that I mentioned earlier, is the only existing cottonwood forest hi the Southwestern United States, that still remains. So it's an important biological habitat that is being addressed as to how we manage it and protect it for the future. And in that portion of the middle Rio Grande where the six middle Rio Grande Pueblos are, they make up a portion of that Bosque environment. Also, there are issues dealing with threatened and endangered species, the Rio Grande silvery minnow and the willow flycatcher (bird). I've been able to be appointed to the recovery planning team for the silvery minnow. I assume shortly that because of the listing of the willow flycatcher that the Isleta will be involved again also. Let's run through a few more slides here. This is looking north from the hill that was looking down at Isleta. Excuse the slide, but this is one of our rare opportunities that we had a storm coming through so it was a cloudy day, but nonetheless, grateful for some precipitation to come our way. Those are the Sandia Mountains north of Isleta and to the east of Albuquerque. This is on Isleta. As I was pointing out earlier, our reservation runs west to east. This is the east part of the reservation. It extends a little bit further to the east and this is looking south. But to the left of the slide is east and it abuts with the national forest service land. This elevation up here is about 9,500 feet. To the west, this is the escarpment between the Rio Grande Valley and the Rio Puerco Valley, which forms the line between watersheds. So you Page 127 ------- can see our extreme and varied geography up from the mountains all the way out to rangeland, and in this picture, some dunes that are caused by wind erosion and deposition. Another storm here in the mountains. We get most of our precipitation during the monsoon season, July and August, which the majority of our eight inches is received. That produces some ephemeral and intermittent streams in the mountains. Very small in comparison to some of the runoff that's received here in the creeks and tributaries, but nonetheless, important. A water resource for livestock and used for wildlife. Another small but important tributary runoff. Some of that runoff that comes off the mountains here is in the form of these arroyos and this is where a lot of the major pollution component is sediment. Some of that resulting consequence is the cutting and forming of arroyos. That's probably about four to five feet deep there. Another aerial shot. That's one of the large drainages on Isleta—Hell's Canyon. You can see quite a bit of erosion taking place as a result of water runoff. This is one of the recreational lakes on the Pueblo. It's used mainly for fishing. There's three ponds here that alternate uses during different parts of the year. The wintertime it has trout fishing. The summertime it has catfish stocked in the lakes. Here's a picture of one of our irrigation canals. This water is being diverted south to the south part of the Pueblo and further on down south to other communities south of Isleta. You can see we do have some water canals, but it's a pretty limited amount of water. A picture of some wetlands that we have on the Pueblo. I guess the difference with our wetlands and your wetlands here in the area is that you have a vast area of wetlands and ours are mainly associated adjacent to the river. Some people look at them as a burdensome habitat, because of their limited use. In the past, they were not seen as a viable part of the biology and associated environment with the river. As we're developing our water quality program there at Isleta, we're hoping to develop our ability to implement technical monitoring and studies. Here's a picture of us doing some fish shocking to determine some fish composition in an adjacent pond to the river. By the way, this isn't on Isleta, but this is on Sandia, a Pueblo which is north of Albuquerque. Sandia was the second Pueblo to adopt water quality standards which are very similar to Isleta. I want to mention also that there's a third Pueblo in Northern New Mexico, the Northern Pueblo, San Juan, that has water quality standards. Those are the three Pueblos right now in New Mexico that have water quality standards. Five others are in the process now of establishing water quality standards, which would total, the future at least eight Pueblos with the possibility of more. Page 128 ------- We have wildlife which is tied to our water. Insignificant wildlife that sometimes people overlook, is of cultural value for us. The presence of a variety of wildlife is an indicator of the integrity and health of our environment. This picture ends my talk and is a view of the Rio Grande looking soutfa.-^Aad-te-etose,- I'd like to say that Isleta has take&the first step in a long journey in implementing water quality standards, and we will continue to do our best in achieving water quality on the Pueblo, and hopefully, pass down that quality of water to our neighbors to the south of us. Thank you. Moderator: Petuuche Gilbert Thank you very much, Blaine. Those are very good video presentations from both groups. Mr. Mullon gives his apologies. He had to run to catch his plane. But I think these presenters gave good vivid examples of this cooperation among state, federal, and tribal. Especially, I think we're going to see the need for this kind of cooperative effort during these tunes of less federal dollars coming into Indian country, and yet, you know, we're all going to be somehow working together to establish whatever it takes in order to protect our natural resources. Let me ask if there's any questions that you could ask of any one of us and I'm sure that we'll be able to explain as much as we can. Question: Question for Blane. He's mentioned that there are three tribes and they already have standards and five more that are working on water quality standards. Do you get a lot of calls from around the country from tribes that are working on this and need your help? Blane Sanchez: There has been a lot more calls coming in to discuss water quality standards. Mainly, a lot have been based on the misconception that the lawsuit was against the Pueblo, and that's a misconception that I try to clarify. The lawsuit was not against the Pueblo, but was against EPA in the approval of the standards. I think that's one of the things that some of the tribes that I've talked to are kind of maybe hesitant, because "Well, we're going to get sued if we follow this procedure." But I try and put that to rest. As far as water quality standards, there are a lot of and seems to be more and more tribes looking at following this avenue. I've had some discussions with them, not in real great detail, but just pointing out to them that if they are looking at developing water quality standards, what really is involved. Not only just the process of developing standards, but also the long-term commitment in following through and development of a program to oversee implementing the standards. And also, the potential for funding that may not be available through EPA which will have to be a commitment by the Page 129 ------- tribal government and take upon themselves that commitment to continue a program into the future regardless of funding. It's a long-term commitment. Question: I think this would be addressed to Blane. You mention the water quality standards and how yours differed from New Mexico's and were more stringent in some areas. Were yours more relaxed on other parameters or are they as stringent or more stringent? Blane Sanchez: As mentioned earlier, of the four questionable metals being investigated in the Rio Grande, the aluminum standard was New Mexico's. Isleta's water quality standards protect primary contact, but New Mexico's do not for that segment of the Rio Grande. We have a stricter water quality standard for that segment that flows through the Pueblo, that's why there's a difference in water quality standards. But the state does have similar water quality standards ! to protect primary contact, but on other bodies of water within the state. j Question: On the Pueblo, now that you've adopted these water quality standards, are there any discharges into the river within the Pueblo that had to be upgraded to meet with these standards? Blane Sanchez: None, at present, and that's what I tried to point out to the tribal officials is that in the future any economic development projects or endeavors that potentially might be discharging some type of wastewater effluent is going to have to comply with those standards. So I don't know if that's something that was really looked at in the beginning when water quality standards were being developed. But I think the main reason that standards were being developed was to protect downstream effluent that was being received from Albuquerque. But the flip side of that coin is that those standards are also going to apply to us first and foremost. Question: How do you set the priorities? Is that a formal or informal process? Where do you go next after you've got standards? Page 130 ------- Blane Sanchez: Well, as part of the process, once the standards were established and in place, where I'm involved is^in developing that program to assess water quality on the Pueblo by monitoring water bodies and the uses, and is the water quality meeting those uses. So the first priority is to get baseline data. Where are we at as far as water quality in meeting the standards is unknown? We must look to see if there are problems, then how do we address meeting those standards? Then probably at that point develop regulatory infrastructure that the Pueblo can enforce hi meeting those water quality standards. Question: You mentioned that you have this water quality monitoring network you're trying to build. But even with that, how do you enforce your water quality standards? You only have a short segment of the river. Blane Sanchez: First and foremost, as I said, water quality standards apply within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo, our jurisdictional boundaries. The reason our water quality standards impacted the City of Albuquerque's effluent was because, one, their proximity and distance from our boundary to their point of discharge is five miles. The discharge under the permit must meet adjacent, downstream water quality standards of a State or as in our case a Tribe. The second reason and probably the most important is that during different parts of the year, mainly summertime irrigation season, the flow in the river pretty much goes down to zero discharge-- zero flow. So discharge that's coming out of the treatment plant if 55 million gallons to 60 millions gallons per day, which makes up that discharge into the river, is the sixth largest tributary to the Rio Grande. So in that sense, during those tunes of the year, water in the river is essentially wastewater coming out of the treatment facility, which is impacting the Pueblo's water quality directly. Question: How do you take enforcement of these things? Blane Sanchez: The NPDES permit. That's what was written taking both Isleta standards and the state standards hi meeting those water quality standards under the NPDES permit. So through the NPDES permit that was issued through EPA is how enforcement is taken. Page 131 ------- Question: You mentioned there was 4,500 members of the Pueblo Tribe. Of that number, are you the main staff or do you have a staff of people to conduct all these tests yourself? Blane Sanchez: We're hot at the capacity yet to be monitoring. I am the staff person there dealing with water quality. The hurdle that I'm facing is developing or, I guess, addressing quality assurance oversight and setting up a structure that in monitoring and developing that data that there's some type of quality assurance oversight built into that process. Because of the limited staff that the Pueblo has, there isn't that ability for specific staff to address those Q.A. responsibilities. Right now there's another person that is dealing with solid waste, which is another issue that tribes are facing and probably all small communities in managing solid waste. But she's dealing with solid waste specifically. So there's two people within our now established environment office that was just established at the first of this month by the Tribal Council and through resolutions. So that's part of my dilemma too in working with the Pueblo is that I have a dual responsibility of following the scope of my water quality responsibilities, but also looking at developing that environmental office for the Pueblo. Moderator: Petuuche Gilbert Thank you very much for the panelist participation and then the questions that were presented by the audience. Page 132 ------- WATERSHED SUCCESS IN REGION 6 CONFERENCE April 19, 1995 General Session: Watershed Protection & Property Rights (9:00-9:45AM) Introduction: Myron Knudson I would like to introduce Cis Myers, who is responsible in many ways, for this event. Cis is the Senior Environmental Coordinator for the Lower Colorado River Authority. She's also in her spare time an adjunct professor at the University of Texas Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and has had many years experience working for the Lieutenant Governor of Texas. She has degrees from Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, as well as Syracuse University, and is now working on her Ph.D. Welcome, Cis. Moderator: Cis Myers, Senior Environmental Coordinator, Lower Colorado River Authority; Austin, Texas Good morning. I have the pleasure of introducing my good friend, John Duffy, who is Special Counsel to the Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt. John was born in Brooklyn. I'll give you the straight introduction and then I'll give you the real poop on John. John was born in Brooklyn, New York. He's a graduate of Brown University and the Cornell University Law School where he was the Note & Comment Editor of the Cornell Law Review. Throughout his 25-year career as a private practitioner John specialized in dispute resolution through both negotiation and litigation, which makes him particularly qualified to be working for the Secretary of Interior these days. He is the author or co-author of a number of publications on various legal topics and has conducted seminars on legal issues in both the United States and internationally, particularly in Canada. Now, I told John this was rather a boring introduction and to give me the real poop. So first of all, we want to dispel any rumors that indicate that he and I are the oldest people at this conference. We have identified at least four people who are older than we are. Secondly, John tells me he is a really good looking guy. He has great fun. He is intelligent. This is a self-analysis, I want you to know. He is intelligent. He is witty and charming. He is a big- shot. And he tends to be hostile if you don't ask questions when you are called upon. So with that, I think we're really fortunate that John took the time to leave Washington with all that's going on up there legislatively. We really appreciate your taking the time to be with us, John. Let me introduce to you, my good friend, John Duffy, Special Counsel to the Secretary of Interior. Page 133 ------- Speaker: John Duffy, Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior; Washington, D.C. ! Thank you, Cis, for that wonderful introduction, for which I will never forgive you. I want to thank my friends here at LCRA for giving me the opportunity to come to New Orleans. I've long had a love affair with New Orleans and with the state of Louisiana. One of my law professors, Billy Ray Forrester, was the Dean of the Tulane Law School, for a time, attempting to keep me in law school, he spent a lot of time with me and told me about what | a great state Louisiana is and have experienced that myself on a number of occasions. Not • only here in New Orleans, but also in LaFayette, is one of my favorite places. It was easier to experience New Orleans, of course, when I was thin and thirty. Now that I'm fat and fifty, New Orleans can be a danger as well as a pleasure. I was very disappointed to find that I had to speak at 9:00 hi the morning. I should have negotiated better. I'm also very disappointed at the non-appearance of Mr. Tauzin's District Director. I understood that this was going to be an opportunity for a strong spirited debate on the interesting topic that has been planned for this general session. I can understand his decision that discretion is the better part of valor, however. He definitely has the weaker part of this case. So we'll know that he should be here, I'll take his chair and move it forward hi the traditional manner to represent a missing opponent. Now the first thing I wanted to say is that I'm not happy about the way this topic has been defined in your program. I'm concerned about the statement of the issue as Watershed Protection and Private Property, because in my view nothing in watershed protection is opposed to private property rights, as that term has been understood since the dawn of Anglo- Saxon Jurisprudence. I want to point out that Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence—here I am moving to a professorial role, which is now in vogue in Washington—is, as some of you may know, based in part on the law of the Vikings, who invaded England and brought with them their concepts of jurisprudence, which were actually quite advanced. The Vikings, for those of you who aren't completely familiar with them, were very much like Texans. They were hard scrabble dirt farmers. They were tough customers. They had little truck with central authority. The Vikings recognized, however, even as independent as they were, that if Sven and Oloff had property that bordered the same stream and Sven was upstream of Oloff, Sven couldn't relieve himself in the stream, or allow his cattle to relieve themselves in the stream, without conflict breaking out. That same fact holds true today in Texas. I was at a meeting of Texas farmers during the height of a particularly delicate debate over critical habitat. Many of you in Texas will know that the rumor was that we were planning to seize all of Central Texas for the federal government, and for some reason, Central Texas residents were not happy about that. In that Page 134 ------- meeting, in the heat of passion, one of the farmers got up, pointed to a representative of the Fish & Wildlife Service, and said, "If I want to take my cows right after they've been dipped and wash them in the stream, I'm gonna do it!" And a woman raised her hand in the back and said, "The helfyou wiUfHi drink that water^^ownstream."^few, tame, there isn't any conflict between watershed protection and property rights. Indeed, watershed protection is one of the ways in which we maintain property values. I'm in favor of watershed protection. The blood of Vikings runs in my veins and I'll be damned if I'm going to let somebody urinate upstream from me. Some of you may say, "Now, John, the good-looking part of the introduction is okay, but the intelligence part we're worried about." Because what you've just said is a broad overstatement. This is really not the type of argument that we were expecting from somebody who is a big-shot. We were expecting a more finely tuned intellectual analysis. But I am telling you that is not where this battle is being fought. It's not being fought with finely tuned intellectual analysis. It's being fought with bilge like takings legislation. I can't use any other term for it. It is absurd to suggest that we should allow everybody whose property value is decreased by any amount by any government action, to sue the government for that. No civilized society has ever recognized that, including Sven and Oloff. It has no place in Anglo- Saxon jurisprudence. Property rights have never had that definition—ever. Otherwise, the law of nuisance would never have grown up. The law of nuisance, as you may recall, is the law that prevents my neighbor from putting up a huge Christmas tree display that puts five million watts of light into my bedroom at night. It's what keeps his dogs from defecating without control on his lawn so that the odor in the middle of July of dog manure is so great that my patio is unusable. These are the things that the law of nuisance protects us against. Now the laws that have developed over the past 25 years are no more than administrative extensions of the law of nuisance and the concepts behind them. Those concepts are deeply rooted in our system of law and in our understanding of private property. What we have here, I think, abroad in the land is a public relations effort to take a concept that we all believe in, private property, and oppose it with concepts that the people who are using this technique don't believe in. Then they give us a draconian choice. "You want watershed protection? Or do you want private property rights? Which is it? Make a choice." I'm here to tell you that there is no choice necessary, because no reasonable conception of property rights has ever included what these individuals are saying it includes. One of the techniques that is utilized here, very effectively I think, is what I call argument by anecdote. We don't hear real argument about these issues. We just hear stories about what Page 135 ------- the regulations did to Grandpa and Grandma on their farm in Austin. I happen to know a lot about Austin. That's why I know the LCRA so well. Now one of the stories that was abroad in Austin was that the Fish & Wildlife Service~and let's be honest, the Fish & Wildlife Service isn't perfect, but they're not completely crazy— the Fish & Wildlife Service wouldn't let a man cut down a single lone tree that grew on his 40-acre property because a birdie might nest in it. Now, we all know that didn't happen, and yet I've heard that from Congressional staff people. I've heard them say, "Let me give you an example of how these laws are being applied." That's not what is happening out there, and I'm angry and I want to make you angry about this campaign of deliberate misrepresentation. Because sometimes, you can't fight irrationality with reason alone. You have to have emotion behind it. I'll tell you an anecdote which is a true story, thereby separating it from the other anecdotes. When I was a young man, thin and thirty, I think, is the way I would characterize myself, I was actually running—something I don't do much now—around East Potomac Park. I don't know if any of you know Washington, but East Potomac Park is a peninsula bordered by the Potomac River, and out at the Haines Point, which is at the tip of East Potomac Park, Lady Bird Johnson had installed a fountain. It's called the Lady Bird Johnson Fountain. Water out of the Potomac was pumped up and lights would shine on the fountain. That fountain had to be shut down because the bacteria count in the water of the Potomac was so great that people running by like myself were getting ill from the spray. Now approximately 25 years later, you can swim in the Potomac River. You can fish in the Potomac River. And when your dog falls into the Potomac River, you don't have to shoot the animal to protect your family. Now these are the type of anecdotes—real, true anecdotes—that I think we have to tell more often. To everyone's surprise~my surprise especially-Cis and I, although technically not the only old people here, are really in a small group of old people here. There's a lot of people in our country who don't know, or don't remember, how things were. They don't remember why these laws were put in place. Their view is the Potomac has always been fine. They don't remember when the—I'm trying to think what the name was—was it the Monongahela River that used to catch fire all the tune? [Some in the audience respond: The Cuyahoga.] The Cuyahoga, right. They don't remember when these things were a common occurrence. They don't remember when the news was not reporting the introduction of wolves to Yellowstone. It was reporting the imminent demise of the bald eagle, and the assured extinction of the whooping cranes. We're going to have to take this argument to the people arguing the other side in a bold manner. It does no good to constantly say that we have not done as good a job as we could do in getting our message out or in making our rules and regulations comprehensible and easy to apply. We recognize that we have not done a perfect job in that. But that is not the essence Page 136 ------- of the attack that is coming at us now. It isn't a question of how to improve these laws. It's how to eliminate these laws. This attack, I think, is not being made by people who genuinely want to solve the conflicts that we all know are out there. There are obviously conflicts between the management ^f water, 4he productive use of Avater^and^the protection ^4he natural environment, and the protection of people. Those conflicts can only be solved if we recognize them as conflicts. If we see that in fact they are there. The Endangered Species Act's greatest success has been to raise that issue continually in front of policy makers throughout the country. Raise the issue that actions that they are taking are destroy ing the natural environment; are rendering species extinct. That's a warning sign. It's up to everyone here, state and local, as well as federal people, perhaps state and local more than federal people, to take action to make sure that doesn't occur. That's what the Endangered Species Act does. If we eliminate the act, or if we eliminate the Clean Water Act, or if we eliminate any other act, or if we impose legislation which doesn't directly eliminate those acts, but does it by stealth through the back door under the cover of darkness, then we are going to miss the opportunity in our public decisions to make a decision that really solves the problem. We are going to postpone that problem to the future. It's up to all of us to make sure that doesn't happen. Now, I have a number of other points I could make on my speech. Some of them are witty. But I would like to end here and open this for questions and comments. I will say that at least the last part of the introduction was accurate. I do feel rejected if there are no questions. You aren't getting out early. You're going to have to sit here with me till 9:45 and it's not going to be a pleasant experience. Now I'm going to close with the words of my boss, Secretary Babbitt: we need you. We need all of you, who know what has been done in the past 25 years, to get out there and work to protect this legislation. This is not a remote threat. This is a very real threat. And it is not a threat of change. It's a threat of cataclysmic destruction. Thanks a lot. That's it for my speech. Now I will entertain questions, comments, or thoughts, or I will induce them. There we go. I see a hand. Right there. Good. Question: I'm just going to holler from here. I'm from Central Texas. I'm from Austin. When Secretary Babbitt backed off of the Endangered Species issue hi Austin, it sent a message out to people hi Austin. How do we as regulators deal with that kind of message in light of what you are saying? Page 137 ------- John Duffy: Great. I always like a tough question. Maybe you could clarify exactly at what point Secretary Babbitt backed off. What are you talking about exactly? Do you mind if I take my jacket off here. Thanks a lot. Question: A few months ago when we were having some of our meetings in Austin about whether or not to put certain species on the list. John Duffy: The salamander? Response: Yes. John Duffy: Let me just tell you what happened on the salamander. There was a listing decision that was pending in front of the Fish & Wildlife Service. During that tune, we went down and visited with people on the staff of then elected Governor Bush, and we chatted about these decisions and they said to me, look, we think that there's not enough information about where these salamanders are and where they are located within this vast aquifer. The salamander is sort of in the aquifer, but it's sort of below the surface of the floor of the aquifer. It sort of lives in little tubes and whatever that are located at the spring source itself. So they are hard to count. They said that we will agree if you will postpone the listing for six months to do two things. We will agree to work with you to do a complete study of all potential parts of the aquifer where they could be found. And two, we will agree to work to put in place a comprehensive regulatory scheme that will reduce, eliminate, and control the degradation of the aquifer watershed from development. And we said well, that sounds great to me, because I don't see how we, the federal government, are going to be able to put in place a comprehensive scheme for the management of the aquifer. Last time I looked, the Endangered Species Act didn't empower us to take over the control of land use planning in Texas. Consequently, we don't have a good way of accomplishing that. Yes, we could list the species. But I'm not sure that in listing the species we would be able to give it any more protection. If the threat of listing the species is so great to you, I would prefer that you took this task on. Page 138 ------- So the Governor wrote us a letter saying that he would take this task on and we postponed the listing decision by six months. Now, my view is that was a good deal, because this matter of the Endangered Species Act can't be solved by the local government alone. It's got to be solved by local people. WedontJiave overall land use planning authority^ So we don't have the mechanism that will allow us to put in place the type of controls that are necessary. All we can do is either deny people 10-A permits or try to go into court in Central Texas and prevent a particular development on the grounds that development may have an impact on the quality of the aquifer. The problem with the aquifer is that it's not a direct flow. You can't drop dye in at the top and watch it come out the bottom in 35 minutes. Sometimes it takes 15 years for the dye to come out. Consequently, you have a difficult case to stop that development. You may have trouble going in and enjoining that man from building his development, because you're going to have to be able to prove that what he's doing is going to do damage to the aquifer. The Endangered Species Act allows a 6-month extension of the decision on listing a species when there is disagreement concerning the information upon which it would be based. On March 10, the Department announced that the unresolved scientific issues surrounding the status of the Salamander were sufficient to extend the decision. Governor Bush, I thought, made a very courageous decision, because I can assure you that there were a lot of people in the state of Texas who would have preferred that he do nothing about this. I think he did it because he's interested in preserving the Edwards Aquifer. We wanted to help him do that, I guess is what I'm saying. Question: I've got a follow-up on that. I'm wondering your thoughts on Judge Bunton(?) saying that you indeed do have authority to regulate the farmers and cities over the Edwards Aquifer and has appointed a master, or whatever he's called, to look into that and make reports, and he has made at least one report and the judge has now asked him to look to see what additional control measures could be placed, and I thought that was the Endangered Species Act that was before the federal judge. John Duffy: Right. But the difference between San Antonio and Austin is San Antonio is primarily a water quantity problem. Basically, the question is how much water. In Austin, it's a quality problem. It's not how much water. There's plenty of water in the aquifer and the springs are not in immediate danger of water depletion. It's a question of whether or not whatever is going to happen upstream in the aquifer is going to have a detrimental impact on the health of the salamander downstream. That's very hard to prove. It's much easier to prove that the water isn't going to be there for the salamander than it is to prove that the water is going to Page 139 ------- be there, but it's not healthy for the salamander. So consequently, those raise different cases and no one to my knowledge in San Antonio has suggested that there's a problem with the quality of water that the San Antonio species are getting. That may be coming, but it's not there now. You know, I wouldn't ever disagree with a sitting federal judge having made a decision. It's always a bad idea. But I think if this was a quality decision he'd be on much weaker grounds. Yes? Question: I'm Chuck Bennett from Arkansas and I'd just like to have your comments on the new Clean Water Act provisions for wetlands. What's proposed regarding your mention of property rights, and how all that mixes in. Generally, I agree wholeheartedly with what you've said, but I have a hard time going from point A to B when we talk about wetlands and the way the new act is describing it as compensating somebody for a certain class. I mean, if you designate a wetland a certain class, somebody is going to have to pay them for the property. What are your comments on that? Is your argument on protecting everyone's property rights? Can you apply that to the wetland case that I just mentioned? John Duffy: Let me make sure, because I'm not fully familiar with that law. I'd like to say that I was right up to speed on the proposal, but I'm not. Chuck Bennett: I was hoping you knew more about it than I did. So I'm not sure I can describe it exactly. But they're going to designate three classes of wetlands, A, B, and C, and if it's designated A, it's the highest quality and then that person is allowed to sue the government for payment for his property if it meets certain rules, which I don't know exactly what the rules are. In effect, it's a way to obviously throttle the federal government's ability to just designate wetlands. I mean, it puts a big responsibility on the federal government. If they do, somebody is going to have to pay them to make that stick. So it's really going to restrict it. When I think about wetlands, I think about, well, we're telling some guy whose property is just sitting there in its natural state that it's going to have to sit there in its natural state. So he may have a good argument that we've taken the value of his property away. John Duffy: Okay. Let me reach that question. My neighbor, for example, has a corner lot and it's not right next door to me, but he borders on a big avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, and you know, there's no McDonald's there, and if he could put up a McDonald's, he could make a lot of Page 140 ------- money. He can't, because this is a residential neighborhood. His neighbor doesn't want a McDonald's and I don't want a McDonald's. The reason I don't want a McDonald's is it would reduce the value of my property. So he can't put up a McDonald's. Now I don't feel ealled^ipott to compensate him for that. -Why-are wetlands a different situation? -The-foet-ef the matter is that we have some wetlands here. The wetlands are integrally related to the remainder of the watershed. People can't necessarily do what they want on their property if it impacts other people's property. That's the essence of this. People keep saying, "Well, I can do anything I want with my property." That's never been true in the history of civilized people. The Supreme Court has ruled that if the government's regulation takes the complete value of your property and reduces it to zero, because it can't be used, like the beach case in South Carolina, then the government has taken the property. All right? We have mechanisms for people who think that the property has been taken. This is not an effort to redress something that there's no redress for. We have a Claims Court. There's a full mechanism for going in and getting redress for your property. But in the history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, as enshrined by the Supreme Court's decisions on takings, no one has ever contemplated this sort of blanket payment for loss of potential value. That's because everyone recognizes that in using one's property one has to use it in a way that's consistent with other people using and enjoying their property. If I have wetlands on my property, it may be in my best interest to develop it. But, it's not in the best interest of everybody else to have it developed and that's why there's a limitation on my ability to develop it. That's why there's a limitation on putting a stockyard next to my house, because it's going to impact my property. If you take the example of Dell Webb which we just made a big deal about in Texas. I had a big press conference. I went down there. I was on TV. My mother was happy. Dell Webb came in. They had a planned development. They planned the development hi such a way that various endangered species were not impacted. They didn't have to get a permit. No permit. No problem. Just looked ahead. Said, "There's a whole bunch of endangered species here." Took care of it. Now, doesn't that tell you something? It tells me something. It tells me that we can work out these matters if we have planning and if we have science. That's what most annoys me about the current debate. In addition to these strange ideas of private property—and I'm telling you they are strange; I mean they are unparalleled and unprecedented-there's also this idea that it would better if we knew nothing. Knowing things can be dangerous. If we know things, we may find that there's a problem in filling in the wetlands. So let's know less. Let's know nothing. We have a National Biological Service because the general feeling in the Department of the Interior was that we had three organizations that had science responsibilities, but they weren't Page 141 ------- talking to each other. So now we have one science agency. Fine. They want to get rid of that. The USGS has been, for 85 years, drawing great maps. What's the problem with USGS? It just finds water. It finds land. It finds minerals. It locates them. It puts them on a map. No, let's get rid of that. We might know something about this stuff. It would be a big problem for us. Science agencies are under attack. Funding for information gathering is under attack in your own agency (EPA). Why? Information. It would be a problem. We'll know something. We'll have a problem. The real problem is that if we don't know anything we can't solve the damn problem. Knowledge is what makes us able to solve the problem. Knowledge makes it easy for us—not easy—but it makes it possible for us to take the development versus natural resources protection dichotomy, and make it go away. We don't have to have a draconian choice. We can have both nature and economic growth. I was reading in the newspaper the other day that electric cars now are actually a practical alternative. I mean, 10, 15 years ago, people said, "Nobody will drive an electric car. It's ludicrous." Now, in California, the quality of electric cars is such that electric cars will become a reality. The question of whether we can continue to have Los Angeles and a natural environment, you know, has been at least alleviated by electric cars. Why anyone would want a Los Angeles isn't clear to me, but let's assume that in a Democratic society somebody wants that. The fact is that dichotomy is solved by science. Question: I'm from Texas and I work in a section which issues discharge permits. When we write a permit to authorize a discharge, we don't look at how that permit could affect property values. We may do that indirectly by trying to meet a water quality standard or whatever. But I could see that if this legislation (and I'd really like your read on this as there's actually a very similar thing going through the Texas Legislature) could actually impede issuing permits. The state or federal government could fear that by issuing this permit you could be lowering a property value, because here you are setting up this industry or this municipality's wastewater plant here and nobody is going to want to buy that property next door. They couldn't exist if you didn't discharge and nobody wants this stuff rolling down the stream, even though we've made a showing that it's not going to hurt anybody. So I guess, could this backfire to have the opposite effect? And this might be hypothetical, but just want your thoughts. John Duffy: No, it's not hypothetical. It's exactly correct. I mean, this legislation as drafted would allow you to be sued where your action had any impact on diminishing these people's property. There's some that say any impact, some say 10%, some say 20%-you could sue for that Page 142 ------- diminishment. And it's two types of diminishment. You're talking about what we call traditional diminishment where the actual value of the property goes down. But these laws deal with hypothetical possible diminishment. I mean, my neighbor comes in and says, "Hey, look, I want to^ut up^McDonakUs." Jsay, "Well, yrm nan't p\n up a McDonald's." He says, "Well, hey, I'm diminished right there. You know, I think I better go into court and sue on the grounds that I'm diminished." So I think that you're going to have a bigger problem. I think I'm going to just put a pipe in the stream and flush my sewage into the stream. And when you come and say, "Hey, don't flush your sewage into the stream," I'm going to say, "That diminishes my property. Now I have to sort of connect to this thing and I'm diminished." I mean, if any diminishment can be seen, then that's it. So that's a problem. You are right on target. Nobody can believe where this legislation is going. That's basically our saving grace. It's so stupid that it may be reduced to an absurdity. But the problem is that something very significant is still going to be on the horizon and those are the things that we have to work against. I mean, it's not part of our jurisprudence to have that. Question: Bob Hastings, Sierra Club I'd like to direct a comment to the empty chair and then I'd like to ask you a question. John Duffy: Great! Please! Bob Hastings: I'm Bob Hasting with the Sierra Club and I was really disappointed to know that Representative Tauzin's office was not going to be represented here today. Because I would have liked to of heard that lively debate. I think you've made some good points and I would like to hear Tauzin's office respond to them. I would emphasize to Mr. Tauzin that the Sierra Club has not been conspiring with EPA, although he was quoted as saying that. We are interested in protecting the environment just as EPA is, and therefore, we feel very strongly about these issues. I would just emphasize that what we need to do is deal with facts and not distortions. I would point out to all of the people present that they should keep up with the news this week, because most of the major networks have picked up on a story. One of Tauzin's favorite horror stories is the Chicoines family. Locally, here in Ascension Parish, Louisiana, the Chicoines family inherited a problem from someone that they bought property from in a wetlands area where there had been some digging and a pond constructed by the former land owner. The Chicoines family Page 143 ------- is now being required to correct some of those earlier problems. So Mr. Tauzin likes to cite this as the classic example of a takings and a conflict of private property rights. In reality, what happened was that the previous land owner was challenged by a neighbor who was upset because the modifications on that land were causing flooding their property. So this is a classic example of your Viking example: how modifications on one property can affect a neighbor's property. This is what we need to protect against. CNN, ABC, NBC, all of the networks have picked up on this and it is being publicized nationally this week. So I would encourage all of you to watch for that. Now let me direct my other comment to you, basically, in the form of a question. Many of us are frustrated because we don't know what to do right now. We're trying to publicize the truth and fight some of this distortion, but we find that in many cases our comments are falling on deaf ears because of the tremendous lobbying effort on the part of property rights supporters or supposed property rights supporters. And we find that our elected officials who express sentiments such as you have expressed today are not very vocal. We don't hear you coming out and being quoted nearly as frequently as the other side, and so feel that we're losing the battle without ever fighting. What can we do to really publicize the truth and emphasize to the other side that this is absurd. This private property rights issue is something that is ridiculous, but yet, if we sit back and don't work against it, it's going to pass whether we think it's absurd or not. John Duffy: Well, I believe that there has been a failure on the part of public officials like myself to speak out more plainly on the problem, and I hope that the administration will be moving to correct that in the near future. I know that my boss is now scheduled to go out and speak on these topics throughout the country. So, you'll be hearing more from us in the future. Two things, I think, are very important to recognize. One is that your organization like other organizations were born and came to the fullness of their strength during the effort to create these laws. We need you now to work to protect them. We have sometimes, I think, in the environmental community fallen into complacency, and I might even say arrogance with respect to our position. We have tended to lump everyone who didn't agree with us into the class of bozos or naives, and actually some of them are people who simply are caught in a situation where they wanted to do the right thing, but don't know what the right thing is. That's the fault of our agencies. I can defend our agencies on this point. In the past two administrations, no one in the political level has really cared whether these agencies did or didn't do a good job in explaining environmental laws to the population at large. Indeed, the political agenda of those administrations was contrary to the idea of having these environmental laws be seen as sensible, because in most cases the political people were against these laws. Therefore, I think that the people in these agencies, and I include the agency that Page 144 ------- I work for now, (the Department of the Interior) as well, found themselves in a situation where they were just fighting to get the job done. They didn't really have as good a chance of getting out there and explaining why the job needed to be done. In Texas, for example, I've met now with a large number of the vocal opponents to various plans that we're working with in Texas, and some of these people are people who have genuinely sound complaints about the way the department has worked; e.g. failure to give adequate information. No, we haven't refused to allow somebody to cut down a single tree. But on the other hand, we haven't gone out and told people how many trees they can cut down. For some time, we have had a sort of bunker mentality and I think we need to get over that. I think out in the countryside, there's a large number of people who support environmental laws. We just have to show them that there isn't any conflict between these environmental laws and their lives. And to the contrary, these environmental laws are critical for the preservation of their lives and the lifestyles that they want to have. I think we can do that. I think we need to do that. And I think that groups like yours need to go out and deal with people who are the targets of the present anti-environmental movement. I think that these people are being misled. I think that we're contributing to that and I think we have to stop contributing. We have to get out and start explaining the facts. We have to explain it in simple terms and with anecdotes. We've got some really good anecdotes. And I'll tell you the type of anecdotes that we need to relate. We need to talk about pollution. Look, we're where we are now because we've worked so hard to get to there and we can't lose that ground. There isn't any conflict between development and the protection of the environment that can't be resolved. We're going to have development. We want to save the environment. Everybody wants to preserve the natural resources of this country, well maybe not everybody, but the vast majority of people. We just have to make it clear that they can be preserved. Listen, it's been great being here. I've really enjoyed it. I know you have to move on. I know lawyers are difficult people to get away from the microphone, because I, too, watch the O.J. trial. Thanks a lot. Introduction: Myron Knudson I have the pleasure of having Carlton Dufrechou tell us a little bit about the field trip that's coming up and I think you're going to see some beautiful scenery. Carlton is the Executive Director of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. His function is overseeing the planning, coordination, and implementation of the foundation's water quality and habitat restoration Page 145 ------- programs and other projects in the 5,000 square mile Pontchartrain Basin area. Carlton used to be a bureaucrat so he knows a little bit about what some of us do for a living. He served six years with the Corps of Engineers, and is a native New Orleans. So with that, Carlton, thank you. And again, I think we owe a round of applause to the Foundation and Terrene for sponsoring last night's events. So, thank you. Speaker: Carlton Dufrechou, Executive Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation; Metarie, LA Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow morning we have a tour of the Pontchartrain Basin, the southern half of the basin. We are right down here in the French Quarter right now. That's the heart of the old city. Tomorrow morning we're going to head out west to the Bonnet Carre Spillway. This spillway was completed in the late 1920's. It is a relief valve for the Mississippi River. About every seven or eight years we have a large storm event on the—well, not storm event, but rainfall and snow in the upper ends of the country that will eventually flow down to the Gulf of Mexico. When it gets to the New Orleans area, because of the levee system, every once in a while, we're going to overtop the levees. That spillway is designed to actually be a relief valve. It discharges all of the water coming from the northern part of the country into Lake Pontchartrain and passes through Rigolette Pass, Chef Menteur Pass, out here to the Mississippi Sound. This area also was the site of a pretty controversial project that Myron has been very instrumental in changing. The Corps of Engineers, the agency I used to work for, had a project that was conceived about 20-25 years ago that proposed actually diverting water from the Mississippi into Lake Pontchartrain to benefit oyster fisheries. The concept was good about 20 years ago, but in the interim period, suddenly folks got an interest in Pontchartrain. Pontchartrain1 s restoration started taking place. And the water quality of the Mississippi was recognized that, hey, we got a problem with that. If we put that water hi Lake Pontchartrain, we may actually be degrading Pontchartrain. And besides that, it was an unnatural diversion. It was directing water through a six-mile long canal directly into the lake for about nine months out of the year. With Myron's help, along with EPA, that project has been reanalyzed and actually it's turning into a project, I think, that will benefit the wetlands along the western edge of Lake Pontchartrain. Those wetlands we're going to try to take a look at tomorrow. That's a shot of the Bonnet Carre Spillway, the existing spillway. These are some of the wetlands in the La Branche area that actually you folks will drive over tomorrow. From there, we're going to come back toward the metropolitan area and Jefferson and Orleans Parish. Because we are in a bowl, we're actually below sea level in New Orleans. All of our storm water is pumped out. We'll visit one of the pumping stations in the metropolitan area. From there, we'll go to Old Page 146 ------- Lakeshore Drive and see portions of Lake Pontchartrain and some of the recreational potential. From there, we'll head to the eastern portion of the city, out toward the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. The Gulf Outlet is a deep draft ship channel that was dredged from the Mississippi River tcHhecontainer facility in^New^Means East 4n4he late SQVto early 60-s-—When it was completed, it was a great shortcut for deep draft ships into the container facility. Unfortunately, when we did that in the late 50's we didn't recognize the value of our wetlands. This channel actually allowed, not only the ships to come in, but also the higher salinity waters from the Gulf of Mexico to come into the historically brackish to fresh marshes in the St. Bernard and Plaquemine area also in eastern New Orleans. Because of that, a good number of the marshes, unfortunately, went south for the duration. This was a cypress marsh some time ago. While we're down here, just to review really quickly, we start off here, head west toward Bonnet Carre to La Branche Wetlands, back towards some of the pumping stations, Lakeshore Drive, possibly some of the fishing camps in New Orleans east, down into St. Bernard and Plaquemine. We'll also see the Gore pumping station in St. Bernard Parish, where we are trying to divert storm water to actually enhance some of the existing wetlands down there. And possibly if time and weather permits, we'll stop at Chalmette Battlefield and have lunch out there and get you folks back here tomorrow afternoon. I hope you enjoy the city. If you have any questions about New Orleans, anything specific about Pontchartrain, anything that we can help with, just catch any of us with Lake Pontchartrain Basin. And Myron and all of the EPA folks, thank you again for all of your help. Page 147 ------- Page 148 ------- Permitting Activities Supporting the Watershed Approach (10:15-11:45AM) Moderator: Warren Davis, Director, Watershed Management Division, Texas Natural Resource Consef vation Commission; Austhi, Texas This is Permitting Activities Supporting the Watershed Approach, Part 1, Session. This session will discuss how controls and permitting programs initiate and support the watershed approach. It also will include a review of whole basin planning and ecoregion approach to water quality standards. We have all four speakers here today. We're going to go in a progression, and our presenters are going to start on the local level and go to the two states and then the regional level to give the big picture view. Following the presentations, we will have our questions and answers. I want to briefly introduce each of our speakers. We have James Lewis, who is the Water Quality Monitoring/NPDES Supervisor for the City of Austin; Emelise Cormier, who is Program Manager, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge; Mel Vargas, who is the Program Manager for the Watershed Texas, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin; and Stephen Bainter, who is the Environmental Scientist, EPA Region 6, Dallas, Texas. We want to start out on the local level with James Lewis. James is the Program Manager for the Storm Water and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. He's been working with the City of Austin for eight years. He's been an environmental quality specialist there as well. He's had several publications. He has a B.S. degree in Botany, with a Minor in Chemistry from the University of Texas. Please welcome James Lewis. Speaker: James Lewis, Water Quality Monitoring/NPDES Supervisor, City of Austin; Austin, Texas It's a pleasure to be here. I have been with the City for about eight years now and it's always a privilege for me to represent the city. The City of Austin is like many cities. It has a highly developed urban area right on one of the main features, Town Lake. There are going to be a lot of things that I refer to, since we have a short period of time. I have the pleasure of having in the audience a Mr. Stephen Stecher down here, who was instrumental in writing the Town Lake Study. This brought out a lot of information—the EPA Grant Project, the Clean Water Program. Page 149 ------- So we have to deal with many of the problems of a highly urbanized area without any controls in the urban area. Upstream of the town, we have a fairly undeveloped area. That's Lake Austin. All this will come into play in a minute when I talk to you about the problems that we've seen. The City has a history of being known as a more environmentally progressive city. We have many programs, which I'm getting ready to tell you about, which is part of the success story. We've had a few failures, too, that you'll hear about. But part of our success was because of our problems we had with development. As you see, there's a silt plume here coming down that was caused by heavy development in the 70's and 80's. Back then, it was very visible and very recognized. This is our drinking water supply. So when you hear that Austin's a very environmentally conscious city, you've got to realize that a lot of the work that we did was to protect our drinking water supply. Here is another picture of a silt plume, very visible, caused by this rapid runoff that we see in the City from the higher impervious cover, which caused higher volumes and higher velocities. Now, the heart and soul of what a lot of people call our environmental movement is Barton Springs. Here we see a picture of Barton Springs a few years ago. It's difficult to see in this picture, but it looks quite a bit different now. One of the problems that has been so visible is the high bacteria counts in Barton Springs after it rains. A lot of people will say, "Well, that's always been the case." If you look at the top of this picture, you'll see a horse-drawn carriage up there and say, "Well, see there was fecal back then, too." It's a very beautiful pool. A very attractive feature to the city, and it is probably a main impetus for a lot of what goes on in the city in the environmental movement. Here is another hard to see map. But what this shows is probably one of the things I want to hit you all with, which is maybe not one of our greater success stories. This is a map showing an area here that the city has jurisdiction in. This is the city limit line right here. This is Barton Springs showing a recharge zone. Here is our jurisdiction line. Here is the area in the watershed that we do not have jurisdiction on. So all this area, the runoff from this area is affecting the quality of the water of that springs. Of course, you wouldn't believe that from legislative action lately. I'm going to run through, real quickly, many of the programs that we've implemented in our management program. This is before NPDES came about. Like I said, we're developed from ordinances that were implemented to protect our drinking water supply. We have a home chemical collection facility; now a permanent facility open once a week. We have spill, J complaint response programs. Several years ago, for public awareness and education, we f were putting up signs saying, "You're now over a sensitive watershed, the Edwards Aquifer." We have a fairly intensive monitoring program. One that I'm still involved in has about 45 f stations in place with plans for up to 65 stations in the next two years. Page 150 ------- Here's a picture of the latest public education move that we've had. It allows the citizens to call the city to ask about better ways of dealing with fire ants. We have about eight of these billboards around the city now. In that ordinance development process, we've always had land development rules. One of the later ordinances came up with the water quality retrofit. As I was telling you before, other cities often view Austin as, "Why are you doing so much?" A lot of it is perspective. One way of looking at that is you have the EPA dominating the scene in a preaching sort of way. You have the City of Austin, who is viewed as in this mode of progressiveness. And you have other cities who are now getting on line and they feel that-- well, it's just going to raise our taxes. I guess one way to look at that would be as the great vastness of regulations. I heard there were three guys looking over the Grand Canyon: a preacher, an artist, and a cowboy. The preacher got up there and said, "Another wonderful sign of the grace of God." The artist got up there and said, "What a beautiful spot for a painting." The cowboy looked down in there and said, "What a terrible place to lose a cow." Basically, it's that kind of perspective that we see all the time, especially in communication with other people that are having such a hard time with these rules. This is just a depiction of the historical base of how we came about with a lot of these programs. Like I said, back in the 70's, we created the Creek Ordinance to mainly deal with flood control. You know, stream bank erosion is definitely one of the higher impacts for environmental quality. We had some temporary ordinances to protect our drinking water supply that we finalized in 1980. You can see we were looking at specific watersheds—the Lake Austin Watershed Ordinance and the Barton Creek Watershed Ordinance. We were looking at specifically those watersheds to protect our drinking water supply. We came out with Code Amendments which had source controls. We actually put some of these limits on the discharge of water to our system. A lot of these limits came from the drinking water limits at the time. Many were very strict, and we also had the coverall that said, "You shall not pollute. You shall not discharge anything that might cause pollution." It was fairly difficult. It was a little bit vague in nature and some of those parameters were hard to show. So it created problems in authority and enforcement. Then we had the lower watershed ordinances to protect the Barton Springs Contributing Zone, where the previous ordinances were just in our city limits jurisdiction. Now we're looking at, not just the watershed itself, but the zones that contribute to the discharge to the aquifer there. In 1986, we put all those back together and formed a comprehensive watershed ordinance. A lot of what these ordinances did and what we saw in them were development of manuals: the Environmental Criteria Manuals and the Drainage Manual. These manuals were cookbooks for developers or anyone who wanted to build in the city to give them guidelines Page 151 ------- on how to go about that process and what they were required to do. We got down to the end of the road here. The Urban Watershed Amendment was looking at addressing that urban area that had no controls, and we were looking at new and redevelopment requiring controls, and if you did not want to put in controls, you paid a fee into a fund which would be used for regional controls. The Composite Amendment came out. This was an amendment that had significance, because we actually put water quality limitations on the water quality volume. That is we calculated what we called the water quality volume, which was usually the first half-inch of discharge or runoff from a storm, which you were required to capture and then treat. And a lot of what we saw from this was people coming up with no discharge systems. That is they were catching that water quality volume and then re-irrigating with it until evaporation took place or infiltration. Then the SOS Amendment came about and recently the courts struck down that amendment for property rights reasons and we're now back to the pre-1992 ordinance which is the Composite Amendment. One of the things that kind of fits into this conference is we have initiated four Watershed Master Plans, where we're actually looking at specific watersheds, again, to protect our major water supply. We want to address those NPDES impacts, and the master plans are basically funded on what it would take to model and to put in structural controls to adequately meet the goals. Some of those goals were identified in the Town Lake Study that Mr. Stecher there put together. We were looking at NFS load reductions; nutrients 25 to 30%, toxic metals 50%, total suspended solids 50%, trash and debris 50 to 90%, and oil and grease 25%. So fairly ambitious goals. I guess, what is coming from this and what we've seen so far is the structural controls cannot be the full answer, and we're looking more to the source controls and public education~the non-structural controls. What I want to take you through now is mainly a look at some of the things that we've done toward controls. Part of what I do is set up monitoring plans to evaluate these controls. Let's take a quick look at these. I'm going to be pushing this, so you need to kind of hold on here. These are basically erosion controls. First from those hay bails you saw before to silt fences, rock berms, and detention ponds—that's what the Environmental Criteria Manual prescribes as temporary and permanent erosion controls. We started looking at treatment methods. Here's one of the original. We had an original program where we looked at several methods back in the 80's. This was grass swells. We looked at vegetative buffer strips. Here is an off-line extended detention pond, in the sense that the water first comes in, then flows here, and will flow into the pond. When the pond fills up, then the water bypasses the pond and flows directly out. So you have that first flush water quality volume caught here, which then is, in this case, extended detention. Page 152 ------- We looked at one of the first examples of a wet pond. It was actually a detention pond where we closed one of the lower gates and made it a wet pond. Of course, after we did that, it became aesthetically valued and could not drain it. People like it so much. So it still remains like that today. This is one of the earlier program stations. It has a 93% impervious cover looking commercial area and a detention filtration structure. Monitoring is often very difficult to show clear results. We were one of the first, though, to show what one of these ponds could do. The problem with these filter ponds is the nutrients. We don't lose the nutrients. We're very successful in showing sediment removal in this pond and suspended solids. Then you start getting into particle size. Well, we knew after one of the storms and the water started going down in this pond, that we could definitely filter a van out. When the water started going down in this thing, we started seeing the roof. We called the fire department and so forth. We had some concerns that somebody took a wrong turn. Turned out that somebody stole the thing, drove it into the pond thinking it was a permanent pond, and didn't know that the filter would then drain it down. But we knew that we could then stop some of the particles. This is probably one of the more successful designs, but it's not the latest design criteria we have. It is the Jollyville Ponds. It's basically a detention filtration and catches the first flush water quality volume in this portion. This is what we call the splitter box, but it also acts as a sedimentation chamber, and when the pond fills up, it overflows here. Let's see if I have an example. Let me show you some basics. You have basically a leech field and gravel covered with filter cloth and then about 18" to 2-feet of sand on top. The water comes in and you can see the pond is full now. Once the pond fills up, the inflow water directly bypasses the filter with very little mixing between that first flush that we caught there. Then the water drains back down evenly through the filter, both the splitter box and the filter, and then of course, things look a little dim. But what you have here is about two foot of sediment built up after a period of time and some sludgy sediment and material built up on top of the filter. One of the most successful projects, or from a monitoring viewpoint, that we showed was a irrigation system. This was the Brodie Oaks Mall~another commercial development. The water would come into this pond and then overflow if you had a large enough storm at this outlet right here. But this volume was captured during most of the storms and held for a certain period of time and then re-irrigated back to the system. If it did overflow, it overflowed into a filter. Then that would overflow once it filled up. This is probably one of the best results and it was because of that re-irrigation. Also, Mr. Stecher had a part in designing the Arboretum. This was a pond which the water from this development here would flow into the bottom of the pond and the theory being that the water would then come up from the bottom and the cleaner top water would then overflow out, and we had this narration going on there. All this monitoring data showed that basically Page 153 ------- as impervious cover increased, so did our loads. From this data we derived the criteria to develop what that water quality volume was. Here we have nutrients, phosphorous, nitrogen, COD, and from all that developed a consumer report type table. So, this is my evaluation of EPA's performance. But this basically shows, with the circles or semi-circles darkened in with different parameters, how these different types of ponds performed. What are we looking at now? We're looking at controls. This is kind of a front-line approach. It's an inlet filter where you just have a screen stuck into a straight inlet. Here's another picture of it. It's just a perforated pan with a larger flow device in the back. If the plan plugs up, it will then overflow. You can see we catch a lot of floatables and a little bit of sediment. We're monitoring the effect on water quality. This is the new Convention Center in Austin wet pond. Over here is a separator before it goes into the wet pond. We're monitoring both the effects of the separator and the wet pond. You can see the floatables that are caught by the separator. The final device in this separator is a syphon so anything that floats on top of the water comes from the middle of the segment. This is the St. Elmo wet pond. We're just now getting into wet ponds. Austin, with its arid conditions, is not the best climate for wet ponds. This probably exemplifies the more recent criteria in the sense that this whole part back here is sedimentation with a smaller filter. This is the sedimentation part of the device which is larger and this is the filter which is smaller. This pond was specifically designed for monitoring. We put the filter lower so we could get a good flow control coming into the filter, so we could monitor the effect of the inflow coming after the sedimentation and then out the filter. After we put our monitoring shelters up here and all of the other railings, this pond became known as Robo Pond. Also, that gate is to regulate the flow into the filter. Unfortunately, this is difficult to see, But this is probably another example of what this conference is about. We have an EPA grant project with the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, TNRCC and LCRA called the Highway BMP. What you have a hard time seeing here is the gabions. Inbetween these gabions is a vacant spot where we're experimenting with different types of media. The water comes into this chamber. This is the filter part. On the other side of this is a hasmet trap which will catch 10,000 gallons. If during dry weather you have a tanker truck that loses its load, they can catch that load and trap it on the other side of this wall here. It will then deal with it without the load going directly j to the creek. This is on Barton Creek. j There was lots of negotiations between the aquifer district, conservation district, and the other members in this group (Texas Department of Transportation) who have become reborn environmentalists. They have done some really good things here, in my opinion, as far as Page 154 ------- looking at better technology. You know, highway department guys can't do anything unless it's on a tractor. So they developed this pond where they have access to everything in here from a vehicle. I didn't point out on those other ponds that was a problem. But once again, this is a vertical filter. Water flows through this vertical filter which is supposed to be ease of maintenance. Here^s another picture of the water difficulties in the beginning, because they would plug up quickly, and we've been experimenting with different types of media. This is going to be a project where we build a wall down the middle to make it symmetrical. We inoculate one side with bacteria—friendly microbes— and keep the other side as the control. And this is going to be an extended detention through a wetland area which is now just one large detention pond. This is the Far West detention facility. We hired another consultant to look at cost effectiveness and at some of these controls in another project. What this graph shows is cost effectiveness as far as pollutant removal and runoff. I'm not going to go into all the details of this, but he's showing that irrigation is the best method in his preliminary report. It's not final, but basically this line is the cost effectiveness or the water quality volume that you're going to be catching. That increases usually with the size of the watershed. But this is what it's getting down to is what is the best way of treating the water in the most cost effective way. Moderator: Warren Davis Thank you, James. At this point I would like to note that the program shows Laura Koester, the Deputy Director for the Office of Water Resource Management, TNRCC, as the moderator. She sends her regrets and her regards. She was unable to attend. My name is Warren Davis and I am the Division Director of the Watershed Management Division, essentially responsible for issuing municipal and industrial wastewater treatment permits. One of the things that we're doing in the TNRCC is called Watershed Texas. We just had a presenter on a local level. We're going to now go to two state level programs related to permitting activities. We're going to start off with Mel Vargas, who is the Program Coordinator for Watershed Texas at the TNRCC. Mel has been with TNRCC for one and a half years. His primary responsibility is developing and coordinating the Office of Water Resource Management's Watershed Management Approach to Watershed Texas. Prior to coming to TNRCC, he spent seven years in private consulting as a project manager for large scale land development projects. He has a B.S. degree in Landscape Architecture from Michigan State University and an M.S. degree in Environmental Planning from the University of Virginia. Please welcome Mel Vargas. Page 155 ------- Speaker: Mel Vargas, Project Coordinator for Watershed Texas, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; Austin, Texas Thanks, Warren. My name is Mel Vargas. It's a pleasure to be here. I'd like to go through two things today. First, I'd like to summarize the characteristics of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission's recent adoption of what we're calling a Permit by Basin Rule. Secondly, I'd like to describe briefly how we feel that this Permit by Basin Rule or water quality permitting can be used as an important part of a successful watershed management approach. I have a few overheads I'm going to go through. To start out, the Permit by Basin Rule is part of the Texas Clean Rivers Act, and was adopted this past January under Section 305.71 of the Texas Administrative Code. It is a rule that applies specifically to domestic and industrial water quality permit holders. It applies to all renewals, any amendments, and any new permits that come in. This rule provides an opportunity to receive information from all the parties that are affected by discharges in a given geographic area. Since TNRCC does not have NPDES delegation we have been working closely with EPA Region 6 to make sure that the NPDES permits they issue coincide with the same permit issuance dates that we have established within this rule. This will ensure the necessary coordination of Federal and State permits within a geographic region. Finally, the real organizational component of this rule is the simple fact that we're going to be issuing all of these permits to maintain a five year cycle. We believe that consideration of permits and issuance of the permits in a given geographic area all at one time will support the objectives consistent with watershed management. Ultimately it will set the foundation for describing a more accurate picture of what accumulative effects are from the different water quality permits that are issued; and the different dischargers in a given geographic area. Consequently, it can also provide a stronger science basis for decision making. It will allow us a better understanding of assimilative capacity for a given waterbody. We believe it's going to require that we get the permitees more involved and other stakeholders more involved within a geographic area or a watershed. And, by getting them more involved, we think it's going to provide them a strong role in setting management goals for their specific region. This will, in turn, help TNRCC make better decisions when it comes to setting water quality standards. The handout that has been passed out attempts to diagram the timing of permit issuance by basin and the sequence of activities that lead up to writing permits. Texas has 25 river basins in the state, including bays, estuaries, and the Gulf of Mexico. We tried to figure out how many permits we could actually do in a given fiscal year and what it would take for our staff to review and issue those permits. The major factor in determining how the different basins were grouped together was permit workload. Other criteria included things like making sure Page 156 ------- that coastal basins were associated or connected to their adjacent bay and estuary in the same fiscal year. We also connected coastal basins which coincide with the National Estuary Programs to ensure that the basins in that general area were all due at the same time. Having^rouped trie Mstn^ various programs lhat supporting ultimate issuance of wastewater permits. These programs are surface water quality monitoring, modeling, standards, toxicity evaluation, nonpoint source program, Clean Rivers Programs and the permitting program itself. While these programs have been historically program-centered in their approach, the TNRCC has initiated the steps necessary to coordinate and integrate them through their watershed management approach— Watershed Texas. A major component of Watershed Texas is the statewide basin management cycle which is portrayed in the diagram I am showing you. This diagram depicts a continual planning process necessary for a successful watershed management approach based on five phases - scoping, data collection, assessment, prioritizing issues and strategies, and implementation. The activities and responsibilities of the surface water quality programs I mentioned will be sequenced to respond to this rotating, five-phased cycle. Each year the cycle will dictate specific activities to occur under each phase in specific basins. So the basin management cycle dictates three important aspects of the watershed approach: 1 . a logical sequence for activities to occur which will result in better decision making as it relates to issuing and renewing permits; 2. the length of time spent on the various activities and programs under each phase; and 3. the statewide schedule for where and when the basins throughout the state will be addressed. It is important to acknowledge the complexity of the basin management cycle and realize that multiple activities are occurring each year. The actual issuance of permits in a basin however, is set for one specific year. This coincides with the "implementation" phase of the basin management cycle. I also want to emphasize that permit issuance is only one activity of the implementation phase. Other activities might include best management practices, public education, or technical assistance. The darker shaded area depicts a transition period which will be necessary for programs to adjust their day to day responsibilities as they convert to a watershed approach. Integrated data collection and assessment are paramount to improving permit writing. Recognizing this, the TNRCC will need to strengthen partnerships at the local, regional, state, and federal level to share in the acquisition of data and resources if better decisions are to be made for permits. The TNRCC will strive to consider both point and nonpoint sources as they affect dischargers by focusing on impacts using a comprehensive or watershed approach. Page 157 ------- In closing, I would like to state that TNRCC considers the permit-by-basin rule as an important tool which supports the watershed management approach. It will take at least ten years for the entire state to go through the basin management cycle at least once. As the programs and participants complete one cycle in a given area of the state, changes and revisions will be made to improve coordination and integration as appropriate. Question: How many permits do you project per year? Mel Vargas: I'm glad you asked that. I can quickly show that. This diagram here tries to answer that question. Again, it's real important to understand that we're going to be in a transition period between fiscal year '96 and the year 2000. I'll explain this diagram,: because I want to preface it by saying that the benefits of this rule and how permitting can support watershed management is going to take at least seven to ten years to evolve, for the players to get involved, and for all of us to understand how to get through those five phases. So this isn't just a quick instantaneous implementation thing that we can just start and be happy at the end of fiscal year 1996. It's going to take a long time to transition into this. But based on today's existing workload, this is the projected number we would do, if the same number of permits we had to do when we went through the cycle once, this is what would happen in fiscal year 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004, for the different basins that we're up against. As you can see there, we've got it broken into domestic and industrial permits. So during fiscal year '96 through '99, we may have less than these numbers under domestic and industrial. We actually possibly could have more at any given time. Because there's another stipulation that I did forget to mention in the rule. That is that no permit can be issued for less than two years. We've got an implementation procedure that we've recently adopted that requires that we're not going to have any permittee be forced into a permit that's less than two years, but we'll do a three-year permit or a four-year permit to push them out a little bit farther, and then they'll get on the second go-around of the phase, I guess you could say. So I hope that answers your question. Warren Davis: Thank you, Mel. Our next presenter on state level permitting related activities is Emelise I Cormier. She is working with the State of Louisiana. She has been there for 14 years in | Environmental Assessment Management, with 13 of those years in Water Pollution Control, I Water Quality Management. Presently, she's been in the role of Program Manager for the 1 past three and a half years in the Planning & Assessment Section of the LDEQ Water Quality | Page 158 ------- Management Division. She has been responsible for the development of state water quality and mentor reports, water quality data management assessment, fish tissue contamination assessment, and risk assessment. She graduated from Louisiana State University with a Bachelor's degree in Zoology. Speaker: Emelise Cormier, Program Manager, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; Baton Rouge, LA I'm going to talk about what Louisiana has been doing with its ecoregion approach, but I want to point out that the ecoregion approach is not necessarily an alternative to watershed approach. I see it as a supplemental piece of information that can allow you to take a watershed approach with your water quality management programs. A number of states in the past few years have begun to implement an ecoregion approach to water quality standards development and water quality management within our region, including Arkansas. Just for those of you who may not be fully aware of ecoregion approaches~what we do with an ecoregion approach is identify areas within the state which have similar ecological characteristics. To do that, we look at characteristics such as climate, land surface form, or elevation contours, vegetation, soils, and land use. We began to develop our ecoregion approach in 1990 and started off with EPA's ecoregion maps. The EPA developed, on a national scale, ecoregions for the country. What we did was take those ecoregion maps in a GIS geographic information system and overlaid those boundaries, as EPA had identified them, with other large scale data layers, including detailed soil associations, vegetation within Louisiana, land use, contours, and supplemented that also with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers drainage projects. In Louisiana, we have a lot of those flood control projects, a lot of levees, a lot of locks, and that does form a barrier. So we felt that was a key component in delineating our ecoregions. We made several revisions to EPA's original ecoregion boundaries for Louisiana and have now delineated 10 ecoregions. This area here and this are our South Central Plains Ecoregion. Running through the middle there is the Red River Alluvial Plain Ecoregion. This is upper Mississippi River Alluvial Plain. Here we have Western Gulf Coastal Plain. The Atchafalaya River Basin here, which is completely cut off by levees. The Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Plain here, and this is our Upland Terrace Ecoregion, and down at the coastal areas, I delineated the Coastal Cheniere Plain and Coastal Deltaic Plain. These we've added as EPA had not identified those coastal plain regions. Page 159 ------- I'd like to show you a few pictures from each of those ecoregions to give you an idea of Louisiana's landscape. This is Cypress Bayou up in Bossier Parish in the northwestern part of the state, the South Central Plains Ecoregion. This is in the Upper Mississippi River Alluvial Plain. I believe this is probably within one of our wildlife management areas. You can see the dense forest there. But in that region, we also have a lot of agricultural development; a lot of denuded lands. This is the Red River Alluvial Plain. This is down in the southwestern part of the state in the Western Gulf Coastal Plain. This bayou is called Bayou Nezpique, and you can see we've got some few remnant large Cypress trees; a lot of Cypress knees. This is an aerial view of the Atchafalaya River Basin. This is a stream called Darling Creek in our Upland Terrace Ecoregion. This is down in the Coastal Cheniere Plain. Here is marsh down in our Coastal Deltaic Plain. We also have delineated the Mississippi River as a separate ecoregion because it, too, is confined within levees. The next step in our ecoregion approach was to select what we call reference streams within each ecoregion. Our reference streams must meet certain criteria to qualify as a reference stream or what you might call a control or background location. The site selection criteria includes: 1) the watershed must be in a typical area of the ecoregion, 2) it must have perennial habitat or be a perennial stream, 3) it must have little or no impacts, 4) it must be a natural stream channel and has not been dredged; channelized, 5) no point source discharges and no observable nonpoint source runoff should affect that stream, and 6) lastly, it must be accessible by the sampling crews. This, of course, is not our most important criteria, but it does definitely play a role in selecting our sampling sites. At each of these reference streams, we are collecting water quality, physical, and biological data. That includes doing in situ water quality measurements, taking samples for water quality analysis, doing hydrologic measurements, collecting fish and macroinvertebrates for identification down to species level, and doing a habitat assessment. We've established what we call our ecoregion team. They go out twice a year to each of these locations within an ecoregion. We haven't worked in all of the ecoregions yet. Each team member fills out a habitat assessment form at the end of the sampling event. Then we'll Page 160 ------- follow it up later with placement of instruments to do 24-hour continuous monitoring in those streams, particularly for dissolved oxygen. Just to give you an idea of those procedures in the field, here Chris is getting ready to place the probe down into~m^"watorto~do"lh"e"m"sTtu"'"n^a^uTelnenTs: HefeT we^re^doing^offie hydrologic measurements. Doing cross section and flow readings. And we also plan to have some follow-up visits to the stream with yet another team that will do more detailed hydrologic assessments of the streams to enable us to develop modeling coefficients for reaeration. We collect fish using seines. We supply two teams with two nets and seine for approximately two hours at each location. For the macroinvertebrate sampling, we try to sample at least two different habitats along the stream banks and also the woody debris. The sampling of the woody debris can be very time- consuming. We're very meticulous with that. So what we're doing there is picking the little bugs out of the branches, sticks, and bark, and washing it down into the sieve bucket, and then finally putting the bugs into little plastic bags with preservatives so we can preserve them until we can get to them in the lab for later identification. So finally, some of the applications for all of this. We hope that with the data we collect through our ecoregion sampling, we'll be able to make some revisions to our state's water quality criteria, particularly, chemical and physical criteria. A lot of our criteria are based on national criteria, which aren't necessarily appropriate for Louisiana. One of those, in particular, is dissolved oxygen. The national criterion is five milligrams per liter. In Louisiana, we just have natural conditions that do not lend themselves to a five milligram per liter dissolved oxygen level most of the time. Some of the streams we've sampled in our ecoregion are unimpacted with a good amount of riparian vegetation and nice canopy. We've found very diverse species and apparently a very healthy biotic community, and we've seen dissolved oxygen levels below one milligram per liter early in the morning. So D.O. is one, in particular, that we hope to be able to make some changes to the standards. But also, we'd like to possibly change some of our other chemical and physical criteria, such as dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate. Some of these standards may have been based on data from already impacted streams. So with the information we're getting through our ecoregion sampling of reference streams, we hope to have a better idea of what conditions should be within an ecoregion; thereby, establishing more appropriate and maybe more protective standards. Then with those more protective and more appropriate standards, we hope to develop better permit limitations. We hope that we'll be able to utilize the data to do more efficient water quality modeling, so that for an ecoregion we can do some streamlining with our permit development and modeling. Also with this data, we can develop better reaeration coefficient Page 161 ------- rates that will be used in these models to provide more realistic, protective, and maybe cost effective permit limits-more cost effective, that is, to the permittee. We have over and over again faced a dilemma with small communities that are discharging into a stream that never meets the five (milligram per liter) dissolved oxygen, primarily due to the natural conditions in the state. Yet, when we run a model, we come up with very stringent, often times tertiary treatment levels that these small communities just can't afford to meet. We also hope to utilize the data that we are getting to do a more complete assessment of our state's water quality conditions, and eventually develop biological criteria which will also enable us to do more comprehensive assessments. Finally, the ultimate use of all this is better protection of our state's resources. With that, I'll conclude and I'll be glad to answer any questions anyone may have later on. Thank you. Moderator: Warren Davis Thank you, Emelise. We've heard presentations on the local level. We've heard from two different state perspectives—Texas and Louisiana. Our final presenter will give us a regional perspective. We have Stephen Bainter. He's an Environmental Scientist, EPA, Dallas. Stephen has worked with EPA for four and a half years in the permits branch. Prior to that, he worked for 13 years at a waste water treatment facility. He has a B.S. degree in Biochemistry from U.T.-Arlington. Please welcome Stephen Bainter. Speaker: Stephen Bainter, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Dallas, TX Thank you very much. Let me first start out by mentioning that NPDES stands for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and it's specifically a point source program. The permits that are issued under the NPDES program are not meant to control non-point sources, but specifically point sources. So this is just one part of the big picture on how we gain control over a watershed and provide adequate protection. In March of 1994, Bob Perciasepe, the Assistant Administrator of Office of Water, came out and published the NPDES Watershed Strategy. That strategy was developed with the Office of Wastewater Management and we can see the essential components here. The NPDES program cannot in itself implement these six components. More likely what we're going to be doing and what we strive to do is to coordinate with other programs and compliment those programs for a general overview of watershed protection. Page 162 ------- Again, first and foremost, statewide coordination. We want to make sure that what we do is coordinated within the state, and it may be interstate as well. So we want to provide that coordination. Additionally, NPDES permits. It's essential that the permits be issued to control point sources as is necessary. The monitoring and assessment program is typically handtednndera^ different office. ButTt's important that tfaeHNPDES program develop ^data system and collection of data such that it supplements the other information that's being gathered from ambient monitoring. We also have programmatic measures and environmental indicators. We're switching from the traditional bean counting into looking at how we can assess the effectiveness of our program through environmental indicators. Additionally, we're concerned about public participation. While typically NPDES permits are very individual in nature, we don't have a lot of public participation concerns in that issue. But when we come out with general permits, that's probably where the NPDES program has its biggest impact as far as public participation. And lastly, we have to compliment enforcement. We have to provide the mechanism for enforcement, in the Office of Enforcement, to go out there and be able to protect from violations of NPDES permits and to protect our watersheds. Concerning statewide coordination, the NPDES permits branch does not issue grants or does not grant monies to the states. However, we are involved in that process with the other water management division branches. We encourage projects that support the watershed protection approach, and we try to discourage other projects that are redundant. We want to make sure that we're moving forward. We don't really want to get caught in this same circle over and over again. Currently, through our grant program, we are targeting the Galveston Bay area and Corpus Christi Bay area in Texas for some of our Section 106 grant monies, as far as having the state issue or draft for us minor permits for municipal and industrial facilities in that particular watershed. We know that there's a problem in that watershed, and I'll talk about it a little bit more in the future. Concerning the watershed identification and NPDES permits, this was one of the targets of the strategy, and it's something that Region 6 for as long as I've been there has always had in the NPDES permits that are issued is the identification of the receiving stream, the major river basin in which that discharge occurs, as well as the segment numbering designation that the state has come up with. I think in the future we will also probably try to tie that with the USGS basin numbering system so that we can coordinate a lot more of our activities between other federal agencies. Page 163 ------- Concerning interstate coordination, at this time Region 6 is working with Region 7 to establish some sort of meeting between the four states that border those two regions. Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas have a lot of watersheds that drift between those four states. What we're looking for here is if there's some mechanism that those four states can come up with such that permitting activities in that watershed could be coordinated and they could all be issued in essentially the same time frame. So all the permittings in like watersheds would all be addressed at the same time. We're also scheduling a two-day workshop. It's going to be on watershed protection successes. It's something that headquarters has come up with. It's not specific to the permitting activities. It's really encompassing everything that we look at as far as watershed protection. It's going to incorporate everything that we've talked about in this particular conference, and we're looking at trying to schedule that for the fall of 1995. On NPDES permits, first permit sequencing by watersheds. We're buying right in with the state of Texas program. We want to follow that as much as possible. There is a slight complication with some of our minor permits that may have been expired for many years, which complicates our enforcement activities. So with a few exceptions, all the permits issued in the state of Texas will follow their permit rule. Regarding water quality standards, it's imperative that the NPDES permits have water quality standards implemented in those permits. Where we find that there is a reasonable potential for a permittee to cause an exceedance of a water quality standard, then that permit will be issued with some sort of control involved in it. We also would incorporate any basin management plans. A good example of that is in the state of Texas and in the Illinois River, Oklahoma there is a nutrient concern and, specifically, phosphorous. So in those two watersheds, we're also issuing permits that have phosphorous controls in them. Concerning targeted watershed with nonpoint source problems. As I mentioned earlier, the Galveston Bay area is very important to us as far as that protection. That area has several oyster beds that have been closed because of fecal coliform counts. So at this time, we're really targeting certain areas of that watershed for municipal and minors that are going out as far as their discharges into that watershed. Dickerson Bayou is one of the areas that we really targeted because that particular area is on the verge of closing oyster beds and reopening them. So, our efforts there are probably most likely to succeed in keeping those oyster beds open year round. Specifically, in the Bayou Grand Caillou and the Bayou Petite Caillou, our industrial permit section targeted a lot of shrimp processing facilities. There were 15 facilities that discharged into these two bayous. Their discharge was identified as being the most significant problem or contributor to a problem with dissolved oxygen levels. So through the application of Page 164 ------- national performance standards, those 15 shrimp processors were issued NPDES permits to try to alleviate that problem. Best Management Plans (BMP's)are something that's getting a lot of publicity right at this time. A lot; of peopleare; really buying in on the concept of BMP^s. Three years ago, the Region looked at how do we deal with pollutants that there may not be an effective control of that through a treatment technology. We have had several cities that showed up with pesticides in their effluent in a concentration that would cause them to fail a whole effluent toxicity test. The Region responded by issuing permits that required those cities then to incorporate a Best Management Plan, a public education and participation program. It seems to be very effective. The two notable situations that we really have tracked very closely, in Texas, are the Cities of Greenville and Ft. Worth. Both those facilities had numerous failures of their toxicity test. Upwards of 90% of the tests had failed. Ft. Worth, I believe, had one sublethal failure. They had no lethal failures hi 1994. And as far as I know, Greenville has had only one in the last two years-failure for lethality in the testing. So those are situations where a city had a high rate or percentage of failures. They turned around and looked to the public, Getting them to buy into what we're trying to do-protect our resources-and the citizens apparently had come through with them, and I think that's a real important aspect here. Because throughout this conference, we've talked about getting all the stakeholders involved. So I think that's probably one of our best examples of where the public's really bought in on a program and we've seen some good results. As I mentioned earlier, general permits are something the Region is involved in. In recent years, we have issued a CAFO or a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Permit. It had a broad basis to it. It applied everywhere within the region. There are specific areas that we targeted as far as going back and looking at how they were being implemented. But again, this general permit applies everywhere. We also came out with a storm water permit for construction related activities and non- construction industrial related activities. This is not the storm water permit that applies to the cities. Anybody or any city with 100,000 population or greater will be addressed through a specific NPDES permit for storm water activities. But in general, the construction activities and things like that are being controlled through a general permit. We also have recently issued the coastal oil & gas produced water and produced sand permit. This permit was issued in an effort to gain more control over those oil and gas activities that have traditionally discharged a lot of pollutants into the streams without a lot of controls. So those three permits or general permits have really had a good impact as far as giving us the Page 165 ------- ability to go in and gain control without having to spend a lot of resources on individual permittee. Currently under the U.S./Mexico border area, we're targeting pre-treatment programs. Mexico is moving forward on developing pre-treatment programs in their border cities, and likewise, all major facilities, municipal facilities, in Region 6 along the Rio Grande are being issued pre-treatment program development requirements. This does not mean that those cities would necessarily have to develop industrial pre-treatment programs, but we at least want to know that we've looked at those cities and we've determined whether or not they have a significant number of industrial users that need to be controlled. Concerning monitoring and assessment, the Region established a policy and procedures to require permittee to collect ambient information for us where there was a likelihood that there would be an exceedance of a water quality standard based on their discharge and any ambient information we might have. We have run into a little problem as far as the fact that headquarters is at this time developing some standards of performance for ambient monitoring, and until such time as that comes out, we've really put that policy on hold. What we don't want to do is collect information that, in futures years, won't be useful. Data coordination. Again, in accordance with some national policy on the quality of the data that needs to be collected. We want to make sure that our NPDES permits that are out there collect information that will be useful in the future. So there may be some revisions to the level of detection that a permittee must accomplish through their monitoring or how they collect their samples based on the national policy. Concerning programmatic measures and environmental measures, again, what we have is a situation where we're trying to get out of our traditional mode of bean counting or the number of permits issued, or the number of the audits conducted, things like that. The number of permits not reissued, I guess, is another way of looking at that. And trying to get more into these environmental goals. I'll go through those goals in just a moment. They are not the NPDES watershed goals. They are the Office of Watershed environmental goals. Also, to make sure that we work towards watershed, the permits branch has reallocated its resources from its traditional bean counting mode and looked at that area where we can make the most of our resources. So we've committed 50% of all our permitting resources to watershed activities. So now while we have good control over most of the larger dischargers, the major dischargers, we're also going back and picking up some of the minors, who in the past had a permit issued, but has not been reissued in recent years. I just wanted to list these environmental indicators. I really do not know what the baseline is on many of these things, and you're going to see improvements as an indicator, and I have not seen what the baseline is for some of those things. But real quickly we'll go through that. Page 166 ------- Fifty percent of threatened and endangered species will have stable or increasing populations. I think we are all concerned about this, and this gives us a way of determining that, in fact, we are protecting these organisms. Ninety percent of fish and shellfish harvest areas will provide food safe for people to eat. Ninety percent of rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs better desigmted^s^ilrinkmg water supplies wilt provide water that is safe-fer-usc in drinking. Fifty percent of wells monitored for ground water will meet designated uses. The rate of wetlands loss will be reduced to less than 100,000 acres per year. Ninety percent of rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries will support healthy and diverse aquatic life. A five percent reduction in sediment contaminants discharged from point sources. This was kind of overwhelming to me when I tried to conceive what 700 million kilograms actually represent. I think that's going to be a real goal for us and it's going to be interesting to see how we meet it. Ninety-five percent of the population served by drinking water systems will provide water that meets health requirements. Fifty percent of the community water systems will have source ground water protection programs in place. Those are our environmental indicators. It's my understanding that the year 2010 is when we would actually look to get those environmental indicators and goals accomplished. That data may be changed. But, I think, it's at least an opportunity to look at what we're trying to achieve and get out of the mode of number counting and into the mode of actually looking at how well we're doing our job and how it's affecting the environment. Concerning public participation, probably the biggest thing the NPDES permits branch does is outreach to people who are interested in what we do and what permits are being issued within their state or in a neighboring state. There's an extensive mailing list for NPDES permits designated by state. As an example, in Texas there are 400 concerned parties that every time an NPDES permit is issued a public notice and a fax sheet is sent to each of those parties. In Oklahoma, there are 332 interested parties. New Mexico has 324. Louisiana has 310. So you can see a lot of people are keeping up with what we are doing. Concerning public hearings, typically we will hold a public hearing on an individual NPDES permit. But it's rare that we get a request to have that hearing or at least that we get a request from a number of people. There may be one person, may be two people that are interested in holding a public hearing on an NPDES permit, and if we have enough support, we'll certainly do that. But traditionally, the individual or the organization that's being issued that permit are the concerned parties and that's usually dealt with on a one to one basis. However, when we look at the general permits, we do have a lot of people who are concerned about that because of the broad application of a regulation. So in that respect, we've held a lot of hearings and meetings concerning concentrated animal feeding operation permits, storm water general permits, and most recently, we've been holding a lot of meetings, or we did hold a lot of meetings on the new bio-solids rule. What we used to call municipal sludge is now called bio-solids. It certainly sounds a lot better. And there are some new rules that we Page 167 ------- promulgated last year that permittees must comply with and numerous meetings were held throughout the region. As far as involvement in watershed projects, I think it's our goal, not only in the permits branch, but I think in EPA Region 6 altogether, to build upon this conference to open it up to more people and get more of the public involved in the sort of activities that we're involved in today. Lastly, enforcement. Obviously, we're not enforcement people. However, it is important that we do the things correctly in our permit issuance so that enforcement can adequately address problems where permittees are not complying with the regulations, quality standards, Basic Management Plans, or standards of performance. Again, targeting minors in watersheds with no point source problems is obvious. When we first got into the Galveston Bay area, we had numerous minor permits that had expired and had been expired for several years. It's very difficult for enforcement to go in and take action on a permittee whose permit has been expired for four or five years. Therefore, we are trying to make sure that we get the needed minor permits issued in that specific watershed so, in future years, our enforcement branch will be able to take actions necessary to correct problems with small facilities. These may actually be a large problem in that particular watershed. It's also important that we incorporate all aspects of state water quality standards, because that allows us to strengthen the enforceability of those permits. If we issue a permit in accordance with water quality standards and the permittee is not meeting them, then we would expect that there's a problem in that downstream area. We certainly want to make sure that we don't complicate the issue of correcting a problem by issuing a permit that's not enforceable. Any sort of loophole is an opportunity for pollution and we want to avoid that at all costs. Concerning issuance of general permits, again, this is a broad application of a permitting action. However, it does allow us through enforcement to go back and address problems in known watersheds. At this time, we have a couple of watersheds that we're targeting for enforcement activities concerning nutrient controls or from concentrated animal feeding operations. Those particular areas would be the Wister Lake Watershed and the Illinois River in Oklahoma, and the North Bosque River Watershed in Texas. Question: I know you're dealing with the municipal and industrial wastewater target permits, but are you also going to be looking at air, or solid/hazardous waste permits? Is everything going to become due at the same time as far as renewals? Page 168 ------- Answer: Mel Vargas Well, right now at TNRCC, we haven't taken a step in that direction yet. It's being discussed in some of our internal meetings as we develop a watershed management approach. Question: My question is for Mel. Will the Watershed Texas be recognized as diverse treatment within a basin to have diverse requirements? Or is it going to use the same one size fits all because the Texas Clean Rivers Act was used? The nutrient screening is a good example of that one size fits all, where there's one criteria set for the whole state. Pristine regions are different than coastal regions. Answer: Mel Vargas An important goal of Watershed Texas is to allow flexibility and improve predictability. We have to look for opportunities and mechanisms that will provide the flexibility necessary to deal with the geographic differences within each river basin. I think we've talked about a few principles that are going to support that, and I think that one of those is just trying to get more of the players at the table sooner, so we can understand how to do that. We have to figure out how to make decisions better based on geographic differences, physiographic differences, ecoregion differences, population, whatever. We need to move more in the direction of developing GIS systems and other tools that will help us make better decisions. One issue that conflicts with the goal to provide flexibility is data availability and assessment. To develop different criteria and alternative implementation strategies for different regions requires extensive data. The TNRCC must reach out to all the different partners of a basin and get their help to obtain the type of information necessary to address differences that exist from upriver to downriver, from West Texas to East Texas, or even from North Texas to South Texas. Warren Davis: Another question back here. Question: I just had a quick question for Emelise. It refers to the bio-assessments that you're doing in your ecoregions. Do you know from experience if you have found any local indicators of aquatic stress or vegetative stress that you could actually site in certain areas in terms of problems. Page 169 ------- Answer: Emelise Cormier We haven't gone that far yet. We're still working on gathering our baseline data. But what we're looking at are fish species, diversity, and numbers in the streams, as well as the macro invertebrate species diversity, and the relative percentages of tolerant versus intolerant species. Ultimately we'll develop that indicator, and it may be some type of biotic index. Question: I had a question for Mel. In Louisiana, one of the problems that we've had is that a lot of the parishes, like counties, will have many, many small treatment plants, because they don't really have an overall view of how they can grow and it's easy to put in small plants. And it would probably be environmentally preferable to have them regionalize and send out sewer payments. It seems like the watershed approach is going to help the counties to see the need to have their own centralized planning. Do you prefer that? Answer: Mel Vargas I'll answer that, and knowing that Carl Masterson is here, I bet he can add a little bit of information to this question also. It is a standing policy at TNRCC and in our water quality program to promote regionalization of treatment facilities. We believe strongly that the watershed management approach is going to lend the impetus to continue that policy and promote that policy. We cannot dictate and mandate that a smaller facility link up with an adjacent or a near larger facility, but I believe that through looking at the impacts and the treatment requirements within a given watershed or geographic area, we're looking at things in a more comprehensive fashion. I think that the decisions and the understanding will be there amongst the players to help make those type decisions and move in that direction. Warren Davis: The question you're asking is essentially are we going to handle permits based on specific areas, and if the answer is yes, how are we going to handle the renewals? Question: Yes, in other watersheds. Warren Davis: And other watersheds. Page 170 ------- Answer: Mel Vargas Throughout the first five years, '96 through the year 2000, the exact number of permits issued in a given year will fluctuate. To answer your first question, the answer is yes. Workload, or the total number of permits theTNRC€ staff is T^pable^Dfreviewmg and issuing in a given year was an major determinant in laying out the schedule. After we go through the cycle once, we're only going to have to deal with new permits for new facilities. So generally you'll have the same number every year except for new permits, and we'll just have to deal with the new permit whenever it comes in. Say it's the year 2000 and we're issuing all the permits for one basin, and a new permit comes in during the year 2001. We would probably issue that permit for four years so they would get on the cycle in the year 2004. If a new permit came in the year 2003, we would probably issue it a two-year permit and then a four-year permit; six years to catch up the second time around. But there's no doubt about it, between '96 and the year 2000, we're going to have difficulty because some permits will come in for two years, some will come in for three years, and there will be the workload for the designated watersheds we're supposed to be issuing, and there will be other permits coming in from other basins that aren't designated for that specific fiscal year. That will make our workload somewhat unpredictable for those first five years. It should be understood that it will take us basically 10 years to get all water quality permits sequenced and on the statewide schedule. Question: Would you consider letting extension to permits in other watershed areas to continue on their previous permit? Answer: Mel Vargas Probably not, because we do not have administrative authority to extend a permit like that. The Texas Administrative Code prohibits a permit from being issued for more than five years. However, it is TNRCC's intent to do whatever is possible to get them on the cycle as fast as we can, depending on what year they come in. That will result in placing a little bit of hardship on certain permittees, because they may be faced with a two-year permit and then a three-year permit. Warren Davis: Other questions? Yes, sir. Page 171 ------- Question: Could you tell me how are you going to reconcile the watershed approach with the 303-D Priority Approach that has been pretty much set up by EPA? Answer: Stephen Bainter This question hasn't come up yet, or at least, I haven't heard it yet. I suspect that we'll work with the states and our water quality branch to figure out how we can best coordinate those efforts. Where the state doesn't have some sort of basin permitting rule, then we're very flexible as to what we can do and, of course, we can administratively extend a permit by not reissuing it, and the previous permit continues in effect at whatever it was at the time it expired. But as far as our changing priorities or whatever, without something else from the state indicating otherwise, we can deal with those on a case by case basis. Question: For Stephen and maybe some extra comments from Jim. On the NPDES municipal storm water permits, I understand on the point sources on the wastewater treatment plants when you had a standard violation you could tie it to the permits easy, but standards that we have now really don't go with storm water runoff pollution. How is that going to work and will cities be allowed to use BMP's as opposed to some numerical criteria. Answer: James Lewis Well, I think the state might have a response, whether it's Stephen or Warren. But since the program right now, the limitations have been reserved in the regulations, it's basically do you have the programs recommended and will receive and some have already notice of deficiencies of those programs. I haven't heard any change on whether that's going to continue or whether we'll be receiving a more stringent criteria. Right now, it's those programs and I haven't heard anything about numbers of BMP's. It's basically program oriented and how the state might be taking over that, I think, they could certainly address. Response: Stephen Bainter First of all, I'm not very knowledgeable of the storm water program. We have specific people assigned to that activity. I might be mistaken in this and that's the reason why I let James talk first. But it's my understanding that the city, the municipality, submits a plan of action of how they are going to implement storm water controls and through negotiations those plans are incorporated into a permit. What the city is then required to do is implement the program that they submitted and said, "This is what we plan on doing." Or they negotiated, because Page 172 ------- I'm sure that the cities don't always get everything they want and we don't get everything we want. That's the nature of negotiations. But as long as the city complies with those terms, then the goal is to implement whatever protection they determined was appropriate and that we agreed to. It's the same thing we do with BMP's for like pesticides. Response: Warren Davis I'd just echo what Steve was saying as correct. Essentially, all cities are required to have a plan and then to implement that plan. Essentially, from an enforcement perspective, we would go in and make sure that they're living according to the plan they've written down. Page 173 ------- Page 174 ------- The Clean Lakes Program and Citizen Monitoring (10:15-11:45AM) Moderator: Mike Bira, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Good morning. My name is Mike Bira. This is the Track B session of the Clean Lakes Program Citizens Monitoring. I've been real excited that this is finally going to occur. I've been trying to get this particular group of people together for a little over a year now for different types of activities, and finally, this conference came about, allowing us to do that. I'm going to spend a few minutes to talk about the Clean Lakes Program since a lot of people don't know what that's about. And then you'll see presentations from each of the states, and from the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, about citizens monitoring. You will see that each program has its own distinct structure and flavor. To me, that is of great interest, and really displays the amount of flexibility that's allowed in a program of this type. Basically, the Clean Lakes Program is an EPA sponsored program, and if you were listening to the opening remarks that were made yesterday, we heard about the EPA trying to move in different directions, and incorporating and empowering states and private entities to get more involved to solve their own problems because of limited Federal resources. I think you'll see that the citizens monitoring efforts truly embody those goals. To me, watching these programs grow has been a great source of enjoyment and pride. In a nutshell, the Clean Lakes Program is not in the EPA budget. We're funded through direct Congressional appropriation every year. In FY '95 we received no money. That happened in 1988 also. But we're at a point right now in the program where we really don't know if we're going to survive through the new Congressional attitude. I would entertain some questions on the Clean Lakes Program at the end of this session. I would like each presentation to be 15 or 20 minutes long. That will give us approximately a half hour at the end of the session for any questions that anybody may have or any discussions. We can talk about the Clean Lakes Program, or just as important, the individual state programs and what the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation is doing, about how their programs developed, and some of the problems they've had. A friend of mine, who is older and wiser than me, once told me that anything worth doing is worth doing wrong until you get it right. I think we've all got experiences that exemplify that philosophy, and the older I get, I embrace that philosophy more and more. We'll first hear from Texas, then from Oklahoma, then from Arkansas. And then we'll hear from the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. The first three of the states are Clean Lakes Programs sponsored activities. They also receive financial support in the form of awards from Page 175 ------- Section 106 of the Clean Water Act, which is the general water quality monitoring, surface monitoring, and through Section 319, which is the Nonpoint Source Program. Funding varies in different states. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation is supported through Sections 104(b)(3) and 319. They're not directly involved with the Clean Lakes Program. But nevertheless, it is citizens' monitoring, and we all have the same goals. Our first speaker is Gay la Campbell. She comes to us as Director of the Texas Watch Program. Gayla has a very interesting background. She's one of the co-writers of the LaMotte Chemical Company's Monitoring Handbook, which is a guidebook for citizen monitors using different types of field kits that LaMott makes. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Psychology and Education. What makes the Texas Watch Program unique in this region is their seven full-time staff members in Austin and five FTE's throughout the state. They are by far the largest program dedicated to citizens doing monitoring activities in the region. As you know, Texas is a pretty good size state. Speaker: Gayla Campbell, Texas Watch Program Coordinator, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; Austin, TX Instead of starting with the title slide, I wanted to start off with this little critter. It's a parmesium parvum and millions of these did this to a West Texas River called the Pecos River. There were many hundreds of fish killed throughout the mid-80's and the citizens became concerned, and through their concerns and through working with TNRCC, Texas Watch became an official program in 1991. Through the assistance of federal grants 314, 106, and now 319, as well as some general revenue, Texas Watch has become quite a successful program. I want to do a little overview of Texas Watch this morning. I also want to talk about some of the successes that we've had on a watershed level working with partners, and working with not only interested citizens, but those "average citizens" that we've been talking about for the last day and a half, and most importantly, involving all the stakeholders. Some components of a successful program includes commitment towards your goals. Also, if we don't communicate, coordinate, and collaborate, we're not going to be very successful. But most importantly, it's the partnerships. We've worked very hard for the last year on developing an infrastructure to handle the 5,000 volunteers (and growing) and a diversity of resources. Page 176 ------- We've had our basic goals since the beginning. They are very broad, but we do think that they are very realistic and we strive to attain them. Part of setting the goals, is defining data quality objectives. Of course, we do a lot of education in Texas Watch, but one of the important things is gathering data on why it's needed and who is going to use it. From the very beginning, volunteers are required to Fill out a monitorrng pTan anffBave ItTappfoved by the program as to who is going to use the data. We don't want someone to be collecting data and using it in an alarmist way to a newspaper. We want people to work together. We want to involve all interested parties from the beginning. We have various levels of participation all the way from elementary school to the certified program which is part of EPA requirements. These are our elementary school students in Project Wet and Texas Watcher Program, where they're getting a basis for water quality information. We do a lot of teaching. About 40% of Texas Watch includes teachers and students. This Junior High student is from the Ft. Worth area, who won a state science fair contest and went to the national competition. He compared the Urban Watch kit with a core Texas Watch Kit. These are students in an At Risk Program down on the Rio Grande, which has been very successful for three years. But I just found out that it has lost its funding for this coming summer. The certified program starts with lab training. Volunteers go through 15 hours of training, including four hours of lab, four hours of an afternoon on-site Phase II training. The phase III is conducted one-on-one with a trainer at the individual's site. A major part of Texas Watch is quality assurance. The plan is very important. Partly because it is required for the federal funding that we get, but it also provides credibility and standardizes all the various activities of the program. We ensure that from the very beginning through standardized equipment all the way through the evaluation of the data. Our volunteers are required to do two Q/A sessions a year to be checked for their precision and accuracy. This slide shows a session that's going on at the Trinity River Authority Lab in Ft. Worth. Another part of our program is data management. I will say one of the things that Texas Watch did not do very well from the beginning is manage its data. We are beginning to get a handle on that. We have established lead data repositories in our river authorities, and we have data categories at various quality levels for the different uses. One important fact about the use of the data is that we ensure that the volunteers don't become a part of the program to work and gather data just for TNRCC. It's very important that we teach them, empower them, and give them the tools to use the data at that local and regional level. There were a couple of river authorities who used some of their volunteer data in their Clean River's Assessment Report this year. Four volunteer groups data were entered into the Texas Water Quality Inventory (305-B) report this year. Whether the report comes out in the next two or five years we hope to Page 177 ------- include much more volunteer data. We're also working with our surface water quality monitoring team and TNRCC in focusing volunteer's efforts on watersheds where they've never had data before or where volunteers can monitor more frequently or in areas where government personnel have a very difficult time getting access. What we found out when we completed our first report was that 75 % of the data that volunteers collect in Texas Watch is on the unclassified waters which have never ever been monitored before. The first group to highlight is the Salado Creek Preservation Committee. Salado is a little town 20 miles south of Waco. For the last year and a half they gathered water quality samples, twice monthly, and analyzed them for fecal coliform bacteria among other constituents at the Brazos River Authority Lab. Twice within the year their results were extremely high resulting in the Brazos River Authority confirming the high counts. They then worked with the local health department as well as with TNRCC. And at one point, the health department temporarily closed the creek. Obviously, the Chamber of Commerce wasn't too happy, because Salado Creek draws many tourists to town. However, because of these citizen's efforts, they prevented a greater public health hazard from happening. Another part of Texas Watch is our nonpoint source monitoring activities. We have several 319 grants and in fact, a lot of what we do with nonpoint source is beginning to be more a part of the core program, because nonpoint source pollution is an issue of great concern and it's very important to educate the public. Our Urban Watch program in Ft. Worth, involves volunteers who test for Ph, phenols, copper, temperature, and detergents as well as observational monitoring at storm drain outfalls during dry weather. It's a very successful program. Another project we do not have data from is East Bouldin Creek, a sub-watershed of Austin's Town Lake. This paired watershed design study will try to show the effectiveness of BMP's. In the competitive group of 319 grants, it was rated number two with about 60 other projects in total. We will start with a calibration phase. That will be determining which of three creeks will be the control creek to implement various BMP's. We will continue the monitoring and then evaluate the effectiveness of implemented best management practices. We're working very closely with the City of Austin, Lower Colorado River Authority, and the TNRCC regional office. We are also offering technical assistance through TNRCC for structural BMP's for some of the businesses within those watersheds. In order to support 5,000 volunteers a major part of our infrastructure is our partnership program. They offer a variety of support. They can be either a lead data repository or they can take over all the administrative and technical needs, such as a river authority. We may have a donor partner such as an industry, who may provide only a one time donation. Or there are others that may provide in kind services such as lab services. Page 178 ------- We have over 60 partners from a variety of entities. An example is staff with the Houston/Galveston area Council of Government talking with citizens about activities going on in the watershed. We try to instill in our partners that citizens get together on a regular basis throughout the year. Another successful group is in Sugarland, which is 50 miles from the Gulf and about 50 miles west of Houston. Oyster Creek runs through the town. They've had a history of major fish kills and there are a number of permitted industries, one of which is Imperial Holly Sugar. Of course, when the fish kills happen, the citizens pointed their finger at the industry. One thing we don't want is citizens pointing the finger. We want them to work together. So obviously, we started out with an adversarial relationship, but by working with Texas Watch and the city, the citizens started monitoring above and below the point source discharge and found the problems were both above and below. The citizens were able to detect potential fish kills three days before they happened. Some of the success with this group is that they worked together. The citizens were empowered to do it. They felt that the government should only assist mem in solving the problem. They're not pointing their finger anymore, but working in partnership towards a common goal. For the first time ever, about a year and a half ago, the Imperial Holly Sugar permit went uncontested. And the Brazos River Authority was awarded a Clean Lakes Phase I assessment grant, with the entire match coming from private resources. Another example, with a successful partnership, is with Occidental Corporation in Corpus Christi. They work with school students who go out on the University of Texas Research Vessel testing quarterly for the 22 major constituents. They also do trawls and various other things. Most importantly, volunteer monitoring empowers the citizens and our future. Moderator: Mike Bira Thank you very much, Gayla. Next, we'll move to Oklahoma, and hear from Keith Owen. He's the Program Coordinator for their Citizens Monitoring Program, Oklahoma Water Watch. That began in April of '92. Keith attended O.S.U. and studied Fisheries Ecology, and he's currently the Water Watch Program Coordinator. He's also the state Water Education for Teachers (WET) Program Co-Coordinator. In addition, he holds a seat on the Oklahoma State Environmental Education Coordinating Committee. Keith has done an excellent job for the state of Oklahoma and he's spent a lot of time getting out and developing Oklahoma Water Watch. He's impressed all the people that I've spoken with from the citizen level to the local government level. We're real appreciative of his efforts. Page 179 ------- Speaker: Keith Owen, Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, Oklahoma Water Resources Board; Oklahoma City, OK Thanks, Mike. Here is a brief overview of how I started the Oklahoma Water Watch. In April of '92--as a matter of fact, it was the 13th of April, 1992~was my first day at the Water Board. They had always known they needed a volunteer monitoring program. They knew the benefits. They had visited with the folks of Texas Watch. In our Clean Lakes Section we had individuals in charge of diagnostic feasibility studies or Phase One's. We had the gentleman in charge of our state lake water quality assessment projects. They knew they were too busy to try and do this volunteer project. So they hired an additional person which was myself. Again, I started on the 13th of April. My first day was kind of eye opening to me. They called me when I was in my last semester of school. This was the first real job that I had out of college. The first day I came in they said, "We want a volunteer monitoring program." I said, "That sounds great. What do you want?" Well, they didn't know. I said, "Well, how do you want me to do it." "Well, we don't know. But we know we want you to do it." Again, remember this was the 13th of April. Well, on the 15th of April they had scheduled an orientation program for one of the volunteer groups that wanted to be trained. So I had two days to design the program to the point to where I could present it to a group of about 100 people--which became my best volunteer group-The Group of Grand Lake. Kind of a dark slide. Sunrise over Lake Eufaula. Believe it or not, I'm standing on my father-in-law's front porch to take this picture. In putting this informational slide show together, I tried to keep in mind, well, what do people want to hear? They don't necessarily want to hear what happens or what do I have to do in the office or something like that. They want to know what the monitors do. What it takes to be a monitor. What it takes to monitor a watershed and those things that are involved. So I put this together kind of in the mind of "A Day in the Life of a Volunteer Monitor." So sunrise over Lake Eufaula. A lot of these folks get up early to go to their monitoring sites before they go to work. Some folks, first thing in the morning, may go to a training session. This is Phase I of our training. Folks go through a three-phase training schedule. In Phase I, we sit down in a classroom like atmosphere. We get them used to the test, and it's very important for them to understand why they are testing. Not just the procedures to go through, but why the dissolved oxygen test is important. How that is related to air temperature; how it's related to water temperature. Some folks may be attending the second phase of their training which we actually do at a site. The entire training group goes out to a site. We go through the procedures again. We practice collecting our samples. We practice in the field titrating our dissolved oxygen samples; doing our apparent color test. This is a group on Spring Creek, which I'll talk about later. Page 180 ------- Then the third phase is where the monitor individually goes out with someone from our Water Watch staff, which is me, and they go through the test a third time. Hopefully, by this point they understand how the tests go. They don't have to have as much instruction. This is kind of a third time is a charm, and we also do a site inspection to make sure the sites are safe. Obviously, we don* I need~ someone" try'ing; To take a seed depth measurements^ feet off me water in the middle of a bridge or something like that. I've got about 500 volunteers. I think, while I'm down here there were two training sessions scheduled and that probably put us over 500 volunteers across the state. A good third of the volunteers are high school students. I hold them to the same quality control assessments that I do any of the other monitors. They perform very well in this. As a matter of fact, they do, on average, better than some of the adult volunteers. Monitors collect nine basic water quality parameters; dissolved oxygen, air and water temperature, ph. They'll do a secci depth measurement. Most monitors collect a nitrogen as nitrates, a nitrogen as ammonia, an ortho-phosphate test, and then an apparent color test using a standardized color chart. This individual is on Spring Creek. Spring Creek is on the Ozark Plateau. It's a very high quality water in Oklahoma. The group came to us originally because they had some concerns to begin with about the fish population. As they began monitoring, they noticed that they had some problems with the stream that were related to folks coming down and picnicking beside the stream, and the very thing that they were coming to enjoy, they were causing problems with. You can see there's some unofficial, if you will, campsites or recreation areas where folks will build a fire. You can see the fire ring here. And because there's no trash cans, they'll leave their trash, and they really pack down the ground in the riparian levels. Obviously, they want to get down to the water and swim or fish. So their trails will cause bank erosion and this type of thing. The Spring Creek Group, in addition to their water quality testing, are sampling benthic macro invertebrates. Using these as an index of stream health, they follow the EPA rapid bio-assessment and protocol too. We've modified that to some degree for field purposes for our volunteers. In addition to the insects and the water color, they also look at fish diversity as an index of stream health. Also, most of our groups do physical monitoring, i.e., habitat assessments. This is a group up at Meadow Lake in Enid. They're measuring the morphology of the stream. They're going to do some flow measurements. This is a high school physics class. They're trying to do a project looking at what's coming into the lake, what's going out of the lake, and they're wanting to look at sediment loads. Meadow Lake had a diagnostic feasibility study conducted on it by the water board over the last two to three years. As a result of that work, we received a 319 grant to look at some of the problems of the lake and the watershed and implement some BMP's. This is a classic slide of Meadow Lake. Real muddy water with Page 181 ------- real great splots of green in it, so obviously, it's got some nutrient problems and some sediment problems. In addition to some of the other physical parameters that they're measuring, they've constructed a bathometric map of the lake. The average depth of the lake is somewhere between two and three feet. The deepest point is about three and a half. So it was really easy to do a bathometric study on this. As you can see, he's got his tram set across the lake. Then he uses a depth stick and his fishing tube to get all the way across and measure it at meter increments. Again, they're also doing a watershed study. This is all conducted by high school students. It's a group of about 200 juniors and seniors, biology classes, ecology classes, physics, and chemistry that are conducting this. They split the watershed into grids. Each class is assigned a certain number of grids. They go out and there's a standardized data sheet that they fill out. They collect some of the aquatic macophites in the area to take back to their classroom and identify them. They've done a very good job for us up there. They identify things like real obvious point sources. This isn't in the middle like watershed. It's just a real shocking slide. And of course, the nonpoint source problems, such as shoreline erosion and nutrient contribution. In addition to our physical, biological, and chemical monitoring, our volunteers are very involved in environmental education. As you heard Mike say, I'm on several committees and working with several projects dealing with environmental education. Originally, this wasn't a mission of the Oklahoma Water Watch, and as we began developing our monitoring program, we realized people really had a thirst for not just getting out into the watersheds and onto the lakes collecting this information, but they wanted to know what it meant. We started with school age children. This is an outdoor classroom site in Taloga, Oklahoma at the western portion of the state. With these students, we talk about things like the water cycle. We try to do activities that make them think and get them involved with the environment and their local ecosystems, and we try to also get them involved in some of the water quality monitoring. Right now, our program is set up to certify individuals of high school age and up. We don't have a lot of monitors that are in the middle school and elementary school range right now. We also do enhancement project sessions with our adult monitors. Once again, these folks are really interested in understanding why dissolved oxygen and temperature are related. This is a basic analogy class, where we talk about things like stratification of lakes. What is the hypolimnion? Why is anoxia important? And like I said, they have a real thirst for this knowledge and when they're in the field, you really see a jump in quality of the site specific comments on their data sheets. Rather than saying, "Uh, well, there's scum on the surface of the water," or "It smells bad," you get things like, "Well, there's algae mass coming from Page 182 ------- downstream." This, of course, helps them in their projects, with using the data themselves, and it also helps us. We use the data in our lake water quality assessment reports. We use volunteer data on diagnostic feasibility lakes in the Phase I reports, so the data gets used quite a bit. We have volunteers that sample all across the state. In a week conducting training sessions, I think I could probably put in about 2,500 miles in one week going from the Panhandle to the Southeast and then all over the place. In here, he's taking his secci depth measurement. We have folks that monitor water bodies anywhere from the eastern part of the state where we have very clear, very cold streams that feed very deep and cold lakes, some of which in our latest trophic state index actually fell out as alligatrophic. We have volunteers that sample the lakes in the center portion of our state, which are very productive. Characteristic of fairly high chlorophyll "A" values, which is an additional parameter that many of our volunteers have started collecting data on. And we have quite a few volunteers in our arid western regions where water is actually more valuable than money in some cases. This is an irrigation canal coming from Lake Altos, where our second largest high school group, a group of about 150 students, sample a collection of three or four lakes on both the Wichita Mountain Wildlife Refuge and the Altos Lugert Irrigation District. So as the sun sets in the west of Oklahoma, we've had somewhere between 475 to 500 volunteers collecting data once a month at a specified date and specified time. They turn this data in on a bi-monthly basis. Most groups do this electronically now. We're seeking some funding in setting up a toll-free 24-hour bulletin board system to where they can drop that information into our databases at anytime through a modem. A few of our groups do it what they term is the old fashioned way and send in the data sheets. All of these volunteers are very motivated. They're very dedicated. I feel very privileged to have worked with most of these people, and to be honest, they've taught me as much as I ever learned in school or from a book. So thank you. Moderator: Mike Bira Thank you, Keith. Now we'll hear from the state of Arkansas. The speaker from Arkansas is Gregg Patterson. Gregg is currently the Director of the Water Education Team, through the Department of Pollution Control & Ecology. They do a lot of citizens monitoring, primarily targeting schools. Gregg grew up in New York. He spent a lot of time in the Catskill Mountains with his family and developed an appreciation for the outdoors. He graduated with a B.S. in Journalism and a Master's Degree in Biology from the University of Page 183 ------- Missouri. That led to a position with the state of Arkansas, and for about 8 years, he was the Editor for the Arkansas Wildlife Magazine. Gregg sits on the Advisory Council of National Project WET, which is Water Education for Teachers, a national program. It's different from Arkansas WET, but with many of the same goals. He's also a writer, photographer, a member of the Outdoor Writer's Association of America, and Gregg has more than 250 published articles. Gregg brings an interesting approach to this in that he's experienced in advertising. That's one of the things we're hurting for the most in Citizens Monitoring. Also, he's a pretty avid fisherman and hunter. He can put you on some of the best fly fishing in the country. Speaker: Gregg Patterson, Director of WET Program, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology; Little Rock, AR Thanks a lot, Mike. I appreciate the opportunity Mike has given me to speak with you at this conference. It is exciting to be able to actually meet face to face with people like Gay la and the Texas Program, and Keith's program, and also Clifford's program, which you'll hear about after me. These are people and programs that, when I was setting up Arkansas' program, I read a lot about what they were doing, and called them and talked to them on the phone and got information. I put my talk together here as an opportunity to let you know if this is the type of program you're interested in—how you can go about doing that and give you some things that make Arkansas' program unique. The reason why I do that is simply because if you want to set up a program like this, you're going to have to make it work for your state and your localities. I'm sure everyone up here would agree with that. People in Arkansas have specific interests in water for a variety of reasons and you have to tailor a program that's going to meet their needs. One of the mistakes we made right up front was a bunch of biologists and scientific minds got together and said, "Hey, we're going to create a water education program. We're going to have teachers involved, and students, and citizens, and everybody is going to think this is wonderful." Well, we got three or four months into it and fortunately we were smart enough to invite teachers and citizens into the planning process, and after a while, they kind of sat back and said, "You know, look, guys, if you're going to create a program for school kids, you need some people who have an education background." So we saw that we had a biased focus due to our tunnel vision scientific minds. My agency, the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology is a regulatory agency. It writes permits for people. We write permits on discharges and whatnot, and then if people Page 184 ------- don't follow the permits, we're the regulatory agency that goes in and does the actual enforcement action. We wear a kind of black hat in, our state so our .Directordecided that we needed to develop a pro-action environmental education program. So hopefully 10 and 15 years down the line, we can eliminate some of the problems that we're having to regulate right now. That started the program. The key to success with the Arkansas Water Education Team is a very narrow focus—education. The reason why we have such a narrow focus is simply the players involved are an extremely diverse group of people. My original mandate, as defined by my Commission, said I needed to work with citizen groups, environmental groups, and the state education system, K through the University levels. I had to work with industry. I had to work with agriculture. I had to work with state and federal agencies that have water jurisdiction of which there are approximately 27 in the state of Arkansas, and anybody else who was interested. So basically, I had to take people who I like to refer to as the folks who normally don't sit with each other at the coffee shop and bring them together at the same table and say, "Here's a project. Let's go do it." To do that, the focus had to be narrow. So when people come in and are interested in getting involved with the Arkansas Education Team, I tell them it's an education project. You are not going to see me as the Director of the Arkansas Water Education Team standing up pointing fingers at people saying, "You're a polluter and you need to change the way you're doing business. That's not my job. Education is the narrow focus that brings people together to sit at the same table. And it's been interesting, because some of the people that sit at my table, for the Water Education Team Project, are people that the only tables that they've ever sat at together before was in a court room and one was on one side and one was on the other. I'm fortunate though. I get to sell Mom, hot dogs and apple pie. People are into environmental education. They're into kids being involved in it. Everybody from Kindergarten through Senior Citizens is involved in our program in some way. So in that regard, it is an easy sell. Some keys to success and what we've done with the program. Originally, we targeted schools. Schools are one slice of the WET pie, so to speak. We targeted schools first because we had a captive audience. Kids must go to school and they have to be there, so we targeted them first. We also targeted them first because the infrastructure already existed where we could go out and identify groups that would be interested in water education. The teachers were very supportive of it. Our program is strictly voluntary. It is not a requirement. I'm not down at the legislature in Arkansas lobbying them for an environmental education law for the state of Arkansas. Now a lot of states have gone that way, and I see the merits of that. But at the same time, in my program, the way it's set up, you've got to be passionate about Page 185 ------- water and water education to do the program. If I make it a mandatory requirement, the program would fail miserably. So it's strictly voluntary, and that includes our citizens, as well as our schools or anybody else who wants to get involved. The other key to success that we've done within the program is it's based on local support. When we go out, number one, I don't go out and market the program, per se. I found that with teachers, once one teacher knows about it, teachers go to a conference or some place where they meet other teachers and they like to say, "Well, I do this, and you don't have that." And they do it all for me. I don't have to market it. They're wonderful about getting the word out about the program. So one of the key criteria that I look for is I want them to contact me first, because that tells me that they really want to be in the program. We take schools once they contact me, and we go out and we interview the school. We interview the administrators of the school and we interview the teachers and students that are going to be involved in the program. Those three components are absolutely essential for the success of the program. I've got to have all three really passionate about the program to make it work. I've had schools that I interview where the teacher's really gung-ho, the student's gung-ho, and the administration is not. If the administration is not, believe me, the program will not work. The reason why we do this and put them through a real stringent interview process is simply because we're funding each school to the tune of $6,000 and that's a big investment, whether it's state dollars or foundation dollars or grant money that comes in from EPA or whoever. That's a big investment and I want the people who support the program with the dollars to feel that they're getting their money's worth. That's essential now. Congress wants to know to the penny, are you spending your dollars right. My state legislature wants to know that. The people who oversee the way I run the program want to know that. So I want to make sure the quality is built in there. Recently at Mountain Home High School, which is up on the White River, a famous trout stream in Arkansas, we had four banks participate in the funding of the school. We had Wapsi Fly Company, which is the largest distributor of fly tying materials in the nation. They threw money in. A lot of the guide services up and down the river threw money in and before we know it, we have $6,000 and we can fund that school. So our funding comes from a variety of different sources. We allow the schools, then, to choose a site to monitor that's important to them on a local level. Gayla was mentioning, too, with her program, that 75% of the data that you're getting in is j coming from streams that were never monitored before. The agencies that have some sort of f water jurisdiction in Arkansas and need that kind of data are absolutely thrilled about this j aspect of the program. Because instead of them going on the White River, where there are j USGS gauges and PC&E is doing monitoring-I mean, the White River gets monitored to Page 186 ------- death—they're hitting feeder creeks that come into the White River. The Buffalo River, a national river in Arkansas, gets monitored to death by the Park Service, USGS, and us. But the three schools that we have along the Buffalo, they're doing feeder creeks; Bear Creek, Sugar Creek. All these creeks that run through agricultural areas and come in. So we're getting great data on areas that have never been monitored before, whichIsarbTg~pdsitive~" benefit for the agencies involved in the program. Also, the reason why we allow these schools, or citizens groups, for that matter, (our citizens program is just getting underway at this point) to get involved and choose the site themselves is because then it's important to them. It's in their heart. I mean, that's their river, per se. For instance, our kids at Jasper High School. They chose the local swimming hole on the Little Buffalo River. Now why did they choose that? Well, their grandparents swam there. Their parents swam there. They swim there now. And the big issue is, you know, animal waste. Is animal waste trashing out their river? And they want to know that because mat's where they swim. That's important to them. Now that may not be the most important place in the state of Arkansas as far as my agency is concerned, but as far as the local people are concerned, that is important to them. So it works real well. The other factor is once you've taken a D.O. study or a D.O. sample five times, let's face it, the thrill is gone. You turn the meter on. You stick it in the water. The other factor that we build into local support of these sites is we built a network of what we call "lead agency people" into the monitoring program. What we do then is we train that person. That person is usually a fisheries biologist, a ecologist, a hydrologist, a water chemist, or whatever, but we do a train the trainer's session with them. They use the same equipment and know how to use that equipment. So that when Mountain Home High School goes out to do their monitoring, they call Darrell Bowman of the Game & Fish Commission, who lives in Mountain Home and works up there with the trout program, and he goes out with them. They have a local contact. If they're trying to get a hold of me or Philip in Little Rock, they're going to have a lot of trouble, because we're out a lot. So we want them to have someone who is within the program, who if they meet them in the hardware store and tell them that they need their titrater or some piece of equipment that they have has broken down, they can tell them. They're going to meet them in the grocery store or at church or somewhere before they'll ever see me. And it's worked extremely well to have that local presence. Someone who has the skills and the scientific ability to help those kids out. Now, if you go around the schools that are in Arkansas and ask them who runs the WET Program, chances are, they don't know my name and they couldn't care less who I am. They'll tell in Mountain Home that Darrell Bowman and Game & Fish runs the program. Page 187 ------- Over at Talihina High School in Oklahoma they're going to tell you Ron Bush with the Ouachita National Forest runs the WET Program. Down at Camden in South Arkansas, they're going to tell you International Paper Company runs the program because their lead agency person is the water chemist down at International Paper Plant. And that's okay. It's really popular with the groups that participate with me because it elevates their stature in the community. The Buffalo National River people—if you know any history about the Buffalo National River in the early 60's~all the condemnation of land took place up there by the federal government to establish the Buffalo National River—these folks' grandparents have not forgotten that their land was condemned by the federal government. They have hard feelings. Okay, we're three generations removed from that condemnation process, but the hard feelings still exist. So the Buffalo National River folks jumped in to help right away because they want to build a good relationship with those kids-the grandkids of those folks who lost their land who are in those schools right now. So now, the kids are up there saying, "Hey, yeah, you know, Dave Mott, the hydrologist at the Buffalo National River runs the WET Program." And so, that's fine with me. The other thing I found out, and some of you may have found out as well within your programs, is I'm from Little Rock. People couldn't care less in Ozark, Arkansas what I have to say, because I'm from Little Rock. Little Rock is the state capitol and they're not interested. You know, anything from Little Rock is bad news, as my three Arkansas friends, who just came in, will attest to. So lead agencies who are local are extremely important. That local tie helps a lot with the program. Coalition building. Anybody who is up here will tell you that is a key to any sort of education program that you're going to come up with. We've got coalition agreements. I've got written agreements. I don't go to people and say, "Here's my program. This is what you have to do." I go to people and I say, "What is the message you want to get out about water education and how can I help you get that message out? What are you willing to work with me on?" So I've got, for instance, the Arkansas Environmental Federation, which is a coalition of about 180 hardcore industries in the state. They are involved with the Arkansas Water Education Team Program because they have a water message that they want to get out. Arkansas Wildlife Federation is involved. I've got agreements with a variety of different groups all around the state that may be just citizen groups or they may be hardcore industries. They may be agricultural groups. You name it. So coalition building is important. The other thing we did in coalition building is we looked at other environmental education programs that were already there such as Project WILD, run by the Game & Fish Commission, the state wildlife agency. Project Learning Tree comes out of the Arkansas Forestry Association which is private non-profit group that works with forest land owners. Page 188 ------- 4-H, the RESQ Program, which comes out of Cooperative Extension and the 4-H programs. We're all basically talking to the same audiences. So I went to the coordinators of all those groups and I said, "Let's do this together, so that you're involved in my program and know it intimately, and I'm involved in your program and know yours intimately." So I'm trained in Project WILD and Project Learning"Tree"andy4-HTlESIJ/and-"ffieyre"ffauiectin~WET,~and: when we do conferences, they're at my conferences and I'm at their conferences and training sessions. Anybody who is involved in my program hi WET on a school level has to be trained in Aquatic Project WILD as well. That's just a requirement. That's what we do. So we tie those programs in. Then the four of us combine and do a quarterly newsletter called The Ecotone, and get our message out that way as well. We're not off just doing our own thing and going in our own direction. We're united in our environmental education efforts because it all ties in together. So that's another thing that we've done in our coalition building. Another key to success, you have to have a multiplicity of funding available to you. When I first took the job, I had a certain amount of money that was promised to me, and when I got there the first day—it's kind of like Keith's story about getting there on April 13th and on April 15th having to train 100 people. Well, I got there on November 20th, and on November 21st, I found out the money I was supposed to have didn't exist. And they said, "Yeah, go ahead. We need you to design this program. But by the way, you also have to raise the money for it. We don't have what we thought we had." So you just roll with the punches. How do we fund the program? We fund it through a variety of different ways. I've had three different EPA grants. Mike's grants that comes in on Clean Lakes. We've got Environmental Education grants we've gotten through EPA. Youth and the Environment program grants we've gotten through EPA. Foundations. I go to foundations all over the country. They offer money for certain projects. You need to check out as many of those as possible. Write them. Find a way to fund it. The National Park Foundation funds three of our schools on the Buffalo National River area because of the tie there. We'll work with them on some more funding coming up. Department of Agriculture—there's a bunch out there. We also get funded by, as I mentioned before, local industries or entities that are in the communities that we are doing this work with. So you know, I might get International Paper Company to write a check to fund something. They're interested in doing that because they have employees that work at their mills and their kids go to school in that community. It's a good public relations thing for them to get involved. I like to think of myself as a good salesman. But I think it's the product that makes me a good salesman, rather than any capabilities I have on my own. Then we have a unique opportunity that pops up every once hi a while out of the blue. Some of my regulatory people within my agency will come or I'll get a call from my director saying, "Well, we just had a settlement with Company X. They were violating air quality standards, and in lieu of penalty, they're going to deposit $100,000 into your program." And I go, "Yea! All right! I like that." You cannot depend on that because I never know when Page 189 ------- that phone call is going to come. I love it when it does, but I never know. Other states I've talked to have legislation in place that prevents that from happening. So it's not always a viable option. But it's something that you could possibly look into. We've also had money come into our program from citizens class action settlements with a variety of industries that have occurred in the state. I'll get a phone call from a lawyer, who is a friend or something, who worked on that, and said, "By the .way, we settle for a million dollars with somebody on this citizen's suit and we're going to put X amount of dollars into your program." And again, I say, "Thank you. I appreciate that a lot." My biggest suggestion there is just look at a multiplicity of ways to get dollars into your program. I get very few state dollars that actually come into the program itself. I've told you all about the schools. We're involved in our schools and our citizens. When they do monitoring, they monitor chemical, biological, and physical parameters on all water bodies, simply because you cannot get a clear picture of water quality unless you measure all three. You know, anything done to one of those parameters is going to affect the other two. People tend to get caught up a lot in the chemical aspect of things. But physical and biological are just as important. So all our people do macro invert studies as well as doing physical. We measure overhead canopy, stream embeddedness, flows, with everything else. Our citizens groups monitor the same way our schools do. The equipment is the same. The procedures are the same the reason is I don't want an apples and oranges database. I want a clear concise database that people who use it (biologists, hydrologists, ecologists, and the other agencies, and they will use this data) can understand the strengths and weaknesses of the database up front. If you are a scientist and you understand the strengths and weaknesses of a database, it is a usable database. So we make sure of that. How did I get a good database? Well, the guys who are using the database originally looked at me and said, "There is absolutely no way that kids can collect data that is going to be usable. You know, we've got these four-year degrees and eight-year degrees and it just can't happen." So I just looked at them and said, "Fine. You guys design it then." So that's what happened. We established a technical review committee and all the people in those agencies sat down and they designed what piece of equipment would measure what parameter, and went from there. So they're comfortable with it because they designed it. I'll wrap it up then. One other part that we're doing. We're getting into citizens monitoring right now. I'll be talking to a lot of other states. Don't reinvent the wheel. It's already been figured out by somebody else. The success that my program will have is simply based on the good brains of other people in other states who thought up these things way before I ever thought them up. No idea is an original idea. I'm convinced of that. One other program that we do is for students. We give summer jobs to our students who are involved in the WET Program. We offer an opportunity for them to work with an industry Page 190 ------- that is involved in water for one reason or another. And these are kids who are interested in possibly pursuing programs or an education in college like that. So we have a summer jobs program. If you want to hear more about that, you can call me. But that's basically what's going on with the water education team in Arkansas, and it's a fun job. Before I took it, I had my doubts about what was happening in the environment. I am firmly convinced now that this environment will be well protected because of the people that I work with on a daily basis who are out there—general citizens and students. I'm firmly convinced. They will not let either the state agencies or the federal government or anybody else mess it up. They are just more powerful than us. It's just that simple. Moderator: Mike Bira Now it's time for us to shift gears a little bit, like we always do when we come to New Orleans. Cliff Kenwood represents Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. We've heard from three state agencies and their development of citizens monitoring programs. Now we're going to hear from the Basin Foundation, a private entity, so to speak, and how they approach citizens monitoring. Cliff has been Project Coordinator, for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation for the past three years. The projects that he has now are four separate citizen monitoring programs, and a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration program. He also manages media relations for the Foundation and edits their quarterly newsletter. Speaker: Clifford Kenwood, Project Coordinator, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation; Metairie, LA A very wise woman I work with, Anne Rheams, told me if you're going last, make it quick. People will love you for it. So I'm going to make this as quick as I can. I work at the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. We're known as the "Save Our Lake" people around here, because of the "Save Our Lake" bumper stickers that we have around. We have about 80,000 of them floating around on bumpers, lockers, boats, and places they probably shouldn't be stuck to as well. We have four active citizen monitoring programs right now and one that's sort of in the dream phase. The first citizen monitoring program we started was the Bogue Falaya River Watch. The Bogue Falaya is a beautiful coastal stream that flows into Lake Pontchartrain on the north shore of the lake. People around there were very concerned about the health of the river. They had high fecal coliform counts and that was being very well monitored by the Department of Health. But they were also concerned because there was very rapid Page 191 ------- development. It's a beautiful river, as you can see, and very uncharacteristic of anything else around here. You don't get those pretty sandy bottom streams around here that much. So we worked under an EPA 319 Grant with the Isaak Walton League of America Save Our Streams Program to develop a biological sampling method there. We had to change the method a little bit. We're monitoring benthic macro invertebrates. We use a D-frame net instead of the usual kick seine net. But it works pretty well, however, our method takes a little longer. Just basically for those of you who aren't familiar with it, the whole theory is why do you test water quality? You want to know if the river is healthy. Why are you concerned if it's healthy? You want to know if it's healthy for you and for the critters that live in it. So what better way to find out if it's healthy for the critters that live in it than to look at the critters. So biological sampling actually looks at the critters. The people scoop up the samples and then they pick through the samples and find the little critters in there, like right there, and they're taught to identify and count them. They get an indicator right there of stream health based on what they find and/or don't find. That program was funded under an EPA 319 Grant in Spring '93. It lasted through Spring '94. It's probably going to be renewed for Spring, '95, so there's been a bit of a gap. But the citizens are very interested. In a good faith effort, several of my volunteers continued monitoring their sites just because they were interested and they wanted to see the program continued, and it may have worked. The DEQ will likely continue the program. Another program that is more or less completely different is a cooperative effort with the Power Squadron, Coast Guard Auxiliary, Department of Health and Hospitals, and Foundation to test waters at traditional swimming sites in Lake Pontchartrain. The Department of Health and Hospitals trained the Power Squadron people in collection of the samples to test for fecal coliform. Then the samples are transferred to the lab and tested. The DHH accepts this data as if it were their own. We started with 15 sites on the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain in January, '94. That went quite well, so by the summer '94, we added 15 on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. That went well, so in the winter '95, we added eight sites on Lake Maurepas, which borders Lake Pontchartrain. The theme of this conference is success and this program has been very successful. The results have surprised us quite a bit. I think 70% of the samples from the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain came back swimmable. And about 90% of the samples from the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain came back swimmable, and I honestly didn't expect that. But this is the most extensive testing that has been done of those swimming sites ever. The next program we're involved with is our Canal Watch Program. The Power Squadron Program is funded by the EPA's Johnston Basin Cleanup Fund, which was appropriated by Page 192 ------- Senator Bennett Johnston, and is administered by the Lake Foundation's Program Office. Our Canal Watch Program is funded by Kentwood Spring Water. This is a corporate partnership. Ten schools on the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain are testing drainage canals for water quality. Mike Bira usually draws this double headed arrow when he does these presentations. I kind of hoped he would do it. But the far left would be education andthe farright:~of the arrow would be enforcement. This one would fall much closer to the education end. This program has gone very well. We've had ten schools. The kids have been very motivated. They've come back with some excellent data. In one week, all these schools are going to come together for a Student Water Quality Symposium and they are going to present the data to their peers and after that they're going to eat lunch and have a press conference and tell the world what they've found. So that should be very interesting. Our next monitoring program is connected with our Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration Project. That also was funded by the Johnston Basin Cleanup Program. This summer we went out with a bunch of volunteers and replanted eel grass in Lake Pontchartrain. We're working with scientists from U.N.O. who have been researching the grasses for many years and they're probably the most vital or the most productive habitat in Lake Pontchartrain. Our first look at the numbers seem to indicate that about $75,000 of seafood is produced in each acre of grass beds each year. So they are very important. They've been dying back because of manmade causes, as well as Hurricane Andrew, and this is a slide of the replanting effort last summer. Each two weeks, we've been going and doing water quality testing at each of the enclosures, and there are three sites around Lake Pontchartrain each with four enclosures. So we're getting a great deal of data from that. We're also measuring the growth of the transplants. Pulling transects across the enclosures. This has been a fairly involved process, so we've used a lot of college interns from the University of New Orleans and Southeastern Louisiana University, and they've been spectacular. The project that is in dream phase right now is another corporate project. We're talking with a major company in New Orleans involved with water quality to do extensive testing on the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain. Probably weekly testing at about 15 sites to try to lift these "no swimming"signs. See if there are areas now that are cleaner. The lake is getting cleaner and we hope that through intensive testing we can come up with some areas that can be lifted. We've been working and I've been talking about this with our Program Director and with the local company. Another data collection activity that's often overlooked in citizens monitoring is Beach Sweep. We do Beach Sweep each year. We have over 1,000 volunteers around Lake Pontchartrain and everything they pick up, they record. Their data sheets are sent to the Washington, D.C. Center for Marine Conservation for their database. It's an often overlooked area of citizen monitoring, but it's a great way to involve someone in a monitoring type activity for only half a day. It's not a lot of trouble for them. Page 193 ------- I also wanted to show a very quick video. I notice that a lot of people who are involved in citizen monitoring activities haven't been that involved with publicizing them. I think that can be just as important. Through publicity about the program, you can educate the general public. This is just a quick TV clip on our canal watch program. News Clip: Woman Reporter: ... Years to come. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation is coordinating it, and as Susan Roberts reports, the drainage canals in your neighborhood are the target. Susan Roberts: For years, many people have speculated it was one of Lake Pontchartrain's biggest problems - the canals. Now these kids are putting the water to the test. Eric Alfonso, Kentwood Spring Water Company: The Canal Watch Program is something that really spoke to us. It gives young people an opportunity to get involved and to really give back to the community. Susan Roberts: Kentwood is putting up $20,000 for the program. Ten high schools from the area will be supplying the manpower to test drainage canals in Orleans and Jefferson Parish. The kids are looking for bacteria, which Stanton Moore says is more complicated than it sounds. Stanton Moore: They 'II be testing nutrients such as phosphates, nitrates, and dissolved oxygen. They 'II be doing pH and total coliform. Susan Roberts: Danielle Davenport is testing phosphate. Danielle Davenport: .. .And I've learned that if it gets more than one part per million, that's really bad. Susan Roberts: Unfortunately, the State Department of Health has never had the money to test canals. Most of its money is earmarked for swimming sites. But the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation says that's okay. This way may be faster. Page 194 ------- Car/ton Dufrechou, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation: This data will actually be something to supplement the ongoing water quality data in Lake Pontchartrain right now. With the Kentwood and the high school program, people will find out some of the sources of pollution, whether it's storm water infiltration or inflow. This is going to be done a lot quicker than many other programs. Susan Roberts: For high school chemistry students, this is quite a pat on the back. A project of such importance usually doesn't come until after graduation. Female Student: I feel it's so important because we're actually doing things that people are going to know about. Susan Roberts: In seven months, everyone will know about Davenport's and the rest of her peers' findings, which just may warrant immediate action. Susan Roberts, Channel 4, Eyewitness News. Female Reporter: In April, the students will hold a Student Congress on water quality, where they 'II — [End of TV News clip.] Clifford Kenwood: I wanted to share that with you, because I've found that people really like water quality testing. The media really likes it so you can get free publicity about your program. I've got a stack of articles about that high on our programs. It really captivates the media and I think that's an important way that you can publicize your program, rather than spend a bunch of money. That is it. Moderator: Mike Bira Thank you very much, Cliff. We've got maybe ten minutes. Does anybody have any particular questions they would like to ask these folks? Assuming there's none, I would like to quickly go through and ask each speaker what have been the two biggest challenges in the development of their citizens monitoring programs? Start with Gay la. Page 195 ------- Speaker: Gayla Campbell Oh, that's sort of a tough one. I wasn't there from the beginning. I would say one of the challenges is data management. The other continuing challenge is that there is a continual need for support as we continue to grow in numbers of new volunteers. Although we do publicize the program for Texas Watch, the last thing we really need to do is recruitment, except for on some targeted watersheds that we're working with professionals, because literally we can't handle it. So we're trying to make that balance. There's some groups that really don't need a lot of support. But there's quite a lot of support from the Partners' Program basic infrastructure which is integral to the success of Texas Watch. Speaker: Keith Owen In the beginning, I would have said it was funding. When talking about a volunteer program or monitoring program, you always have to consider the scope and the scale. Your scope may change from time to time. The scope being what it is your doing. And the scale always changes. That's how much of it that you do. In coordinating your scope and your scale with your funding, I feel that our problem right now is being everywhere the volunteers need us to be. It's holding training sessions for folks that need training sessions. It's doing the quality control assessments for people in a timely manner that have to have it. And I find that my greatest frustration is not being able to plan about 30 hours in a day. The second problem that relates to that is having the resources for monitors. When you've got 200 high school students and only two or three kits to go around, that's a big problem to them, because they get frustrated because they can't do as much as they would like. To me, there's no greater danger to a volunteer program than frustrating your volunteers because they can't do as much as they would like. So I would say outside of funding, which everybody can always gripe about, that would be my two. Speaker: Gregg Patterson Well, I'll gripe about funding first. That's number one. We've been fortunate to get funding from a variety of different sources, but it's something that I constantly have to stay on top of to make sure that the money is coming in from somewhere, somehow. So fund raising would be the first one. Second one, like Keith was saying, is meeting the needs of the people that are out there who are now your volunteer monitors. Once you offer them something, you have a responsibility to meet their needs as to what they want to get out of the program. The last thing we want to do and it happens over and over again, as you know. A state of federal agency will jump Page 196 ------- up and say, "Oh, look at this wonderful program we have." And then the follow through is pitiful. You've got to meet the needs of the people. Speakers Clifford Kenwood I would say one of the hardest things that I've had to deal with is firing volunteers. It has to happen once in a while. Not necessarily fire them. I've only fired one. But to a couple of them, I've had to say, "Look, I'm sorry. I'm going to have to throw away a few months of your data." And they've quit. And that's very difficult, I find, letting people down like that. But it's one of those things that you have to do, and even though I try to say, "Well, hold on, we can work on this." They say, "Well, you mean I've been spending half a day on my Saturdays out on this river doing this biological sampling and now you're not going to take my data." And I'll say, "Well, it's a learning process." But sometimes that doesn't hold water. But also funding. Funding hasn't been that difficult for us, but it-will be very soon. Some of our grants are drying up. But it's an easy thing to sell, I think. It's just you've got to go out and actively sell it. Moderator: Mike Bira We're dealing with public funds here and we have to be accountable for every penny we spend. We've been very fortunate, I think, to have Myron Knudson, as our Division Director, who is a big supporter of citizens monitoring. He sees the value in that. There was a lot of talk yesterday about the watershed approach and how we measure our success. How do we show people this is a worthwhile effort? When I look at these programs with anywhere from senior citizens on Grand Lake to Project WET with all these kids, I can't put a number on that. I can't help think how beneficial it would be for celebrities and legislators to be in Project WET. They've got a lot of clout, but if they were better informed in some areas, we'd have much more benefit to the environment. It's very difficult to put a dollar value on these kinds of activities. What's the cost? Or, what's the savings in avoidance of problems down the road? That's really hard to put a handle on. When you are working within a system that produces with reports and documents, it's difficult to compete with those standard products. Citizens monitoring is more of an investment in the future than an actual product, I think, and that's really a tricky situation with public money. Are there any other questions? Any closing comments anyone would like to make? Page 197 ------- Speaker: Gregg Patterson I'd just like to say to anyone, if you want to learn more about Arkansas' Water Education Team Program, Saturday, Jerry McKinnis' ESPN Outdoors is going to run a national piece on one of the schools they filmed two weeks ago. So you can kind of see what they're out there doing on site, and you'll learn a little bit more about our program that way. Moderator: Mike Bira That's great. You can look at this audience and see how interested the environmental professionals are in citizens monitoring. I'm always defending that we're not teaching kids to go out and splash in the water. We're actually providing valid scientific information using the same methods that were used by the states just a few years ago in their databases. And in addition to that, we're educating people to make better environmental decisions in the long run. So it's kind of tough. Citizens monitoring always seems to be looked at as an aside. As I gain experience in seeing how this is developing, I really think we need to dedicate more time and effort into it. As I mentioned before, it incorporates everything that the EPA is trying to do in our new focus on watersheds. Watersheds include people, too. Well, thank you all for coming. Page 198 ------- Watershed Team Building & Interstate Watershed Issues (10:15-11:45AM) Moderator: Cis Myers, Senior Environmental Coordinator, Lower Colorado River Authority; Austin, TX One of the constant recurring themes that we have heard in the conference is that one reason that watershed programs work is because local people become involved in their development and planning, and as a result, become knowledgeable about common water resource issues. This makes voluntary compliance possible and acceptable to land owners, because they have developed a sense of ownership in what's going on around them. Some of the principle components of this approach are the local partnerships; public involvement; shared responsibility for implementation; voluntary approaches to problem solving; nationwide functioning delivery systems, i.e., the government structures; basics for watershed protection, farm management, and flood protection; trust of the system from those who will be most significantly affected; and the ability to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. Now what I would like to do is introduce all of our distinguished panelists and just tell you a little bit about them. They are all equally as intelligent and good looking as John Duffy. I hope they are as humorous and as much fun to listen to. That is my challenge to you all. You may not leave until you have made the audience laugh at least twice or I will keep you all here. I learned that technique from Duffy. I'm never ever going to just look at a group again and say, "Any questions?" and look at those flat faces. I thought that was a great technique for getting the audience to participate. Now, I want to introduce the panel members, and then I'm going to ask each to share—I want the panel and all of you to feel free to interrupt them with waving your hand if you have a question about what they're doing~with you a positive experience from their watershed about team building. Then I'm going to ask each one of them to tell us about a negative experience that they went through in terms of team building or watershed activities, so that we might learn from each other's mistakes and maybe avoid some problems for ourselves in the future. Then I think I would ask them for their most humorous moment in watershed team building. Then, how did they pay for all of this stuff? And were there some difficult people that they had to deal with? Were they ever able to win them over? Or did they just finally run over them? And that's sort of the gist that we'll go to. We're a small group, but it's quality not quantity, and I hope that we'll just feel free to visit back and forth as we proceed through the next hour. Page 199 ------- Patty Murto is to my immediate right. I'm thrilled that she's here, because she's not from Texas. That gives us a little credibility that not everybody has to be from Texas. I ran into Patty's organization at Watershed '93 and listened to a presentation about the work they did up there about team building. I went back and actually went through my list of attendees, ran her down, and she was most gracious and agreed to come. She is Chair of the Carlton County Board of Commissioners. She is in her third term, which is a four-year term. She is also on the Independent I.S.D. #99 School Board. She's been on the St. Louis River Board for quite some time and she's currently the Vice Chair. She is the Executive Director of the Volunteer Attorney Program. She is also Executive Director of the Northland Mediation Service, and Executive Director of Kid's First, a parental education for divorcing parents. She was Working Woman of the Year in St. Louis in 1990, and National Director of the Year in 1991 of the ABA's National Association of Pro Bono Directors. That's quite a distinguished background and we're pleased that you're here, Patty. Richard Volk began his Resource Management career in 1979 while working to assist South Pacific islanders to develop and manage their near shore fishery resources. During his initial five years of work in that region, Richard served two years as a U.S. Peace Corp Volunteer and later was employed by the U.S. based non-profit organization, The Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific. Artisanal Fisheries Development and Coastal Resource Management became the target of his efforts in both the kingdom of Tonga and in the Solomon Islands. Following a brief return to the United States for graduate studies in '85 to '87, Richard served the American Samoa Coastal Management Program from '88 to '92 as their environmental planner. More recently, as Senior Resource Planner for the Island Resources Foundation, Richard provided leadership for a team effort to develop special area management plans for critical coastal areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He began his tenure with the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program in December 1993. Welcome, Richard, and thank you for coming. John Hassell is just giving us the straight scoop. He's married with two children. He's down playing his professional credentials. All of us, who work in watersheds, know John and respect the work that he does. He does have his degree from the University of Oklahoma in environmental science. He is currently Director of Water Quality Programs for the Oklahoma Conservation Commission since 1980. Robert Morgan is from Arkansas, which is a fashionable state to be from these days. Robert is the Engineering Supervisor for Nonpoint Source Management for the Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission. He's got a Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Arkansas, and he is a registered professional engineer for the State of Arkansas. Patty, if you could start off by giving us a good example of team building that you've experienced in your watershed. Page 200 ------- Speaker: Patty Murto, Member, Board of Directors, St. Louis River Board; Duluth, MN I want to tell you just a little about where the St. Louis River Watershed is and where I'm from. Where I'm from there was six inches of snow yesterday, which is right up by Lake Superior. The St. Louis River Watershed covers about 3,600 square miles and dumps into Lake Superior. It is three rivers: the St. Louis, the Cloquet, and the Whiteface. St. Louis River is about 175 miles long. It drops about 1,100 feet as it goes through on its way to Lake Superior. The Cloquet River is about 99 miles long and it drams about 750 square miles and it drops about 300 feet on its way. And the Whiteface River is smaller than that and it drops about 430 feet. All of these rivers are very pristine. The reason why they are is that the property about a quarter mile to a half mile on each side of the river is owned, presently, by a power company that used that river watershed for reservoirs and for producing hydroelectric power. Over the years, they've allowed public use of those rivers. Most of the public never had a clue about who owned it and why they could use it. They just assumed they could use it and they just assumed it was going to stay in this condition forever. Well, what happened was they made a corporate decision to sell 22,000 acres of property along that corridor. The first sale went to a place called Taylor Development, who proposed to put a condo development along the river. Well, that just drove the Fond Du Lac Band of Chippewa crazy and all of the people in that area crazy, and therefore, we started having public meetings. I have to tell you that this process started in 1990, and we finally came up with this little plan in '95. This was printed in February. This was not a short process by any stretch of the imagination. And I saw some pamphlets out there on conflict resolution and I thought, you know, we didn't deal with that very well. First of all, we met as a group and decided that there needed to be a joint powers Board of Directors, and then we started holding public meetings. There's three counties involved, plus the Fond Du Lac Band, and so the three counties entered into a joint powers agreement. Carlton County, the county that I'm from, is the second smallest county, so we got two members. St. Louis County is huge. St. Louis County alone is bigger than most of New England. I mean, if you add Connecticut and all those little states together, St. Louis County is bigger than those states. So they got three members. Lake County had the smallest amount of river. They got one member. And there's 53 affected townships in that watershed. They got six members and they were elected members from the township association. Then there was a member from the Fond Du Lac Band. So the joint powers was formed in '91 to try and develop a plan for the management of the river and the land along the river. Page 201 ------- The first thing that the Board did was to set up what we've called the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC's membership-let me find them because it's broad. The membership hit logging, which in Northern Minnesota is a big deal. We included loggers, tourism and business people. There was a slot or two for each of these people. We included environmentalists, county representatives, and people who were property owners along the river. Their job was to set out a process~and they actually did all the work. The board approved or didn't approve, for that matter, the work that the Citizens Committee did. And all of the battles were fought in that Citizens Committee. They had public meetings and we had public meetings. In this process, there were between 70 and 100 public meetings with people along the river and interested people from the region. If you understand Northern Minnesota, we have the boundary water's canoe area. That created some unbelievable dissension between Northern Minnesota folks and the feds. I mean, they're still fighting to this day. So the promise was that we would not turn this into a BWCA and right from the beginning that was made very clear to the population and the public. But the public kept telling us at meeting after meeting that they did not want what the river looked like now to change. I don't think they had a clue as to what, but they didn't want it to change what it looks like now because there's hardly anything on the river. I mean, 15 years ago, the state tried to designate these rivers wild and scenic and they got killed. But our plan is more restrictive than a wild and scenic designation and most places would have made it. So if you give the population a chance to have their input and you talk to them about what it is they want and what it is they want that river to look like, many times you'll come up with a designation that looks more wild and scenic. But we did not use those terms anywhere anytime in this process. We have terms like "remote" and "pristine", and we stayed away specifically and on purpose of those terms. There were times between the loggers and environmentalists on this Citizens Committee where they actually came pretty close to blows. I mean, there was some real blood-letting in this process, and it took a long, long time. We also involved a whole bunch of what we called technical advisory people and they look like the people who are walking around here and were speakers at the EPA Watershed Conference in '93. They're the U.S. Forest Service, the DNR Fish & Wildlife. DNR Trails and Waterways, every area of the Department of Natural Resources had their own people. We used county zoning people. We used county highway engineers. As technical assistants, we used the U.S. Forest Service. We brought in everybody federal, state, and local who had anything to do with water or land use along water. They would feed the Citizens Committee the information that they needed to make their decisions. Page 202 ------- So after a long, long time, the Board finally adopted this plan and some counties made changes. I'll get to that when we get to the part about where you made your mistakes and I'll share that part of it with you then. But each county adopted it slightly differently, because one of the major fights was soil farming along the river corridor. Do you all know what soil farming is? Contaminated soil farming. It's using petroleum contaminated soil and turning it into the rest of the soil and it's supposed to clean up after so long. Well, I felt very strongly that in Minnesota we have millions of unused acres and they could soil farm some place else besides a quarter mile next to the river. It just didn't make sense to me. So our county added a caveat that there would be no soil farming within a quarter mile of the river. One of the other counties took our lead and adopted that. But the largest county, St. Louis County, already had some soil farming along the river, so that, of course, they weren't willing to change. But as far as team building, there probably wasn't anybody state, federal, or local that wasn't involved in some way in this process. I'm so thankful it's over. Although, it's not really over, because I'm going to the legislature next week to ask for another $1.2 million because we're buying up~and it will have state ownership-all of the 22,000 acres along the river for the state's Department of Natural Resources to manage. Robert, tell us about Arkansas. Speaker: Robert Morgan, Engineering Supervisor, Nonpoint Source Management Section, Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission; Little Rock, AR What I want to do is talk about the process that we've gone through in Arkansas and also in Oklahoma working with John on developing a management plan for the Illinois River in our state. I've got a lot of slides here. I'm going to click through most of them and just get down to the important part. Of course, we're funded by the EPA and ourselves. Of course, we do have some lakes. This is Lake Prairie Grove in the Illinois River Basin way up in the upstream. One of the things on the Illinois River. It's an interstate watershed. A little over a million acres and it's just about split in half. Arkansas has the head waters which are roughly 496,000 acres. This area has about 150,000 people in it now. Also, it has a growing industry. It's the home of Walmart, Tyson's and J. B. Hunt Trucking. All sorts of things are going on in the Arkansas side of the basin. It is probably one of the most prosperous areas in the state right now. Of course, some of the things we deal with are the poultry production and the cattle production that always goes with poultry. This would be a dairy. There are several thousand dairy cattle Page 203 ------- in the basin in Arkansas. Silvaculture is not a big component in this basin, but a small but important part; especially in the Boston Mountain which is the southern part of the basin in Arkansas. Then there's an urban area. About six percent of the land is urban. Some of it is fairly old. Fayetteville is over 100 years old and growing. In addition to that, there are thousands of people that live outside of the urban areas in the basin, and most of those are using individual septic tanks, dividing the land up into smaller and smaller pieces of property, and a lot of it is going from old family farms into small hobby farmers. A lot of the old poultry farms are being divided up from a large farm with small numbers of birds to small farms with lots of birds. County roads are another problem we deal with. There's over 2,000 miles of roads in the basin and about half of them are gravel or dirt, and of course, gravel mining. Those of you, who were in Martin Manor's session yesterday, heard all about gravel mining in Arkansas. I'm not sure if this is in the Illinois River, but there are areas there that look like that. And finally, there's lots of construction going on right now, especially with new highways. There's a big new airport proposed and the cities are building everywhere. So construction is a growing problem for us. One thing about the Illinois River you've got to realize is it's probably the only river in North Arkansas that's not heavily used for recreation. But there is some on the Arkansas side, and on the Oklahoma side, it's maybe one of their heaviest used recreational rivers. That has created a little bit of a problem for us, because a lot of the people in North Arkansas that are interested in protecting some river are more interested in going east from the Illinois River into the mountains and looking at the King's River, the Crooked Creek, the Buffalo River, because that's where they spend their time. The framework of our plan that we ended up with~an interstate agreement-is going to be an important part, and that's done through the Arkansas/Oklahoma Arkansas River Compact Commission. And then each state was going to have their plan with an objective. Then under that, at least on our side, we started up looking at watershed sub-plans, but we ended up looking at categories of pollution or categories of sources. For each category of impairment, we came up with the BMP's, the programs, and the priority watersheds for implementation, The environmental protection agency helped us a lot in setting this up. They sponsored a number of meetings back in '91 and '92, when we first started working on the plan here, to set up the frameworks and to try to improve the cooperation between the states. I think we've come a long way at least on nonpoint problems. Page 204 ------- Of course, we had several other programs going at the same time, including a Clean Lake Study that's being done in Oklahoma. One thing that was going to come out of that is they're looking at potential TMDL's for phosphorous at Lake Tenkiller, which is at the lower end of the basin. Oklahoma has developed the SIMPLE model, and don't ask me what SIMPLE stands for, but it's a nutrient loading model. They're running that on watersheds within the basin. We have a program through the University of Arkansas monitoring sub-watersheds for looking at nutrient loading and targeting things, and finally, we've been developing GIS. Local jurisdictions--! thought we had some problems until I listened to the lady from Puget Sound yesterday. At least we can get everybody in the room at the same time. We've got 14 different cities involved, three counties, and three conservation districts. I think she had something like 1,200 cities involved. But all of these people have a role and an interest in the basin. We've been especially successful in working with conservation districts because we had a good relationship with the agricultural section. As well as with the federal agencies: Soil & Water Pollution Control, Game & Fish, Highway Department, Health Department, Heritage Commission, Extension Service, the Forestry Commission, National Resource Conservation Service, the Consolidated Farm Services Agency, CFSA, EPA, and the Corp of Engineers. Now getting down to what I wanted to~how we got through developing this draft plan that we've just completed last month and got our reviews from most of the federal agencies. We started out with the data that we had on hand from the PC&E's data collection. We went through a review of all the literature that's been developed on problems in the Illinois River. And then we tried to gather what the perceptions were of problems in the Illinois River Basin. I guess the perception process is where we started trying to build teams. We brought together representatives from each of the groups that we thought would be impacted by management of the river. John did the same thing in Oklahoma with his portion of the Illinois River Plan. But we held four of these focus group meetings, and we asked the groups, "What do you consider to be problems in the Illinois River Basin?" Of course, the first thing they did was say, "Well, we don't want to work with the perceptions. We want you to tell us what the problems are." So we had to explain to them that, "Until we get the perceptions of what is wrong, we don't know where to look to find the problems. And if we don't deal with the perceptions, whether they're real problems or not, we haven't dealt with what is needed in a management plan." So that came around. We went through the quality management process and got a list of potential problems Along with our data and our literature search, which went together to form the issues, we then brought all of our technical agencies together into an advisory panel. We gave the issues that we'd generated from our focus group meetings and we said, "Here's what people see as being problems related to the Illinois River, and what we see from the data we collected." We asked each of these groups, "Have you got any additional data that would document that these Page 205 ------- perceptions are problems or that they are not problems. If they are problems, could you tell us what the best management practices would be to address those problems? And if it's in your area of authority, what programs do you have that you could implement to address those problems? Or if you don't have a program, what program do you need?" And we gave them some time to work on that and then come back to us. Most of them were very cooperative and came back within a few months and at least had a fairly good report for us. From there, we put our management person on the project and he took all of the data and reports from the Advisory Panel and put together a draft Management Plan. This is about a 100-page document. It's a really big thing. We sent that back out to all the members of our Advisory Panel and said, "Here's what we have compiled from what you told us." What I found here is they're really quite hesitant to put anything down to start with, but if you get something on paper and take it back to them, then they'll critique it really well. We passed that out, went over it, but we didn't stop there. We had a person assigned to this project who visited with each agency individually. He spent a lot of time going through their part of the plan, what was being proposed, and getting their comments. At the same time, we went back to these key groups that were in the basin, including groups like the Conservation Districts, Farm Bureau, Cattleman's Association, county judges, county planning commissions, city planning commissions, public work directors, and Ozark Society. We started going over the plan with them page by page, showing them what all was involved, trying to solicit their support. It was fairly successful. We got all those comments and came back to a second revision of the plan that we hoped would be more reflective of what everybody, not only thought needed to be done, but what they thought they could do. With that revised plan, we had made a commitment at our first meetings of the focus groups that we would bring the finished product back to them and let them review it again. So we held another meeting and invited everybody that had been to one of the first four focus group meetings. We got their input and went back with a second revised management plan. That's where we sit right now. That plan has been reviewed by the EPA. So what are we doing? Although we've built a lot of support, we're really just now getting to the team building portion of this, I think. Our plans are to take the revised plan back now to a couple of public meetings in each county to get a little input, to take the modeling that's being done and incorporate that into the plan, and then make a final plan which will go to implementation. That's about where we are right now. What we've ended up with was, for each category, a set of projects, and a time line for implementation. In agriculture it's pretty easy and we've been really successful. They've already started implementing all these projects. In the urban area, for instance, it's more complicated because we've never had a real good urban program. So we've got to build the teams there to implement these. The best thing we've got going Page 206 ------- right now to build teams in urban is if we can provide them with grant money to do the work. Then they'll be willing to do it. And as to what happens now. That's the real question. How do we make this thing go from a document to something that's been implemented? The biggest deal that I can see that we'll be using this for is to help when we're requesting resources to implement the projects. But we need to go back and get our Interstate Compact Commission to endorse the plan. We may want to look at something like an interagency M.O.U. Probably we need to start looking at hiring a person to live in the basin whose job will be to generate these projects outlined in the plan. That's our Lake Lincoln, which started all this. Pretty little lake. Okay, Cis. Cis Myers: John, it seems to me that you would be the next logical person, because he referred to Oklahoma several times. Do you want to talk about Oklahoma a little bit? Speaker: John Hassell, Director, Water Quality Programs, Oklahoma Conservation Commission; Oklahoma City, OK Let me tell you about a project that almost didn't make it. This is a project that is commonly referred to in Oklahoma as our Blue Thumb Project. If you ever come into an urban area in Oklahoma, you'll notice that there are a lot of people that walk around with blue thumbs. It's much like the green thumb, where the master gardeners go out and do great things with plants. Well, our urban people are doing great things in water. I work for the Soil & Water Conservation Agency in the state and we really have done more in the past in the rural area and haven't done a lot in the urban area. So I was approached by one of our conservation districts to come out and do some urban work. So this Blue Thumb Project has really turned out to be more than what we ever anticipated it to be. I was really bluffing a lot talking about how great it was going to be. But it's a cooperative effort between Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extensive Service, the Tulsa County Cooperation Extension Service, the Tulsa County Conservation District, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The really interesting thing about how this project has come together is that everybody has taken a real active role in making it work. For instance, we established a volunteer program. By the way, Blue Thumb Project is in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which is kind of in the northeast part of the state and it's one of the more, Page 207 ------- I think, progressive towns that we have in Oklahoma. But they got together and took a proactive approach to it. One of the very first things that our co-managers~who are Sue Gray of the Cooperative Extension Service and Cheryl Cheatal of the Conservation District—decided to do was to set up a Citizens Monitoring Program and call them Blue Thumb Volunteers. So we have this District Conservationist there in Tulsa who's really sharp. But he's kind of laid back. He never like moves or says anything. But he does stuff where really you don't understand what he's doing. So we set up this Blue Thumb Program and all of a sudden he says, "Well, you know, the NRCS has this Earth Team Program. If all these will become Earth Team volunteers, then they'll be covered in case they get hurt while they're out doing volunteer work." So all of a sudden, he started turning in all of these volunteer hours for his Earth Team, which came about because of a 319 Grant that set up the Blue Thumb Volunteers, and I'll be if they didn't get an award last year for the number of Earth Team hours that they turned in. I thought that was pretty great. What a cooperative effort we had going there. But anyway, so we had this Volunteer Citizens Group that's much like the Master Gardener Program and they really have taken to this task. I remember when they first were trained. One of them went out and she had her little badge on that said Blue Thumb Volunteer and I think they even have their picture on it maybe. She saw this truck that was dumping something out of it. She ran up and jumped on the side of the truck and looked in and said, "You can't do that! I'm going to report you!" We kind of had to calm them down and say, "You know, if you get out there and do that, you know, you'll get hurt. So don't be too corrective on this stuff or too aggressive on it." But the Blue Thumb Volunteers have really provided information to local citizens in Tulsa about the quality of urban stream systems and how people can protect those stream systems. After we got the Blue Thumb Program and the Volunteer Program started, Mike Smolen, with Cooperative Extension out of Stillwater, Cheryl Cheatal, and Sue Gray approached the City of Tulsa and said, "You guys aren't doing anything urban-wise as far as erosion and sediment control. Why don't you let us do a training program for you?" Well, you know, sometimes people who work in that area, and they're supposed to be doing the inspection and permitting, they think they know everything. So the City of Tulsa said, "Okay, we'll do this. We'll buy into a training program." So there was a two-day training program that was set up between all the interested groups. They gave a pre-survey and a post-survey, and, I'll be, if it didn't show that they didn't know a whole lot when they came in there, but they knew a whole lot more when they left. It was such a successful program~and correct me if I'm wrong on this- but I think we're going into the third training session in Tulsa-fourth training session in Tulsa for these people. They have become so active in this program and see the benefit of it, that it's really paid off. Page 208 ------- We then had the homebuilders come in and the developers, and they said, "Well, listen, why I don't you sponsor a program for us?" And they gave our local Conservation District and the ! Cooperative Extension, I think, $1,000 to hold that program. To take their developers and I homebuilders and say r "This is what we really need to do when we're out there so that we can have a better public image and really not cause the problems that have been caused in the past." ' The Blue Program in Oklahoma has become a very commonplace name. I think one of the most touching things that really showed me that it was a success was in November when I attended a meeting of Conservation Districts—and water quality people in Oklahoma. You may not have this in Minnesota, but water quality in Oklahoma is real environmental and they don't really like that a lot. They like to think stewards of the land is where you get good wheat production and stuff like that. But a Conservation District Director at this meeting that I was at came up to me and said, "You know, I've just got to tell you this. You're not aware of this, but before the Blue Thumb Program ever started in Tulsa County, we had no mission and no direction. We would sit around at our Board Meetings and really wonder why we even existed." Now this is a guy that's been on a District Board for about 25 years. And I looked at him and I said, "That really makes me feel good because it shows me that you all really are interested in doing something." That local Conservation District has taken that program and they support it, they push it, they talk it, and it's like they live that. So that, to me, has been the real success in the watershed partnership that has grown between agencies and locals. In fact, it's gone so far that we've actually moved it into another area— the Oklahoma City area. And just one last little story about how the system has worked in Oklahoma City, so that you'll be aware of this, because we never know how other cities are going to take it or what's going to happen out of it. Mike Smolen was driving down Interstate 35 going to Stillwater from Oklahoma City, and he noticed that the Highway Department was doing this really terrible job on construction maintenance. So he called me and he told me about it. He said, "I took all these pictures." So about a week later, I was driving down there and the same thing was happening. Nothing had changed. So I decided I was going to call it hi as a complaint. I had an NRCS guy with me. So when I called it in I said, "I've got this NRCS guy with me and he tells me that this is terrible what they're doing out there," and the guy next to me is really cringing, because he said, "Oh, no, they're going to put down that the NRCS turned this in as a complaint." I said, "No, they won't." So anyway, about two weeks later, we got a call from the State Department of Transportation in Oklahoma and they said, "We want you to know we went out and looked at that and we didn't realize really how bad it was—the job that they were doing-and we are requiring them to put in different types of erosion control measures to protect that area. Also we want you to know that we're looking at bringing in people from out of state that work in erosion control programs to do training for our DOT people." All of a sudden, I thought, you know, that really is a success, because Page 209 ------- the Blue Thumb people in Oklahoma County actually went out and visited with the contractors and told them what types of practices they needed to put in, and it became successful. So from a standpoint of Soil & Water Conservation Agency, we're really expanding our role and our mission, as is the Cooperative Extension Service, the Natural Resource Conservation Service. I think if you ever have an opportunity in your states or your area to get them involved in your programs, that you should do it because they are real eager to get involved and to participate in these programs. Thank you very much. Speaker: Richard Volk, Program Director, Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program; Corpus Christi, TX When Cis called me a couple of months ago and asked if I would join the panel to make a presentation on watershed management, I said, "Sure," and it was a very quick phone call. That was really the last communication we had for a few weeks. I guess I should have asked what would you like the presentation to be about? If I had known it was going to be on success stories and team building, I perhaps could have let Cis know that the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program is just beginning a four-year process, and that I think it would be perhaps a bit presumptuous of me to stand up here and talk about success stories at this point. I guess the good news is that when Cis asks me about failures, I can equally shun the question and say that I think it would be presumptuous of me to talk about any failures we may be having at this point. I wasn't planning to really talk about the National Estuary Program, per se, and the process which has elements of similarity to some of the other speakers' presentations with respect to developing a comprehensive plan, involving stakeholders, and a consensus building approach. In our case, we have what's called a Management Conference Structure that also uses technical advisory, citizen advisory, local governments advisory committees, and then, of course, a policy and management committee. So all of that is very similar. Our main thrust is to develop a comprehensive plan for the bays and estuaries of the South Central Texas Coast over a four-year period and then implement that plan over a period of 15 to 20 years, or whatever the plan calls for. But what I think I can do is describe a little bit about the process we've laid out to help characterize and better understand nonpoint source issues, and in particular, agricultural issues, since they comprise such a major component of our watershed. And perhaps talk a little bit about some of the challenges that we already face. Page 210 ------- Very briefly, our study area, to give you some perspective, comprises almost 12,000 square miles of land contained within three coastal river basins of the South Central Coast of Texas. The basins themselves comprise perhaps two to three times that amount of land. So we're under no illusions that we're actually reaching out to all the stakeholders and will involve them in this process. \ Agricultural nonpoint source issues are a major concern for us. We have some 60% of our land tied up in range land, and of the remaining portion, the majority is tied up in dryland row crop agriculture. So most agriculture, including range land practices, is under private ownership. Although that's the case in the majority of cases, perhaps as much as 30% of our study area is under an absentee landlord relationship. In many cases, that's a large corporation that is often using the agricultural land use for tax break purposes. So it's an important piece of the puzzle for us in understanding what motivates farmers and producers. Agricultural land is taxed at lower rates, and so when operated even at losses but in conjunction with other enterprises, it can be a considerable tax break for a large corporation. The bottom line is that ag producers are good business people. They must be to compete in an increasingly competitive industry. This economic reality has to be recognized by anybody who hopes to employ nonpoint source management measures within the agricultural sector. In addition to that reality, profit margins for producers have dropped considerably since the 1940's. To compensate for that, production has increased in a combination of hybrid forms of crops and livestock, and enhanced fertilizers and pest control measures. All of this makes for a more efficient operation and increased production—also, more capital—higher capital outlays for the entire ag sector as a whole. I think this combination of factors which includes the fluctuating land values and the absentee landlords, low market prices for commodity crops in order to maintain global competition, high input cost and a high debt ratio leaves the producers, in many cases, very dependent on an annual credit operating basis. They borrow money each year for their inputs and against the collateral of their anticipated yield. And again, this is an important piece of the puzzle, I think, because most producers manage and plan for short-term economic gains and very little cash is involved. So certainly, their incentives for conservation and especially those that might have a longer term return of investment is going to be much, much less than we might anticipate without understanding these economic factors. I wanted to give that little bit of economic background because our program, as I mentioned, has not only resolved to get stakeholders involved in this process, but explicitly resolved to understand local environmental conditions and agricultural practices. We have worked to hold focus group meetings in the rural communities with the farmers to understand their concerns about our program, and their concerns about the environmental regulatory initiative in general. Page 211 ------- We have, of course, involved them as official voting members of our committees, and recently, we held an all-conference workshop, where we developed a program vision statement. It was interesting because one of our operating principles as a program for that vision statement came out to be the need to incorporate watershed or bioregional planning concepts in our comprehensive plan. Of course, this concept is representative of an ecological continuum from an upper watershed to bays and estuaries to the Gulf of Mexico. I thought that was a no brainer for a group of people who were setting out to develop a plan for a regional long-term management plan for bays and estuaries. But apparently, that was the threshold point for many people in our committees and primarily from the ag sector, saying that such an approach sort of begs the question that we do have problems and that they are interconnected. So maybe we shouldn't have this holistic or global bioregional approach to solving problems. But let's identify specific geographically based problems and then go from there to identify linkages. And so, it was an important understanding for myself, and I think others, that we have a considerable perceptual challenge in watershed management. Because those people, who live in the rural areas don't see on a daily basis the visible effects of runoff. They, of course, feel that their contribution is a minor component, which it probably is on an absolute scale. But we're talking cumulative impacts. That concept, again, is just not there when you're living in a very flat wide open space of South Texas. I guess it would be fair to say that there are perceptions out there that the water doesn't even run to the sea in some places. In fact, it's true that we have sort of reverse topography in certain areas. So we have a culture. We have a South Central Texas culture that we have to factor into this equation. In concluding, I think that the program is making ground by assuring the producing community that our nonpoint source characterization efforts will be based on local or regional data, wherever possible. We will spend money to collect samples, analyze runoff samples from our study area, again, wherever possible, and to investigate local environmental conditions and local practices. So overall, this calls for less emphasis on perhaps more conventional characterization approach of GIS modeling in derivation of total loadings by watershed based on book value of Event Mean Concentrations (EMC1 s), which was made explicit as being not acceptable as an approach for our area. So that's not an easy task, with less emphasis on that and more emphasis on trying to understand actual quality and quantities of loadings from our agricultural acreage, and a true commitment to demonstrating the actual in-bay and in-stream biological effects. It takes several years, as you all know. But at the same time, we are going to investigate the economic cost and benefits of selected BMP's. So that at the end of the process, we have taken some socio-economic concerns and plugged them into the equation and, hopefully, we'll be able to come back in another couple of years and give you a true success story. Page 212 ------- Cis Myers: I wanted to share with you a project that we're doing at LCRA—well, actually two that touch upon partners that I haven't heard mentioned in the other presentations. One is the Lower Colorado River Authority is a utility in addition to being a River Authority, and we cover 58 counties and serve about a 1.2 million people in providing electricity which gives us miles of transmission and distribution lines. So one of the things that we're doing is we are actually stringing by helicopter, as we speak, fiber optics on our transmission poles in part of our district. So you go, "What does that have to do with watershed?" Well, what it has to do with watershed is sustainable economic development. What it has to do with watershed is quality of life for the people that live in the watershed. We are looking at using that fiber optics in partnership with our cities and our rural communities, who are terrifically impacted by watershed policies, to provide rural medical health care, integrated EMS communication systems, and to work with their police departments. So that's just one spin that, you know, if any of you are there working with a utility, you might want to contact us or look at whether you have that potential for a partnership in your area for team building. The other thing I'm working on is a 319 project. It's with the City of Smithville, which is a little town under 4,000 on the banks of the Colorado River. Just perfect, right? Has a retired white-haired executive as mayor who you would want to be your grandfather. He's one of these who comes up and says, "Oh, thank you so much. Thank you so much. Now could you just do this one more little thing for me?" It happens every time I go down there. This little town is actually growing. They've got two new banks, a new grocery store, a new regional hospital. Where every other county is closing them down, this one is building one. They're doing a regional expansion for an airport. They're about to use up their infrastructure. It's a perfect place where you can actually go in, do something and see it happening. Carl Hutchinson met me down there the other day with some other folks from TNRCC and EPA, and we rode around this town on this little train. It's really clear this is going to be a fun project. I think it's going to be a flagship. Let me just tell you some of the partners we have. We have a partnership with Texas A&M University in two ways. One is with their College of Engineering. You write a 319 Grant one week and you get it the next right? Well, in this week that kind of turned into a year, the erosion on the Colorado got really, really severe. We had a very wet winter, which is not Russell's and Carl's fault. A whole lot more of the bank went into the river. So now to construct the BMP is a whole lot more expensive than what we had originally told them. But Arthur Talley is a pretty hard project manager at TNRCC and he doesn't allow me to come back and ask for more money. So I got to figure out a way to do this project for what they funded us. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to use Master's Degree engineering students at Texas A&M and have a design contest, give a cash award and see if these bright young Page 213 ------- minds can't come up with a good structural design. Then we'll use the structural and engineering consultant to actually draw the plans and put the seal. We're going to use the prisoners from the Detention Center to actually do the manual labor. They're going to be happy about being out working in the sun, and I'm going to be happy because I don't have to pay them. So those are two partnerships that I haven't heard anybody talk about. I was just going to tell you in your communities if you get stuck on a project and you need some free labor, go talk to your local county sheriff. Particularly, if you have a detention facility and it's a minimum deal, you can do some stuff and not have to spend money—which for all of us is a big problem these days. We've flown the topos on the city and we're going to use an undergraduate senior level engineering class to digitize them to one foot contours. Tom Curran is going to teach a little engineering. He's going to go down there and teach some classes on nonpoint source. Then he's going to take these kids to Smithville. Put them up at a Bed & Breakfast, which is a lot cheaper than hiring professional engineers, and these kids are going to ground truth the topos. They're going to go out and they're going to sketch out by streets where the problems are. They're going to locate the culverts. So that's another partnership we're going to do. The College of Engineering and the Texas Transportation Institute has written a major proposal to NSF for about $50 million over the next 12 years. We're a partner in that proposal. One of the components of that proposal is an engineering research center. Well, what does that have to do with the City of Smithville? Well, one of the things they are trying to do is train their engineers to reduce the level of disparity between academia research and classroom teaching by actually going out and doing a job. So if they get this grant, the first piece is this drainage study for the City of Smithville. Then if we get the continued funding, we're going to do a comprehensive infrastructure plan for the city, which will include water/wastewater, utility lines, and streets. We're applying for a grant from DOE on Energy Conservation which will allow us to do a study to create a center of non-motor vehicles in the downtown area. The City of Smithville now is a crossroad. It's a main street and another main street that kind of cross with a little peripheral. So that would make some sense. We're also working with the FAA and the Transportation Institute in terms of the expansion of the regional airport. One of the things that makes this a very sexy project to them is because of EPA and the 319 we will have already done the drainage surveys, and so that allows us to lever the 319 money to go after the FAA money to be able to continue to do that. So these are just a slightly different from the traditional watershed approach, and yet in our area where we serve 58 counties, I mean, everything affects the watershed. If our folks don't have jobs, it affects the watershed. I think we all know that environmental stuff usually is the function of the economy. So if a town dies out, they don't care if they recycle. If they don't Page 214 ------- have jobs and the kids don't want to come home, they don't care where the tin cans go. So we really work on this, and I just wanted to share that with you, because you're going to hear us, I think, at EPA and TNRCC and LCRA talk about the City of Smithville as our flagship project as we go down the road. Let's go to the humorous event. Who has a humorous team building event they want to share? Let's wake these people up. John. John Hassell: I do have slides this time. Bob talked about the Illinois River. Cis knows me in a very special way now. I've got to tell you about a program on the Illinois River. Back in 1992 we got funded to do a project on the Illinois River and we were going to kick it off with a tour. I don't know if you all know about the history of Arkansas and Oklahoma and the Illinois River. But Oklahoma has this idea that the way you resolve problems is to sue somebody else. So you always turn around and sue Arkansas. I mean, every time I turn around, they want to sue. It's kind of like Oklahoma hasn't learned yet that we've got to take responsibility. We want you to talk responsibility. So anyway, Bob calls me and he goes, "You know, we really need to bury the hatchet." And I said, "Well, if we have all these officials from Oklahoma come over, they're going to bury it in your back." And he says, "No, no, I really mean we need to bury the hatchet. We need to have this program that goes along together." So we had a tour. At the very end of the tour—and I bet you there were probably 100 to 150 people there~we decided we were going to have a Bury the Hatchet Program and so, wow! Here lies the hatchet that kept Arkansas and Oklahoma from working together to protect the Illinois River. (Buried this day, May 5, 1992) Notice. See the little coffin down there? Isn't that neat? You can't see inside, but Bob Morgan brought this little hatchet, and it was his hatchet that he had when he was in Boy Scouts, and we put it in there and we had this ceremony. We bonded. They didn't get the picture of me hugging him, but I did do that, and we bonded. You notice the little coffin is all nailed up and we're getting ready to lay that baby in the ground, and then everybody that was there got to come. You know how at funerals sometimes you go by and throw dirt on the casket? Well, we did that. We did this in really fine tradition. We sang. I can't remember the song. We have it taped. The last thing we did is we left. Now, you might say, "Well, what so humorous about this?" Well, two weeks later, this guy that works for me over in the Illinois River was driving by and the sign was gone. So he thought somebody stole the sign. So I called over and I talked to Ed Fight, who's the Scenic River Director, and I said, "Ed, where's the sign." He said, "Took it down." I said, "What did you take the sign down for?" He said, "Our Commission members said we don't want to bury the hatchet with Arkansas." I said, "What?" And here we made this big deal. We had this big article about Oklahoma and Arkansas burying the Page 215 ------- hatchet in the Tulsa World. So I called the Tulsa World and I said, "They removed the hatchet and the sign." So the Tulsa World guy called the Scenic River's Commission and said, "Where's the sign?" He said, "Took it down." So they had to write this big article about how Oklahoma wasn't going to bury the hatchet with Arkansas. Patty Murto: How embarrassing. John Hassell: Well, you think it was embarrassing for you, how about me? I'm telling everybody we're working together and we got this great team building effort. But I do want you to know this, the sign is behind the Scenic River's Commission. The grass grows greener where the hatchet is. They haven't picked the hatchet up. We're in the process of trying to get them to come back—this is three years later—and actually let us erect this sign. That's my humorous one. Cis Myers: I hope you get to put that sign back up. John Hassell: I do too. Cis Myers: Okay. Who's next? Who has a humorous story? Patty? Or do you want to tell your bad experience? Patty Murto: No, this isn't real humorous. This is just one of the things that happened in the process. In the very beginning of the process, there was a major controversy over a landfill. One city had a paper mill right on the river and there was a big controversy over that. We hadn't even begun to write this plan. We hadn't even come up with what parts of it we were going to cover or how we were going to cover it. All these people showed up and wanted us to take a stand publicly on this paper mill. I just gave this speech. I said, "We're not ready. We've just barely gotten formed. We don't have a clue as to where we're going yet. We're not going to make this issue." Well, this environmentalist, not from my county, went into my Page 216 ------- county courthouse and asked for my campaign records so they could prove that my campaign had been funded by the power company. I spent $500 on my last campaign. This guy just didn't have a clue how we operate in Carlton County. We don't spend big money where I'd need corporation money for a campaign anyway. Of course, in a small county, my county editor calls me right up and says, "Do you know who just came in here looking for your campaign records?" So I called this guy up and I said, "Why were you in my county looking up my campaign records?" He said, "Well, I have a constitutional right to do that." I said, "I understand that. I understand you have a constitutional right. But why didn't you just call me up and ask me? I'd have told you. And if you didn't believe me, then you could have gone to the county." Well, the papers got a hold of this. Of course, then there's this big spread in the papers. The point is that in the beginning the environmentalists thought that I was just this awful person. In the end, they thought I was their best friend. So I figured I did my job in the process and just kind of kept the process going the way it was supposed to with nobody ever having a clue really where I was. Cis Myers: I've one on our General Manager. We worked very hard to clean up our river. So they cooked up this strategy that everybody was going to canoe the Colorado so that we could bring attention back to the river and show that it was okay to be in a canoe, it was okay to dittle your toe in the water, that you weren't going to get the plague or anything else, and that we'd actually done something with this river. Which indeed we have. So we make this big deal about all these canoe races and we challenge, of course, all the state agencies, and so Russell's agency, and John's agency, and Parks & Wildlife, and everybody else—it was a requirement that we all be in canoes. We had this great canoe challenge and canoe race. So we publicize it and we get all the TV people and everybody lined up, and here comes our General Manager, who is in his late 30's, good-looking fellow, and he walks down in his crisp Bermuda shorts and his starched button-down collar to get in his canoe to lead off the canoe race, and slips in the mud and falls flat on his butt right into the river. And I mean, we're all going, "That's the boss! He's in the river!" So we had to pull him out. He was drenched. But I have to give him credit. He got in the canoe soaking wet, and it took off, and it worked very well. Actually, what we now do is use it as a way to draw attention to the river and we try to time it with all the different local festivals that go up and down the river. We plug into the deal and use it to continually work with the Chambers of Commerce to bring attention back to the fact that we're working on the river and here's what we do. Which in itself is kind of interesting, because in some cities they really like that. And again, I think, what I would say in our case, if I were to say a negative thing, is sometimes we have a tendency to go out and tell a community what their agenda is because Page 217 ------- we think that's what it ought to be. The more successful approach I think we've found over time is to go out and ask them what they need and then try to help them out. So that's something that we're always self-critiquing about. Is this really our agenda or is it really what they want? So I would say if it's one negative we've experienced it's sometimes I think we've maybe pushed what we think the agenda ought to be, rather than listen to what they really want the agenda to be. Let's now turn to experiences that have not worked so well for you? Can you share some experiences for some folks that are maybe starting a program or are maybe stuck with a program or thinking about a program that might be helpful in terms of lessons we have learned or mistakes we have made that we're willing to talk about? Robert? Robert Morgan: Yes. We've had several things that didn't work. But one thing that I noticed and Patty mentioned it earlier. You've got to be real careful of the terms you" use when you're building teams. We came back to our second focus group meeting in our Illinois River planning process. So I knew what was going to happen, because I lived in Benton County for 40 years and these same 35 people come out to every meeting. Not one of them has been in favor of anything yet. But we had worked with everybody and we thought we had everybody lined up agreeing with all the agricultural components, anyway, of our plan. They got up there and basically accused us of taking their land. Well, what turned out is we had called for voluntary implementation of agricultural BMP's, including cattle exclusion, and as one of a list of about 50, and they picked up on that and said, "Well, you're taking our stream banks away from us." So we had a letter from the Benton County Conservation Commission which said they weren't going to support it. So we had to go back and remove that terminology. It's still in there. Still part of other BMP's, but it's not mentioned so blatantly and everybody is happy now. So those terms are real important. The other thing is some of these people that came to our second meeting-it wasn't actually announced in the paper or anything^-we didn't turn anybody away. But one of the other questions that came up was, "Why are you all so secretive about developing this? Why didn't you invite anybody to participate?" This guy was from some group in Benton County. I said, "Well, we tried to get everybody involved in these focus group meetings." I went back after the meeting and went back through our invitation list and this guy had been invited to a meeting. He just didn't come. So the point was if he didn't come, he wasn't involved. I don't know how you go about dealing with those people. They're not going to come out until something affects them. They're not going to come out to be proactive on these things. But they'll come out and fight you at the end. We're still dealing with that kind. Page 218 ------- Cis Myers: It's the old story of people don't show up at a meeting because they're for something. They show up at a meeting because they're against it. So you have to reach out, I think, and drag them in. Patty, have you got something you want to share with us? Patty Murto: Well, since we're done. There's probably a lot I can help you with. In Minnesota, and I'm not so sure how it is in all the rest of the states, but in Minnesota, counties do the land use zoning. This is not just a plan. This implemented plan is part of the zoning policies in each county. So if there's a variance or a request, you have to go through zoning. The problem is in my county, when we set up this Technical Advisory Committee and the Citizens Committee and the Board, we thought we had all the decision makers. And we thought that was extremely important. Even the reason why we had the numbers; three from St. Louis County, because they've got a seven-member Board. If you've got three of them and you've brought them in from the beginning, you've probably got an adopted plan by the time you get done. The problem is the three hardly ever came. So if I was to do it over again, I'd try to schedule it to make sure that those three County Commissioners were there all the time. The other thing is the other two counties have given up pretty much their authority to make decisions on zoning issues to their Planning Commissions. I didn't know that in the beginning and nor did anybody else. Those three commissioners didn't say anything about it. But I don't think that those three commissioners got a whole lot of understanding about team building and buying into a process. But if I was to do it over again, I would make sure that the people who actually made the decisions or were going to make the decisions were involved in that process. So the Planning Commission members got all through with this process at the beginning of '94 or the middle. It took us the whole rest of the time to try and bring up to date two Planning Commissions who had not been involved at all since 1990. So here you had gone through these years of process and coming up with what you had. The Citizens Committee gave this plan to us one step at a time. First we got the land use and the forest management practices. After that, we got the agricultural practices. Then we got the recreation and the Fish & Wildlife. And finally at the end, we got the Culture and the Archeological stuff. So each time, through each process, and there was a long time before the next one was done, if we'd been giving those things all along or had those Planning Commission members, it wouldn't have taken forever to buy in the Planning Commission. Then the Planning Commissions made changes. Then the Citizens Committee is like, "Listen folks, it took us four years to come up with this process. Who do they think they are being Page 219 ------- able to change it?" And so it got to be pretty ugly towards the end in trying to bring people up to speed who had not been involved. So I would go back and make sure that the Citizens Committee group should have had the Planning Commission members—the people who make those decisions. And it's not always the elected people. Of course, you probably could never change the makeup of the Board. The Board was very clearly only going to be elected people. So that by the time you got to the end of the process, you had bought them in and you didn't have to try and educate them from the beginning. That's our biggest mistake, I think, that we made. Cis Myers: Do you all have a great experience that you want to share with us in terms of humorous or something that you've done that you're willing to share that was either really positive or that you'd just as soon avoid? Question: I'd like to ask a question of whether anybody has any experience with multiple state and multiple region projects. In other words, a project that overlaps states and possibly even EPA regions and how you deal with those. Cis Myers: Anybody on the panel want to tackle that? Do you have multiple states? Patty Murto: There's a process called an Nimagi River Basin Process that's going on between Minnesota, Wisconsin and different counties right now. They wanted me to sit on that Board and I said, no. I've done this five years now in fighting for a river plan. I'm taking a break. But they're in the process of setting that up very similarly to how we set up the river plan. They're going to just involve all those players. Cis Myers: We've got some experience in terms of the Gulf of Mexico, because Texas isn't the only state that borders on the Gulf of Mexico and our River Authority, actually goes all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. So we're working with a Coastal Zone Management Plan and that Commission, and there's some stuff going on between the states. We're a pretty small player in it, but we try to pay attention to what's going on. We generally input through the General Land Commissioner in Texas, who is the lead on the Coastal Zone Management Plan. Of Page 220 ------- course, Texas has multi-agencies that are involved, of which Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission is one. So it's complex. And then the other place that as our entity is, again, sort of peripherally involved, but not so much, is NAFTA, because it runs right down 1-35, which is the Interstate Highway that starts somewhere way up north and goes all the way down to -- Patty Murto: Starts in my city. Cis Myers: Starts in your city. Well, it goes through my city! So we're neighbors or sisters or something. But the interesting part of that is, we don't actually border on the Rio Grande. There's not a River Authority that runs the Rio Grande, and so EPA and TNRCC are basically trying to work that function out, and that may go to some sort of multi-state commission, but it's not there yet. But for an agency like ours, it's hard to get our folks, particularly in the rural counties, to understand that NAFTA has something to do with their lives. I mean, even if it's only the increased transportation up and down, or the ability for their communities to maybe grow and put in a cottage industry, or the economic impact that may have, or where the transportation routes go. So there's again an impact. Some people would say a subtle impact. We think it's a little more serious. Almost to the point where we're starting to offer optional Spanish courses at our company at lunch. Just so that we will have a core of people that will speak Spanish to be able to deal with it. Because we know that we will probably wind up doing some consulting and some cross-training with some of the water agencies from Mexico. At least, we're under discussion with EPA on that. Thank you for coming to the session and staying with us. I hope you have a real enjoyable rest of the day. Thank you. Page 221 ------- Page 222 ------- Permitting Activities Supporting the Watershed Approach. Part 2 (1:15-2:45PM) Moderator: Warren Davis, Director, Watershed Management Division, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; Austin, Texas I am the Division Director for Watershed Management Division. Our division handles industrial and municipal discharge permits for the state of Texas. We have three speakers this morning-Larry Caldwell, the Director of Engineering, USD A Natural Resource Conservation Service, Stillwater, Oklahoma; Marnie Winter, the Director of Environmental & Development Control Department, Jefferson Parish, New Orleans; and Gordon Austin, Chief of Environmental Affairs, Sewage & Water Board of New Orleans. Larry Caldwell has been working in the Oklahoma Director position since 1985. He got his B.S. Degree in Agricultural Engineering from Iowa State University. He was born and raised in Northwest Iowa. He's a P.E., married, and has two teenage daughters. Please welcome Mr. Caldwell. Speaker: Larry Caldwell, P.E., Director, Engineering, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Stillwater, Oklahoma Thank you, Warren. For the last couple of days, we've heard many speakers talk about the need for both a strong educational and technical assistance program to compliment a regulatory program. This afternoon I'd like to talk about some of our experiences in Oklahoma concerning the EPA General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Before I get into the presentation, I'd like to acknowledge the co-author of this paper Dr. Mike Smolen, who is a water quality specialist and Professor of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering at Oklahoma State University. Copies of the formal paper are available upon request. As was mentioned yesterday, Oklahoma has been blessed with a wealth of natural resources and for many years Oklahoma has given considerable attention to protection of these resources. With an increasing amount of public awareness, Oklahoma has continued to stress the need for protection of Oklahoma's ground water and surface water problem. In recent years, Oklahoma has also had considerable amount of attention given to the increasing livestock operations within the state—primarily, swine and poultry operations that Page 223 ------- have grown in the last four to five years. A new urgency in animal waste management was reached when EPA Region 6 issued a General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, called CAFOs. This permit, issued in February 1993, required compliance with very short deadlines. Initially, many of the producers in the state were unaware of the General Permit or the requirements under it. It soon became very obvious that there was a critical need for a strong educational and technical assistance program for the producers within the state. This afternoon I'd like to briefly summarize the requirements of the CAFO General Permit; describe the educational program that was developed through a cooperative effort of a number of agencies; briefly discuss the technical assistance that has been provided; and then close with some reflections on a few lessons that have been learned hi this process. Throughout this conference, we have heard a number of references to the history of the CAFO Permit. The 1972 Clean Water Act defined CAFOs as one of 27 industries that were to be permitted. The 1974 Effluent Guidelines provided additional info'rmation and definition of CAFOs. There was really very little activity, either on the state level or the EPA level for about the next 20 years. It wasn't until concerns were expressed by some producers, environmental groups, and the courts that EPA Region 6 issued a Notice of Intent for a General Permit in July of 1992. Following a public comment period, the General Permit was issued in February 1993. This Permit covered four states: Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and New Mexico. These states did not have a state delegated NPDES program, so EPA could issue and administer the General Permit without having to go through the state program. Arkansas was the fifth state in Region 6, but it was not included in the General Permit, since they had state authorization. Producers had to comply with four main actions within the General Permit. To help you understand some of the challenges the producers were faced with and the challenge for the Education and Technical Assistance Program, I'd like to go through each of these actions briefly. The first action was the Notice of Intent. This was simply a one-page form and very easy to fill out. It needed to be submitted by May 10, 1993, which is 90 days after the issuance of the General Permit. In fact, that is the only piece of paper that needs to be submitted to EPA, unless additional information is requested for some particular site. But the first big decision the producer had to decide was if they were a CAFO. This question, "Am I a CAFO?" was repeated hundreds of times across the state of Oklahoma in 1993; sometimes repeatedly by the same producer pounding his fist on the table! In a lot of cases, the definition of a CAFO was very straightforward, and in other cases, it wasn't quite so straightforward. Page 224 ------- The definition for CAPO is contained in the Federal Register 40-CFR-122, Appendix B and it includes information on four main items: number of animals, whether they are fed or maintained, if they are housed or confined in a non-vegetated area for at least 45 days of any 12-month period. That seems quite straightforward and in many cases it was. But also in many cases, it was not. In terms of numbers, an operation is definitely a CAFO if there is more than 1,000 animal units that equates to the following numbers for different species. Table 1. Number of Animals Equivalent to 1000 Animal Units under the CAFO Permit ("!atf»pnry Animals pp.r 1 000 Animal unite Slaughter or feeder cattle 1,000 Mature dairy cattle 700 Swine over 55 Ibs 2,500 Sheep or lambs 10,000 Turkeys 55,000 Broilers with continuous unlimited water systems 100,000 T.ayinp hens linniH manure systems Ifi Oflf) Mid-sized operations between 300 and 1,000 animal units are a CAFO if they discharge through a manmade conveyance to waters of the U.S.; and that's where some of the concerns or questions came in. Initially, there were a number of questions from some of the small livestock auction barns across the state. Almost every county had at least one auction barn. There were a number of concerns whether they were actually CAFOs, and that was determined by an analysis of the number of animals on the premise; whether they were actually fed, or whether they were just passed through; and the number of days animals were present in a 12-month period. Stocker operations also raised considerable questions. These operations varied considerably from year to year, depending on the number of cattle that were purchased and the weather conditions. The question involved whether they were confined in a non-vegetated lot for 45 days; the weather could vary that from day to day or year to year. The cost of the determination if an operation was a CAFO was considerable since the CAFO Permit required detention of all runoff from the confined area from the 25-year, 24-hour storm. Many stocker operations and auction barns elected not to be a CAFO. Some of them submitted an N.O.I, initially and then later sent in a Notice of Termination. They have since been operating their facility so that they are not a CAFO, by having less than the number of required head, or less than 45 days. Many of those are still keeping records to document that they are not a CAFO. Poultry is big in the eastern part of the state. There were also concerns on how many of these poultry operations were actually CAFOs. Basically, it came down to broiler or dry litter Page 225 ------- operations were not considered CAFOs unless there was a problem with management of storage of their waste. Hog confinement systems generally are total confinement operations with no outside drainage area. But due to the concern for discharge from the 25-year, 24-hour storm, many of those were determined to be CAFOs. They varied anywhere from a small farmer owned size operations to some of the larger, more extensive commercially owned operations. There are several mid-sized type of operations being constructed across the state. Many of these do not meet the CAFO requirements for the General Permit but many producers are requesting technical assistance to meet all the CAFO regulations regardless. Oklahoma also has several dames across the state. Most of them are smaller sized. Many of those have some type of controls and lagoons for the waste from the milk parlor. Many needed to be retrofitted and enlarged to control the runoff from the holding areas around the dairies. Oklahoma has a lot of beef feed lots across the state, primarily in the western part of the state. Sizes range from 2,000 head or less up to as many as 50,000 head, primarily out in the Panhandle. Many of these had some type of retention facilities prior to the General Permit. You can see that there's a number of different type of operations, size of operations, a number of different situations for producers to address. Once the decision was made whether they were a CAFO and an N.O.I, was submitted, there were still three more actions that the producers needed to take. One was the preparation of a pollution prevention plan. Basically, this plan documented all the management and the structural controls that were planned to control the waste from the operation. The following six main sections were required in the pollution plan: (1) Description of the operation and potential pollution sources, (2) waste management controls, (3) preventive maintenance, (4) erosion prevention, (5) employee training, and (6) inspections and record keeping. The next action was construction of a retention facility. This was the most costly of all the actions. The facility was required to store the 25-year, 24-hour storm from the confined non- vegetated area plus a minimum 21-day storage for the manure. Markers had to be in place so one could tell exactly when the pump-down needed to be started. On existing facilities, of which there were several lagoons across the state, there was also a need for a "certification of no hydrologic connection." That was a long way of saying, "Does the lagoon leak within the prescribed requirement?" This also posed a question on many of these old lagoons where there were few records on how they were constructed, when they were constructed, or types of materials they were constructed with. An additional analysis for certification was needed. Page 226 ------- The last action grouped a number of items into operations and maintenance. First the most obvious was the pumping requirement to pump down the facility to always maintain storage for the 25-year, 24-hour storm. There were record keeping requirements for rainfall, water levels in the storage facility, and waste application. There were quarterly and annual inspections for the facilitor to see that everything was functioning according to the design. There was also a requirement on reporting discharges if they were to occur. All of this had to be done in a relatively short time for the producers to, first, be aware of the General Permit, make a decision of whether they were a CAPO, and then comply with the construction of the retention facilities, as well as preparation of the pollution prevention plan. For the large CAFOs, those that were more than 1,000 animal units, this deadline was February 1994, one year after the issuance of the General Permit. For mid-size operations, those between 300 and 1,000 animal units, the deadline was February 1995. Cost of compliance varied considerably across the state depending on the size of the operation, the type of operation, whether there was a drainage area. One of the biggest cost items, obviously, was the construction of the retention facilities, which could vary anywhere from as little $5,000 to $15,000 for some of the confinement systems to as much as $20,000 to $40,000 or more for some of those areas with a contributing drainage area. There was also cost, in some cases, associated with preparation of the plan, record keeping, and maintenance activities, besides the sampling of any particular discharge. You might ask why anybody would want to be a CAFO. One of the most obvious reasons was to avoid some risk of violation of the Clean Water Act and the potential fines that could occur. Also, a big plus is that it would allow a discharge and the discharge would be legal if it was less than the 25-year, 24-hour storm and there were chronic rainfall conditions. You may get two inches of rainfall a day for three or four days in a row, and as long as it was previously operated according to the design, that discharge would be legal under this General Permit. Some sampling requirements would also be involved. Also, it provided a public relations vehicle for some of the operations and somewhat of a defense from unwanted attack from neighbors. The challenge became how to get this information to the producers, so that they were aware of their responsibilities under this General Permit. It was decided to form a CAFO work group among a number of cooperating agencies. This work group consisted of representatives from the following agencies: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Oklahoma State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, and Oklahoma Department of Health. The group consisted of eight to ten people who met quite frequently, generally every two weeks. The purpose of this was to discuss questions that would come up and keep all of the questions and stories straight. The primary purpose of this work group was to provide some consistent Page 227 ------- responses and interpretations among the various agencies assisting the producers. There were also a number of other supporting organizations working with this group: industry representatives, equipment dealers, consulting engineers, etc. There were a number of other people that worked periodically with this work group. One of the first actions of this work group was to develop an information sheet. Contrary to what some people may believe, very few producers subscribe to the Federal Register or read it on a nightly basis. The General Permit consisted of 29 pages in the Federal Register with rather small print. One of the first actions that was done was to prepare a four-page information sheet. One of those pages was the Notice of Intent form that the producer could fill out and submit. The information sheet was written in non-technical language and tried to detail the main actions of the General Permit. This particular information sheet was shared with the other three states. Each of the four states issued the information sheet with little differences concerning their state agency requirements and addresses. The next action of the work group was preparation of question and answer brochures which addressed commonly asked questions and the commonly given answers that had come up through different meetings. There was a series of four of these that were put together and distributed through the NRCS and extension offices. There were also a number of training conferences conducted throughout this period. There were two satellite conferences in April of 1993 for both the agency field staffs, as well as producers. This was one month before the NOI submission deadline. There was a large technical conference that was held in Oklahoma City in October, 1993 and five regional workshops. The satellite conferences were held out of Oklahoma State University. There were actually two conferences held on the same day; the afternoon session was for agency personnel. The folks on camera were those from EPA and Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service and Extension. The ASCS was also there to talk about cost share programs. This session discussed the major provisions of the General Permit, and provided a call-in question and answer live session. The evening session was billed for producers; they could either tune in on their own satellite dishes or come to agency offices to view the program. This session also had a call-in question and answer type process. This program was down-linked to approximately 35 sites around the state. In October, 1993 a technical conference was held in Oklahoma City and approximately 260 people attended representing agency personnel, producers, consulting engineers, etc. Again, a number of people from EPA, Department of Agriculture, Extension, and Natural Resource Conservation Service were in attendance. A number of technical presentations were made during the three-day conference. Page 228 ------- Following in November, 1993 there were five regional producer meetings held around the state. Each of those were intended to address specific one-on-one type of situations with producers and were tailored for the types of operations in different areas of the state. Those again were sponsored by the Extension Service through the County Agents in cooperation with the NRCS personnel. Another activity taken on by the work group was the development of a CAPO record book. There were a number of record keeping requirements in the General Permit. The notebook was prepared so producers could easily keep track of the records and also have information on what to do in case there was a discharge. How did producers respond? Oklahoma had not had a lot of regulatory activity by the state for some time, so the first response by the producers was a little anxiety and a question of how far was EPA going to require them to go. Producers responded in the short period of time. They had from February 1993, when the General Permit was issued, until May 10, 1993 to submit N.O.I's. By June, 1993, 385 Notice of Intents had been submitted. Of those, 130 were for operations with greater than 1,000 animal units, 175 were operations between 300 to 1,000 animal units, and 80 were for operations with less than 300 animal units (smaller than CAFO size). The implementation deadline, February 10,1994, came quickly. There were 85 requests from large CAFOs that went to EPA for request for an extension. EPA responded to these extensions by issuing administrative orders where the producer was put under a notice, basically, an Administrative Order, an order stating they were in violation of the General Permit and were given until July 1, 1994 to respond to terms of compliance with the General Permit. This was reacted to differently by a number of people. Some of the producers felt like they were being viewed as bad actors, when in fact, they were trying to comply with the provisions of the General Permit. The listing of all those that requested extensions and their addresses were released to the area newspapers. By July 1994, there were 80 Notice of Terminations that were submitted; the state wide total was down to about 300 N.O.I.'s. At this time, the number has reduced down to about 250 active Notice of Intents. The breakdown is about one-third large operations and two-thirds smaller operations. The CAFOs were scattered throughout the state of Oklahoma. Technical assistance requests came for planning, design, and construction of waste retention facilities; certification of "no hydrologic connection," preparation of waste management plans, and then the completion of the pollution prevention plans. Each of these required site specific considerations because of the wide variation of rainfall across the state, anywhere from 16 inches out in the Panhandle Page 229 ------- to more than 50 inches down in the Southeast part of the state. Types of operations and the conditions varied widely across the state. Types of assistance that was provided by Natural Resource Conservation Service included topographic surveys, soils investigations, designs and construction assistance. About 140 sites have been investigated including almost 300 soil samples that have been submitted to the soil mechanics lab. The soils analysis was for determination of liner requirements. The design and computations for the waste facilities, preparation of drawings for the facilities, and then the construction staking and inspection for the retention facilities was a major workload. Also, information was provided by Extension and Natural Resource Conservation Service on proper procedures for pump-out of the storage facilities, as well as proper application of waste on the disposal area. This came at a very busy tune that was difficult to keep up with on- going workload. For NRCS personnel, it was the last year for compliance plans for the 1990 Farm Bill. On top of that, in an effort to follow with the Administration's request for a reduction of number of federal employees, a number of NRCS employees responded to a retirement incentive that was offered in April of 1994. There were 52 employees that retired in Oklahoma on April 1, 1994, which was 13% of the work force. Many of these employees were field office employees that had many years of experience providing direct assistance to the producers. All of this occurred during the activity on general permits. The following is a summary of the assistance provided as of October 1, 1994. Table 2. Status of SCS Technical Assistance Provided During FY 1994 Niimher _ Constructed 49 Designed/Awaiting Construction 72 Surveys 83 Soils investigated 111 Total in progress 1 78 * nenHinp nn ar.tinn taVpn _ 87 ""Includes 77 beef, 21 dairy, 80 swine You can see the various categories. One hundred seventy-eight projects were worked on and 49 lagoons or holding facilities were constructed. Since October 1, 1994, there have been an additional 50 lagoons or storage facilities that have been constructed. We are presently working on another 50 that's anticipated to be done by October of this year. By October 1 of 1995, there will have been 150 lagoons and holding ponds constructed under this CAFO permit. Page 230 ------- Consulting engineers also provided a significant amount of technical assistance; primarily on the larger operations and for some of those operations where NRCS could not get there in a time that suited them. Initially there were few consulting engineers that were available in the state to work on this due to the minimal activity in the past. There were about 10 to 15 active consulting engineers that were working within the state. There were about 30 consultants that attended the Oklahoma City Technical Conference. Soon after that conference, there were a number of requests from consultants for technical materials on waste management handbook and standards and specs, and especially Tech Note 716, which dealt with sealing requirements for lagoons and holding ponds. In July of 1994, the Oklahoma Legislature provided special funding that allowed the state to hire three engineers to also assist with providing technical assistance to producers for CAFOs. This also proved to be invaluable for providing assistance. Reflecting back on the last couple of years, what has been learned? 1. A cooperative effort by representatives from state and federal agencies and the livestock industry can be very successful in conducting an intensive educational program. By everyone working together from the beginning helps with communication and taking care of questions as they arise. This approach helps keep rumors down and keeps everyone working together. 2. The very short deadlines that were contained in the General Permit caused a lot of anxiety, both among the producers, as well as agency personnel. It was a lot to expect in a two-year period to have all the permitting and construction completed. Also, the regulatory agencies should have addressed how the technical assistance needs were going to be provided prior to issuing permits with such short deadlines. Anytime regulations are issued, there is a need for technical assistance to assist producers in getting them implemented. This impacts many other agencies. 3. A state delegated program would allow better communication and administration of the program. Last year, there was an agreement signed between EPA Region 6 and the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, where the Department of Agriculture agreed to administer and be the first line of communication on all CAFOs, and the Department of Agriculture personnel are out inspecting each of the CAFOs to communicate with each of them throughout last year. That has helped considerably. 4. There has certainly been an increased awareness of proper waste management techniques and operation of retention facilities. 5. Finally, a stringent regulatory program certainly gets attention, and a strong education and technical assistance program can help reduce some of the resistance that develops. Page 231 ------- Questions? Question: What was the cost share on the lagoons and holding ponds as far as the service Soil Conservation Service or whoever, funding some of these facilities? Was there a cost share between the operators or was it entirely their responsibility? Answer: Larry Caldwell Question was, a cost share available, and if so, how much for the construction of the facilities for the lagoons and holding ponds? I'd say it varied anywhere from absolutely no cost share to as much as 50 to 60% in some cases. The ASCS A.C.P. Program and long term agreements provided some cost share assistance in some counties. The Great Plains Program also included some construction of waste management facilities. Many of the new operations for expansion of Tyson and Cargill, did not have cost share available there because of the ASCS cost share requirements. Question: I just want to follow that up. Were there examples where agencies bought equipment such as pumping equipment that was moved around from facility to facility in order to reduce the cost? Answer: Larry Caldwell Yes, as a separate operation from this, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission purchased some pump out equipment that is available to producers to move around to pump out a number of lagoons. Initially, they have been set in some areas that have historically had dairy lagoons with very little pump out done in the past. And that pump out equipment is now available on a fee basis to take care of expenses. That has been a good service to a number of the existing facilities out there. Warren Davis: Thank you, Larry. We're going to now move from Confined Animal Feedlot Operations onto permit related activities. Our first speaker will be Marnie Winter. She is the Director of Environmental Development Control Department, New Orleans. Marnie received her BA and MS degrees in Biological Sciences from the University of New Orleans. She has been employed with the Jefferson Parish Environmental Department for 14 years. She has been Director of the department for five years. Please welcome Marnie. Page 232 ------- Speaker: Mamie Winter, Director, Environmental and Development Control Department, Jefferson Parish; New Orleans, LA Thank you. First I'd like to put in perspective where Jefferson Parish is, for those who aren't familiar with this area. We're right next door to New Orleans. We are a parish of about a half million people. We have four incorporated cities within the parish. This is a cross section of Jefferson Parish at Causeway Boulevard, which is in the central portion of the east bank of the parish. The parish stretches from Lake Pontchartrain at its northern most point and crosses the Mississippi River and extends southward down to the only populated barrier island in Louisiana, and that's Grand Isle. This is a cross section which shows that we're basically hi a bowl. Lake Pontchartrain is over on your left. You can see the levee for Lake Pontchartrain and then the city is below that levee, and then on your right is the levee for the Mississippi River. The city is mostly at zero mean sea level, and at the lowest point is three feet below sea level. So our job is to get the water out of this bowl and pump it out into Lake Pontchartrain, or on the West Bank into the Barataria Basin. Jefferson Parish owns and operates 280 miles of open drainage canals and 39 major pump stations. Basically, the water goes into culverts like this on the sidewalks and streets, runs under the ground, and enters canals through pipes like this. This is a medium size canal. This is a large canal on Veterans Boulevard. This is a pump station bar screen. This is another bar screen. This is one of our pump stations on Lake Pontchartrain. This is the lake side of the pump station. This is right at Causeway and the lake. The total capacity of our drainage system is 21 billion gallons of rainfall a day. This area receives an annual rainfall of 60 inches. In 1992 and 1993, we were required to submit an application for a municipal separate storm sewer and NPDES Permit Application to EPA. When we did that, we had to include the cities of Harahan, Kenner, Westwego, and Gretna, because these cities operate the sub-surface drainage and the street drainage that goes into the canals. So our permit application is complicated by the parish operating the canals and the cities operating the sub-surface drainage that enters the canals. Another complication is the way the canals interconnect. We have big pipes coming in from areas and smaller pipes. If we locate a problem hi one of the canals, it's often difficult to try and trace it to its source, because depending on which pump is on, stormwater can move in different directions and be discharged at different points. For instance, on Lake Pontchartrain we have five major pump stations. One of those pump stations can pull water from the canal on the other side of the parish. Depending on which pump station is on, water can travel to Page 233 ------- any one of these pump stations. So in order to trace something to its source, you have to back track and find out which pumps were on, and try and do it that way, which makes it very difficult. This is an intersection of two major canals. You can see how it would be difficult to track something in this system. The major goals of our storm water management program, which is the essential part of our Part 2 application, is to establish a program for data collection of water quality and potential sources, and to build upon existing management practices through enhanced public education and participation, and to encourage continuance of existing Jefferson Parish programs. The first thing we wanted to do was to develop a comprehensive water quality management program. A lot of the data that we have on our canal system, the lake, and the Barataria Basin has been collected over time and hasn't been collected in a very routine fashion. So we wanted to develop a comprehensive program, parish-wide, to collect data. To do this, we separated the parish into sub-basins. Then we took out-fall pipes that dram an area of 50 to 100 acres and we categorized these areas by land use, either commercial, residential, or industrial. We're focusing on the industrial areas to begin with, because as part of our permit application process we did wet weather field screening. What that showed us is that there are more pollutants coming off of industrial areas than residential and commercial which is kind of what we expected. So we're focusing on these 50 to 100-acre industrial areas and sampling the out-falls from them. When we detect a pollutant that's at a level that's of concern, we backtrack through that sub-basin. That's how we're approaching it, rather than trying to approach it from the major pump stations at the lake front. It's just too difficult to try and track it back into the system, so we're doing sub-basins. This slide shows one of our samplers and the flow meter. This is another one set up in a drainage pipe. We did a search of data history, data collected by the Lake Foundation and the Corp of Engineers, various DEQ programs, and our own data. Most of the data showed that the primary pollutant of concern is fecal coliforms. We know that because of subsidence in our area we have a problem with bypasses and overflows. So the parish has an existing aggressive sewer point repair program to detect leaks and correct the leaks. That's where we are putting the bulk of our money right now as far as addressing storm water problems. We also want to focus on identifying the source of the fecal coliforms. We know that a lot of it is from bypasses and overflows, but we've never really tried to characterize what is coming from pets and animal populations along the lake front and the marshes on the West Bank. Other objectives of our management program are to support existing programs. This slide lists some of our existing programs. The Environmental Department for the parish, which is the Page 234 ------- department that I'm Director of, was doing a lot of things before our permit application and our management program that happened to coincide with some of the goals that EPA has set up. The department has been in existence since 1978 and in 1979 the parish passed a Drainage Disposal Ordinance which limits the level of certain pollutants that anyone can put into the drainage system. It also required businesses and industries to have a permit from the parish. In 1984, when the state formed the Department of Environmental Quality, we changed our ordinance to say that if an industry has a permit from the state, an LWDPS permit, or an NPDES permit from EPA, they are no longer required to have a permit from the parish. So now the way that we work our ordinance is we steer businesses into the state and federal permit programs, and we work very closely with the state DEQ. We're able to respond to complaints and reports better than them, sometimes, on a local level. We have a lab and we'll go respond to a complaint, take samples, and very often, DEQ uses our analytical data in their enforcing of compliance on industries. We have staff that have testified at various hearings that DEQ has. They've been able to issue fines and require permits and enforce then: permits with our assistance. So rather than have a three-permit system, we just stay with the two-permit system. Since 1982, we've had an ongoing canal sampling program. At that time, the parish realized that they were going to switch all the sewage treatment plants to discharge to the Mississippi River. We used to discharge into Lake Pontchartrain and now they all discharge into the Mississippi River. We wanted to get some background data so we could show the improvement, and over time the water in the canals has been improving. In 1988 and 1989, we also put in new sewage treatment plants all over the parish. We consolidated 23 sewage treatment plants into four sewage treatment plants that were significantly upgraded. The Environmental Department also reviews any non-residential building permit. For any business coming into the parish, we have to review their building permit application. If it's an area of the parish where there is not any sewage, which we still have some pockets and areas that don't have sewage yet, then we work with the Health Department or DEQ to make sure that they get an adequate package treatment system in place. If it's a car wash, they're allowed to go into the storm drainage system as long as they can meet DEQ's permit limitation. In general, we usually steer them into the sewage system because our limits are less stringent and that's the better place for car washes. So by reviewing the permit application, we hopefully can correct problems before they are placed in the ground. We also have a program where some of our personnel are trained by the Louisiana Department of Agriculture in how to monitor pesticide and herbicide application. We have a contracted company that sprays our canals annually and we have staff that randomly monitor their activities and sometimes find that they are spraying when it's too windy or things like this. So this helps us cut down on problems of that nature. Page 235 ------- The Sewage Department has an effluent infiltration abatement program and a point repair program, and these are designed to detect and repair leaks and breaks in the sewage lines. Our Drainage Department cleans out catch basins. They clean the banks of canals, pick up j litter. This is a crew cleaning out a catch basin of leaves and debris. A lot of people don't j realize that these catch basins end up going to the lake and use them for garbage cans or j sweeping their yard waste into them. We also have a contract with an Emergency Response j Company. This company must respond within one hour of our call. They clean-up hazardous and non-hazardous spills, leaks, etc. I would say about six to eight times a year we use this contract if we have an unknown material that's found in a canal. It's very often hard to detect who is responsible for it. So the parish calls this contractor out to get the material out of the canal before it ends up in the lake. What happens is vacuum trucks can very easily pull into a residential neighborhood and put their pump hose into one of those street culverts and just release the contents of their truck. We find that we get some waste from grease traps and sometimes some paint and solvents mixed in. We just get a report that it's in a canal and we can use this contract to have it picked up in a timely manner before it gets washed into the canals. We also work with the Health Department. They enforce the state sanitary codes and make sure that septic tanks are up to code. Four major components of our plan are to identify and control non storm water discharges, to reduce pollutant runoff from construction sites, to reduce pollutant runoff from industrial sites, and reduce pollutant runoff from residential and commercial areas. We have developed a packet of information that we give out to all new construction. When they go to our Inspection and Code Enforcement Department for a building permit, they give them this packet, and they can call us for questions. It lists BMPs that they can use. It tells about the Notice of Intent form. And it has a checklist that they can use to make sure that they are following their storm water pollution prevention plan. We periodically have people who go through the parish and inspect these construction sites to make sure that they have sediment fences up where they should. We also had a grant last year from the State Department of Natural Resources to develop a check list for their coastal nonpoint pollution program. We developed a checklist to use for construction sites that are less than five acres and another checklist for automotive shops, which are a problem in this area. There's a lot of them and they're really not highly regulated. We have a checklist that we use to inspect them and then make recommendations based on their answers as far as storage and housekeeping activities. Some of the goals of our program are to develop and distribute information to contractors, which is what I was just talking about, to encourage public participation in the storm water program by reporting violations. We have a 24 hour number people can call and report storm water violations. Page 236 ------- This is a construction site and we're requiring these sediment fences around the construction site. One of the problems we find is that after the sediment fence is put in place, if we get a heavy rainfall, the sediment fence just falls in. Unless you have somebody go back and check on these sites, it's left like that, and they don't function properly. This is a filter cloth put over one of the catch basins. We also work with DEQ on a storm drain stenciling program, and we provide the kits that have spray paint and the orange vests, and we have scout groups and civic associations that come borrow the kits. Some of them supply the paint. If they don't have the money for the paint, we cover the cost of the paint. They spray in their neighborhoods with the message "Dump No Waste Drains to the Lake." We also have some other education projects with the Lake Foundation. We are funding some tours by high schools of our drainage pump stations. As part of the tour, the students stencil storm drains around their school. Then they go tour the pump station, learn how it works, learn the capacity, look at the bar screens and see the litter that is caught on the bar screens. They learn what people are actually throwing into the canals, and then they walk along the shore of the lake collecting and categorizing trash. We feel like this is an important program because it gets people at an early age. A lot of the people litter around here. It's already too late for some of the older people, but if we can get to the younger generation, I think we can be effective. We also have ordinances in place like a Pooper Scooper Ordinance and an ordinance that all garbage cans and dumpsters have to be leak proof. We have an ordinance that says you cannot dump any litter into ditches or canals. But the problem is most of these ordinances are not enforced. We're working with our parish attorney's office to develop some low cost fines for these violations so that we can make them enforceable. We had UNO's Urban & Waste Management Department do a survey of our residential waste stream. They actually went out and surveyed what people are throwing away in their garbage. They found that household hazardous waste in our area was predominantly coming from workshops and automotive activities. The bulk of it was mostly used oil and waste paint. So we have in Jefferson Parish a recycling facility that collects that used oil. Texaco has recently put some stations around Jefferson and Orleans where people can bring their used oil. We feel like there's adequate places now for people to bring their used oil. The next problem we're tackling is waste paint. What UNO's survey found was that 64% of our household hazardous waste was latex paint. We're having our first waste paint collection day this coming Saturday for Earth Day. We'll be collecting unused leftover oil paints and latex paints, and Safety Clean will be taking the oil paint and Mid City Green will be taking the latex paint and recycling it, mixing it. Page 237 ------- Basically, our goal/objective is to focus on source controls. Because of our situation with the I large amount of rainfall and the necessity to pump it out, any end of pipe treatment would be very, very costly. So at this point, we're trying to approach the problem at its source and in that way we go after industries and industrial discharges. We work with the state to get those industries into compliance and we're working on educating residential users. They also can cause problems. We feel if we approach it that way, we can hopefully reduce it before we have to treat it at end of pipe. That's all I've got. I guess I'll take questions after Gordon. I I Warren Davis: Thank you, Mamie. The second half of the team is Gordon Austin. Mr. Austin is currently the Chief of Environmental Affairs for the New Orleans Sewage and Water Board. This office is responsible for coordinating all environmental matters for the board, both as enforcement of local regulation for sewage, drainage, and water regulation, and as a public utility subject to state and federal environmental regulations. Please welcome Mr. Gordon Austin. Speaker: Gordon Austin, Chief, Environmental Affairs, Sewage and Water Board of New Orleans, LA Thank you. Much of what New Orleans does in our circumstances are very much the same. In fact, in the process of filing these storm water applications with EPA, we actually cooperated in much of that effort due to the similarity of conditions and circumstances that we face. New Orleans was initially founded between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain in a marshy area on the only habitable land. When Bienville founded the city in 1718, was along the riverfront. Conditions stay pretty much the same from time to time when we get heavy rains. Had this conference been held a week ago, last Tuesday, we had a four-inch rainfall event in a three-hour period that did cause some street flooding in the lower parts of the city. The Sewer & Water Board maintains a drainage pumping station that is capable of handling one inch of rainfall in the first hour and a half inch thereafter. Unfortunately, nature doesn't always cooperate and we do have these significant rainfall events usually about twice a year. We do have the inconvenience of some street flooding during those events. Much like Jefferson Parish~you can't really see this very well, but this is a layout of New Orleans between the eastern part of the city, which borders on the Rigolets, which is the lake outlet, Jefferson Parish to the west, which is bordered by the 17th Street Canal, which is a large drainage canal, Lake Pontchartrain to the north and the river to the south, which actually Page 238 ------- dissects the city into the East Bank and West Bank. The point of this slide was to show that the city really is an island, if you will, completely surrounded by water. The point of this slide is on the left of the slide you can see the relative elevation of Lake Pontchartrain and to the right we have the river elevation. What lies between is a cross section of the city of New Orleans. You have various baselines on this particular slide that show different sites and locations, streets throughout the city, and it's quite a dramatic circumstance. We average about five feet below sea level for the entire city. So whatever water, rainfall in particular, and potable water that may be discharged to the storm drainage system due to cooling water use, industrial water, has to be pumped out of the city. This is a view of the lake front. To the right-hand side, this is a drainage out-fall canal at the lake front. To the right-hand side—this and I believe the next slide—show part of the levee system at the lake front, which we saw in the previous slide as part of the storm protection system around the city. The Orleans Levee Board is the state agency responsible for maintenance of this ring levee system that because of topography and rainfall is virtually a necessity of life hi the city. Otherwise, it couldn't be inhabited. The City of New Orleans— and again everything I'm going to say pretty much applies to Jefferson Parish, too— experiences on an average about 60 inches of rainfall a year, which take place within about 100 days a year where we have significant rainfall. I think that will be today and tomorrow, I'm sure. If we're lucky enough tomorrow, in conjunction with this conference, we're having a tour, part of which will include a visit to Drainage Pumping Station 6, which is the largest pumping station in the world. It's currently a 10,000 cubic foot per second capacity station, which I'm told—if you want to try to visualize this~can empty a ten square mile lake that's about 13 feet deep in a 24-hour period. It's a pretty significant structure. Those groups that we've been able to have on tours out there have been impressed from the engineering standpoint, as well as just the massive nature of the drainage task that the Sewer & Water Board maintains. The rain that hits the street is conveyed through both open and closed drainage canals. This is an open canal. This is what it looks like after about a half-inch of rain. With good rainfall events, the level in that canal will rise to the bulkhead level along that canal. Again, this is a covered canal under construction. This is a cross section of the covered canal which shows one of the larger cross sections. They run from about eight feet across to about 28 feet on some of the larger ones. As you go through the city, in the older part of the city, the more developed part of the city, you won't see drainage because it's for the most part covered canals of this sort. But the Sewage & Water Board aside from construction is required to maintain these storm water conveyances also. This is a shot of a station on the west bank of the city. But it's intended to show how these larger canals, as in Jefferson Parish, empty to open canals and then go to the pump stations for discharge to Lake Pontchartrain. The total Page 239 ------- system capacity is 29 billion gallons a day and is equivalent to the flow roughly of the Ohio River. So last Tuesday, for instance, or going back a couple of years, I think the most significant rainfall event we've had has been close to 15 inches of rain in a 24-hour period. A rainfall event occurs, we're running this system virtually at capacity. It's quite an operation unto itself when we have to do that. This is a shot of the inside of Station 6 just of the pump motors. These are the pumps themselves right after construction in about 1928. This is a low RPM, high efficiency pump. It's about an 85% efficiency low lift pump that was designed and developed by A.B. Woods back in that period between about 1915 and 1930. He did such a fine job of the engineering aspect of this that these pumps are still in operation and still capable of handling the kind of rain load that I mentioned previously. These are being augmented with more modern design pumps, but they don't come anywhere near matching the capacity of this particular design. These pumps have been utilized hi the Netherlands and portions of Japan to reclaim, like in New Orleans, low lying areas for uses as populated cities. This is, coincidentally a structural storm water control which exists at all of our pumping stations. This is a shot of the screen array at Drainage Pumping Station #6. It shows what is called a climber screen. I don't know how much of the detail shows up to the audience, but the screen itself is made up of a bar screen with about a six-inch space in between, which obviously is not going to be very effective in catching styrofoam cups or dissolved or floatable material like waste oil. Initially that was not the prime concern. What this is intended to serve as is for removal of large timbers, Volkswagens, mattresses, and material on that order which could damage the pump and jeopardize storm drainage capability in the city. That is an obvious as far as life and property which are very real concerns. This is probably about two years ago. This is the lowest lying area of the city. This was, I believe, an 8-inch rainfall event. This flooding condition existed probably for the better part of a day, not much longer, but is very reminiscent of some of the old lithographs from the mid-1800's, where at that tune this was really a fact of life hi all of the city, not just the most flood prone areas. If you look at this, this is really curb to curb. You can see a street curb in the right-hand side of it. Again, this is actually the bottom of the bowl, if you want to envision the city as such. Of course, we pray it doesn't rain most of the time, but sometimes it does. The reason I wanted to show most of these slides was to emphasize the fact that the storm drainage system in the city of New Orleans, as it's been developed, was developed starting with the drainage commission in 1896. It merged with the Sewage and Water Board in 1903 with the prime intent to prevent what we see in some of these previous slides—street flooding and the obvious detrimental effect on property and commerce, etc. Of course, the system as we go on is becoming more efficient. We have a target of being able to handle one inch of Page 240 ------- rain per hour through a rainfall event, and that is a very significant large drainage system. Obviously, when we get these 8, 10, 15-inch rainfall events that exceed our 100-year events, which we seem to have about every couple or three years, we've designed a system that is very capable and able to handle those kinds of typical rainfall events. When EPA issued the storm water permit requirements starting in 1990, the challenge that the Sewerage & Water Board faced and still is, is how do we accommodate the needs of the city to prevent flooding and also address the obvious concerns and issues that relate to storm water and water quality control? In viewing our system, and the obvious priorities that are at hand, the only manageable way to do this was to be very aggressive in addressing the source control aspect of water pollution control. Much of what Mamie had described in her presentation earlier is a part of what Sewerage & Water Board is currently doing and has done prior to the regulation to manage the source end of the pollution component. The primary tool that we have available is a storm water ordinance. It existed since 1972 as a control ordinance that regulated (and is still in effect) the quality and the type of material that is acceptable for discharge into a storm drainage system. Specifically, it prohibits high B.O.D., high T.S.S. discharges, waste oil, and a variety of other parameters that was set into the ordinance in a concentration specific fashion. What we see with the storm water regs is an obvious requirement that this particular ordinance, as effective as it is, be updated to be more specific about source pollution through the two-part application process. This involves the very exacting and very intricate process of identifying the types of pollution that were in the system and the origins, whether it be residential, commercial, or industrial activity in areas that were involved. We also are very much aware that in order to be successful with a Storm Water Pollution Control Program you have to provide very heavy emphasis on the public education component for two reasons. One, the substances that enter the storm drain system that create the receiving stream problems are functions of our individual lifestyles. We hope to induce some behavior modification through education processes with school kids like the storm dram stenciling. The Sewerage & Water Board has been successful in a number of other areas such as art projects and various outreach projects through the school, where we make the kids aware. And what we're tracking on really is if you followed the recycling of aluminum cans and other materials, the children really are not only the future, as far as success of those programs, but in most cases and in my personal experience, the enforcement. They understand that what you put into a catch basin results in a discharge to Lake Pontchartrain. They can grow up with this very obvious idea as well as influence parents, friends, and peers to correct their behavior. So that is one component of the public education issue here. The other major influence that we found on storm water quality has been the pathogen component—the raw sewage component. This is a phenomenon not unusual to New Orleans. If you follow EPA activity, just about every, if not every major city in the United States has Page 241 ------- been subject to some involvement with EPA to address I and I inflow infiltration issues. These ultimately result in very significant expense as it relates to sewage system repair and remediation. As far as public education is concerned, it ends up on all of our shoulders as far ! as—and I'm talking about individual rate payers~to bear the cost of the required infrastructure j remediation. It's important to be very definite in making that point to all of our customers, : our rate payers, that in identifying the problem and identifying the remedy to that problem, I that the cost component is definitely significant. It's an obligation of all of us to make a very I definite effort to allow our customers to buy into the necessary expenditures to correct these significant nationwide problems. We're coming pretty close to the time here. I guess what I'll do is open up the floor to questions, if there are any, and I'll let the moderator go ahead and referee that. Thank you. Warren Davis: Thank you, Gordon. The floor is open for questions. Don't forget we still have Larry up here in case you have questions on CAFOs. Warren Davis: What percentage of the pumping stations are the original ones that are 50 to 60 years old? Answer: Gordon Austin The system includes 21 major pump stations. We have two on the West Bank, which is much smaller land area and 19 on the East Bank. Of those, probably 75% are the older type. The station pumpage has been augmented with some newer type pumps. But again, they don't come anywhere near the capacity or efficiency of the older pumps. The one main pump station on the West Bank is a new facility. Most of the stations in the New Orleans east area, I think, we have four large pump stations out there that are the newer design, if you will. But the rest are the older type. Question: Does the city itself manufacture replacement? Answer: Gordon Austin They are one of a kind parts and luckily all of the molds and fabrication parts are still available. In fact, the foundry still exists that manufactured the older pumps. It's really Page 242 ------- amazing. The need doesn't arise that often to retrofit or rebuild the pumps, but when that does occur, we build them the old way and they last. Page 243 ------- Page 244 ------- Nonpoint Source Watershed Activities - Part 1 (1:15-2:45PM) Moderator: Russell Bowen, Chief, State Programs Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Dallas, Texas Today we're going to talk about watershed protection and the nonpoint source program. As mentioned several times before by previous speakers, basin planning and watershed planning is really nothing new. In fact, Tom and I were talking just before the panel began that since 1972, Section 303(e) of the Clean Water Act has required basin plans. When I came to work with EPA in 1976 we were finishing up some of those original basin plans. We have gotten sidetracked off those basin plans. Other things took precedence; a construction grants program and a municipal enforcement program. Then in 1987, when the Act was amended and Section 319 of the Clean Water Act was added (that dealt with nonpoint source pollution) one of the priorities of the Amendments was we would fund nonpoint source plans that address problems on a watershed basis. Watershed was a priority funding area that we should look at. I know in our region and I'm sure in Region 5 we've made that a priority for funding. I'm really pleased to be able to moderate the panel today. We have three distinguished speakers. Each of the speakers are going to talk about a watershed plan, and what you're going to notice is there's going to be a tremendous difference in scale. So we're going to start with the largest project first. Our guest speaker from Region 5, is Tom Davenport. Tom is the Acting Chief of the Wetlands & Watershed Branch. They are responsible for the Region 5 Nonpoint Source Program, the Clean Lakes Program, the Wetlands Program (with planning and regulatory aspects of the Wetlands Program) and also the watershed programs in the region. Tom has a B.S. degree from the University of Wisconsin in Stephen's Point in Forestry Management and a B.S. degree in Natural Resource Management. He also has a MS from University of Washington in Hydrology and Statistics and a Masters in Public Administration from Sangemon University. So Tom will start off first. Speaker: Tom Davenport, Acting Director, Office of Watersheds and Nonpoint Source Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5; Chicago, IL Thank you, Russell. Russell asked me to talk to you today because we've had some experience in watershed management. He was looking for an example where we started large and we ended up going small, and we could report some accomplishments. The example I'm going to talk about is Page 245 ------- a result of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the U.S. and Canada. This agreement basically sets broad general goals for the parties. The parties in this case are the states and the provinces, and then it becomes EPA's goal as the federal link in this to oversee the state activities and to assist them in developing efforts they are implementing. The example I'm going to present today is Annex 2, and it covers phosphorous reduction. Earlier today we heard about the Cuyahoga River being on fire. We identified Lake Erie being devoid of oxygen due to eutrophication problems and the perch dying and, basically this was the result of the creation of a lot of dead zones. I think the Gulf Program is undergoing this same experience at this time. One of the things that the Agreement called for was a phosphorus loading reduction. The Agreement did not set the actual targets when it first started. What we did was we formed a work group, and we did what we call a gross scale TMDL. We figured out what the loading was now, related it to the average concentration hi the lakes. Then we figured out what the loading from point sources would be if they were all in compliance. That became a very key issue and I'll get into that later. But we looked at what is the potential for reduction and that's how we calculated what the target loads would be based upon attaining a lower average concentration. For Saginaw Bay this would be 440 metric tons based upon the existing load, then the U.S. would have to reduce their loading into the Saginaw Bay by 225 tons. The states would take these values and create a management plan to decide how they're going to get their required load reduction. I want to talk about Lake Erie because Lake Erie is a lake that had multiple parties involved. Here is Saginaw Bay and the only reason I pointed it out, is on previous charts you saw it has only U.S. goals and Saginaw Bay is completely surrounded by Michigan. When you're looking at Lake Erie, you have drainage from Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio going in there. We divided the load reduction down to study then we went to the hydrologic unit codes, because we basically thought we were going to have to focus on a watershed basin and recalculated the load reduction on a basin basis. What we did then was look at the potential within each of those states on how to get load reduction. Now Pennsylvania was very small, 15 tons, and you have 26 square miles. It was primarily in agriculture. You can see by the most part Ohio had the largest share to reduce, 490 metric tons; Indiana had 90; Michigan had 195; and New York had 20 tons. The nice thing about it is since we based these goals on what the land use characteristics were, mainly using agriculture as the predominant factor in determining what load reduction you could get back. The nice thing was before we started, Indiana had already met their goal of 90 tons just through conservation tillage. So then the focus became more on how are we going to assist Ohio and Michigan. Michigan developed a general watershed plan, but the one that went down the scale, that Russell is talking about that he wanted us to get onto, was Ohio. Page 246 ------- Basically, what they did in Ohio was they went by river basin first. The major river basin that we'll focus on today is the Maumee. The biggest one is right here. Then there is the Cuyahoga in black. When you look at what they did and why the Maumee; it drains 4,850 square miles as you can see and it covers portions of 17 counties and 80% of the land surface area is hi cropland. When you look at the erosion rates in this area, you're looking at erosion rates of generally less than five tons per acre. You're looking at a soil tolerance loss of three to five tons per acre. So basically, people don't feel they have an erosion problem. That was going to be a very hard point to sell people on. The soils in this area have a high clay content. As we all know, these clay particles are easily suspended in water and they have chemical and physical properties that strongly absorb phosphorous, thus, creating our problem. We went through and did some general modeling. We saw that this watershed contributed 46% of the phosphorous going into Lake Erie, 30% of the sediment, but only had 3% of the flow, the water flowing in. So we picked this one as the priority basin to work in. When Ohio broke it down by basin, they gave different loading reduction goals by basin and they really did it to the land use that was in cropland. When you look at what they then turned around and did within the basin, they went through and they went county by county, and they proportioned different load reductions for each county based upon land use. And the reason why that became important is that the federal government and the state government implement programs on a county basis. When you're developing any type of implementation strategy in a watershed, you have to look at the jurisdiction and the authorities you're going to use to work on this. It became very important. One of the things we did in this case is that we knew we couldn't deal with the whole watershed in a timely manner. It's just too big. So Ohio devised a strategy where they did what we called phased approach consisting of three phases: Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III. Phase I is counties and areas immediately adjacent to the Maumee main stem. We figured if they're right next to the main stem, if pollutants get in there, it's going to be a straight shot to Lake Erie. Phase II had secondary drainage of the Maumee and those would be like creeks that would show up on the USGS map. Phase III is the areas that are drained into the secondary thing. Some of those will show up as intermittent tributaries into the Maumee and those kind of areas. When you look at what we did, we put together a package that would cost about 10 or 12 million dollars. Then we looked at the reality of what we could fund. We put together a package of $641,000 federal dollars and then based upon the efforts that was developed the local match was $5.6 million. When you look at how money was targeted for the Phase I areas immediately adjacent to the main stem, we allocated 68% of our federal dollars into those counties and 32% went into Phase II. Since there was insufficient money to fund all of the stuff that needed to be done in Phase I and Phase II, no funds were put into Phase III, because we thought that would be like spreading our effort too far. Page 247 ------- When you look at where we saw we'd get the biggest bang from the buck, and Ohio used some economic modeling to look at this, they saw three practices that would come up with the biggest bang for the buck. One was an equipment cost component. That was where we would buy down the cost of conservation tillage equipment in the watershed. Second was the tax rebate component. That dealt with if you would go out and manage your land in a certain manner, installation of cultural practices that provided more winter cover, or you instituted a permanent land use change. Then the third one was an animal waste component. The animal waste component by far was the most costly on a per unit basis. But Ohio dealt with three animal waste sites and that was 2,900 tons of manure that we covered. Looking at sign ups, we basically had less than one participant per area, two to ten, and then the big one was 12 to 40. When you look at what was done, you need to just look at the Resource Management Systems (RMS's). Ohio instituted a new progress reporting requirement as part of this. Ohio required them to do a minimum amount of RMS's. You know, if they did an equipment buy down, since we weren't actually cost sharing on the plan, as part of the agreement, they would have to agree to manage a certain amount of their land under an agreed to RMS that was developed by the Ohio SCS, now the NRCS, the Ohio Extension, Ohio EPA, and Ohio DNR, and the district would get together and prescribe practices. The thing that I thought was pretty good was the first year Ohio had people all commit to doing more than they had to. We're looking at the 542 RMS's-implemented that covered 131,691 acres. What your really looking at is minimum. Because of this, our coverage was actually three to four times greater than what was reported. You see a nice distribution. These red areas become very important. In this red area, they had a project going on parallel to this called OCAP, which is the Ohio Conservation Action Project. Basically, it was built off of the county level plans, where the districts got together, agribusiness, industry, educational institutions, and local businesses, to put together an action team to really help them meet their phosphorous load reduction. The one hi red became its own formal unit and it has stated as such, called OCAP, but it's very much industry and agribusiness led. They had a tremendously high sign up base. It was reported to me they also were one of the few areas that had banking institutions involved in the development of the county based plans. So what does this really mean? You look at what the goal was. It was 301,000 pounds to be reduced. It was a five-year period for us because the implementation was staggered over three years, and the final implementation won't be done till 1997. We got 545,000 pounds, considerably more than our goal. Then you look at the sediment was 22,000 tons. We almost doubled that hi terms of what we reduced. Basically, there was a lot of commitment, a lot buy in, and minimum federal dollars. We had basically approved the project to last four years. The federal dollars were gone in 18 months. That's how high the sign-up rate was. Page 248 ------- So what did we learn from all of this? That we needed all stakeholders involved. I know that's a very common thing to say these days, but this is where Ohio had them all involved and it worked. But you have to take the time to educate the people that are on the stakeholder committee. One of the biggest problems I see is that some of the counties that didn't have an existing well working effort had to sit down the first day and said, "Look, we need a plan to get to this goal." They had to spend time educating the people that were brand new to this and what the water quality problems were and how they related to it. A number of the county soil and water conservation districts took people around on tours to show them these are the problems. They would show them flat pieces of ground and say, "This piece has the potential of contributing this much erosion, this much phosphorous." Mason Mungle said the first day about how you can go up and down the hills of Oklahoma. Well, in Ohio, in this part, you can just stand and look for miles. The only thing there are houses and barns and silos. Number two, a common purpose was identified. Everyone was going for the phosphorous load reduction. This became very important because the administration in our region said if we did not reach this phosphorous load reduction due to these nonpoint source control plants, we were going to come back and get them out of industry and municipalities. We were going to get the load reductions one way or the other. That became a very strong point to get these other people involved, and they were some of the biggest pushers. One of the things that we had a real problem with was that Canada after two years reported success. Then when we started looking at their numbers, they basically counted getting people into compliance. That was a false load reduction. The U.S. assumed basically everyone was already at compliance, so getting people into compliance didn't mean anything to us in terms of the phosphorus load reduction goal. Then just getting their sewage treatment plants into compliance enabled them to reach their goal, which really upset a number of our states when they were having to go out and beat the doors to do that and didn't receive credit. A clear and attainable goal was established. Basically, allocating the load reduction on what the potential was based upon land use was a very effective way to do it. Number four, leadership was shared. The project did not belong to one entity. This was good and this was bad. It became bad from a financial point of view, because no one wanted to pool their money. Everyone wanted to write the individual checks. So in some cases, people were getting three or four checks, and the amount of time and paperwork it took to make sure that we weren't paying for the same thing twice was phenomenal. But it did allow the Governor to get out and the Ohio EPA Director to get out and stand on tillage equipment and give people great big checks to say, you know, "We helped purchase this." So from the PR point of view, it was really good. But from a money management point of view, it was lacking. Page 249 ------- I think once the locals had their county plans, the thing we noticed is that in future years they would try to compete for normal Section 319 projects, because they had already spent all the special Maumee River money and they were over achievers. One of the things we tried to do with 319 in our region is that we try to spread it around to build local capacity in other places. These people who were high achievers under this program, when they didn't get additional money, they would write us all those letters, saying things like, "After two years, why aren't you continuing to fund us?" And you write them a letter back, "This is only supposed to be a demonstration, not an ongoing program." It became very frustrating that the 319 Program was not established to be a board scale implementation program. It is established to be a demonstration program that really ties your hands on what you can fund. Because when you start to get into broad scale implementation, then you can reward people like this on a consistent basis and not have to try to fudge the rules and guidance. So if we can get that changed it's going to be a really good thing. The project was flexible. The project avoided a rigid structure for making decisions. Basically, once the allocations were made, it was up to each county to come up with how they would get the load reduction. And when a county came in with then* plan, if it just made the most common sense or it seemed most practical, we'd say yes to it. They would do an annual evaluation. We noticed the ones that were kind of marginal quickly changed their plans after the first year to become more in line with everybody else. But we weren't telling them, no, they couldn't do it that way. It was basically they had to figure it out on their own with assistant from the local agriculture agencies. You have to allow that flexibility, because getting the bankers involved in one area was a very innovative aspect and it really paid off. No one else was doing that, so if we had had this rigid criteria, maybe we would have questioned why they did it. But instead, it was like, "We tell you what you have to do, what level you have to perform to, and you tell us how you're going to get there," and it was fine. Number 6, local ownership was established. Local people were responsible for their county plans. They were very proud of them. A number of counties, the moment they hit then- load reduction goal, they would send in letters saying, "We've done this." They would declare it a success. The thing that amazed me is they kept trying to do better. I mean, it was their problem and they were trying to deal with it. I think when you look at this, you have other spin-offs. The reason why we only tracked phosphorous and sediment is at the time that was the only two formulas we could get everyone to agree on. But there was tremendous benefits in terms of pesticide management. There was a dramatic increase in I.P.M. hi the area. That has continued on through other programs. The USDA, when they got water quality money, put extra people in the area to provide the necessary technical assistance to do an on-farm plan on ground water and surface water. So by designing these tillage systems and associated practice, Ohio wasn't transferring the problem to another area. Page 250 ------- Then the last one is not up there. It's one I called the factor you can't control for. The lake is remarkably clean now. We want to claim credit for the quick clean up; but it happens to be from the zebra muscle. The zebra muscle has moved in and is filtering all the phosphorous out. I don't think it's a good nonpoint source control device, but it's been very effective. Now the problem is that the fisheries people are telling us that due to what we've done and what the zebra muscle has done, we might have taken too much phosphorous out of the system, now, we have to look at these long-term impacts on the fisheries. Question: How hard was it to convince the people in the upper portions of the watershed that the lake was something they needed to be concerned about? Was that a real issue? Tom Davenport: It wasn't very hard at all, because Ohio had some aerial photography taken after a major storm and it showed the sediment plume just going right out into the lake, and they could all identify that as sediment. Russell Bowen: Our next speaker is Sandi Formica of the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology. She's an Inspection Engineer there for the last three years. She's in the Environmental Preservation Division. She has a BS and an MS degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Arkansas and she's going to talk to us about the Buffalo River Project. Speaker: Sandi Formica, Inspection Engineer, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology; Little Rock, AR I'm going to talk to you today about a project we're doing in Arkansas. It's called the Buffalo River Liquid Waste Demonstration Project. It's funded by our agency and 319 money from EPA. The project is located in the Buffalo National River Basin in the northwest part of the state. It covers the basins in blue here, about six counties, but it's mainly in Newton and Searcy County. It's primarily in the Boston Mountains. This is a picture of the lower part of the river. It's a national river managed by the Buffalo National River Park Service, which manages about 13% of the 840,000 acres. It's designated by our agency as a extraordinary resource water and natural scenic waterway. This is the highest ranking that we give in the state to a water body. It's known nationally for high water quality and also for recreational use. Page 251 ------- There are many possibilities for both nonpoint source pollution and point source pollution in this watershed. All of these things are taking place. You have septic tanks, confined animal operations, land clearing, etc. Our project basically focuses on confined animal operations and we're looking particularly at operations that have liquid waste systems. As you probably know, Arkansas is number one in the nation for growing poultry. We're number 15 for \ growing swine and we have approximately 800 small dairies in this state. Along with this, f over the years, we've seen an increase in nitrate concentrations in the northwest part of this state and, as of now, we only have a causal relationship between the increase in nutrients in the waters and also an increase in confined animal operations. There are also other sources of nutrients—septic tanks, fertilizers and natural sources. The way that we manage the waste for these confined animal operations is we separate them into both liquid and dry systems. The poultry operations are mostly dry systems. They store the waste in the houses and then land apply the waste using dry manure spreaders. The confined swine operations are primarily liquid operations. The waste is flushed from the storage areas and held in holding ponds. Later, it's land applied to pasture. We require permits for liquid waste systems based on the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Best Management Practice for a liquid system. They consist of the following components (a Waste Management Plan for a liquid waste system will have some of these components but not all of them): They are designed to protect water quality from the waste at these facilities, but of course, there is potential for pollution. You can have pond leakage. You can have pond discharge. You can also have waste leakage from the animal houses. You can have improper land application of the waste and improper dead animal disposal. This is an example of pond discharge. You can see this sort of thing happening with these liquid waste systems all over the state. This is an example of solids build up in a liquid waste lagoon. The problem is that the solids' build up will reduce your capacity and so there's more potential for discharges or improper land application. This is an example of a pond that, basically, the level in this pond has never changed, at least the two years that I have visited the site. So there appears to be potential that there is pond leakage going on here. This is an example of waste coming right from one of the confined animal houses. This is a farmer that is land applying his waste with an irrigation system. It appears that this is okay, but there had been a three-day rain event occurring at this time and it was raining at the time this photo was taken. This is an example of improper dead animal disposal. The pit here is 15-feet deep and doesn't meet our guidelines. It's basically full of dead pigs. Page 252 ------- This is an example of a dead disposal pit that was being used at the time. The part that you are seeing hasn't been used yet and the water you see is shallow perch ground water. This pit also does not meet our guidelines. This is what we're trying to protect. This is one of the tributaries to the Buffalo. This has some really fine water quality. If you follow the discharges from these ponds, you'll see pristine sites that will look like this with excessive algal growth. Occasionally, we have reported fish kills. So what led us to the Buffalo River Watershed was we had a farmer apply for a Liquid Waste Permit and he was going to be located within two or three miles of the river. So we went and looked at the confined animal operations in the watershed. We visited 16 of the 21 permitted facilities, and what we found was that they had similar problems to the photos that I just showed you. So that takes us to this study. We decided the best thing to do at this point was to do a site investigation of these farms. The study objective is that we wanted to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the existing Best Management Practices, look at the data, and then if we felt that there was a need to implement new or modify Best Management Practices, we would, and then go back and reevaluate these practices. Then our study goal is to reduce the amount of waste leaving these sites, to reduce the number of permit violations within the watershed, and to improve the waste management within the watershed, and then eventually whatever we find, we want to implement this statewide. We're the primary agency involved in this project. Both the Water Division and Environmental Preservation are working on the project. We have six swine farmers that have agreed to be project participants and allow us to do the study at their site. Lots of people are supporting the project. We have a couple of professors from both Arkansas and Kentucky that provide technical support. The Natural Resource Conservation Service, Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission, and the Geological Commission have all provided technical support. On the local level, the National Park Service, the Ozark National Forest Service, the Newton County Conservation Service, the Jasper High School WET Team, and also some additional Newton County land owners have all provided support from helping us get office space to sharing equipment. This is another map of the watershed. This shows the major tributaries that are draining into the Buffalo River and our six farm sites are located at the headwaters of three of the major drainages. All of these farms are sow-pig operations. They have approximately 200 sows, six to eight hundred pigs, and one farm does have around 450 sows. Their waste management system primarily consists of having a settling basin and a holding pond. Then they land apply the waste with a manure spreader. Page 253 ------- This is one of our farm sites. The pond in the foreground is a settling basin and then in the background you see the holding pond. To the right, you see the manure spreader. This is another manure spreader. We usually call them honey wagons. This holds 1,000 gallons. This isn't a good picture, but this is the field that one of the farmers spreads on, and it's about two to three miles from his waste system. If you think about it, over 120 days, there will be close to 250,000 gallons for a farmer to have to dispose, and so that's a lot of trips with a 1,000 gallon honey wagon. This is a pond. This particular farmer is one of the few that uses an irrigation system. You can see the pipe running across his field there. In order to accomplish our objective, we're collecting the following data. We're documenting the waste management practices. We're doing water quality monitoring. We're soil sampling. We're doing aerial photography, field verification of soils and geology, and we're doing a rainfall simulation study that we've contracted with the University of Arkansas. Basically, through this study we're looking at runoff from land application sites. The farmers are helping us with the documentation of the waste management practices. We've provided notebooks for them and they keep track of the time they spend on their facility and the time they spend on their waste management. This is an example of the form that they fill out on a regular basis. We also provided forms of their land application sites, they keep records of how much waste they apply, and then they highlight the area that they apply it to. We do regular site visits to the farms where we're recording information on the waste system whenever we do the visits. This is Tony Morrison. He's installing a staff gauge in one of the manure ponds. Obviously, he's a very dedicated worker. When we do our site visits, we record pond levels. We look at dead animal disposal, house leakage or discharges, and we also look at land application if that is going on at the time. We've installed staff gauges at all of the waste ponds. The water quality data that we're collecting is through automatic samplers and grab samples for surface water. On sub-surface water, we're using monitoring wells and lysimeters. We're also collecting biological data. We have four continuous monitoring sites. Three of them are at one of our farm sites where we're measuring the total loads leaving the farm site. This station is at the pond levee. Then there is a stream that runs along side the pond and we have a station upstream of the farm and downstream of the farm. You can see in this picture there is Sigma Sampler that we use to collect samples and also to monitor the stream level. This is the fourth continuous monitoring site. It's a control site that we're using for comparison purposes. Then we're also collecting grab samples at springs and seeps and any streams where we don't have continuous monitoring stations. Page 254 ------- We have 20 ground water monitoring wells that are installed. Most of them are up-gradient and down-gradient of waste storage systems, and there are also a couple we have on land application sites. Then the last thing I wanted to talk about is the rainfall simulation study. We contracted the University of Arkansas, who has expertise in doing these type of studies. They are looking at the four major soils in the Buffalo River Watershed and they're basically raining on these soils and collecting runoff data. This is another picture of the Buffalo. What we hope to gain from this is to find management practices that protect water quality and minimize the amount of waste leaving these farm sites. That's all. Thank you. Russell Bowen: ., Our next speaker is Jan Boydstun from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Jan has been in the Nonpoint Source Program for quite a while with Louisiana. She has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Southern Illinois University and a Master's of Science Degree from Southern Illinois University in Environmental Sciences, Biological Sciences, and Photograph. So we welcome Jan. Speaker: Jan Boydstun, Nonpoint Source Coordinator, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, LA I'm going to talk briefly and then show you slides, and then talk a little bit more. I don't know if all of you are familiar with Section 319 and what it is supposed to accomplish. Probably most of you are. But I thought I would give you just a brief overview of that and then tell you how our state is working to try to accomplish the goals of Section 319. Section 319 basically asks the states to do a variety of things. It asks us to assess the state waters and to determine what percent of our water quality problems were related to nonpoint source activities. Let's first differentiate point source from nonpoint source. For point source discharges, you can walk up to the pipe. You can take a sample. You can send it to the lab. You can analyze it. We have authority to regulate it. We can place a limit on the discharge from that pipe. We can tell industry what they can discharge. We can tell the wastewater treatment plant what they can discharge. Page 255 ------- Nonpoint sources are not quite so simple. We got into the ball game in 1987, when the Clean Water Act was revised. The EPA indicated that even when we met all of our goals and objectives for the point source program that our water bodies would still not be fishable. They still would not be swimmable, and the majority of the remaining problems would be nonpoint source. Nonpoint source is related to all types of land use activities. It does not have a discreet conveyance. You can't walk up to the pipe and catch a sample. So it becomes much more complicated to try to figure out what you want to do about that. Louisiana does have a program and we do have a successful program. I want to talk about a watershed project that we've implemented on the Tangipahoa River. It drains into Lake Pontchartrain, so you don't have to go very far to see the area we've been working in. I'll give you an overview of water quality issues, of land use activities, and how this project has evolved. It really has become more than we anticipated. We got into the problem to solve one issue, which was fecal coliform pollution, and a host of other issues surfaced, and though .interagency coordination and concern by the people, about their water quality in this area, we're addressing all kinds of things that we didn't anticipate getting into when we started. As I said, Section 319 stated that the state had to have an assessment report. We had to identify what our water quality problems were. We had to identify what type of land use categories contributed to those water quality problems, and then we had to devise a management strategy. Section 319 was fairly flexible. It left the state a lot of latitude. It allowed us to determine what type of management strategy. We could have a regulatory approach or we could have a non-regulatory approach. Since most of the agencies don't have authority over these land use activities, we opted for a non-regulatory approach. I wasn't sure when we got started if this was going to be workable or not. I didn't know if we could get 20 agencies in a room, everybody decide what the problem was, divvy up the responsibilities, seek funding, and problem solve. I think we found out that that has worked. We have an interagency committee. I chair that committee. We meet every other month at DEQ. We talk about our water quality problems. We talk about the strategies we can implement to correct them. I apply for the funding. I try to convince EPA they should put the funding in our state to solve some of our problems. We've been pretty successful in doing that. We've identified our water quality problems through a GIS System, based on our water quality monitoring network. We have problems in estuaries. We have problems in bayous, in rivers, in lakes, and in some of our coastal areas, just like all of the other states do. The area that we're going to be talking about is a stream that flows from the Mississippi/Louisiana border down to Lake Pontchartrain. A breakdown of our data. This is always interesting for people to see. When you pick up the newspaper and you read about the Exxons and everything else, everybody thinks everything is point source related. But when you look at our pie charts, you can see that of our water Page 256 ------- quality impairments, based on the 1992 305-B Report, 69% of our water quality problems in our rivers are nonpoint source problems; within our lakes, 58%; within our estuaries, 51 %; and within our wetlands, 75%. We identified the land-use activities that contribute to these nonpoint source impairments, and found that agriculture, forestry, urban runoff, and resource extraction such as sand and gravel activities, salt water intrusion, which is a real problem in our state, and septic tanks all contribute to the problem. That's enough to keep a small staff, even an army busy for quite a while. You have to begin to figure out where those land use areas are within your state. Louisiana is primarily a rural state, as are most of the southeastern states. Interesting when you plot all of it. The dark green areas are the remnants of our bottomland hardwoods. They typically reside along streams and along rivers. The hatched green lines~I don't know if you can see that—but a large part of our state is pine, harvested in pine. In fact, trees are our number one crop. We harvest more trees than anything else. The yellow areas that run down along the Mississippi River alluvial plain and come on down toward the Mississippi and go over a little to the west there into our coastal plain is agricultural. We grow cotton. We grow soybeans. We grow rice. We grow sugar cane. The area that we're focusing on, Tangipahoa, is primarily dairies. We also have forestry activities there and we have a lot of unsewered areas. Not so atypical of nonpoint source watershed projects. You have to begin to divide your land use up and overlay that with water quality. In this situation, we're looking at percentages of agricultural use. You can't see all of that. But it helps us target our areas to say, if you've got an area that's 71-90% agricultural land, you can probably guess that that's where you ought to be working. This is an urban map. It shows the same thing. It allows us to begin to target which areas of the state have water quality problems based on urban activities. The area we've identified in Tangipahoa River did have some urban problems that were localized, but it was primarily agricultural and septic tanks or unsewered areas. This is the Tangipahoa River. It's hard to see. There's some people swimming in there. You aren't supposed to do that anymore. There is a health advisory on the Tangipahoa River. Back in 1988, there was a thesis that was published and the thesis indicated that due to fecal coliform concentrations in the Tangipahoa River that it was probably not safe to swim there. There's a girl scout camp, the Whispering Pines Girl Scout Camp on Tangipahoa River. The Girl Scouts got behind this issue. They decided they had been swimming and canoeing a long time in Tangipahoa River and they wanted to continue to do so. So they wrote the governor of our state and said, "DEQ should be out there trying to keep the waters clean. We want to find out what the problem is." The DEQ implemented an intensive monitoring program. We did find out that both the Girl Scouts and the thesis were correct—that we were exceeding primary and secondary contact recreation. The Department of Health & Hospitals and Page 257 ------- ourselves issued a joint health advisory that it was no longer safe to swim or to tube in this river. This is a scenic stream. It was heavily utilized for tubing, and canoeing. A large part of the economic base within Tangipahoa Parish was based on recreational use of this river. This was not a popular decision when the health advisory was posted. We decided that we needed a lot of agencies to help us with this. This was one of the first watershed projects we had within our state. We initiated this in 1989. That was even before 319 money started to come about. The 319 monies started hi 1990 and they grew in 1991 and have grown since then. So we sat down with very little authority, almost no money, and tried to figure out what we were going to do about this problem. We decided that primarily what we were going to do was to get some help from other agencies. So we formed a task force with Department of Environmental Quality (my agency) as the lead, Department of Health & Hospitals to help us work on some of the septic tank issues or unsewered areas; the Soil Conservation Services (this is an old slide), they are the Natural Resource Conservation Service, to help us look at the dairy situation; Agricultural Stabilization, now Consolidated Farm Service Agency, to help us with funding; Soil & Water Conservation Districts for technical assistance and for outreach; Cooperative Extension Service for education; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, because this is a scenic stream and Wildlife & Fisheries has authority over scenic streams. We knew that dairies were a problem. When we began to look at the river through our water quality monitoring, we estimated about half of the problem, 50%, was from dairies. A third of our dairies within the state, 273 dairies, are located within this parish and drain to the Tangipahoa River. When cows are out on the field, they can cause some fecal coliform problems just from runoff from pasture. But certainly, when they're in a holding area to be milked, that's when you begin to have a concentrated animal feeding operation. We do have authority over concentrated animal feeding operations, even before Region 6 issued the Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAPO) permit. Most of these dairies are 100 to 120 cows. So the state had to be able to designate a water quality problem before we could begin to implement our permit program. We decided to send letters out. Every dairyman within Tangipahoa Parish got a letter from the Department of Environmental Quality, which was not very popular. It indicated they had two options. They could either install a no discharge system that was certified by Natural Resource Conservation Service that would result in no discharge to waters of the state and then DEQ would leave them alone, or they would have to apply for a wastewater permit. When I began to go out and do inspections of dairies, this is typically what I found. This is the cement trough that the cows walk up. The milking barn is in the back. There is absolutely no treatment on this dairy farm at all. It goes directly down into a tributary of the Tangipahoa River. So whenever it rains, fecal coliform levels are exceedingly high. Page 258 ------- This is the SCS. We went out and looked at the situation. They recommended that the no discharge system was really an excellent way to go. So we decided to work with them on this. This is a system that has been installed and it's beginning to fill up. This is one that is fully operational. Much preferred to what I saw when I first went out to see some of the dairies. There is a pump associated with this system, so that the dairyman can pump off the liquids and distribute it through piping out across his pasture. Now the nutrients and the fecal coliform can go there, which is where they should be instead of in the river. This is what we found in many places. I don't know if it's easy to tell what this is, but this is the old two-cell oxidation pond system that was installed back in the 70's. There's nothing wrong with that system if you keep it cleaned out. But after about 10 or 15 years, if you never do anything to it, it begins to look like this, which is just a solid cake across the top, and basically its runoff is just running over the top and out. So it's not very functional. So we decided another idea was to contract with the Cooperative Extension Service to hold some educational sessions to show them that they could clean these systems out and make them operational. We thought that one thing we would like to see them do for tertiary treatment for the two-cell oxidation ponds was to install a constructed wetland system. We wanted to offer them as many options as possible, understanding that if a dairyman did have a two-cell oxidation pond, then he may not need another lagoon. What he may need is to make what he has functional and install a contructed wetland for tertiary treatment. Some of the other problems we have are camps or unsewered areas. One thing about Louisiana, people enjoy their water bodies. They live on the water. They use the water. They have camps on the water. The downside of that is many of them don't have treatment systems, individual sewage systems, that are functioning as they should. Many times they are not cited as they should be. Many times they are not there at all. It is just a straight pipe out to the ditch. This is another example of seeing home sewage systems. Sometimes they are sighted in the proper locations, sometimes they aren't. This is an example of a type of nutrient load that you see coming off of some of these systems. See all of the vegetation growing in these areas. If you construct that properly, that can work for you. So we sat down with DHH and we decided what should we do about this. Within this parish, we had quite a bit of support. They passed a new ordinance. They said, "Before you can have your electricity turned on in a new residence, you must have the residence inspected. You must have it inspected to find out if your home sewage treatment is functioning, if it's been sighted properly, if it's working as it should." This was effective. Since that time, 3,000 new systems have been installed in Tangipahoa Parish. Approximately Page 259 ------- one million gallons a day of raw sewage or improperly treated sewage has been taken out of the ditch and drains to the Tangipahoa River. We also implemented an educational program about maintenance and operation. I'm attending a Shellfish Workshop this week a few blocks down the road. We're talking about this issue of fecal coliform and it's a tough issue. We think sighting is one of the major problems; 87% of our soils in Louisiana are not suitable for septic tanks. Septic tanks should never have been installed in these soils. More than one million people hi the state of Louisiana use septic tanks. So you have a problem there. The other problem is once they are installed, maintenance and operation. Most people don't have a clue how their septic tank works. They don't have a clue that there needs to be maintenance and operation on a regular basis. So we started a multi-parish educational program. That's what this parish map is all about. We decided to pull together the parish sanitarian, the Soil Conservation Service people, the Extension Service people. We started in Tangipahoa Parish and we had a very successful educational program. We won an environmental excellence award for that program. We had a host of educational outreach activities to begin to educate the people that they were part of the problem, and if they ever wanted to swim in their river again, they were going to have to take responsibility for cleaning up that problem. It's been so successful that we've begun to expand those activities into all of the adjacent parishes; Washington, St. Tammany, St. Helena, Livingston, East Baton Rouge Parish, East and West Feliciana. We're now going to move down into the Barataria Terrebonne and eventually statewide, educating people that home sewage systems need maintenance and operation. Forestry. These are some of the offshoot activities that have resulted from our efforts. The other fact I want to tell you first, before I get into some of these offshoot issues are as a result of our efforts, in 1988, the average level for fecal coliform bacteria was 8,000 cells per 100 mil sample. The state water quality standard, depending on primary, secondary contact recreation, has to be 200 to 400. Peek levels were at 30,000. Sometimes 120,000 cells per 100 mil. In 1994, the average range was 1,700. So we've brought the average down from 8,000 to 1,700 with cooperative efforts. The only money that was put into the area was USDA cost share money through the President's Water Quality Initiative, back in 1989. They had $1.1 million to assist dairymen for cost share. The state legislature passed funding which added $600,000 of state funds to assist with cost share. The rest of it has been done by the people themselves. Clear cut forestry is an activity that still occurs within our state, except along a scenic stream you must leave a 100-foot buffer. We're working with the Louisiana Forestry Association and the Louisiana Office of Forestry to educate loggers that they need to utilize best management practices. We're beginning to see some sedimentation problems within the Tangipahoa River. I was at a meeting with the drainage board just this week, with Dr. Hastings, talking about some of these problems from Forestry, so there's a lot more activity we need to do working Page 260 ------- on the forestry activities. Since we've begun, our first survey showed that about 50% of foresters used BMPs. The most recent survey done last year indicates we're up to 80% compliance with BMP implementation. Urban drainage is another problem within this watershed; within all watersheds. I know these drainage ditches were designed by engineers. Nothing like concrete and straight shoots to move water quickly. But they don't work very well for treatment. Any pollutant that gets in that is going to stay in that. There's very little potential it's going to be assimilated by a tree or a blade of grass or anything else. We try to educate the people that what goes down those storm drains, winds up within their river, within their bayous, and within their lakes. Most of the public still doesn't understand that storm water runoff doesn't go to the wastewater treatment plant. Most of them think it does. So you have to educate them that that's not the case. So education outreach is a major part of any watershed project. This is an activity with the Scouts getting out storm drain stenciling. They have a great time with this. We have buckets and they have everything else for teaching them to not dump waste. It drains to the bayou. It drains to the river. Or it drains to the lake. This has been a very successful program. It's been used in every parish, every city throughout the state. I just never cease to be amazed at how many people want to participate in this effort. Getting people out hi the stream. We have a citizens monitoring program that's going to kick off in Tangipahoa River. Dr. Hastings is going to be helping us with that. He's in the audience today. We were talking about that this week. There's no better factor to get people interested in what goes on in their water body, than to get them out and understand that there's things that live there and that the pollutants that go in there are going to affect what lives there. The last issue is drainage. That we want to help educate people that drainage areas along streams can be natural habitat areas. They don't have to be cement areas. That this type of a drainage area can work just as effectively as a cement conduit. So we're trying to work with the drainage boards to implement natural vegetation and work toward natural habitat along their drainage areas. What we want is to have good drainage, but also to improve habitat. We want streams that we can use, that we can swim in, and the people within the area to care. Only a couple of closing remarks. The things that we learned from this watershed project. It takes everybody. It takes all the agencies. It takes a concern. It takes a concern at the local level. There will never be enough government. There will never be enough money to clean up all the water bodies. The people themselves have to take the initiative that they want to use their water bodies again, and in this situation, that has been the case. Page 261 ------- We started over there working with a very small amount of money to clean up this river. We've had measurable results. Now they are not only concerned about fecal coliform and home sewage and dairies, now they're concerned about forestry activities. They're concerned about urban runoff. They're concerned about drainage and not just using herbicides on their drainage ditches. I never cease to be amazed at how once you get it started you can evolve into a whole multi-effort process. I think that's what we've done there. Russell Bowen: Before I open it up to questions, I made a few observations from the three speakers. A systematic approach is the key. I think that follows along with some of the things the speaker this morning said about anecdotal information. That's just not the way to go. What we have to do is to demonstrate to people that are not scientists and the general public, .that a systematic approach is the best way to go about this. In each one of these speaker's presentations, you saw that. Regardless of the scale, you saw a systematic approach. The other thing is that the data needs will vary depending on what you're trying to accomplish and how severe the problem is. You may have to spend a lot of time just convincing people there is a problem. Also, what is the real problem? I noticed there was some discussion on BMPs. Particularly, is the BMP bad or is it just poor O&M. Is it a good BMP not being used right? You have to get down to that level of detail. A lot of people don't like to do that. But the devil's in the details. That's where the work really gets done. You must have the right players. It's key. You really have to set back and say, "Who do we want to bring into this?" There's no guarantee they're not going to jump boat once you get started, but you have got to get them in there to start with. In each case, there was a carrot and stick approach. The carrot varied as far as the size, and the stick was used judiciously, I thought. We've been trained that's the way we approach things. And here it was happening in each case. In Region 5 they said "If the nonpoint source isn't taken care of it, we're going to tighten down more on the point sources." I guess, I wanted to ask Tom later maybe to speak on that. Did you get support from the point sources as a result of that? To get out there and push the nonpoint source contributors. Then finally, what came out is that you need to address the worst problems first. You've got to have success early to keep people with you. Now, I would like to open it up to questions for anybody on the panel. Question: In each of the cases that you brought forth the evidence, a river that had a lot of recreational uses or a national scenic river or a tributary to Lake Erie. Something that would clean up and regulate some things. Something that's been on the public's mind and in the media and these Page 262 ------- were all real good successes. It's good to hear about them. In having a watershed that doesn't have those kinds of uses, do you often get similar successes or is it harder to bring in all these partners and stakeholders? The people that seem to have the highest stake. Answer: Tom Davenport Well, there's one that we worked on up in northern Illinois the Waukegan River. It's seven miles long. It's mainly an urban drainage area. They just wanted to know what they could do. I mean, you look at it. It's just a little piddly~you know, it's dirty, dumpy, trashy and stuff. But we held out some stuff for them to do and they responded by putting in lunker systems and they created a pool riffle thing in the parks. They cleaned up all the trash and now they got something they're proud of. But people just going by, like I went by and it didn't mean anything to me. But these local people saw it as their river, their resource. But we provided them help and now they got fish coming back. Answer: Jan Boydstun I'll be happy to speak to that too. I have found the same experience. Nine times out of ten, the people are anxious to use their water bodies. They want to use their water bodies. They want their children to be able to use the water bodies in the future. If you can educate them how their activities cause pollution, nine times out of ten, they're happy to take every step they can if it's an affordable step. So that they can utilize their water bodies. I don't think it has to be a scenic stream. Answer: Sandi Formica We're starting with the Buffalo River Watershed just because it's probably our most extraordinary resource water. Whatever we learn from this we hope to apply to other extraordinary resource waters, and then trickle on down. Answer: Russell Bowen There's a publication out—and help me on this, panel. I think it's called America's Rivers. But anyway, one of the articles in it that I thought was extremely enlightening was that everybody knows their home address. You learn that when you're five years old. That's the first thing your parents teach you is what's your telephone number and what's your address, in case you get lost. You know, that every time you move the first thing you do is you memorize your new address. But how many people can tell you what basin they're living in, what watershed they're living in, and what are the uses of that watershed? To me, that's an area, from an educational point of view, that we could really focus in on. If we want to write Page 263 ------- a curriculum for schools, that may be a good one. Particularly for natural science courses. To me, that's something that we've kind of overlooked. Carl. Next question. Question: Carl Tom, earlier you talked about one of your activities being equipment buy down. You said it was not a cost share. Would you explain what buy down is? Answer: Tom Davenport Yes. An equipment buy down is that we would set a price like $3,000 for a no till planter. We'd take that right off the top. If a guy came in and was going to buy one for $13,000, Ohio gave him $3,000 right off the top. So then he only has to come up with $10,000. Then if he wanted to retrofit a planter, it was $100 per roll. Ohio would buy down his initial purchase price. Or else another way to look at it is we were giving him a greater part of his down payment. Question: Carl Your payment went to the dealer? Answer: Tom Davenport No, to the land owner. To the person who was purchasing the equipment. You know, I made it sound like everything was successful. We had two practices that bombed real quickly. So then we just shifted more of the money into the equipment buy down. That second part about the taxes and stuff, that was kind of a bust. Because you know when you look at permanent land conversion, it was like a net loss of $60 per acre to the farmer, and after that was figured out, I mean, interest in that just died on the vine. And then for the winter cover crop, we're trying to give them $100 an acre to help establish it. Well, we had one cold winter and they couldn't get it established, and after that, no one wanted to invest in that. So we need more research and technology. So while a lot of ideas are good on paper, when you really go to apply them, the economics and common sense have to come in. Answer: Sandi Formica He wants to know if we have any regulations on how close we can land apply waste to streams, and then also if there's any limits on nitrogen loads to pasture. As I said earlier, we regulate or we have permit requirements for liquid waste, and for liquid waste application, Page 264 ------- there is a 100 foot buffer strip between-actually, it's not a buffer strip. You can only apply within 100 feet of a stream. Then also, in the waste management plans, the limits for nitrogen loading is based on how much the plant can uptake. So depending on whether they're growing fesku or bermuda grass, that determines what the loads will be on the pasture for nitrogen. Okay? Answer: Jan Boydstun Within the project area I was talking about, we really don't have rules or regulations about the buffer. But we are working with Natural Resource Conservation Service and every dairyman has a farm plan, and soil testing is involved, so they can make a determination of what the land application rate should be. Moderator: Russell Bowen Sandi, I was going to ask you. On that buffer, is that irregardless of slope? The 100 foot minimum? Answer: Sandi Formica Well, they're not allowed to land apply on slopes greater than 15%. Also, on the dry waste, there's management practices they should follow, but it's voluntary. So they could actually land apply up to a stream, and unless we show that there was a water quality problem we couldn't cite them for anything. Answer: Jan Boydstun Same with us. Answer: Sandi Formica Well, the limits as far as the land application, they're not water quality based. They are based on plant uptake. So part of what we're doing in our study is we want to see, using those limits, with someone with a liquid waste system, it would be part of their permit. What kind of impact does that have on water quality and is that acceptable? So yes, we're doing some of that. The University of Arkansas has already done several studies with the rainfall simulations looking at runoff after the land application of liquid swine waste, and they've also looked at the land application of poultry waste, too. Did that answer your question? In our study, when I showed the plots where they're doing the rainfall simulation study, we also have lysimeters installed. So we're measuring infiltration. I don't have any of that data. Page 265 ------- We just started collecting that, so I don't have that data with me. But we are looking at infiltration, and then we also have some ground water monitoring wells on land application sites. Answer: Jan Boydstun We do, too. Works the same way. Moderator: Russell Bowen I think as a follow-up to a previous question, with regard to whether it's a common stream or a scenic stream, it seems to me in cases where it's questionable as to what the real problem is, you need more data. You need more research. You need more localized data that's unique to that area. In other cases, what I heard Tom say in the Region 5 study, that it was a gross estimate of what was needed. The problem was fairly evident. They estimated the load reductions. They determined what was attainable. That's a key, if it's attainable. And then, they overshot their mark, and it apparently worked. They didn't need that level of detail that is sometimes needed. But that will vary from site to site. Answer: Tom Davenport I might also comment on that Tangipahoa study. One of the things that was kind of unique about it, I thought anyway, was that we were trying to correct a surface water runoff problem- -a fecal coliform problem. In doing that, you need to also raise some concerns about contamination of ground water if we hold all the nutrients in ponds and then spread it. And so, they did some ground water evaluations, too. In other words, you don't want to correct one problem and create another one. So that was an interesting facet that we looked at. Answer: Jan Boydstun Yes. Basically, what we did was we sat down with our Ground Water Division and we looked at what portions or what components of this project should we be worried about from the ground water issue. Of course, the obvious one is you need to understand the soils that you have. In Tangipahoa, we primarily have clay soils. But there was concern because there was a sand lens about 10 to 12 feet down. It doesn't run through the entire parish, but through portions of the parish. We were afraid as we began excavation for the lagoons that we would hit that. So our ground water people went out and they were there for the soil core borings. Soil analysis was done. Sighting determinations were made so that we would avoid that in most situations. We also did ground water monitoring associated with it so that we would not create nitrate contamination problems as we tried to address the surface water issue. Page 266 ------- Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation (1:15-2:45PM) Moderator: Carlton Dufrechou, Executive Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation; Metarie, LA Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate all of you coming back from lunch this afternoon. I'm Carlton Dufrechou. I'm the Director of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation and I believe I've had the pleasure to possibly not only meet most of you, but work with a good number of you, too. If I get boring anywhere through this, please just tell me and we'll answer specific questions and then go out and have some fun. We're going to try to do this very loosely and very quickly this afternoon. What we would like to do is give a little overview of Pontchartrain's restoration. To my right is Dr. Steve Gorin. Steve is our Program Director. He's going to talk specifically about some of the major restoration programs and projects. Next to Steve is Anne Rheams. Anne is our Education Outreach Coordinator and will tell you about a good number of the activities we have in all of the school systems throughout the area, as well as some of the teacher's workshops. And to Anne's right is Neil Armingeon. Neil is our Environmental Director. Neil is the guy who actually takes all the problems and turns them into solutions. Neil does all kinds of good things. What I'd like to do is tell you a little bit about the foundation. We're private, nonprofit and a bit unique compared to possibly other restoration programs. We have a Board of Directors that is elected by our membership. There are 14 Directors on the Board. They represent the parishes surrounding the basin. With that, may I start some slides? The mission of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, ladies and gentlemen, is restoration of not only Lake Pontchartrain, but the entire Pontchartrain Basin. We actually have two drainage basins influencing Pontchartrain. The area highlighted in yellow is the Pearl River Basin. The area in white is the Pontchartrain Basin. The reason we show both of them is although we call Lake Pontchartrain a lake, technically, it's an inland bay. We have a title exchange through Chef Menteur Pass and Rigolette's Pass, which are in the very southeast portion of the lake, right over here. So actually everything in the Pearl River Basin does influence Pontchartrain. The physical limits of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation are shown on this slide. The northern border would be the Florida Parish, the Mississippi/Louisiana state line. The southern border here in New Orleans is the main line Mississippi River Levee. We go to the southeast down to the Chandeleur Islands, to the east to the Pearl River, to the west to the Amite River almost to Baton Rouge. We've got some pretty diverse turf in here. We've got Page 267 ------- a tremendous urbanized area, the metro New Orleans area, a good deal of smaller communities that are expanding on the north shore. We have the wetlands to the southeast of us in St. Bernard and Plaquemine and an industrial corridor from New Orleans up river to Baton Rouge, and a good deal of farming activities throughout the entire north shore. All those activities have actually added a good number of sources of pollution to the basin. I start at the upper left. That would be runoff from farming activities. Upper right would be sewage from some of the smaller communities. The bottom right would be manmade salt water intrusion entering from the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, a deep draft channel that was dredged in the late 50's, early 60's. The large arrow in the center is pollution from urban runoff from storm water. The small arrow in the left corner would have been manmade diversions from the Mississippi River, specifically diversions that were unnatural that didn't mimic nature. And the red slash in the center of the slide indicates shell dredging. Shell dredging was eliminated in Lake Pontchartrain about five years ago. It was an ongoing industry for, my goodness, almost about 40 or 50 years. When the shell dredging was eliminated, the bottom of the lake started tightening up again, and actually we've experienced a tremendous increase in water clarity in the past few years with the elimination of the shell dredging. All those sources of pollution ended up with this sign and numerous other of its compadres around the entire perimeter of Lake Pontchartrain and in many of our rivers and bayous. How we started to address this was a little bit different from the estuarian programs. We went out to the public in our planning process and actually started in 1990-91 with a series of four public meetings in the basin in Metarie, Mandeville, Destrehan, and Hammond. The purpose of the meetings was actually just to ask the public, "What do you folks feel are the problems facing the basin?" It started off hi small groups, anywhere from numbers like the groups we have this afternoon hi this section to about 50 to 60 folks and ended up with 55 concerns from the meetings. They were grouped hi five broad categories. The categories were education, outreach; renewable resources, our fisheries, forestry; institutional, meaning the.governmental aspects of the restoration (who is actually coordinating the restoration); pollution; and uses. Uses could be fishing, hunting, forestry, and all that other good stuff, and development. The thing that surprised us when we got the numbers back was—I thought all the time that pollution was the number one highest priority in the minds of all the public~but actually institutional was, and that's where the Foundation got its direction. Institutional, meaning who is coordinating the restoration? So we tried to redirect our efforts a little bit to be overall coordinators among all the local, state and federal agencies. We went from that first phase into the second phase of our comprehensive management plan. We reviewed the concerns identified in Phase I and started to develop solutions to those particular concerns. In this instance though, we brought the agencies in. Both the state, the Page 268 ------- local, and the federal agencies. Everyone from the EPA, Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish, on the federal level; the Department of Environmental Quality, Health & Hospitals, Natural Resources on the state level; down to the local communities, the parishes; and the user groups, whether they are fishery folks or civic groups. Everyone was involved as well as the business community. The results of Phase II were future direction. Actually, some plans, some specific plans and general directions on how to continue the restoration. The major challenges identified in Phase II were storm water runoff, ag activities, salt water intrusion, and sewage. Speaker: Dr. Steve Gorin, Program Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation; Metarie, LA The Foundation was organized in 1989 and the Program Office began to operate in 1991. We started with two projects; a storm water treatment project and a comprehensive management plan or CMP. We received appropriations through Congress, earmarked for us through the EPA. We work with the EPA on all of our projects on a cooperative basis. From the work of the CMP, we identified those particular areas where efforts were needed. Through a back and forth dialog with our Congressional delegation, we were able to get appropriations that addressed those particular areas of concern. They came to us and said, "You've got a Comprehensive Management Plan. Now what do you find out from that management plan that the citizens of the basin are interested in?" From that, we got our first large appropriation through the efforts of Senator Bennett Johnston and Representative Livingston. Guess what we call our program? The Johnston Basin Cleanup (JBC). It's under the JBC that we have proceeded from what we learned in the comprehensive management planning process. In that planning process, we developed a lot of relationships. We learned who the people were. They learned who we were. They learned what we wanted to do and what our position was. When we started out, a lot of them weren't sure whether we were a regulatory agency or just exactly what we were. Our particular role, as we defined it, is as an advocate, as a catalyst, a facilitator, a watchdog, but we did not regulate. That required that we work closely with the agencies. We found that was very helpful. These agencies had projects. There are a lot of good people in these agencies that were trying to get things done and they welcomed the cooperation. They welcomed the idea that there was a means of getting people together outside of their normal process. That has helped us tremendously. So we've been working with federal agencies, local agencies, the EPA has been a big help, advisory groups, and in sort of a non- confrontational mode. Page 269 ------- I'd like to tell you about and show you some slides of some of the projects that we have developed to address the problems in the basin. When we first started out, I remember in the General Session some people were saying, "Well, how do you find the watershed?" It was rather easy in our case, because the watershed was defined by the state. This is the Lake Pontchartrain Basin within the hydrological boundaries as defined by the state. The whole state has different basins in it. But the topography changes throughout our basin. We start at the Mississippi line. Up here where it's high rolling ground, we have large open rivers, and as we come closer and closer to the shore, there is a primarily rural area, a dairy farming area. I'll show you more about it later. As we get closer to the shorelines of Lake Maurepas and Lake Pontchartrain, we get into our wetlands area. As we come down on this side, we have the urban areas and out here we have less populated areas, and right in here, we actually end up with an open marsh where we get most of our oysters. This is one of our most productive oyster areas. A lot of our environmental problems started with the demographic movement throughout the basin. As you see here, we started in the northern area. This was traditionally rural with pine tree forests. This area was open with a lot of fishing camps in here. We started with the founding of New Orleans. This being the Mississippi River, Lake Pontchartrain, and this Lake Maurepas. This was the old section of New Orleans. It started at the river in the high areas and built up. As this became more congested, then people moved out here to Jefferson Parish. That was in the 50's. This whole area has now built up, so it's very densely populated. It started as a bedroom community, but now it has industry and other commercial ventures. Then people—the young people especially—started to want to get out of this area because the prices were so high. They had this newly built causeway right here. This is what we call the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway. It's now four lanes. It's 23 miles long and it opened up this whole area. People have been migrating from this area over into the north shore. So we have a lot of urban problems that have come up in what was normally a rural area. Here on the south shore, we have a levee system, this whole area is very low. It's been built up and it's now completely surrounded by levees to keep the high water out, and some of these areas here were as much as four to six feet below sea level. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet that Carlton referred to is this here. We'll talk about that and the levees a little later. This isn't a very good slide. But I brought it in to illustrate what's happening on the north shore. Everything on the north side of the lake we call north shore, and of course, the south shore on the south side. This is Tangipahoa Parish, which is one of the parishes that start at the lake and goes all the way upstate almost to the Mississippi line. We call the parishes across the lake the Florida Parishes. You might hear me refer to them as the Florida Parishes. You can see the large number of waterways that we have on the north shore. All of these little blue lines are waterways that connect into our major river, which is the Tangipahoa, and these Page 270 ------- little spots that you see here, are dairy farms. There are 273 dairy farms in Tangipahoa Parish alone, and there are approximately 600 dairy farms on the north shore in the Florida Parishes. This has become a major environmental problem. As we went into a management plan for the basin, we found that there were problems throughout the basin. We found the people on the south shore were saying, "All your pollution is coming from the north shore. That's not us. It's all coming from these dairy farms." We got on the north shore and they said, "It's all you people on the south shore that are putting your storm water into the lake that is causing all the pollution." So to get around that, we have projects all around the basin. We try to address problems throughout the basin. This is—of course, many of you are familiar with it—is the result of dairy farming. This is one of the things that happens. In washing down, they get a lot or runoff, a lot of water runoff with a high solid content. It's a major problem that has been polluting our rivers and our streams with high levels of nutrients and fecal coliform. One of our projects that we have is a cost share program that compliments existing ASCS—pardon me if I use the old acronyms. I'm still not used to the new ones, Randolph. I think everybody will understand me. But the ASCS and the Soil Conservation Service, the SCS, had programs going, but they had run out of funds. There were still 100 or so farms that had not built lagoons. So one of the things that we have is a project to cost share with the farmers on a 50/50 basis for the construction of no discharge retention lagoons. In putting this program together we've dealt with DEQ, the SCS, the ASCS, the Soil & Conservation Districts, and with the farmers. The farmers in this area have been a very important part of all of our planning. Without them, we couldn't have put it across. But we have been able to do it. Like I said, we compliment existing programs. The SCS designs and watches construction on it, and we cost share with the farmers. We also have a program there that I need to mention, cleaning these lagoons out. Very few of these lagoons had been cleaned out, something like the problem with septic tanks. We have a program, a cost share program, in which we will share up to one-third of the farmer's cost in cleaning these lagoons out on a periodic basis and pumping the nutrients from the pond into their fields. Other problems that we have—this illustrates it—are small treatment plants. All through this area that was rural and has been developed, there were small treatment plants that were poorly maintained or not properly maintained. They were built by developers and then left to homeowners that do not know or are unwilling to maintain them. So we have been working with St. Tammany Parish, which is parallel to Tangipahoa Parish, on water quality programs. We're cost sharing with them now on a project to develop a comprehensive sewage planning ordinance. Because it was a rural area and they've got so many developers moving in, they didn't have any real handle on how to enforce some of their sewage plans. So they, in Page 271 ------- conjunction with the USGS, who is bringing in a lot of data, are developing a program right now. We also have had significant problems with septic tanks on the north shore. There are many rural poor families there that don't have community sewage. They have individual septic tank systems. We've had an education program working with the Department of Health & Hospitals and DEQ to help them clean these things out. But we found that there was no facility that the pumpers could take their materials to. Many of the municipal plants had been shut down to them because they're overloading their plants. So we have a cost share program with Tangipahoa Parish to develop—it's under construction now~a regional septic tank waste disposal unit that will take this waste and process it. This has been very, very productive. A lot of people are excited and we hope that it will move to other areas. Here we have another particular problem that we have in parts of the basin. Some of you will see this if you go out on tour with us tomorrow—our fishing camps sewage. These traditionally were out in the lake and there were no facilities. We're trying to help some of these camp owners get some sewage lines for them to tie into municipal systems. On the north shore, again, I talked about development and the problems with construction, and this is a major problem. It's runoff from the construction site that is entering our rivers and our streams and polluting them to the point where they're killing them off. We have a project that we're just starting up that we hope will go a long way. It's a demonstration project with a builder that has 1,200 acres adjacent to the wetlands. He came to us and said he would like to develop an environmentally sensitive subdivision in the area, and we are working with him. We're funding Tulane University to do the science to develop the best technology for our area. The contractor will put in any construction needed and follow any of the suggestions that we have for the units. There will be an adjacent control unit and the project will be scientifically done. It is our plan to use this subdivision as a model for other contractors to use for their developments on the north shore. This model is badly needed. There's a lot of construction on the north shore and a lot of clay in the soil. We have heavy rains and it really loads up our rivers and streams. On the south shore we talked about the levee system. You'll see this tomorrow. This is the 17th Street Canal Pumping Station. This is one of the pumping stations in the foreground here. You see the trash coming down our drainage canals. These are drainage screens. This is an old pumping station built around 1900, 1910, and it puts out 10,000 cubic feet per second. At one time it was the largest one in the world. A lot of things in New Orleans we say we're at the bottom of the line on, but our drainage system in New Orleans is one of the best in the world. The problem with this is that it pumps into the lake. The lake takes all the storm water. But that's another deal. Page 272 ------- Here's something. Remember I told you Jefferson Parish was a newer parish? Well, this is one of the pumping stations in Jefferson Parish. It does the same thing. This one puts out about 4,000 cubic feet per second. We had a project going to build a constructed wetland as a pilot study to see if we could treat the storm water runoff and take some of the pollutants out. We worked a long time on this. We thought we had it in place, but we could not finally make a deal for the land. We haven't given up on it, but at the present time, we're looking for another site. Those that were with Cliff this morning or earlier today learned about our monitoring system. We've worked out a deal with the Power Squadron, which is a private organization, to pick up samples for us, and the Department of Health & Hospitals is analyzing the samples to see how much fecal coliform we're actually getting out in the lake. We started out on this side of the lake with 15 sites. The Power Squadron on this side picks it up pro bono. We pay some gas on it, but for most of the stuff, they don't want any money to do it. The north shore Power Squadron heard about it and they wanted to do it too. So we've got 15 sites out on this side and then the Lake Maurepas Society heard about it and they wanted to do it. So we've got eight sites up here. We're finding out some surprising things. We're finding that some of these areas that could be recreational areas, especially down here on the south shore, are not showing up with high fecal coliform counts even after heavy rains. So our next projects will be to see if we can't open some of these areas up to swimming. We have recently signed an agreement with the University of New Orleans to do a conceptual study on how we might open this area up to public access in an environmentally sensitive manner. That will be done with graduate students, and we're going to start that in the fall. This is the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO). At one time it was a lot narrower than there. It's a shortcut to the Gulf and brings ocean going vessels in here and you can see what's happening to the wetlands here. This has been one of the sources of salt water intrusion. In building the canal, the outlet, they cut through some of the major ridges and have allowed what held the salt water out. This is the result. We've got swamps that have been killed off. These are dead cypress trees. The last project I want to talk about is in St. Bernard Parish, which borders along the MRGO. We have a project there now to take some of the water that has been secondarily treated that was supposed to go to the Mississippi River, and try to get that reversed to go over the levees into the wetlands. We now have projects around the state, particularly in Breaux Bridge and in Thibodaux, that show that you could discharge secondarily treated water without harming the wetlands. If there are any questions that you have about any of these projects I'd be glad to talk about them. Page 273 ------- Question: Is that a natural connection between Lake Maurepas and Lake Pontchartrain? I Answer: Steve Gorin ! Yes. That's a pass. That's the major pass. It's Manehac Pass. j I Question: I didn't know if that was manmade. Answer: Steve Gorin No, that's a natural pass. Like Carlton talked about before, that brings in the fresh water but some of the salinity changes. We have subsidence through there. -We've had some damage in that area due to subsidence and salt water coming in but not to the extent that we've had in other parts of the lake. The lake itself is connected to the Gulf by two natural passes, as well, through the Rigolets and the Chef Mentur. We also have an education outreach program that we have been able to implement that as part of our JBC. I'd like to introduce Anne Rheams who is our Education Outreach Coordinator, who will tell you about that program. Speaker: Anne Rheams, Education Coordinator, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation; Metarie, LA One purpose of this conference is to talk about partnerships. In the field of education, you cannot be successful without partnerships, and we're learning that throughout the whole environmental field. Education and public outreach was a major goal requested by the public during The Lake Foundation's comprehensive management planning process. They want to know what is going on in the Pontchartrain Basin. There are so many different sources of information from different entities that people just wanted one source, a clearing house, a place that they could call and find out what was going on. They requested outreach, a group to go out and actually help them to learn about their ecosystem. In response to this need, the Lake Foundation's education/outreach program has developed school programs. The Pontchartrain Basin is made up of 16 parishes and each parish has its own school system. As you know, schools go from K through 12, plus the universities. That equates to a lot of schools in this basin. Page 274 ------- The education department at the Lake Foundation is composed of myself and Heather Wilson. With this limited staff we have had to begin partnerships with school systems and with other entities to spread the word about the Pontchartrain Basin. Nobody spreads the word faster than kids, ands they bring it home to their parents. Many of our education programs involve taking students and teachers on field trips especially related to urban stormwater runoff. The south shore of Lake Pontchartrain, in particular the city of New Orleans, is crisscrossed by drainage canals. New Orleans averages 65 inches of rain average per year. A couple of years back we had 120 inches. All of that rain falls into what is called the city in a saucer. New Orleans is a city that is built like your sink, your basin. It is below sea-level. In order to drain the city all of that water must be pumped out. What we try to show students on these field trips is that along with that rainwater comes pollution and litter—big pieces that you can see and pieces that you cannot see such as used motor oil. We have formed many partnerships with groups that organize students such as the Summer Bridge Program. Seventy-five summer school students volunteered to pick up trash along a drainage canal after touring a pumping station. The field trip includes storm drain stenciling. Traditionally, in New Orleans and Jefferson, we have thought of storm drains as trash cans. It is a major challenge for us in New Orleans to educate about urban runoff because of the "Mardi Gras mentality"; we measure the success of Mardi Gras on the tonnage of trash. The more trash, the better. People do not realize that runoff and its associated wastes do not go to a treatment plant. Our drainage water is not treated. We cannot hold all that water back long enough to treat it. Two of our most successful partnerships are with the New Orleans Sewage & Water Board and with Jefferson Parishes' Environmental Department. These two organizations have provided funding and staff time to help the Lake Foundation implement its urban stormwater education program. They allow us to take students on a tour of their pumping stations so that students can see the drainage system in action and we can show the types of pollution that gets discharged into the lake. This partnership helps these two organizations meet their stormwater permit requirements for education. We get the students involved in the cleanup and we also get them involved in education. The Art on the Lake Project is an example of a very successful education partnership Thanks to funding from the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board we worked with the New Orleans Public School System very closely for a year on a major production called Art on the Lake. The purpose of this program was to take students on field trips to educate them about urban runoff pollution into Lake Pontchartrain and for them to take this information back to their peers. The students created projects that described the pollution problems and solutions. Some of the projects included fictitious animals such as Ponchie, the Lakeness Monster who actually Page 275 ------- floated in the Lake during our Art on the Lake festival. The students painted little tears on him because he is upset that his home is polluted. They did some other things like banners. These banners have been very popular, hanging in their schools and at City Hall in New Orleans for the Earth Day Festival. They created a musical entitled Beauty and the Beach, in which the main character was a Frenchwoman, Marine Debris, who was very trashy. In total 400 students were involved in the program. The Lake Foundation was able to create a teacher resource packet on urban stormwater pollution based on the Art on the Lake project that is handed out at teacher workshops. The materials in this packet include a video, an activity guide and calendars. Another successful partnership is with the Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, the largest urban wildlife refuge in the country. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife and Lake Foundation conduct ecology programs for inner city students. For most of these students it is the first time they have ever been to wetlands. Some of them have never fished in their lives. We also do adult education workshops, teacher workshops and outreach at festivals and environmental fairs. We use a lot of volunteers for our outreach program. We produce teacher resource materials that are specific to the Pontchartrain Basin. If you're interested in this beyond what I've discussed, please just give us a call or talk to me afterwards and we'll get you some more information. Question: How do you handle liability issues taking the kids out on the bayou? Anne Rheams: Working within the school system is the best route because they have insurance. Speaker: Neil Armingeon, Environmental Director, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation; Metairie, LA Since I am batting cleanup, I am going to take some artistic license. Since I was somewhat evasive to Steve about what I was exactly going to talk about, I'm going to slightly alter what I was supposed to talk about. As the Foundation staff prepared for this program, it became almost like a human psychological experiment. About three weeks ago, Steve started saying, "We've got to get ready for this presentation," to which I told Steve, "Steve, I always get ready for my Page 276 ------- presentations when I'm in the car going to the place that I'm going to actually make a presentation." That was certainly not good enough for Dr. Gorin. But in the next three weeks, we had several other meetings. It hit me this morning when I was actually figuring out what I was going to say today, that in some ways what we went through, the process, I think, is a lot about what we're here talking about and that is successes. That is what I am really going to focus on. I'm going to give you my view of what it takes to have successes in this line of work. You need communication. I think Carlton Dufrechou is one of the best communicators that I've ever been around. I think it's important that we all have whatever group we're associated with, somebody who can communicate to a wide range of people. It's very important. You need organizational skills. We have Dr. Gorin, who is one of the most highly organized individuals I have ever been around and certainly it has rubbed of on me somewhat. But you need that. You need that technical organization. You need people to believe that when your group or your agency says something that it is based in good facts. Anne Rheams is driven by her heart and you need heart. Anne's programs come from here, and I think you need that and now that brings me to my part. I think one of my greatest skills, as I told Steve, is I like to wing it. In this process, you must be pragmatic. You must have a management plan. You must have objectives. You must have goals. But that in itself is not going to get you to the end of the trail. You have to, in my opinion, be able to wing it. You have to be opportunistic. You have to be there and open to ideas that you may not have even thought about. If you're open for that, then those ideas will come along. That's what I want to talk to you briefly about today is how an idea or how a dream—actually a dream can become a reality. I think in some way that is what we're selling to our constituents, to the public, to the people we're working with. A dream. A goal that their watershed, their body of water can be cleaned up and it can be returned to what it was. We are bound by our imagination and what we can think that it will take to clean up Lake Pontchartrain. And so what I'm going to tell you briefly about today is an example of how I think being opportunistic, having a plan in place that you can follow, and also just winging it can actually lead to success. About three years ago, on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain there was a Police Juryman, which is like our County Commissioner. His name was Kevin Davis. He had a dream. Kevin's dream was the establishment of a Rails to Trails Project. For those of you who are not familiar with these programs, there's an opportunity to buy abandoned rail lines and convert them into biking, hiking trails, horseback riding trails. Kevin had that dream. He was literally the only man, I think, in St. Tammany Parish that even knew what a Rails to Trails line was. Luckily for the Foundation, our paths crossed. Kevin called and asked us to come over and speak with him to educate us about his dream establishing a Rails to Trails Page 277 ------- line in St. Tammany Parish. It just so happened that the Rails to Trails that he envisioned passed close to a piece of property that was up for development, and a citizens group was in litigation trying to stop the developer from turning the land into a housing track. It is a beautiful piece of property, and I'll show you a slide in a minute, called Cane Bayou. Well, Kevin, one of our Board of Directors, Connie Glockner, and a friend of mine, Terry Bewig, an environmental attorney, met with Kevin. In the room there was a map. All of a sudden we were looking at the Rails to Trails and we realized, wow, Cane Bayou is next to the Rails to Trails. Then we also noticed that just to the east of Cane Bayou was a 12,000 acre undeveloped tract on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. At that time, basically, we were very naive. We had a dream and we decided, we're going to make this a National Wildlife Refuge. We're not only going to have the Rails to Trails, we're going to have a premier outdoor recreation facility for the people of southeast Louisiana. I needed a way to sell Carlton and my Board of Directors on the idea so that I could spend time on the project. I was able to go to our Management Plan and say the citizens wanted us to protect and restore land base and aquatic essential habitat in the Pontchartrain Basin. Also, the public wanted us, the staff of the Foundation, to design, develop, and oversee a system of parks and wildlife preserves that protect the basin's essential habitat. So, I actually had justification and we began. Literally, it was a dream. But, how could we protect this land? We called several federal agencies and all of them told us it would take eight to 10 years. If you would like to have a National Estuary Research Reserve Tract, that's probably about a five to eight year process. The Fish & Wildlife Service told us, "Nobody is putting up money to buy land. We're keeping our head down. It's not a good time to try to establish a new refuge." And so the people, themselves, refused to believe we could not do this, we would not accept that. We established a Wildlife Refuge Committee that included home builders, people that we had in the past been at odds with over development, sportsmen, all the Chambers of Commerce, businessmen, and set about and designed a campaign to acquire this land as a Wildlife Refuge. Because of the diversity of the group, the Congressional Delegation listened to us. Honestly, when an environmental group, a Chamber of Commerce representative, and the president of the Home Builder's Association can sit down in the same room, trust me, the Congressional Delegation will listen. Because that is the type of partnership that they are interested in. So three years later, the dream that began in that room actually is a reality. The Rails to Trails was dedicated on October of last year. The Conservation Fund, which is a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C., purchased outright through a grant from the Melon Foundation 3,700 acres of the 12,000 and donated it to the citizens of this country as a wildlife refuge. They recently purchased 1,100 more acres. So I think the point in all this—and I'll get to the slides -is, again, I think it's important that we all have the management plans. I think it's important that we follow the steps that we believe are right. But I think we have to be open to the ideas Page 278 ------- that come from citizens. Folks who work in the agencies, I recognize that, you don't have those liberties. But I would urge you that as a citizen organization we are much more able sometimes to jump through gates that are not open for you all. And I would ask, there are times that we can help you, and certainly I think in these kind of forums that's what we need to be talking about. How citizen groups like the Foundation can help the agencies, vice versa, to really reach our goals. So now I'm going to show you what I believe is some of the most beautiful land on this planet. This is the Rails to Trails line. It starts in Abita Springs and it will eventually go from Abita Springs to Lacombe, through the National Wildlife Refuge, across Cane Bayou, through Mandeville, and to the town of Covington. For those of you who have not seen the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, it's a beautiful area, and each of those towns has their own distinct personalities. The Rails to Trails has become a focal point in these communities. Abita Springs, which is a very small town, has just received a grant to develop a linear park. So the town is now developing an eco-tourism business based upon this dream, and that is how we sold it to the business community. It's very important, as somebody said yesterday, you need economics. We are working now to get a grant to show in real dollars what a Rails to Trails and a Wildlife Refuge equates to in actual dollars, because that is what business people want to hear. Yes, they like saving land. Some of them feel good. But their bottom line is, "Is it taking land out of commerce? Are we going to recover the lost tax base?" This is the Rails to Trails as it crosses the Abita River and a couple of folks roller skating. That's another small creek near Abita. That gentleman is biking. This is the headquarters. This is an old caboose and that's about mid-way between the line. I was out there last week and there were tremendous crowds on a Friday and it was a holiday. But the great news is that Rails to Trails has far exceeded any estimate and it's really only in the first phase of development. That's Cane Bayou. Cane Bayou is actually one of the last undeveloped bayous in Lake Pontchartrain. Literally, you can go from the Highway 190 bridge out to Lake Pontchartrain and that's where we're going now, and there is no development. There's one house up at the upper end. But the 24 acres that we originally started out, ironically, we were able to acquire the 4,800 acres before we were actually able to acquire the 24 acres. Peter Uddo, who was the developer, finally reached an agreement about a month ago, and now the original 24 acres that we set out to save has been saved. There are other things that spun off from this dream. These are the sea grass beds in Lake Pontchartrain. The last remaining large acreage of these grasses is found in the lake front found within the Wildlife Refuge boundary. What John Burns, who works with Cliff on the monitoring program, believes is that having that undeveloped land and naturally filtering pollutants, as we all know wetlands do, has saved these grasses. Citizen volunteers, Cliff Page 279 ------- Kenwood, and the University of New Orleans are using to replant the lake's grass beds. The other real positive that has come out of this whole wildlife refuge is we were able to sit down with the Congressional Delegation and explain to them why that land was the most valuable property in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. When you hear someone like Senator Johnston stand up at the dedication ceremony and say, "The reason we need to save this land is because it is protecting the last sea grass beds we have in the lake." That is a very powerful statement and is the type statement that we all need to get out of our Congressional delegation. This is one of my artistic shots. This is actually just the headline from the Times Picayune. It says it all. Again, the thing that I want people to understand is this Wildlife Refuge was the quickest established wildlife refuge in the history of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. All the congressional people and all the business people said it was basically because people were working together. I'm going to end on this slide. This is Cliff Glockner who a lot of you saw yesterday. This is actually at a site we're going to go to tomorrow. But I get back to my point about when people tell you that you can't do something. This is the Bonnet Carre flood structure that we're going to tour tomorrow. It was a proposed site of a freshwater diversion that had Congressional authorization. But people like Cliff and other people have been fighting the project for over 20 years. The Foundation has been working on that project for over five years. This is from an earlier press tour where Cliff addressed the media about why he thought the project was bad. The reason I included this is one person can make a difference. What I would ask all of you to do is, again, have your plans open to people's visions, like Cliff, the people of the Wildlife Refuge Committee, Kevin Davis. There is a place for those people's dreams and visions to fit into your plan. Because really that, is the power of a Management Plan. I know we all hear about Management Plans that sit on the shelf. Well, I think those management plans sit on the shelf because maybe there's no way to integrate the dreams and visions of the people in the watershed. I think that is the critical element. These reports, these Management Plans have got to equate to what people view is their future. This is what it's all about. This is a slide from a press tour, and this basically just shows the diversity of the groups we're working with. There are some folks: Ken Kirkpatrick, Congressional Staff, commercial fishermen, Board of Directors, sportsmen. Those are the people that are really making the successes possible that we're experiencing. That's what it's going to take to make these plans work. Thank you. Question: What's your annual budget? Page 280 ------- Answer: Carlton Dufrechou Totally in 1994, we had about $600,000 of expenditures. That is programs, projects, and the office. Question: And most of your funding comes from EPA? Answer: Carlton Dufrechou The projects are almost exclusively from EPA. We do have a good number of corporate sponsors that do some of our monitoring programs and some of the others. The major projects are EPA funded. Dr. Steve Gorin: Tell them about the two offices. Carlton Dufrechou: Dr. Gorin is mentioning that we actually have two offices: the program office and the main office. The program office handles specifically all federal grants, which would be the major projects that you saw some of this afternoon. Question: What kind of decisions do you ask your Board to make? Do you typically present your budget and your plans for the next year or how do you do that? Answer: Carlton Dufrechou The Board sets a policy. Yes, we do present budgets and plans. The Board actually sets the policy for the Foundation. The staff implements that policy. Question: You meet every quarter? Page 281 ------- Answer: Carlton Dufrechou The Board meetings are bimonthly, every two months. Question: Is the Board selected or appointed? Answer: Carlton Dufrechou The Board is actually 14 members. Ten of the members are from the parishes around the basin. They are elected. They're nominated and elected by our membership. The other four members that I forgot to mention earlier, they are representatives of the state agencies, the Department of Environmental Quality, Natural Resources, Health & Hospitals, and Wildlife & Fish. Question: They're elected by the membership? Answer: Carlton Dufrechou Yes. They're nominated. Something that is really special about this organization to me is it's a people organization, the people of the basin. They pick the Board members. The Board members actually answer ultimately to the folks of the basin, all the residents. Question: So what do you have to do to be a member? Answer: Carlton Dufrechou You can join. In fact, we will give you an application before you leave this afternoon. That's it. We do have out of state members. Unfortunately, out of state members cannot vote for any of the particular parishes. You have to be a resident of that parish to vote for a Board member in that parish. Question: I guess what I'm trying to get at is how small or select a group your membership is. Page 282 ------- Answer: Carlton Dufrechou The voting membership is right at 1,000. The majority of those would be in three parishes: Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Tammany Parish. Those parishes have larger numbers of board members. They have actually two board members each. The others all have one. Question: One of you commented that you felt that your program started off a little differently than an estuary program in that you went to the public first to help you identify priorities. Answer: Carlton Dufrechou Yes. Question: That's really, in an estuary, that's one of the first tasks. Also, you said, "We did this," as if your nonprofit foundation was already established. So what was it? Answer: Carlton Dufrechou The organization was established before we went out. The organization is a private nonprofit. We're a bit of a hybrid. We were established by an Act of the state legislature in 1989, close of '89, and we had a one shot in the arm of funding from the state of Louisiana that got us underway. That was actually the catalyst to get all of this going. Question: You did say that you went to the public first as if estuary programs don't. Answer: Carlton Dufrechou You are correct, I mis-spoke on that. The thing that I meant to focus on is that this organization was not heavy with scientists, with environmental professionals when it got started. In fact, we are still only a handful of really technical people on staff. We depend very heavily—initially we did-on the public for our direction. We still do for that. Our technical input now comes from folks like Dr. Hastings, if he's still around there, from the universities in the area. They provide the background or actually the backbone of our technical expertise. Page 283 ------- Question: Do you do much research? Answer: Carlton Dufrechou No, ma'am. We tend to do research when it's necessary to determine the magnitude of a problem, but our emphasis is particularly focused on implementation, specific projects, and find a solution, let's get the solution underway, and a heck of a lot of coordination trying to get whomever, whether it's a state agency, local program, federal program, everybody working together, and the user groups too, which are certainly critical. The first phase of the CMP was completed in '91 and the second phase in summer of '93. The last phase, which is winding up right now, will actually be the second phase when we started implementing programs with projects. The ones that were more readily implementable right from the second phase. Response: The first part being the second phase. Carlton Dufrechou: May of'91. Dr. Steve Gorin: One of the things I think would be of interest to you is the structure of the public meetings. We've worked with people. We had looked at the National Estuarian Program. It took a long time to get into it. We felt like we needed to get started a lot sooner. But our public meetings were not heavily structured. They were just open meetings. We didn't have the structure like you had to invite so many from this group, like you have to in a National Estuarian Program, where they give you some guidelines on what you've got to do and how you've got to put it together. We just went out and met with people-period. The difference we have found—we talk a lot with the people in Barataria-Terrebonne-that we just didn't have the need. We were looking more grassroots, and the people that were involved were the people that wanted to be involved. It was a little different from that aspect. There's another thing that I'd like to mention. When you talked about funding and how we were funded. We have different functions as well. Sheila, behind you, can tell you about Page 284 ------- something going on right now with Back to the Beach, one of our major fund raising functions that we have during the year. That's where we get the monies to operate the main office. Dr. Steve Gorin: The funds don't come strictly from membership. We'd starve. So we have other ways of getting funds. But that's the distinction between the two offices. The main office is supported by outside funds, while the program office strictly handles EPA funds. There's no line between it. Carlton Dufrechou: Mr. Knudson. Question: Myron Knudson There's also a little difference in the funding of a National Estuary Program and that's for development of plans. Funding to foundations includes that, plus they can use money to construct whatever is the bona fide type plan. Carlton Dufrechou: To implement, I believe, we have much more latitude, don't we? Dr. Steve Gorin: Yes, there's one line in our appropriation. It says appropriations for water quality. Everybody knows our plan and know that that's what it's going to be used for. So we implement those items using that one line. We have flexibility. We've heard a lot of talk. Neil has talked about flexibility and accepting ideas. We go out and look for projects working with people and a lot of the projects that we get depend upon the dynamics of the group that we're working with. Sometimes opportunities come up because certain people are in office or certain funding is available, you know. And we try to take advantage of those opportunities to meet the water quality needs of our appropriation and our Comprehensive Management Plan. Sometimes I think our successes in partnership is due to the flexibility we have, because of the type of organization, and our appropriation. Moderator: Carlton Dufrechou Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you didn't mind our kind of laid back atmosphere this afternoon. We had a good time. I enjoyed visiting with all of you throughout the conference. I hope that Page 285 ------- many of you get to make the tour tomorrow and possibly I might be on that. I don't know if I will or won't, depending on schedule. If any of you have any questions about Pontchartrain or anything about our restoration or the city, please grab any of us, and thank you all for your advice and assistance. We appreciate it. Page 286 ------- Compliance as a Watershed Protection Tool (3:00-4:30PM) Moderator: Jerry Saunders, Chief, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma Compliance Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Dallas, TX There are several folks that have managed to take time out of their busy schedules and I appreciate them. At the far end over there we have Mr. Tim Brewster, and he's the Enforcement Program Administrator for Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Then I have Mr. Rusty Ray who has been kind enough to come over from Texas. He's the Environmental Coordinator with the Rural Environmental Outreach Program for the Lower Colorado River Authority. Then the young lady sitting here beside me is Pam Phillips. Pam is the Regional Enforcement Coordinating Officer for Region 6 in Dallas and all the media report information back to her and she reports information back to us. So she's the funnel through which information comes and goes. With that, I think what we plan on doing today is having four brief presentations and then try to open it up to some issues of discussion. We've identified several issues that I think we have an interest in talking in. But if there are issues that you would like to talk about as well, we will try to do that. I think we're going to begin with Rusty Ray who is going to be talking to you about some of the things that they have done in the Lower Colorado River Authority and some of the successes they've had with their enforcement efforts. Speaker: Rusty Ray, Environmental Coordinator, Rural Environmental Outreach Program, Lower Colorado River Authority; Austin, Texas As Jerry said, my name is Rusty Ray. I work with the Lower Colorado River Authority. Currently, I'm the team leader for the Rural Environmental Outreach Programs. These programs include our Household Hazardous Waste Collection & Education Program, along with our Ag Collection Programs, which we kind of piggyback or cheat. We work with the TNRCC, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, on their Texas Country Cleanups, a program for rural communities, mainly for farmers and ranchers. It offers the opportunity to recycle properly rinsed pesticide containers and also tires, batteries, motor oil, and oil filters. We also work with the TNRCC when they have their Ag Amnesty Days within our watershed. Most of our farmers and ranchers really enjoy these programs. It allows them proper disposal of their unusable quantities of pesticides. The LCRA program also encompasses some agricultural nonpoint source research projects, looking at runoff in a cornfield to see if we can work with farmers to come up with BMP's (Best Management Practices) to keep the inputs on their property. Page 287 ------- We also have a Market Development Grant from the TNRCC. We are trying to put together what we're calling the Central Texas Recycling Association. This program is to help rural communities with their recycling efforts. Mainly bringing markets to the small communities, so the people that would like to recycle can "do the right thing." Finally, we work in illegal dump cleanups. That's what I'd like to talk to you today—how LCRA focused its efforts toward cleaning up illegal dumps in the lower end of the Colorado River Watershed. First off, I'd like to give you a little bit of insight into what LCRA is. We're actually an agency of the state. This is our mission statement. The mission of the LCRA is to provide reliable low cost utility and public services in partnerships with our customers and communities, and to use our leadership role in environmental authority to ensure the protection and constructive use of the area's natural resources. The LCRA is a conservation and reclamation district which operates without any taxing authority. We get our direction from a board. We have 15 members on our board, all of which are appointed by the Governor. I guess we have a unique feature at the LCRA, being a river authority, we're one of the few that can actually come up with ordinances, make rules, and be able to enforce them within our portion of the watershed. Our enabling act allows us to adopt ordinances that will control the pollution of the ground and surface waters of the Colorado River, and to enforce these ordinances within the boundaries of our district. We have a ten-county district that's laid out in our enabling act, and these are the areas where we can enforce our ordinances. This is really a pretty poor map, but I'll try to go over and try to give you an idea of where we are. This is the state of Texas. The Colorado River Watershed will follow right along these lines. That's about 60 counties in the state of Texas and three counties in New Mexico and about 865 river miles. In the LCRA 10-county district, we're right in this area here, which is the lower end of the watershed. There are 10 counties in there and we have approximately 600 river miles of the river that falls within what we call our district. What I want to do now is try to focus on what the illegal dump efforts are. Most of you folks, I'm sure, are familiar with RECRA Subtitle D. Our rural community has been informed of what RECRA would do. This put the pinch on the rural communities because of these stricter regulations and the cost factor. It put a lot of the landfills out of business. The LCRA Board was thinking because we're going to have less permitted landfills, we're going to have more illegal dumping or littering throughout the watershed. So what do we do? We had a lot of our local communities within our district come and say, "What can you do to help us out, LCRA?" We have anti-littering or anti-dumping ordinances on the books now, but we don't have the folks to help us control that. There's only one county in our 10-county, statutory district that has a person on staff that his sole job is to go out there and inspect and enforce their anti-dumping ordinances. Generally, in the rural communities you'll find folks that wear Page 288 ------- six or seven different hats, from dog catcher all the way to the anti-dumping ordinance. Generally, the anti-dumping gets low billing on the totem pole. With all this input from our local governments, our Board directed us to go out and do a survey. They wanted us to get in the district and see how many landfills we had. So we got in a plane and helicopter and did an aerial survey. We also did some river and lake recognizance, where we floated the river and tried to identify and locate where the illegal dumps were. We identified over 400 dumps within our ten county district. With that information, the Board directed us to see if we couldn't make an ordinance to assist TNRCC. I think at this point it's really important to note that the illegal dump ordinance and lot of this work were funded through a grant from TNRCC. Without this type of funding, a lot of our programs would not exist. This ordinance isn't new. The TNRCC had an illegal dump ordinance on their books in the Texas Water Code. As I stated, they're a statewide agency and what we were trying to do was bring control down to a local level and work with the counties. "Before the LCRA adopted the ordinance, they wanted to get with folks in the community, so we had town meetings. We would go over our final draft of the ordinance and discuss it with the folks in the communities and try to get input and feedback. I think, in general, most of the people we talked with were happy. Now, you've heard a lot about private property rights today, and we had our counties that thought we were trespassing; they thought we were getting on their private property when we didn't need to be. And we're hoping that through the years we'll be able to work through that situation. The backbone of the ordinance is what we call the water quality protection zone. We actually have water quality protection zones for the rivers and for the lakes. The rivers that we're looking at are the Colorado River, the San Saba River, Pedernales River, and the Llano River. This is actually our water quality protection zone. It's about 150 feet from the high water mark on these rivers. So that's where our jurisdiction would fall in. On the lakes, it's pretty similar. It's 150 feet from the mean pool level for Lake Buchanan, Lake Inks, Lake LBJ, Lake Marble Falls, and Lake Travis. So this is the big definition we need to know for the ordinance. Moving through the ordinance, Section 3 says, littering and illegal dumping are prohibited. Mainly, it says illegal dumps are prohibited both within and outside of the water quality protection zone, and it defines that the LCRA will take care of the things that are within the water quality protection zone, and the illegal dumps that are outside, we will forward to TNRCC and assist them in their endeavors. For enforcement, this just allows LCRA to go out there and inspect the lands. Now we want to do this based on a credible complaint or reliable information. We don't want to go out Page 289 ------- there and harass these land owners if we don't think there's anything out there. We also want to be able to reinspect, to make sure that folks clean up an illegal landfill. We go back out and do an inspection to make sure everything was cleaned up. We can take these folks to court if they don't want to work with us. We can take them to a district court. We also have the ability to fine. Well, now that we've got our badge and our gun, what we thought was, let's try a voluntary approach. So we identified the land owners along the river in our counties, and we held county collections. These are free collections. We would send letters of notification to these land owners along the river that we would have a collection on a certain date, and that they were more than welcome to load up their trailers and bring in what they have. After the collection, we would go and do a recon again to see if the illegal dumps were cleaned up. If they were not, we would send out a letter of violation, saying, "you were given a chance to clean this up and now you're going to have to come in and work with us." I'll go over the enforcement action a little bit later on. I think it's really important to note we've been talking about partnerships throughout this symposium. Well, we made partnerships with disposal companies, metal recyclers and tire recyclers. They donated their services for the folks in these counties at our collections. It's really big PR for them. You know, if you've got the citizenry out there that are having a free — in the cities folks call them clean sweeps. Well, it might be a river sweep. That's what we actually did. Folks would bring in their stuff and drop it off. With our voluntary cleanups, we've cleaned up 95 illegal dumps within the lower end of the watershed in six counties. We still have four counties to go for cleanups. We've collected approximately 160 tons of garbage, 40 tons of metal that has been recycled, and 3,000 tires that have been recycled. It's region by region and some regions you get a good response and some regions you don't get any response at all. For regulatory action, we've been really lucky. Once we send our letters of violation, we get the land owner to give us a call and say, "Hey, what can I do to clean it up?" So we work up a cleanup plan with them and have a time line that's associated with it to get this site cleaned up. So far, we haven't had to take anybody to court or put any fines on anybody. We feel really good about that. This could have been a typical site in some stretches of the river, where you'll see, I guess, way back when it was an accepted practice to use appliances and cars and whatnot as bank f stabilization. Well, we've learned a lot since then, and so now our bank stabilization is j actually in the middle of the river. Through some of these cleanups, we're hoping to bring J the river back to its beautiful levels again. It's really a pretty, pretty river. This is just a . j photo of the sun setting on the Highland Lakes. Page 290 ------- I guess that will do it for my talk. Are there any questions? Thank you. Moderator: Jerry Saunders Thanks, Rusty. We really appreciate that. It looks like it was a good success story and it's good to see that happen. The next person on our agenda is going to be Tim Brewster. Tim is filling in for Bruce Hammatt. I mislabeled his title earlier. It's Enforcement Program Manager, and he's in charge of the Enforcement Program in Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Speaker: Tim Brewster, Enforcement Program Manager, Office of Water Resources, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; Baton Rouge, LA Hi. I'm Tim Brewster. As Jerry said, I'm in charge of the Enforcement Program for the state of Louisiana's Office of Water Resources. I would have had a" really nice presentation. Unfortunately, I just found out that I was going to give this talk yesterday afternoon. So I'm going to have to wing it. No visual aids. This may have come up earlier this morning. But according to our files, there are approximately 1,600 facilities in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, again, that we have on file. About half of those are permitted facilities. Twenty-seven of them are major facilities, which means that they discharge over one million gallons a day. In 1994, about 10% of our enforcement effort went into the northern parishes of Lake Pontchartrain. So I'm not counting the sections of East Baton Rouge or East Feliciana that actually got compliance orders. The Enforcement Section is dealing with the enforcement activities on a statewide basis. We have eight regional offices throughout the state. The Southeast Regional Office in the City of New Orleans has probably the largest amount of people assigned to it, so that they can respond to any environmental complaints. When they get the environmental complaints, they try to work with the people to bring them into compliance through an informal process. If that doesn't work or if the environmental violation is aggrievious enough, it's referred to Baton Rouge, where we take formal enforcement actions. That ranges from compliance orders, which is the state of Louisiana's version of an A.O., and penalty notices. As I said, 10% of our enforcement activities for the calendar 1994 did go into the parishes north of Lake Pontchartrain. Thank you for your time. Are there any questions? Page 291 ------- Moderator: Jerry Saunders Thanks, Tim. I appreciate you filling in. Pam Phillips is the Regional Enforcement Coordinator. She's going to be giving you some perspective in terms of where the agency is headed from a geographic or place-based emphasis. Then after she's done, I'll follow-up with what EPA's doing. Speaker: Pam Phillips, Regional Enforcement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Dallas, TX If I had been here three years ago and I came to talk to about compliance as a tool for watershed protection, I'd have been talking about compliance meeting our traditional enforcement approaches, which basically meant administrative orders and civil litigation. It was kind of like we came in to break eggs with a sledge hammer. We came after you with big penalties. We came out basically saying, "You've got to do this or else. You don't have any choice." And we really weren't very open minded when it came to listening to people. Today, when I talk to you about compliance, while our traditional enforcement tools are still a very important part of compliance, we also consider outreach and assistance to be just as important as the traditional enforcement tools. I'm here to tell you a little bit about how we got here, because a lot of people keep saying, "Oh, this is just a passing phase with EPA. You really don't mean it. This assistance and this compliance and all that you're talking to me about is really just a way to get me in, talk to you, and give you a lot of information. Then you're going to turn around and just beat me up with it." And I'm here to tell you that I don't think that that's true. While, it's always certainly a remote possibility, that's really not our intent because many of our definitions of compliance have changed because of activities that we've been undertaking for about the last six years. Back in 1988, Administrator Riley came in and said, "EPA has been around 25 years. We need to start thinking about what have we accomplished? Where are we going? What do we need to do next? And how are we going to do it?" So we started basically looking at what we had been doing and we started experimenting with different ways to handle the problems that we had been facing. With the evaluation and the pilot projects, we started consolidating the data that we had collected over the 25 years. What kind of emissions are out there? What's been the effect of our enforcement programs? What's been the effect of our permitting programs? What has been the most effective work that we've done? We had also started back in the mid-80's with some assistance projects. We started with the CFC or chloroflorocarbon approach, where basically we had people who did a lot of meeting with different members in the community. We met with a lot of different air-conditioning Page 292 ------- industries: whether it was car, house, or business air conditioning. We had what was called a Green Lights Program where we actually went out and helped people figure out ways to use more energy efficient lighting systems and other more energy efficient type systems. We went out and we helped people with waste miriimization. Are there ways where you never produce your waste to begin with? We also started what is now called pollution prevention. We had all these different activities going on and were going in about 100 different directions all at the same time. There wasn't a whole lot of coordination on what we were doing. Each office was evaluating their data. In about 1991, we started saying, "Hey, wait a minute. We're serious. We've really got to evaluate where we're going." And in 1992, with the election changes and stuff, it was not just the political appointees, but also the career people that said, "Hey, we've been evaluating this long enough. Let's come up with some conclusions and ideas. Where should we go next?" So we really started looking at what we had found out through the years. And we found out we have a pretty good compliance rate overall across the country. Depending on which industrial sector you're talking about, we have anywhere from an 80% to a 95% compliance rate. That's the large industrial sectors. So we've gotten the word out with the big guys on just what they need to do. When you start looking at the quality of our rivers and the quality of our air, things have improved a lot. You guys that are as old as I am around here-Jerry was nice enough to call me a young lady, but I'm actually a middle-aged woman—but if you remember back that long ago, you'll remember we used to have rivers spontaneously ignite—even the Houston Ship Channel. We used to have a lot of problems with the Houston Ship Channel catching on fire. Here in the Louisiana area, between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, you had massive spills going out into the river. You had massive air releases that were causing a lot of health problems and you had to evacuate areas on a consistent basis. When I first started working with the agency back in '79, I was constantly running down to Louisiana because of one spill after another. Whether it was water or whether it was air, we had a lot of emergency situations that came up. We had a lot of plants that were catching on fire because of sloppy operating practices. When you look at what is happening today, you don't see that. Sure, we still have some spills. Sure, we still have some fires. But overall, the quality of air and the quality of water have improved greatly due to improved operating practices that are going on at the plants. You're finding mostly minor problems. You still have an occasional accident and a release. But for the most part, big industry, big cities, medium size cities, they've gotten the word that "Hey, environmental protection is something that we have to worry about and we have to comply with." It's important. But it's not just industry. It's all of us in this room. Page 293 ------- If you go to the different elementary schools, elementary schools now have programs for teaching the kids. For example, it's important to put your trash where it belongs. It's important to conserve water, so many different things that we never heard in school. So the whole idea of environmental protection is really something that's gotten into our culture. Now is every single person in this country aware? No. Is every single company aware and complying? No. But that's not what we're talking about. You're never going to get 100% of anything, except maybe paying taxes. But what we're looking at is that we've made great improvements in this area. You've basically got people that are complying and people that are trying really hard to do the right thing. But we still have tremendous problems. So we started saying, "Okay. How's the best way to address these problems?" We have traditionally for the most part gone the rather heavy handed enforcement route. When we really started looking at what other agencies had done at the state and local level, at some of our own programs~the CFC Program, the Green Lights Program, and some of the other assistance programs, we said, "You know, we're making much more of an impact in areas where we don't just use traditional enforcement. If we actually go out there with an educational and outreach program, work very closely with the state and local agencies and the different governmental groups, talk to some of the industrial groups, and talk to community groups, we can have a much greater impact in an area." We also went back and looked at how the problems are concentrated or focused in areas. We decided that we really need to start focusing in geographic areas. What we used to do traditionally is—since a lot of this is water associated, I'll pick on water right now—we would say, "Okay, Jerry, you go to Southern Louisiana and I want you to do a whole lot of enforcement. We want to have this enforcement initiative and you make sure that all the people that are discharging in the Mississippi are now complying with their permits or that they get permits." We started looking around and we said, "You know, Jerry's doing a really good job. The surface water is getting a lot better." "DEQ is doing a really good job. The surface water is getting much better." But you know, it really doesn't do as good a job for the environment and public health if all we worry about is the surface water discharges. What about all those leaking underground storage tanks, what about leaking landfills, what about air deposition, we're still polluting the surface water with those other three methods, and we're not doing anything about that. So we came around and we said, "Okay, we've got to have a much more focused approach. We're not going to go out and do brand new things. What we're going to do is refocus what we're already doing and we're going to focus on areas." Sometimes it's called a geographic initiative. Sometimes it's called a community initiative. Sometimes it's called place based. But basically it all comes down to and means the same thing. That we're focusing in on a particular part of the country. It will be a watershed, an ecosystem, some type of urban or rural community, but we're going to focus on a particular place. And we're not going to Page 294 ------- focus solely with a single media. We're not going to, for instance, focus all our water efforts in Louisiana, and then focus our RCRA efforts up in Oklahoma, and then focus our air efforts down on the Houston Ship Channel. If we're really going to have a consolidated effort, what we need to do is focus our air, our water, our waste, our EPCRA, our underground storage tanks. We need to go into an area and do a multi-media approach. Now when I say multi-media, there's two different ways that I'm looking at that term. I mean, we're going to focus our single media approaches so that we have water going and looking at the water areas, and we have the underground storage tanks, and we have the RCRA areas, and they're doing all of what we call the single media enforcement and compliance assistance. But in addition to that, we're also going out to a lot of the big facilities and we're looking at all of the different activities that they do. We're going to go to a different facility, and I'll say right now, ABC Company, and we're going to look at their water, their air, their RCRA. We're going to look at their overall compliance rate so that we can see the real impact that facility is having on the community or on that particular area. We're also going to consolidate all of the data that we've collected through the years. What we're finding is that a lot of the stuff that's having a big impact now on the quality of life is basically unregulated substances. So when we go out and we do our single media and our multi-media approaches, we need to be creative and figure out ways that we can get people to reduce their emissions — their unregulated emissions. That is, those emissions where there are no regulations for what you're discharging into the river or what you're releasing into the air, or what you happen to be disposing of somewhere. So how do we use all of this multi-media and single media approach? And how do we get you to come in and basically reduce the unregulated emissions? We started coming in with all of these different things all at the same time. Each program was trying to address it differently. We had water working in one area. We had RCRA working in an area. We had air working in an area. We even created a group called multi-media that was basically doing their thing, and addressing multi-media programs. But we were still basically going this way and that way and that way and all over, and we weren't coordinating our actions or responses. When it came down to it, we had Jerry working with DEQ, and we had the RCRA people working with the RECRA DEQ people, and we had these people, and what we found is in a lot of areas some of the state agencies were just as uncoordinated as we were when it came to RCRA and air and water all talking to each other. EPA was a big contributor to that, because of the way we did grants and because of the way we delegate programs. There were a lot of reasons that basically people were going off and not making a consolidated or coordinated effort. So what we came up with back in early '95-it's a new program for us~is we basically started requiring all of the enforcement programs, through what we now call Enforcement & Compliance Assistance Programs, to basically consolidate and/or coordinate one way or Page 295 ------- another. Many of the regions, such as Region 6, are reorganizing and putting all of the enforcement and compliance assistance into one division, because we feel that we cannot only better deal with the problems that we address, but we can better deal with our different state and local agencies by having all enforcement consolidated in one area. Last year, at headquarters they reorganized into an Office of Enforcements & Compliance Assistance. Not all the regions are going into enforcement divisions. Many of them are basically consolidating their enforcement into different branches and using their existing structure. But each region had to go through and evaluate and say, "How can I better coordinate my responses so that I don't have three different people going off in three different directions and basically telling the state agencies three different stories and telling industry three different stories and the community three different stories." We had to consolidate, organize, and coordinate. So we're in the process now of planning for '96 and '97, and we're really emphasizing our community-based approaches, and we're going to be spending a substantial portion of all of our resources in community based, many of which will be a watershed approach. What we'll be doing is not just coming and talking to you about the water protection that we're going to be doing with our Clean Water Act enforcement, whether it's drinking water or NPDES programs. We're going to come in and we'll be talking to you at different conferences, and with the enforcement actions that we take, and with the Compliance Assistance actions, where we come out to areas and help teach people what they need to do. We'll be coming out with a coordinated approach, where we'll be talking to you about air and water and RCRA all at one time. What we'll have is we'll have Jerry here, and we'll have Mark Potts here, who does the RCRA program, and we'll have John Hepola here, who basically works with our air program, and we'll have people from all the different programs all start coming to different conferences like this, and we'll talk about the multi-media and community-based approach where we coordinate both the single enforcement and multimedia actions that we're doing, and also, where all the programs are going to be coordinating and often going to a facility or all going to a municipality at the same time. And we will be talking to you or the company about all the EPA problems that you might have at a particular facility or at a municipality. But in addition to that, I've said a couple of different times, that we're going to be having compliance assistance. We're going to be going out and having educational seminars. We're going to be going out and talking to people. We're going to be setting up different seminars. We're going to have people that you can call within the region, and if you need help trying to figure out what you need to do, we'll start helping you with that. Because what we found, is while we have 80 to 95% compliance with the big guys, when we start getting to the small guys, we don't get those good compliance rates. When we started looking at why our first reaction was they're bad guys. But I had to go out and talk to a lot of different people, and when we really started talking to the small guys we discovered that, they didn't understand Page 296 ------- what they needed to do and they were often afraid to ask us what they needed to do. They would go and read the different regs, and all of you all know if you've looked at the regs, it's probably a stack as tall as I am or maybe up to here. But if you look at all your C.F.R. 's and try to figure out what you're going to do, if you don't have the resources to devote somebody to do full-time compliance work, full-time regulatory work with the different environmental regulations that you get at the state, local, and federal level, then you don't have the ability to understand what all you need to do. You don't even know, "Who do I need to call? Do I call my County Health Department? Do I call the City Health Department? Do I call EPA? Do I call the state?" And you often will get bounced around from one person to another trying to get the different information. The small guys really do need a lot of help trying to figure out just what do they need to do, and we can't just refer them to regs or say, "Okay, go look at 40-CFR Part 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, and that will tell you all you need to do with RCRA." What you basically need to do is say, "Okay, what kind of company do you have? Okay, this is what you're doing. These are the particular regs. Go look at 261.13, 14 and 1-5." Things like that. So that we can try to give compliance assistance. Now the state and local agencies have been doing this compliance assistance a lot longer than we have and they have very good programs, where they go out and help people. So we're basically going to piggyback along with the state and local agencies and try to learn a lot from them, and also try to make sure that we are giving them more benefit, that we're not getting in their way or that we're not tripping over them. And it will be a new role for us working with the state and local agencies to provide compliance assistance so that we can all build together. Right now in Region 6, we're working in each of the different states with one program or another working on our compliance assistance programs. With the small businesses, some of what we'll be doing with the compliance assistance is that we'll actually be offering a period of time to give people an opportunity to come into compliance before we take a traditional enforcement route. We're looking at all types of different opportunities and different ways to basically work with people to get them into compliance before we go to the traditional route and start looking at administrative orders and civil referrals. If anybody has ideas on ways you think that we can improve what we're doing, or if you want more information, please give me a call at the regional office. I'll be glad to talk to you. I travel a lot, so you might have to leave a voice mail message, but I will get back to you. We really would appreciate your input on different ideas that you think we might be able to improve our enforcement program. Thank you. Do you have a question? Page 297 ------- Question: Yes, I have some questions about some of the new education programs. I work with the Lake Foundation. Are any of the programs that you guys are talking about, are they actually going to be designed? Sounds like most of the programs you're talking about would be designed programs, like the waste facilities in industry. What about programs involving the general public? The reason I bring that up is because the citizenry is becoming much better educated. They know how to get records. They know how to look at the records. They know how to tell if a facility is in or out of compliance. My question, I guess, is we have a lot of questions. You know, we will instruct people to go look at the records and pull the records, and they recognize that the facility is out of compliance, and then their next question is, "Okay, what's next or why?" I guess what I'm saying is, are any of these new programs you're talking about going to be directed to the general public without their monitoring the facility, discharging to a bayou or river that they love very much like Lake Pontchartrain or Lake Maurepas? Pam Phillips: I can tell you generally that there's two answers to what we need to do. We are not as far along in designing different programs for the general community. We are more organized and more oriented toward talking to different sectors and different groups like that. As part of our environmental justice outreach, we are developing different programs where we can go to the general community and we're also looking at the general community. But partly we need to know what you want as a member of the general community. We've started talking to different groups. Some of them are through different universities or junior colleges. We've talked to some different community grass roots groups and we're getting different ideas on what people are looking for, but we don't have anything that we've developed yet. We're still at the information gathering stage. What would be helpful for you? We've had a few general outreach programs, especially under the Superfund Program, where we have these technical assistance grants that we can award, and we've gone out to the general communities with a very specific program for the technical assistance grants. But other than in the Super Fund area with those technical assistance grant programs, we haven't gone out yet, and we don't feel like we're quite ready for the general public education. But please, give us a call. Give me a call or give Jerry a call and help us figure out what would be helpful. Response: Well, again, off the top of my head. You, for example, are working with a facility that let's just say is out of compliance for whatever reasons. I think it would be helpful as part of that communication between the facility to also communicate to the public what that particular facility is doing, you know, working with in our case the DEQ and the EPA. I say that cause I think it would help you guys. Yes, there is an education problem within the industry, but Page 298 ------- again, I think if you would try to share with the public the entire process, "Yes, the plant is out of compliance, but here's the plan." Pain Phillips: That's one of the things that we've been talking about doing. How do we better get out our information? If we're taking some type of action on a particular facility, how do we get the information out as to what this company is doing to correct the problems? And we are looking at ways. We have basically issued press releases and very few newspapers pick them up. So we're really looking at what is the best way. We're looking at possibly using different trade journals to try and get that information out, and by trade journals, I use that as a generic term. Some communities have publications. A lot of industrial groups have publications that they put out. So we're looking at how do we find out where those publications are? How do we find out the person that we need to send the information to? So we're going through some of that process. If you have any information, please give it to us, because that would help us a lot. Any other questions? Yes. Question: I've heard the term environmental justice more and more lately. Could you say a few words about it? Pam Phillips: Environmental justice. The technical term is there's a concern that some communities bear a disproportionate share of pollution. We don't have a good definition yet. In February of 1994, I believe it was, President Clinton signed an Executive Order that required different federal agencies to get together and come up with a definition of what they think an environmental justice community is and we're still basically working on that. We don't have total agreement yet. But what we look at is minority and low income communities, and we start looking at are they bearing a disproportionate share? Do they have too many pollution sources in that community? If so, then what we're looking at is trying to make sure that all the facilities in that particular area are in compliance with the regulatory requirements. We do look at ways that we can reduce penalties so that they would be willing to reduce emissions that we can't regulate. We look at different ways that we can basically try to get more cleanups in that particular area. We start concentrating some of our enforcement first in the areas where you have a high percentage of low income or minority populations. Most often, they turn out to be urban areas in many of our states. But they also include the rural areas where you have unincorporated communities. That especially affects Louisiana where we look very closely. Does that kind of answer your question? Page 299 ------- Response: Yes, it does. Does an environmental justice alert start out from the citizens complaining? Does it bottom up? Pam Phillips: It has two different ways. One way is the traditional way. We get citizens complaints. Someone will call in and say, "We think there is a problem there," and we look at it. We're also, through the geographic information system, we are putting the 1990 Census Data into the program by zip code and by putting a facility's latitude and longitude, we can get information on the surrounding area. And when we start trying to decide, okay, where do we start with our inspections this year? We start pulling up that information and say, "Okay, we'll start in this particular community." So it's both bottom up and also traditional targeting and trying to decide where do we start with our inspections this year. Does that answer your question? Response: Yes, thank you. Moderator: Jerry Saunders Thanks, Pam. What I intend to do is give you a brief overview of what we in the Water Program have been doing from a watershed perspective. I guess, sort of as a follow-up from what Pam was indicating in terms of how the agency is now looking at things from a geographic or place-based type enforcement effort. We have two watershed enforcement efforts going on from an enforcement standpoint within our region. One of those is in Louisiana. It's in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. The other one is in the state of Texas involving Galveston Bay Basin. In just a minute, I'll go down and we'll look at some of the overheads that I have, because there are some things I want to go over with you briefly. As some of you are obviously aware of, Lake Pontchartrain, we chose that one after some discussion with the state and also because we knew the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation had some activities ongoing, and we recognized that it was being recognized at both local, state, and national level, as a sensitive watershed that was being impacted by salt water intrusion, municipal runoff, fresh water diversion, agricultural runoff, and sewage discharges, along with a variety of other things. We also knew the Comprehensive Basin Plan was in the process of being developed to identify specific problems and that actions were being taken to address some of those problems. But while such a plan was being developed, we thought, j "Hey, wait a minute. We have some tools right here and now that we can try to do something Page 300 ------- to try to help out. Why don't we do that? And let's try to figure out what those things might be." Well, we haven't figured out what all those things are yet, but we have done some things. That's what I'm going to tell you about today. Basically, we're trying to work with the state to improve water quality. Let me first get down here and give you some overheads. As a matter of fact, this is an excerpt from one of the documents that the Pontchartrain Basin Foundation put out, cause I thought it was kind of handy, so I borrowed from you folks. What you can see is the Lake Pontchartrain Basin within the state of Louisiana. You can see the outline of the Basin boundary. It doesn't go all the way over to the Mississippi River and Feliciana Parishes, And it really, if you just look at the Pontchartrain Basin itself running into the lake only, it would not quite go over to include the Pearl River, but if you want to look at it covering the whole system, then obviously that would be included. But the major river systems you see there are the Amite, the Tickfaw, the Tangipahoa, the Chefuncte, Bogue Chitto, and then of course, Pearl River coming across there and some of the arrows you can see. It's a very little document put out for summary purposes, by the way, from the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. The color didn't come through here. I'd encourage you to pick up one of those documents out there. They indicate, in general, where major problems. Whether it is from municipal runoff* sewage and municipal runoff~a lot of that is coming from the north shore—municipal runoff concerns from the New Orleans/Jefferson Parish area, fresh water diversion, of course, some possibilities of coming through the Bonnet Carre Diversion, and then of course, salt water diversion gradient coming up from the Gulf. There's a number of generic problems described in some of those documents. I encourage you to take a look at that and also just talk with LDEQ. So as I said, we picked the Lake Pontchartrain Basin in Louisiana because everyone felt it was of concern and there was a lot of evidence out there indicating there were problems. We picked Galveston Bay for the same reason. But at the same time, we felt two things. It wasn't just enough to improve water quality in the basin through enforcement of existing NPDES permits, which is something we could do right away. But the other thing is, we wanted to work in partnership with LDEQ. The reason we did that was as Tim has already mentioned. They've been pretty active doing enforcement activities in the basin. I started looking at what they had done. They had issued over 70 orders or 70 enforcement actions during the last year just to facilities within the basin. We started looking at what we had done and said, "Hey, wait a minute. Maybe if we start diverting what limited resources we have for minor enforcement over to these areas, maybe we could help out and have a little more targeted enforcement. Try to get a little more return for our enforcement buck." That's what we're trying to do. Work in partnership with the state and at the same time improving water quality in the basin by doing what we can right now. That is enforcing existing NPDES permits. All right? Page 301 ------- Specifically, what we decided to do was, as you can see here, what we're doing within that effort, if you will, is to monitor compliance of all the major facilities in the basin, because we're still a non-delegated program, meaning EPA still has primacy. As Tim had mentioned, we've got 27 of those in the basin, and we're initiating enforcement as needed to bring about compliance. We've been doing that all along. We're going to continue to do that. The second thing EPA is going to be doing is initiating enforcement actions as needed to bring all noncompliant minor facilities, which have received an NPDES permit, into compliance. Now we looked at an initial list of about 180. Unfortunately, not all of those NPDES permits are effective. We're trying to glean from that actions that we can take. Now we haven't taken 180 enforcement actions yet. You'll see that in just a minute. But we've started down the path of looking at those files and seeing which ones are in fact noncompliant, which ones can EPA take action on, and attempting to do that. At the same time, DEQ is committed to continuing to initiate enforcement actions. Really take a fairly high level of enforcement action in that area and respond to all the citizens complaints and then address violations relating to state requirements. Because in some cases the area state requirements that are being violated aren't federal requirements. We recognize that neither one of us really have all the resources in the world, so again, working together maybe we can accomplish a little bit more than if we worked separately. So again, it goes back to those two primary goals in trying to make improvements as we can right now and, at the same time, working together. So what have we done? Well, this is just EPA's list. We got some heavy hitting on here. There isn't any question about that. We have filed suit over the past five to seven years, if you will, against the big municipalities in the basin. Involving the City of Kenner, we just filed a Consent Decree a year ago last October. The Consent Decree is finalized. Part of that action was initiated for a couple of reasons. One was for pre-treatment program problems. But another major aspect of that case involved unauthorized discharges of a big name that was releasing partially or untreated sewage into Lake Pontchartrain. Well, that has since ceased. That action was very successful. We're pleased with the City of Kenner. They are also under order right now to do over $11 million of investment to eliminate some of their overflow and bypass problems related to sewage that could possibly end up in Lake Pontchartrain if it wasn't taken care. But those problems are being addressed. ; The City of Baton Rouge, and many of you may already know and Greg Crawford, here, | handles that particular case, we have had under a Consent Decree for a number of years, involving initially eliminating discharges from 140 package plants back in that Amite River system we were talking about and trying to get all those package plants eliminated and tied into major force mains and then pumped to three major plants. It would be upgraded to j secondary treatment and then discharged in the Mississippi River. In other words, get it out Page 302 ------- of the sensitive low flow receiving stream back water areas that are going into the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, and put it into a high flowing river that can readily assimilate the waste and start receiving adequate secondary treatment. As some of you already know, we have a case pending right now with the City of New Orleans. Believe me, that case is right now. If you look at the complaint that was filed, it was really for two reasons. One was for solids handling, solids and sludges being discharged into the river with proper treatment. The other one was for overflows and bypasses on their collection systems. That is still ongoing so I can't talk too much about that one right now. But we're still trying to address some of those problems of improperly treated sewage getting back into the back water areas that currently drain into Lake Pontchartrain. So we have those three big referrals. Right now we just have one administrative penalty pending in the basin, of those 27 major facilities that we talked about earlier. This one wasn't even major. It happened to be a minor. It was brought to our attention by a citizen complaint and we started looking at the records. We ended up imposing 'a fine. That one is still pending. It hasn't been resolved yet. It involves some sampling problems. It involves some reporting problems and some discharge problems as well. So that one is still pending. And then (c), these are the ones that we just recently did as a result of our desire, if you will, to try to help out Lake Pontchartrain. There's about 65 or 70 orders we just recently issued to scrap metal dealers in the Basin. The reason for that was the storm water data has come in and indicated that junk yard, scrap metal dealers tend to have heavy metal discharges, and from a storm water standpoint, they're probably one of the worst sources of that kind of pollutant. So what we've done is we've sent out the orders and we've asked them to get back to us and let us know: (1) are you covered by our Industrial General Storm Water Permit, and (2) if you are, then have you developed your Pollution Prevention Plan, because we want to know this. Then of course, we're in the process of following up on those right now. We're still waiting for some of the responses to come in and our basic intent there is to try to make sure everyone gets covered and to get that Pollution Prevention Plan in place so we can try to cut back on some of that heavy metal discharge. The second one you see listed there, Public Effluent Treatment Works, 25 orders. Now I mentioned that 180 we started out with initially. Well, a lot of those old files, when you start looking at them, you'll see they either have expired or continued permits. So we're down to about really 60 or 70 that we're looking at seriously to see whether or not some enforcement action can be taken. We've issued about 25 to 30 of them so far. They're basically two small towns in the basin on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain and the Tangipahoa, Chefuncte Indian Basins, therefore, failure to adequately report, failure to adequately sample, and for those that aren't reporting, failure to meet effluence. What we're trying to do is work with those people to make them understand what it is their requirements are, and try to come up with compliant schedules. That's what we're trying to do. Page 303 ------- As Pam had indicated, we're trying to do some compliance assistance efforts. We had our first meeting about three weeks ago over in Hammond. We met with about nine or 10 of these facilities and basically explained to them what it is we're trying to do and why we're doing it. At the same time, we had some of the financing agencies there. Because we recognized that some of these small town, 1,500 to 2,000 people, just aren't going to have the ready cash laying around to say, "Hey, I can go out and fix the treatment plant today." That isn't going to happen. So what we have to try to do is work with them in conjunction with funding agencies, whether it is state, federal or local, and then come up with a compliance schedule that makes sense. So those are some of the things that we're doing. Go on to the next one. Well, what do we know about watershed enforcement? Well, watershed enforcement is really not that much different than what we've done before, except there's a much greater emphasis placed upon enforcement against minor facilities and a much greater emphasis placed upon enforcing general permits, and using all the enforcement tools we have available to us. Plus a much greater effort placed upon communication and outreach. We're just really starting down the road on all these areas. So we're not done yet. But that's the path we're headed down, more outreach and more enforcement against minor facilities and, quite honestly, working with them more. These are some of the things that we've learned over the years through a number of minor enforcement efforts we've been involved in, and through our efforts involved with the Pontchartrain, as well as Galveston Bay, so far. So I've got some general statements here. Many of you will recognize these to just be simple statements of truths. But I will go through them anyway. 1. Enforcement is only a portion of the overall picture to improve water quality in a basin. Very simple, I know I spoke to Rusty Ray, here a week or so ago, in preparation for this, and there really is a desperate need for integrated enforcement, being state, federal and local. Because not only do you have shared resources and you can accomplish more, but you have different authorities. Now at the current time, you know, we have the NPDES Program and we have NPDES enforcement. The state also has a state program with state authorities that are covering different facilities than we are covering. A lot of times there will be facilities that have a state permit that don't have a federal permit. Even though they may have applied, EPA just has not had the resources to issue them. So there's a place for state enforcement enforcing the state permits, a place for EPA enforcing the federal permits, and then there's very much a place for local authorities, particularly with septic tank systems. Neither the state agencies, nor EPA, really have a good handle on that, in terms of making sure that they're properly designed and maintained, because there are so many of them out there. Whereas, local authorities, whether it is done at the parish level or some other level, River Authority j level, or whatever the case may be, might very well be better suited to solving those kinds of j problems rather than us. Particularly if we could get out there and explain to some of these * people what a workable septic tank really looks like and why you shouldn't be putting one in Page 304 ------- like this. So we need help all the way along the road. We think that it's going to take that integrated effort. But anyway, enforcement is only a portion of that, as we indicate here. 2. Nonpoint source problems, salinity gradients, and habitat issues cannot be addressed by the NPDES Enforcement Program. We've got to work together. We've got to work together with the Basin Foundation. We've got to be working together with the state, federal and local to accomplish the most that we can. 3. The most effective approach to solving water quality issues would involve state, federal, and local private entities. 4. Due to the resource intensive nature of watershed enforcement activities, EPA should generally not select a basin for an initiative unless there is state agency support. I firmly believe that. The state, the local people know the problems better and know the people involved better than we do. We're there as back up, but at the same time, we're there to do implementation if we're called upon to do that. In a non-delegated state, that's what we do. If the state's not there to support us, I don't think we're going to going in there alone. Because we tend to be more remote from the problems, more remote from the issues, and more remote from the people. We want to become involved. We want to help out where our role calls for it. But we're not going to do it without the states. 5. Because minor facilities have not frequently dealt with EPA enforcement, there are greater needs for compliance, outreach, and assistance efforts. I'm here to tell you. I've been doing enforcement off and on for the past 12 to 15 years, and meeting with small towns and small industries to get them to come into compliance is an experience. Furthermore, some of the first places you'll visit~and a lot of you people have done enforcement or you've been associated enough to know this-you go into the small treatment plant. You go, "Where's your permit?" "Oh, it's hanging up there on the wall. Isn't that pretty." You go up and you look at the permit. It's in a frame. It's never been looked at. They hang it on the wall and say, "We got a permit to discharge." It's a very common occurrence. Very well-meaning people thinking they have the authority to discharge, but not having a clue as to what it is they're supposed to be doing. Another problem that used to surprise me but doesn't bother me anymore and I see it all the time. I can remember one particular facility I visited and couldn't find the operator. Well, where was he? Well, he was also the janitor down at City Hall. So we went down the City Hall. "Oh, yeah, I'm the operator, but I can't go out there until this afternoon. I got to finish cleaning City Hall." These are real world problems, folks, and we got to work with them. Otherwise, we can't get it solved. In any event, working with minors is a different experience. They need all the outreach you can ever give them and at any level. Page 305 ------- 6. Enforcement actions are valuable because they focus immediate attention upon problem facilities and require that action be done to take and fix the problem. The real power and duty of enforcement, whether it is watershed related, which is what we're looking at right now, or just an intermittent facility, is it's an action driving mechanism. It makes you look at a problem. It says, "Here's a problem. And it isn't going to go away, because I got a legal document in the mail that says, by gosh, I got to look at that problem. On top of that, I got to figure out a way to solve it." That doesn't mean you have to be abusive. That doesn't mean you have to be nasty. It just means you say, "Hey, listen. You have a problem. We need to work together to solve this thing, and if you have any questions on how the process works or what needs to be done to solve it, let's talk, because it's going to take a team effort to pull it off." All right? But enforcement is a very valuable tool because it's the lightening rod to bring attention to a problem. 7. The length of enforcement schedules to correct problems depends upon the financial condition of the owner of the facility. For small facilities, they're dependent upon public or private funds that can be attained. Like I mentioned earlier, for small towns, 1,500 to 2,000 people, little parish sewer districts, whatever they may be, they're not going to come in and comply on their own. They're not going to have the technical know-how. They're not going to have the financial capability. You've got to sit down and work with them. Point out where some of these other agencies are. Where the Farmers Home Administration people are, where the HUD Block Grant people are, where the state Revolving Fund Program people are, and anything else you can come up with. And sit down with the team and most of the other state and federal agencies are more than willing to work with these people. This is just what we did in Hammond here a couple of weeks ago. We brought the Farmers Home in. We brought the SRF people in. Matter of fact, SRF people set up the meeting for us, which I think is great, another example of state and federal cooperation. We sat down and went over with those people, "This is how enforcement works and this is what this order requires of you." All right. Then everyone is wondering, "Well, how am I going to pay for it?" "Ah, that's what these people are here to talk to you about. Now we need to jointly come up with schedules of compliance." That's what this is all about, and it really applies to minors. Major facilities. No. They should be able to come up with the funding. They're going to have more financial resources available to them. But this is a reality, #seven, when you're dealing with minor facilities. What is next? What do we plan on doing next in the basin or for that matter, in any of our watershed efforts? As I mentioned, those 25 orders. There are some other things that are going on. 1. The difficult task of getting entities to properly report and develop compliance schedules. Just what I talked about. That's what we're going to be trying to do with these 25 to 30 facilities. Page 306 ------- 2. Continue to identify NPDES permit holders which are having problems. Or continuing to look at that list of people that we have to see who else needs that initial order to start focusing on that problem they have. They need to begin reporting properly or to sit down and come up with a compliance schedule. 3. Continue to build a relationship with LDEQ. Again, working with the state to find out what is it they can do better to help out and what is it we can do better to help out? 4. Expand our outreach efforts. Just like I mentioned before. Like the meeting we had in Hammond. We need to have some more of those. Make sure that all the people that are getting these orders understand what is required of them. If they have any questions, try to address those. Not necessarily do the engineering for themselves but help them through the process. 5. Seek ways to facilitate compliance through other federal agencies and local agencies. We can't do it alone. Part of the reason for that is EPA doesn't have a lot of the funding programs that are out there. That's why I mentioned HUD Block Grant. That's why I mentioned Farmers Home Administration. And any other state programs that come up. I know Oklahoma has a separate state program that operates for funding purposes as well or even local programs and sometimes even private funds, so anything you can do to try to point to the direction in which they need to be looking. As long as these people are demonstrating good faith and actually working hard to come into compliance, we're going to be working hard with them to bring them into compliance. It's when they start dragging their feet over and over and over again, that they end up in trouble with enforcement and have to face that specter of penalties. Sometimes you have to do that. Sometimes people need that woodshed experience to kind of get them off the dime. Well, that's sort of where we are and where we're headed. First of all, are there any questions in terms of what we've done so far in Pontchartrain Basin? Or any questions on my thoughts or remarks for that matter, before we go on to the next one? Okay. The next thing I wanted to mention briefly was some issues, I guess. I know Rusty had mentioned this to me when I talked to him last week. But I think it's an interesting issue. I just don't know how much interest there is out there, but I'll bring it up, because I think it merits discussion. That is how can the private sector be encouraged to assist governments in solving water quality problems within a basin? He had mentioned to me last week, and I think if you listened carefully today you heard him say it. He had mentioned that some of the scrap metal dealers and people were willing to come in and take this material for free and haul it off in an effort to cleanup water bodies. Now, does anybody have any thoughts on that or suggestions as to how we might be doing that better, either here or out there? We're more than willing to hear it. Page 307 ------- Question: I've got a question. Did that include appliances? Answer: Rusty Ray It did if they were recyclable items. That was what the metal recycler would take. Suggestion: I just have a suggestion then. Sounds like a great program. Having that information for other groups to go to scrap dealers and say, "Here's an example of what happened in Texas and it worked." If scrap dealers look at the kind of volume that you're talking about, they would equate that with money. Yes, there are a lot of good community relations, but there's also profit. That kind of information is very important to help other areas set up programs. Question: Did you approach them or did they come to you or how did that work? Answer: Rusty Ray We approached them. We work with paint recyclers when we do household hazardous waste collections. We go to community groups. Instead of disposing of the paint, we'll talk to community groups and see if they'll take the usable quantities of paint. When we're having a household hazardous waste collection, we'll also approach the tire folks. They donate their services. We approach the solid waste folks that are in the area for a dumpster to take — generally, when people bring in, they have some type of garbage or refuse they need to get rid of when they bring their disposable or recyclables in. We've had really good luck with that and the recyclers as well. Some of the small communities don't have recycling programs and if there's a disposal company in the area that provides recycling, we ask them to have dumpsters on site so that the folks can bring in their recyclables. Like you say, it's all tied to a dollar bill and PR. Question: Did you offer them some kind of PR or how did that work? Page 308 ------- Answer: Rusty Ray Well, their PR is that they can have a sign up at the collection event. We'll generally run some newspaper articles before saying, "This is where our collection is, and we want to thank, in advance, these folks for helping us out." Whoever helped us with the site and whoever helped us with whatever donations for the collection. The state collections that TNRCC does, the Texas Country Cleanups, those are all free. They work with battery recyclers to come out on site and pick those batteries up. Oil recyclers that will come out there with a pump truck. Farmers will bring hi 55-gallon containers of used oil and they'll pump their containers out on site and they can take them back with them. Same thing for the oil filters and tires, as well. Moderator: Jerry Saunders Any other questions on that? Okay. Thanks, Rusty. Appreciate it. The only other issue I have and it's really just from the standpoint of looking for more information myself, to be quite honest with you, is what other funding mechanisms exist out there to assist smaller facilities in correcting water quality problems? We know of Farmers Home. We know of HUD Block Grant. We know of an SRF Program for municipalities. We also know that Farmers Home — which is something new to me that I just learned —. can also guarantee a loan for a privately owned utility company that provides public service, which I thought was very interesting. I spoke to a Farmers Home person to find that out. I guess they don't call themselves Farmers Home now. They have another name now. The agriculture people here could tell me what that is. But I know the local agent up in Hammond. He's the guy I spoke with. He handles Southeast Louisiana. If there are any other kinds of facilities like that. I think local, state, and federal governments need to keep an eye on that, particularly when you're looking at public facilities, and even for that matter, for private small facilities. Who is it these people can turn to, if in fact, there is really an aggrievious problem? Is there some kind of a low interest loan they can get? Long term low interest loan or some other mechanism that may be out there. Now I don't know if the Small Business Administration is involved in that or not. But these are things that we all need to be working together on and trying to find ways, so that when we sit down to talk to these people, we can actually come up with a meaningful compliance schedule. We know rates can be raised. But there's a point with some of the mom and pop operations, family run businesses, that there may be a problem and there's just no solution in sight because the money isn't there. We all need to bear that in mind. Anybody got any thoughts on that? Yes, Karen. Page 309 ------- Question: My question is not related to the money. When you mentioned that a lot of these folks are in smaller communities need help with the process as much as they also need engineering help. Do you think it would be possible for a team of state and federal folks to train some local citizens that would be willing to volunteer to go out and help people with the process? Could the state and federal people have trained these people to be available and be a local resource within a community, because you all can't get out there since state and federal resources are kind of limited. Answer: Jerry Saunders I think some of it could be. See, part of the problem is that when you're explaining regulatory process, you do not want a go between in the middle that may be misinterpreting things, when they have questions on "well, what does this regulation really mean? How does this order really work?" That's the problem. One thing, though, there's another advantage of enforcement which I didn't mention earlier, although I did say it was a lightening rod. It's all of a sudden people have an interest to listen and you'll have a guaranteed audience. So there's another advantage of an order. Comment: I have something to say about the small community issue. There really is active review of what is available at the state level to provide outreach for the smaller facilities in the small communities of fewer than 2,500. So it is being looked out in terms of outreach. At this point, I haven't heard too much about the financial aspects. I've heard a lot of discussions about penalties and moving away from penalties toward more compliance assistance. Answer: Jerry Saunders Let me point out one other thing related to that. Enforcement orders are good. Take that message back. The reason is not only does it guarantee an audience, it also guarantees their attention. It guarantees action. And it also moves them higher up on the priority list for funding on these programs. It jumps them up on both the SRF list and the Farmers Home Administration list. Question: I have a couple of questions. One thing that Pam mentioned was that perhaps a lot of the problems now are from the things that aren't regulated. I know that the GAO Report came out very recently in 1994 looking at discharges from three sectors in pulp and paper, Page 310 ------- Pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing facilities, and it looked at toxic contaminants that were being discharged legally. That they weren't in any violation of their permits. I wonder if the enforcement people in your region are beginning to talk with permit writers to decide whether there should be more chemicals in their permits that they should regulate? Answer: Pam Phillips Yes, we have had discussions and what we found with most of the permits is that most of the permits are state permits. We've talked to state permit writers, the RCRA and air permits are state permits for the most part, except for small portions, and hi talking to state permit writers, basically, there's no regulatory authority to start regulating many of these different discharges. Their regs are written specifically enough that they don't feel like they have the authority to include more controls. Answer: I have a twofold answer to that question, from a water standpoint and from the NPDES standpoint and that is: (1) if we identify an unauthorized waste stream, the first thing we want to know is what is in it, because if it is a toxic substance, we're going to be concerned immediately. We're going to be talking to our water quality people either at the state or at the federal level to find out what, if anything, needs to be done. But in all honesty, that's not my greatest concern. Because when it does come up, that's the way we approach it. My greatest concerns tend to be focused by both the state and the federal water quality people. I rely upon them to tell me is this a real problem or isn't it. Because they are the ones that are looking at those data bases and have the greatest knowledge of the resources. The young lady right there in front of you, I trust very much in Louisiana, and the other one in the back, I do as well because Emelise gives me very reliable data. And I think you handle the 305(b) Report for Louisiana, don't you? You generate it? Yes. Comment: While there may be a whole laundry list of toxic pollutants out there, one of the other programs that we're implementing, NPDES program, is the whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Program. So while we've identified a lot of the pollutants that aren't on our priority pollutant list or state water quality standard, there's some pesticides that show up, so we're putting some type of controls on that, whether it be Best Management Practice for a specific cleaning. Additionally, pollutants like ammonia show up to be a problem in effluent. So the whole Effluent Toxicity Program will allow us to address some pollutants that we have not in the past. Page 311 ------- Question: How far along is that from being implemented? Answer: We started doing testing in 1988 for our major facilities as those permits come up for renewal. We put in Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing requirements. The basis of that is the critical low- flow conditions of the stream with either the design capacity for municipal or the average volume discharge for industrial facilities. As those facilities failed, we required that they go back and identify either how they could either eliminate the problem or identify the specific pollutant. So they could either look at treatability or they could identify the pollutant and try to figure out how to resolve that issue. After they've had an opportunity to fix the problem, then we would go back and put a limit in there saying you cannot have a greater level of toxicity than some threshold that the state would usually tell us, "This represents the critical conditions for that facility's discharge." Question: So what kind of facilities are currently using whole effluent toxicity testing? Answer: All the majors in the region are being issued permits with whole effluent toxicity testing requirements. Whether they have a limit or they're doing a toxicity reduction evaluation or they're just simply doing monitoring. Two species. A vertebrate and invertebrate species. Moderator: Jerry Saunders Let me add to what Steve was saying. If they see a problem, they come over and they talk to our enforcement staff and we try to help them out any way that we can. Question: I have another sort of related question. What's the status of your using the total maximum daily pollutants? Answer: Where we have a total maximum daily load analysis, then we'll implement it. That's exactly the way the NPDES program is supposed to work. Part of our problem is we don't typically Page 312 ------- have the whole picture. We don't know what the ambient levels are. We don't know what the background would be from a nonpoint source. So we have to get all those items identified. You have to run through the TMDL process and then you would establish what those would be. For dissolved oxygen, we have TMDL's for all the major river segments in the region. But when you talk about copper or something like that, it's very site specific. TMDL's are only done or the information is being collected where we have a problem. As an example, the Houston Ship Channel is one I think we have some TMDL's that are about to be approved for nickel and I'm not sure what the other pollutant is. But until those TMDL's are completed and all the facilities identified and those loads determined for each of those facilities, we can't arbitrarily implement that. What we can do is we can assume that there isn't any background and we can do a mini-TMDL on each discharge. What's typically called a wasteload allocation. We look at how much can the receiving stream assimilate and not exceed water quality standards but the TMDL sort of ties all the dischargers together and all the other avenues hi which a pollutant may be discharged or contributed into that water body. Question: I have a follow-up TMDL question. Do you have many watersheds which have nutrient problems? Answer: Yes. You really need to talk with Troy Hill, with our Water Quality Management Branch, about the TMDL's. He is the person who deals with that on a regular basis. I understand that, as an example, in the Wister Lake Watershed in Oklahoma, they are looking at doing a TMDL on phosphorous. It's a place that they know they have a problem. It's a problem that's been there for many, many years. But right now, they're trying to look at it. There's a bunch of conflicting information, so you really have to get a good accurate picture to be able to make an effective TMDL. I've seen the estimates for point source contributions anywhere from 50% to 10%. So obviously, you have to get that narrowed down or else it won't be effective. Moderator: Jerry Saunders Let me add something to that. If you want to know more about that, there's a man by the name of Mr. Smolen, who is the O.S.U., Oklahoma State University. He's working on that report. I saw him out in the hall earlier today. I know you want an answer, but he isn't giving it out yet because his report isn't final. Page 313 ------- Comment: Troy's here, too. He's down the hall. ; Jerry Saunders: As a matter of fact that was the watershed that I was referencing earlier when I responded to your question earlier today on has that been done. I said in some states it has, and that was the watershed. j i All right. If that's all the questions, we want to thank all of you for coming. I also want to } thank Tim Brewster and Rusty Ray and Pam Phillips for coming today. Thank you for your j time and I hope you enjoy your stay in New Orleans. I Page 314 ------- Nonpoint Source Watershed Activities - Part 2 (3:00-4:30PM) Moderator: Mike Bira, Clean Lakes Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Dallas, TX Our first speaker is Carl Hutcherson. He's currently with the NRCS. He received his first B.S. in Agricultural Education, a second B.S. and M.S. in agronomy from Texas A&M. He's been working with the USD A Soil Conservation Service since 1976, as soon as he graduated from high school. He's worked from the Panhandle in Texas, to East Texas. He's also served bn SCS National Headquarters staff on detail to the EPA Region 1 office in Boston. We heard some great things about him and we had the opportunity to get him down to the Region 6 office in Dallas, and he's been a tremendous help for us. We have a lot of projects in rural areas, and if you've got an EPA hat on, you might as well have a target on it. The NRCS, which used to be SCS has been a really big help to us in getting in and talking to local people. They've opened a lot of doors for us. I really hope that the relationship between the two agencies can continue, because it's been a benefit for both of us. So without any further ado, I'll leave it to Carl. Speaker: Carl Hutcherson, Natural Resource Conservation Service Liaison, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas, TX Thank you, Mike. I would like to begin by thanking this group for being here, number one, especially on a beautiful day like today. I would like to thank Mike for the introduction. For those of you that are not familiar with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, we were formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service. We have been around for about 60 years. We're going through some reorganization efforts right now. I want to take just a few minutes to discuss the reorganization of our agency and show you some of the tie ins. I know the objective here in this session is to talk about NRCS's watershed activities, and I want to tie that into some of our reorganization efforts. The Natural Resources Conservation Service, as that entity, was created on October 20, 1994, was part of a larger USDA total reorganization. Mike Espy carried through with the former Secretary of Agriculture's initiation of reorganizing the entire department, and this is kind of the end product. The Natural Resource Conservation Service, the name more accurately reflects some of the activities that the agency does, basically, over the years being known as the Soil Conservation Service has never hurt us as far as we were concerned. But sometimes we did not receive recognition for a lot of the activities that we were involved in, including watershed activities that impacted water quality issues. So again, this name change is something that we're Page 315 ------- looking forward to. The name change accurately reflects what we do, and we also help people conserve all natural resources on private land. We do want to stress that it's on private land that we draw the line. Our basic interest is on private property. All of our activities are built on 60 years of experience. Our agency has a very strong reputation for its technical background and the technical training of our people, our employees, out there on the ground. You've heard earlier in some of the other presentations about the delivery system that the NRCS has, working through Soil & Water Conservation Districts, and we feel like that is the j strength of our agency. It provides us with a delivery mechanism that gets us down to the lowest level of grassroots organization, and we think that's where the impact is most important. The change also gave us some leadership for some programs that weren't previously under our jurisdiction in the past. Those include Wetlands Reserve Programs, Water Bank Program, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, F.I.P., and Farms for the Future. But these are all currently in question right now for funding. If you've seen the recent House Bill, NRCS is taking a big slash on not only these activities, but a lot of other activities, including RC&D, that we feel are very important parts of our programs. The Senate has not yet met to review the budget for '96 on these. Also, I must emphasize that the House budget was just a budget resolution. That is not the actual appropriation language that will end up. But the House Budget Committee is the one that formed it, and they're the ones that will end up making the decisions. So hopefully, the Senate will temper, somewhat, the budget and come out with something a little more realistic, instead of just slashing all these programs and just zeroing them out. Because we feel very strongly that they are extremely important programs. We did retain the Great Plains Program and some of the other agricultural programs that SCS has historically administered as well as the Small Watershed Program. The Small Watershed Program is the thing that I really wanted to stress the most this afternoon. Hopefully, I've explained the reorganization enough to where I've given you an idea of where we're going with a lot of this stuff. The Small Watershed Program, otherwise known as Public Law 566, is a program that's been around quite a while. Historically, people have known this Small Watershed Program, or 566 Program, as most people know it, to be a flood water retarding program, a flood water structure type program. Recently, with the emphasis on water quality issues and with some of the changes that our new Chief has made in Washington, more of the program is being opened up for water quality issues and land treatment type programs. EPA feels very strongly, as so the NRCS, that the land treatment type programs can be leveraged in with a lot of state and local programs to do a lot of good out there on the ground. That's one of the Page 316 ------- things that I wanted to emphasize with this presentation is the need to be creative. Leveraging of these programs is very important. I'll give you an example of one of the activities that this Small Watershed Program has been successful at. In the state of Vermont, they had a PL-566 Program that was not very successful. They had limited the cost share systems to only 50% to install animal waste management systems on a lot of dairies that they had in the watershed. People were not signing up. Farmers were not participating because they did not consider the 50% cost sharing to be enough of an incentive to participate in the program. It goes back to the speaker yesterday talking about the $50,000. Especially when the ASCS, now the CFSA, was cost sharing through their ACP Program at a 75% rate. Well, even if the ASCS didn't have enough money in the program, the farmers would still hold out to try to get that 75 %. Whether they got the money or not, they were going to hold out. We came in with 319 monies there within that watershed and leveraged those 319 funds with the PL-566 funds to come up to a 75% cost share level. The 319 Program, by statutory requirements, says that no more than 75 % of the total project cost can be federal funds. So that was where the cap was. We brought it up to 75% cost share rate, and within four months, they had a million and a half dollars worth of contracts signed by producers within that area. So that can show you very dramatically how successful the programs can be merged and leveraged. Watershed protection or land treatment projects are planned and implemented to reduce sediment damage. Again, this ties back to land treatment type activities not only for animal waste management systems, but for just about any type of Best Management Practice that both PL-566 uses and 319 agrees with. I'm not talking just about those two federal programs. PL- 566 can be merged with a lot of state and local programs to do the same thing. One of the main requirements for eligibility in the program is you have to have local sponsors. Sponsors can be entities legally organized under state law or any Indian tribe or tribal organization having authority to carry out, operate, and maintain works of improvement. The sponsors have to have Power of Eminent Domain if there is any type of a measure to be put on public land, obviously. If all of the measures are to be applied on private land, that's not necessarily an eligibility requirement. It's nice to have just in case you do require something in your final management plan. Project sponsors are typically Soil and Water Conservation Districts, counties, municipalities, state agencies, or watershed, flood control, conservancy, drainage, irrigation, and other special purpose districts. All of those are typical sponsors of 566 or small watershed type programs and are eligible to participate. Page 317 ------- On this last overhead here, I want to emphasize the watershed protection. If you look under construction costs, the maximum that the program allows for is 65 %. This is the current cost share rate that cannot be exceeded. The agriculture water management, which includes irrigation type practices, can go up to 50%, but cannot exceed that. If you come in and leverage local, state or other federal programs, including EPA program funds, these can be expanded up to whatever cap that you think is necessary to get the participation of the audience that you're seeking there within your watershed. It's a good program. It's a good tool. Basically, what I want to try to emphasize is creativity. There's a world of activities that our agency, the NRCS, is involved in. We have water quality specialists in just about every state office now. We have people out in the field that are trained to help you and guide you in participating in this type of a program. I must emphasize that you need to work with your local and state offices. If you have questions about these programs, contact your local NRCS field office. We're very happy that part of the reorganization effort is to strengthen those field offices now. We're very excited about that. When I came to work'for the Soil Conservation I Service in 1976, we had approximately 60% of all of our employees across the nation in a j field office somewhere. Today, that's less than 50%. Part of this reorganization effort is to try to reach a goal of 70% of all of our employees being in a field office. Most of us in our agency believe that the strength of our agency is the field office and the delivery system that we offer. That's something that I want to stress also. Again, creativity is extremely important. To quote one of our country's greatest philosophers, Garth Brooks, he had a record out one time that stated that Noah took a lot of ridicule when he was building his great ark, but after 40 days and 40 nights, he was looking pretty smart. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Sometimes you have to go against the grain. That's one thing I want to stress to you is to remember that you have to shoot for that creativity. If you have any question about the applicability of your programs with the NRCS, be sure and contact your local office. They're more than willing to work with you. They have a lot of knowledge, a lot of technical expertise that can assist you. So with that, I'll leave you. I would like to thank you for your kind attention. Moderator: Mike Bira Our next speaker is Tom Curran with LCRA. He's currently Senior Environmental Coordinator with LCRA. He's been in that position since 1991. He primarily focuses his work on LCRA's nonpoint source pollution control efforts. They include managing Lake Travis Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Ordinance, and also he's worked on developing and implementing similar regs to protect other portions of the Highland Lakes and the Lower Colorado River. His work involves a lot of nonpoint source pollutants from agricultural and urban areas. He also has worked on issues such as designing management practices for LCRA Page 318 ------- Operations, establishing improved inspections of existing on-site wastewater systems, evaluating the effectiveness of certain management practices, and identifying nonpoint source impacts from agricultural land uses. Prior to joining LCRA, Tom was a Civil Engineer with consulting firms in Austin and Boston. He designed Site Development Projects and utility infrastructure improvements. He's a registered P.E. in Texas and New Hampshire. He received is B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas. So with that, I'll leave it to Tom. Speaker: Tom Curran, P.E., Senior Environmental Coordinator, NFS Pollution Control Program, Lower Colorado River Authority; Austin, TX I'd like to talk about managing development and controlling nonpoint source pollution from the urbanization process. There are many different ways in which nonpoint source pollution can be controlled from urbanization and this is just one approach I want to share with you, just to give you a little bit of background. The Lower Colorado River Authority is kind of an interesting company. It's actually a public utility company, but it's also an agency of the state. It was created by the legislature. It was also given the responsibilities of being a steward of the Lower Colorado River. It also has responsibilities in flood control, providing recreation, park maintenance for the public of central Texas. This is the Lower Colorado River Authority's mission statement. The LCRA, while being an agency of the state has received no funds from the state. It has no taxing authority. It also has no land use or zoning authority, which limits the approach in which we can tackle the issue of pollution from urbanization. Part of the LCRA's mission statement within the environmental division is LCRA says it will use its assets to improve the water quality of the Colorado River and the quality of life in Central Texas. Our challenge is to implement innovative cost effective environmental solutions, while remaining a competitive business entity, which is obviously paramount. Therefore, in order to accomplish some of our environmental goals, we have to rely on an acquisition of grants and also partnerships with different entities to accomplish our goals. This is a part of our watershed. The LCRA has statutory authority, as it's referred to, within a 10-county area. Some of these counties are our electrical utility customers. Down the center, comes through the Colorado River. The City of Austin would be right about here, and then the upper Highland Lakes, which is the area I'm going to talk about, is upstream and west of the City of Austin. I'm not going to get into a lot on the impacts of urbanization, because I feel comfortable that most of you know what the primary impacts are, being the change in the hydrologic process and also the introduction and increase in various pollutants. Trash is an easy visible one for Page 319 ------- most of the public to associate with. Some of the items that they can't see are actually more of a threat to water quality are more difficult to sometimes convey to them. So trash is sometimes a nice one to use, I guess, a nice pollutant to use to gather people's attention. Here's a river or a creek segment that obviously has excess nutrients in it causing the algae blooms. Here you'll see a sediment plume coming from a construction site within the City of Austin. Town Lake with some of the various activities taking place within the City of Austin, actually had to put up signs to stop eating the fish in Town Lake due to chlordane accumulating within the fish. Recent efforts by the City of Austin and LCRA are showing an actual improvement in the reduction of the chlordane levels within the fish. So hopefully the health advisory not to eat the fish may be removed soon. What I'd like to show here is the other impact associated with urbanization and that is the increase in rainfall runoff, surface runoff from the urbanization process. This bar over here would represent for a unit area a certain amount of rainfall that is actually hitting the ground, dependent upon the land use that it's coming upon, you can see where this is undeveloped land, only a very small portion of the rainfall is actually coming off of the land as surface runoff. As you develop your land, the proportionate increase in surface runoff increases greatly as you get to more impervious cover. The increase in runoff causes much more erosive capabilities of your downstream conveyance systems, which ultimately ends up causing problems such as stream bank erosion. One of the interesting things I thought about in the discussion that we've been having today is watershed protection and property rights. I think there's actually probably two sides to the coin to property rights. This house is actually less than 25 years old, and I'm sure when it was built, he probably had a very nice backyard overlooking a creek. Because of upstream development that took place without appropriate controls to maintain the pre-develop flow rates, it accelerated the erosion of the channel and this is what this individual is left with. The Highland Lakes are a series of lakes that have been created by the construction of dams in the 1930's and 1940's. As I mentioned, LCRA, being a power generation company, gets some hydroelectric generation out of the dams. It also controls floods with the dams. It is a water supply for approximately one million people in Central Texas. The lakes are obviously an attractive area and they've been feeling development pressure. I have little question that over time almost the entire area around the Highland Lakes will ultimately become developed. Very little of the land is in public ownership. Most of the development that we're seeing around the Highland Lakes are resort type vacation homes scattering about. There are also several communities that are in existence around the Highland Lakes, where we see the expansion of commercial activity to support the increase in the residential development that's taking place around the Highland Lakes. Page 320 ------- As the LCRA saw the increase in development taking place around the lakes, we began to be concerned about the long-term health of the lakes, and in 1990, the LCRA adopted the first Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Ordinance to help protect the Highland Lakes. In doing so, we looked at some of the issues that we're concerned about in protecting the lakes. We looked at and were concerned about sedimentation and accelerated sedimentation due to stream bank erosion or erosion from construction sites, reducing the capacity of the lakes and filling them in. We were concerned about increased nutrients, accelerating the eutrophication process of the lakes, and lastly, any toxins that may accumulate in the sediment and the fish. This area shows the area of coverage of our Highland Lakes Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Ordinance, which encompasses the better part of three counties. The approach that we've taken is a technology-based approach in which we require the removal of a majority of the pollutants being generated from a development. Again, without land use control, we can't dictate density or location of development. So we've taken an approach in which we use some equations, which I'll get into in just a second, and calculate the expected increase in pollutant loads. The three primary areas in which we've established technology-based standards for a development to meet are: reducing stream bank erosion by maintaining pre-develop flow rates; reducing the pollution in the storm water runoff through management practices, Best Management Practices; and reducing sediment transport from construction sites using erosion controls during construction. I showed you a minute ago the concerns we had regarding the lake sedimentation, eutrophication, and toxins. We selected three pollutants to serve as our indicator pollutants for each of those concerned categories, and these are the pollutants that were selected. (Total suspended solids, total phosphorus, oil and grease.) Based on some available literature on storm water runoff, we provided, within a technical manual, the background and developed concentrations of those pollutants, and we applied what's referred to as a simple formula that I believe was first generated from Tom Schueler, in Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, in which you can calculate your existing pollutant load and developed pollutant load. The only two variables are the concentration that I spoke about just a minute ago. There's a change in the concentration of the runoff. Then also, this is a rainfall runoff relationship, and as you increase the impervious cover, you're going to have a higher amount of runoff per unit of rainfall, which is going to subsequently increase the annual pollutant load. We have an accompanying technical manual for developers to use that provides a menu of various management practices that can be employed. And again, the efficiency of the management practice is based on available research and literature that has been performed and its overall net removal efficiency of that management practice is the individual BMP's efficiency multiplied by the percent of the annual runoff that BMP is going to capture from Page 321 ------- the site. Obviously, the larger the facility is, the more it can capture, the higher amount of pollutants that it's going to be able to treat. I heard yesterday in the opening session at least a dozen times in which the word flexibility was mentioned. I think if there's a real positive to the approach that we've taken here and particularly in regards to some of the issues that are going through various legislative calendars currently, it is our approach is very flexible. It allows the land owner and/or their engineer to make the decisions as to what management practices they want to employ to meet the performance standards of the ordinance and make their development work. It allows them to consider their site characteristics, consider their individual development needs. We've seen quite a variety of management practices being proposed, which indicates to me anyway that the flexibility that is there is actually being utilized. We have not seen one type of system that is consistently reoccurring. So people are utilizing these various management practices based on their development needs and the site characteristics. This is an example. This is, I guess, a prison, for an easier way to describe it. It's a Rehabilitation Center for alcohol and drug abusers recently constructed within the County of Burnet. The approach that they took was they had some natural terraces that were immediately downstream to their site, and it's kind of difficult to see in this picture, but there are some berms and terraces that have been built up, a series of them. There's a pipe discharge over there. As it fills up the first terrace, it would overflow into the second depressed area, the second terrace, and so forth, and so on. So really using shallow retention until you gain infiltration as their management practice. This is a gas station that was recently constructed. Research has shown that gas stations are a hydrocarbon hot spot and you have quite a bit of hydrocarbons and metals within the storm water runoff from a gas station. The approach they took, they wanted the convenience of having their customers be able to drive over the site at their convenience and be able to serve a lot of customers, so they paved about 90% of the site. The approach that they took in meeting the ordinance was to have the storm water drain into this facility here. There's a pit underneath that grate, and then after the rain storm dissipates, they then spray irrigate their landscape medians around the site. This is a Walmart Store that is under construction in Marble Falls, Texas. They are meeting the ordinance by providing a series of extended detention ponds and sand filters and wet ponds through their site to meet our ordinance. This just shows the quality of water within one of your management practices. An extended detention pond. The water quality in there may not be so great, but that just kind of shows that it's doing its job, and you would rather the water quality within one of these management Page 322 ------- practices to be poor than for it to actually be within your stream or resource that you're trying to protect. This is a sand filter actually. What you can see is after the surface has been scraped away, you see the sand is actually absorbing some of the pollutants, hydrocarbons, etc., that are coming from the developed site. So you get an indication there, at least I do, from visually looking at it that the systems are working and actually reducing the amount of pollution coming off of a site. A lot of our development is low density residential development, and the practice that's being utilized most often in low density residential development is just a vegetated filter strip area around the resource that's reserved and undeveloped. This is one of the things that I'm most pleased with. This is LCRA's office complex which was completed about three years ago. While we were not within the area of purview of our ordinance, we went ahead and built the site to comply with our' own ordinance, which I thought was really good. Because a lot of times regulators are very good at telling other people what they have to do, but when it comes time to them having to do something themselves, there's always a good reason why they should be able to get some variance from some regulation. We utilized the proposed BMP's, sedimentation basins, during the construction process to reduce sediment transport from construction. This diagram shows some of the various permanent BMP's that are incorporated into the site. We purposely went with a diversity of management practices. One, so we can gain first hand experience on them. Secondly, so we can show to various people some of the various practices that are available. This is our front entryway. This is an extended detention pond on the front of the site. This is a sand filter that actually got constructed underneath one of the parking areas on the site. You can see these chambers being constructed on top of the sand. This is looking down the barrel of one of the chambers. These chambers fill up with storm water after a rain event and then filter through that sand media. That discharge then goes down to one of the other BMP's that we have on the site. This shows another extended detention pond on the site. One of the systems that I've been most pleased with, I guess, in looking at the site is the discharge from that extended detention pond. What an extended detention pond does is it actually holds the water for about—well, it drains the water slowly such that it drains over about a 48-hour period of time, and you'll see these little PVC pipe outlets in a landscape sidewalk that we have. There's that sidewalk there. The discharge goes over a grassy front landscaped area that we have. From what we've seen, for probably 90% of the storm events, since it's releasing it over that 2-day period Page 323 ------- of time, is that the downstream vegetative filter strip has been able to absorb virtually 100% of the runoff. So we have a parking lot about one acre in size that's draining into an extended detention pond getting primary treatment there, and then being slowly released over this grassy area, which is then infiltrating and absorbing the rest of that runoff and the pollution within it. We basically end up with sort of a zero discharge system. The Nonpoint Source Ordinance is not the only effort, obviously, that we have to protect the Highland Lakes. There are several other complimentary programs that we have, and I wouldn't even consider this list, I guess, to be comprehensive. But it just gives you an idea that there are other efforts that are out there addressing various issues. Lastly, a lot of the programs that we've seen around here, there has been a problem. There has been a problem identified and everybody kind of rallies around to go try and fix that problem. We're kind of dealing with a little more difficult situation here in which our Highland Lakes are relatively clean and people enjoy it. There's no real identified problem with it. We're trying to protect the lakes for the long-term, which sometimes I wish there was a problem, because it would be easier to convince people why they need to develop smartly. But I suppose, if these children or their children are able to come up at some point in the future and brag about the quality of the Highland Lakes, then at that point in time, I would say that we actually do have a success story. I was running through some slides preparing for this and I just happened to come across this slide. I had to use it because it's just a beautiful picture. I think there's actually a lot symbolism in the picture; particularly with the things we've been talking about. The eagle represents a lot of the things that America represents. You know, freedom, no taxes, all powerful. Yet, but when you look at it, the eagle is still dependent upon catching clean fish and having clean water, and so to me, it shows a connection between the watershed management and some of the issues that we're all dealing with. Thank you very much. Moderator: Mike Bira Thank you, Tom. Our last presentation will be by Frank Shipley. Frank is currently the Director of the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program. He's charged with drafting a Comprehensive Management Plan for the Galveston Bay System. No small task. Frank is trained as a scientist with an M.S., B.S., and Ph.D. in Biology. Since he graduated in 1980, Frank has taught at three universities and has conducted and directed environmental programs in Kansas and Texas. He's got more than 40 publications on scientific and environmental topics, and he's editor and author of a recent book on Galveston Bay. Page 324 ------- Speaker: Frank Shipley, Program Director, Galveston Bay National Estuary Program; Webster, TX Now we're finally downstream far enough to talk about really interesting systems. We've heard about rivers and lakes and now we're going to talk about the Coast. I see there are a couple of friendly people in the audience from the Coast. The National Estuary Program is actually ~ to give EPA a compliment -- an EPA federal program. It was one of the first programs to really take the stakeholder-driven kind of approach to ecosystem and watershed scale problems. We started the Galveston Bay Program in 1989 by convening (as we've heard some of these other programs) essentially all of the agencies that do business in the bay, many of the environmental groups, citizens, industries, and other stake holders right across the board. That is the process that produced The Galveston Bay Plan. One other side note: our plan was signed two weeks ago by Carol Browner and was announced today in the media. So that's why I haven't been at these meetings the last couple of days. We've been wrapping up media activities for release of The Galveston Bay Plan. The nonpoint source issue is only one small part of what we addressed in Galveston Bay. But it was a significant part. It was in fact identified, out of 17 different issues that the Galveston Bay Plan addresses, as number two in rank order. (The first priority was loss of wetland habitats). So we did take the nonpoint source issue quite seriously. The part I want to tell you about is what we did from the beginning to identify, from an information gathering standpoint, what we needed to do in scoping the problem to establish management solutions in The Galveston Bay Plan. Let me start with the human population issue. This map depicts the Gulf of Mexico. If you get right down to it, half of the population of the country lives on only about 10% of the land and this land is mostly along the Coast. Actually, one-sixth of the U.S. population lives on the Gulf Coast and the human density in the coastal counties is five times greater than in inland counties. So right away we've got an issue. The red areas on the map are those areas which have especially high population densities. Of course, one of them is ours, Galveston Bay in Texas, and the other is Tampa Bay. Both of these areas have National Estuary Programs, in addition to Barataria-Terrebonne in Louisiana and Corpus Christi in South Texas. Richard Volk is here and he is the Director of the Corpus Christi Bay Program. Galveston Bay issues are largely hinged on the development of industry and on urbanization. We have about three and a half million people in this local watershed, over roughly a five- county area. You may have heard some mind-boggling statistics about our bay system. Thirty percent of the nation's refining comes from the shoreline of this bay. Half the nation's chemical manufacturing comes from this region. And we have the third largest port in the Page 325 ------- Nation in the upper Houston Ship Channel. This region is highly industrialized and, traditionally, has highly impacted these waters. The view from space looks like this. One of the advantages of living in Houston is that we are the home of the Johnson Space Center. The astronauts like to snap hand-held pictures out of the shuttle window when they go over Houston. So we've got a whole bunch of pretty good aerial photographs of the area. The upper left there, the white, is all the urbanized impervious cover that you've heard about in many of these talks, where the water washes off readily after a rainfall and brings with it loadings of different contaminants to the bay system. The City of Houston is a little over 600 square miles in size, and the bay is just 600 square miles. So we have a huge impervious urbanized and industrialized area feeding the bay and affecting its water quality. Besides the nonpoint sources, we are world-class in terms of our tradition of point sources. To give you the context for nonpoint sources, let me tell you -what else influences this receiving water. About 1.3 trillion gallons of wastewater from 747 different point sources are discharged in the watershed, actually, about half the permitted discharges in Texas end up in this bay system. And in the spirit of Texas independence, we have about 600 different utility districts in the five county area. That yields statistics like: 45% of all sewer treatment plants that discharge to the Gulf are in the Galveston Bay System. They're numerous and small because they're not regionalized. In terms of numbers and logistical nightmares, we have to address them in this bay system. Twenty-five years ago, point sources dominated environmental issues. This photo shows the upper Houston Ship Channel during that time. It caught on fire. No joke. People talked about the octane rating of the water. It had no dissolved oxygen. It had a slick surface all the time. Every time a ship went by, you had anaerobic sediment stirred up. In fact, there wasn't anything living there, except perhaps some blue-green algae. Along came the Water Quality Act. We did make some tremendous strides in terms of point source loadings. Now, of course, like almost every other system that we've heard about at this meeting, we're left with nonpoint source issues—like this photo of a gentleman dumping used motor oil down a storm sewer. Maybe you think this looks staged. Well, it is. His license number is readable, but he's one of us~he's pouring into a bucket hanging from a coat hanger. But I've seen this actually happen, and probably so have you. When storm water runs off of an impervious surface, or even something like a yard that's been over-fertilized, the wastewater that ends up in the receiving water has 450 times more total suspended solids than secondary effluent. It has nine times higher B.O.D. than secondary effluent. The "first flush" of storm water has dead animals, report cards with D's and F's~you know, all the things that wash down a sewer; in New York and New Jersey Harbors, crack vials were one of the number one Page 326 ------- floatables found in nonpoint source wash-off. Of course, we're most concerned about the receiving water impacts of contaminants. The hydrology of this area is such that the most urbanized area drains into one of the most enclosed portions of the bay system. Several of our studies showed us that contaminants in the water include poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, oftentimes combustion-source hydrocarbons. That we think there may be a connection between the urban transportation system, aerial deposition, nonpoint source runoff, and seafood tissue contamination by PAH's and PCB's. Now that's a little less traditional than the usual nonpoint source effects. A little more traditionally, nonpoint source fecal coliform loadings produce closure of about half of Galveston Bay for shell fishing, which is in our case oysters. There are a lot of reefs in the bay that could be economically productive if they were opened to harvest as a result of reductions in bacterial loadings. NO A A conducted a study in Galveston Bay, along with other estuaries in the nation concerning fish kills. During the decade of the 1980s, Galveston Bay had four of the top ten fish kills in the country. Our water temperatures are higher than east or west coasts, but we have a lot of enclosed areas that receive runoff which depletes the oxygen and causes fish kills. Fewer fish kills result from toxic contaminant problems, although, we have that kind of fish kill too. So we had a couple of nonpoint source scoping needs when we started the Galveston Bay Program five years ago. First, we wanted to target NPS loadings geographically. We then wanted to take the step further in The Galveston Bay Plan and try to integrate the governance of this Bay System, so that the stakeholders and the agencies and those that were contributing to the problem could agree on how to actually begin to solve it. We carried out the scoping work early in the program. We set up a project that was carried out by a consortium of Rice University and Ground Water Services. The principal investigator was Chuck Newell. This map shows the entire Galveston Bay watershed. The watershed includes only about 13% of Texas, but 60% of the state's wastewater. Dallas and Ft. Worth are in the upper region there, and then of course, the greater Houston area on the coast. That's the Trinity River Basin in yellow, which contributes a little over 50% of the water coming to Galveston Bay. Our approach was to single out only a portion of this larger watershed. We discovered in some of our preliminary data perusal that big reservoirs on both the Trinity and the San Jacinto had a major effect on what pollutants get to the bay. In fact, these reservoirs turned out to be major sinks for nutrients. Lake Livingston is a reservoir on the Trinity that has approximately the same water volume as all of Galveston Bay. It's a tremendous nutrient sink, especially for phosphorous, which ties to sediment particles. The reservoir is a biological processing system involving algae and the higher food chain process. The lower river receives fewer nutrients over the spillway than came in at the upper end of the reservoir. Page 327 ------- So we concentrated our work in the lower portion of the system, which is the highly urbanized portion that we really know is having an effect on the bay. Step one in this process was to delineate the subwatersheds. This was not as easy as it sounds. We ran into a new technical term we hadn't come across before on the Texas Coast. It's called topography. We now understand that in some places you can figure out where the water goes when it rains. That's not true in Houston and the best indicators we had were drainage ditches and flood control maps. We delineated exactly 100 sub-watersheds in this major watershed. That was overlay number one on our GIS System. Second, we wanted to characterize land use. As a screening study, we designated our own key land use categories, shown on this slide. They're fairly generic in most cases, but they work very well at the scale of resolution we were looking for. Then our investigators delineated those land uses through an automated digitizing process that gave us a 30-meter resolution throughout the entire lower watershed. Ground truthing this step showed comparable accuracy to the wetlands inventory work that had been done previously, more or less manually. So the process was automated yet fairly accurate. We ended up with the kind of overlay shown in this slide, which is a land use map. The red and the yellow are urban and residential, respectively. And again, you can see the dominating influence of all the developed areas and impervious cover. Thus, land use was the next layer in the GIS system. Third we chose the parameters we were interested in tracking. We used, an indicator approach, as have many similar studies. We chose some nutrients, some toxicants, metals, organics, and bacteria~a pretty standard list of contaminants for a study like this. The beauty of this kind of analysis is we had the land uses and soils from The Natural Resource Conservation Service. We had some rainfall scenarios, which range from a typical year, to a five-year frequency, to a single large event. We had actual data from previous studies in the Houston region on concentrations. In cases where we couldn't get actual data from our region, we did rely on some of the NRP data and some other more generic estimates. Then, with the math model that was running in the background of this GIS System, the computer did the work to generate the loads. Of course, the goal here was to rank these sub-watersheds by their contributions to the water body for each parameter, with this result, we would geographically target where the biggest containment sources were. To give you an example of the output, this is a map for oil and grease. The darker areas indicate a higher loading and the lighter areas less. The study indicated that oil and grease equivalent of about 40% of the Exxon Valdese spill washes off this region each year. That's not atypical for a large city. Some of the work in Washington D.C. showed roughly equivalent values. But we could also measure some of the effects in the bay, because we had some other studies going at the same time to identify tissue concentrations and various other things. This was not a fate and effects study, so we couldn't attribute tissue contaminants to Page 328 ------- a particular point or nonpoint source. Scientifically, we're a long way yet from that kind of information. We take more or less a technology-based approach to controlling contamination because we don't have that kind of information. With this study, we compiled the data and information we needed to actually do the management planning. There are a number of different programs in Texas, as there are across the country, and these programs are still evolving. This makes our job challenging. We could have become the tail wagging the dog, in terms of setting nonpoint source policy that would guide these major federal programs, or we could take the attitude: "well, we'll try to fit into these wherever we can." We took the middle ground and said partnership is going to be our key word. We're going to get local governments involved as much as we can. We're going to get these programs working toward the problems that we know exist from our scientific studies, rather than just using a generic shotgun kind of approach. We worked with the existing NPDES Storm Water Programs, for example, to help target permit requirements. I know EPA Region 6 used our results to help steer some of their NPDES storm water permitting. The Galveston Bay Plan has more than a dozen different initiatives on nonpoint sources. We used a few key principles in creating our management strategies. First of all, we're interested in source reductions rather than engineering retrofits. There will be some retrofitting going on, but addressing sources like the guy dumping oil down the storm drain is an education issue, not an engineering issue. We, too, have the storm drain stencils used to paint on the streets. When we ordered our stencils, they came back with a picture of a salmon—so we felt like we had to make a change there. We sent them back to the factory and got a crab. That education program has gone forward and has been effective in teaching people about household waste disposal. Our management plans are technology driven, rather than performance driven, in recognition of the fact that we really don't know the fate and effects of these contaminants in comparison with point source contaminants, what's going on with the air shed and the atmospheric depositional linkage. We are a very different bay from some of the East Coast systems which have nutrient problems, so nutrients were not our primary emphasis. In fact, some oyster models say we won't have enough nutrients for oyster food to grow in 20 years. Nutrient load reductions were a historical "accident" resulting from damming the rivers and putting in secondary treatment all about the same time in the early 1970's. Our problems are related more to toxic issues than they are to nutrient issues. We're developing BMPs that are not in the literature because of our flat topography and our heavy clay soils. In looking at things like the 6217 Guidance and a lot of the other BMP literature, methods don't always apply to our situation because they were not researched and developed in heavy clay on flat lands. So we're working with the consortium of the City of Page 329 ------- Houston and Harris County Flood Control-trie NPDES Permit partnership—to try to get the manuals to reflect our local conditions. And we're going to partnership continually with that consortium and with the state agencies and federal agencies as the process goes forward. One element affecting our strategy is the Coastal Management Program, is in limbo still at this time in Texas. Texas did apply to become the last coastal state to get into the CZM Program, but our new governor revoked the application and is reviewing it and will probably revise it and resubmit it in some other form. At that time there will be another part of the equation we'll deal with for The Galveston Bay Plan. The Galveston Bay Plan is almost ready to be implemented. We're waiting for our legislature to tell us how much money we'll have to work with, and then we'll seriously begin implementation next September. We're doing some work now on a demonstration scale using some of these things we learned from this project. Thank you. Moderator: Mike Bira Any questions? All right. Just in closing, I'd like to thank everybody for coming to this conference and I really hope you got something out of it. I want you to remember this is the first time we've ever tried this watershed approach conference format in Region 6, and we hope to learn from it and also to learn from some of the other things that are going on around the country. If you're thinking water quality, like most of the people here have been for many years, you can't separate that from watersheds. We need to have one of these again, and hopefully, we'll be able to get funding from Headquarters. So if you feel the desire, I encourage you to go ahead and write EPA, care of Susan Branning. You've all seen her here. Send us encouragement so this kind of thing can happen again, because you all are a part of this. Like they said at the opening session, this is not an EPA program, this is a philosophy, and for it to work, everybody has to be part of it. Thank you all for coming and staying inside through this long, beautiful afternoon. Page 330 ------- Programmatic/Grant Flexibilities in Support of The Watershec Working Session (3:00-4:30PM) Moderator: Richard Hoppers, Chief, Water Quality Management Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Dallas, TX I would like to give you an update on some things that are going on in partnership between the regions and the states. We've got several activities, pilot projects, and other activities that we've been jointly working on, and we needed to give you an update on that, and even get any input if you've got any input to them. But all of these activities are aimed at streamlining our process or better integrating how we do programs. Trying to either make better use of our resources or do it more efficiently. Streamlining grants or better integrating programs across program boundaries. At the same time that we've been doing this, the federal government, at least, has been reinventing itself. Al Gore has been put in charge of trying to reinvent the government, and so they're actually taking advantage of some of the things that we're already doing. We're hearing terms like block grants. But there are things that are being thrown out and terms that we're hearing; performance partnerships, customer service plans, grant streamlining, community-based grants. All these terms are being used by different groups that are looking at streamlining or reinventing government. So I think what we're trying to do here today is to just give you an update on what we're doing in the region and in the state, and on the partnership process in these activities, and then if we can, try to confuse you even further on how some of these terms relate to what we're doing. We've got four speakers and these are experts in their respective fields. I'm going to introduce them and then they are going to introduce their topic. I'm going to start off with Russ Bowen, because Russ is going to summarize all of the activities that we're doing and then we'll get into a little more detail on those activities as we go along. At the end of our presentation, we solicit any questions or complaints or anything else you want to throw at us, and we'll be glad to tell you what we know about it. Russell Bowen is the Chief of the State Programs Section in Region 6. Russell has been in the region for quite a few years. I think since the mid-70's. He's got a Master's Degree from O.U. in Environmental Science. Page 331 ------- Speaker: Russell Bowen, Chief, State Programs Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Dallas, TX Thank you, Richard. What I want to do is just go over the different things that are going on with regard to streamlining grants. What I think I'll do is go in chronological order in which they happened, and you'll see that some of the things that we've started in the region were in advance of some of the things that are now coming down from our Headquarters office. One of the first things that we did was take a look at one of our basic grants, the Section 106 Water Pollution Control Grant, which has been in existence since 1972. It basically pays for states to implement their water quality control programs. It's an annual grant. We looked at how much resources could we save and that type of thing if we make it a multi-year grant. So we initiated a multi-year work plan for that 106 Grant. John is going to talk about it and about the pros and cons and what we're trying to accomplish. We started this effort in Spring '94. Shortly after that, the regional administrator met with the state directors at Love Field Airport. It's been called the Love Field Meeting ever since then. One of the things that came out of that meeting is we've got so many grants and all this paper work. There's got to be a way we could streamline this and get this done with less resources. We need to get the money out to the states and get them working and not spending so much time filling out applications, doing reports, and negotiating work plans. So we formed a work group called The State/EPA Grant Streamlining Committee and John deMond's going to bring us up to date on some of the things that we tried to accomplish with that work group. Another regional initiative that we've been trying to do supports the watershed approach. For 20 years, at least as long as I've been there. We've been awarding categorical grants. We've been focusing by programs. We take a program and we focus it on what we want to do. Then we go to the next program and focus it. There's got to be a better way to do that. We're making the states and the other applicants come in and shop, for grant funds. So based on that, we came up with an idea. Let's develop a process or tool to integrate all these programs' grants by basins. Funds have been awarded to TNRCC to look at how we might do that and how that's possible. This is sort of a prelude to either consolidated grants or the so-called block grant. Kerry McCollough, from TNRCC, can talk about that. That's three regional initiatives. Along with the grant streamlining committee, we got involved in Vice President Gore's National Performance Review. One of the things he wanted to address under the National Performance Review was to set certain customer service standards. So we've become a mini-pilot for the 106 Program, the Water Pollution Control Grant, on setting some customer service standards. The whole focus is to get the federal Page 332 ------- government to be more like businesses. In other words, we have a customer. The primary customer is the general public. But there's an intermediary customer and that is the state agencies that we work with. So we're trying to set some kind of standards in which we operate. I'll go into that in a little bit. Then the next thing we get into is the so-called block grants. The official name for these are performance partnerships. We're not calling it block grants. That's a key issue, because what some people wanted was, "Just give us the money and go away." Until they change the law, we can't do that. What Vice President Gore said, and this was echoed by the President and Carol Browner later on, is "We want increased flexibility, but we can't sacrifice accountability, because it is taxpayer's money. We do have a fiduciary responsibility to protect those funds. To make sure they are used the way they're intended." So we're looking at that. Point of clarification. Anytime when we talk about the state, it also applies to the tribes. We have to recognize that we're in a different stage with regards to our relationship with tribes than we are with states. So we'll have to approach it from a little different point of view. Those are the five activities that are going on. There is some overlap. There's probably some duplication in there. Some of the things that we're doing were Region 6 initiatives that we wanted to take care of our own problems. At the same time, there's this national push to increase flexibility and to streamline what we're doing. Moderator: Richard Hoppers Our next speaker is John Janak, who is with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. He's the one that handles all the grants for the agency. John has been with the Office of the Governor, and then he's been in city management. Speaker: John Janak, Manager of Federal Funds Coordination Section, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; Austin, Texas Thank you, Richard. They always save the best for the last. I'm going to give you a status report on what Russell just described a little bit about -- the Section 106 multi-year grant process. Let me give you some background first. My exposure to streamlining started whenever John Sharp, our Texas State Comptroller, got into looking at doing a better job of running state government. He developed what was called the Texas Performance Review Process. John Sharp took some auditors and they went through the programs of every major state agency. They turned the agencies inside and out to find out what was working and what was not working. From that, he came up with a report called Breaking the Mold, and we've been living with that report ever since. Page 333 ------- It was a good report. The State Legislature picked up on it, and ever since then they've been cutting programs. Whether that's good or bad, I'm not commenting. But what happened was, the Clinton Administration came on board and Al Gore got interested in that process. He asked John Sharp to act as a consultant to work with him in setting up the National Performance Review process, which he did. Out of that came the National Performance Review Report. From that report, Al Gore set up a small staff to implement that report and to look into better ways for the federal government to do business. In looking at the grants process, Vice President Gore looked at all the government's processes. But in looking at the federal grants process, there was a primary focus on: (1) cutting out unnecessary reporting requirements; (2) grant application simplification; (3) looking at and examining the advantages of multi-year work plans versus annual work plans; (4) looking at the cost of those work plans and then trying to track the cost benefit of going to a multi-year process; and (5) examining duplication of applications and certifications in place at that time. Also, they were interested in reducing the time to negotiate grants. So that was major. Essentially, the call went out from the Clinton Administration and also from EPA Headquarters. I don't know why, but EPA Region 6 picked up on that. They decided this was something they wanted to look into also. So consequently, they did do it, and their charge was to go back to EPA Headquarters and report how a grant streamlining process would work and was it relevant. Myron Knudson, Water Management Division Director at that time, asked Russell Bowen to take on that responsibility. Russell called a joint meeting of state and EPA officials and that first joint meeting was in the spring of 1994. The IG's office was there and the Office of Grant Administration was there. We had the General Council from Region 6 at that meeting. We had a number of EPA program staff, as well as grant staff, participating. Then the five states in our Region 6 were also called in, which consisted of programs as well as grant people, to sit in on this joint session. From that meeting, it was determined there were a number of findings that could be streamlined—some immediately-which surprised me. We isolated those grant activities required by regulation. We isolated those that were just strictly policy. Then we looked at those that were in the legislation, like section 319, that we couldn't do anything about. What we found out, with the IG's office and General Council's office there, was that when we got into regulations we could ask for a deviation. I was surprised about that. Why had that never come up? If we wanted to deviate from a regulation, all we had to do was ask. Now it's a much more lengthy process than that, but nevertheless, that was available to the states. The other part was policies. There were a number of policies in place, such as the certification process. If you were filling out a grant application, you could appreciate the number of certification papers you have to fill out. We found out there was only one that needed to be filled out or that was really required. The others were strictly policy. This was Page 334 ------- something that the Office of Grants & Administration wanted. So we found out that all we had to do was just go back and have the Regional Administrator change the policy. And that did happen. So those are the things we looked at just from that joint meeting. After what I guess was a brainstorming meeting, Region 6 then requested and got approval from EPA Headquarters to set up a pilot. That was a multi-year pilot process and they selected the Section 106 Water Quality Management Program. Russell, you may want to expand on why the Section 106 Water Quality Management Program was selected. I guess it was selected because it was one of the larger water programs that affected primarily the permitting and enforcement process, which definitely has an impact on your watershed process. There were two states selected for the pilot process ~ New Mexico and Texas. My understanding is it's just because we had a wide variance of one large state and one smaller state. Jim Piatt, from New Mexico, was called in and I was called in. We sat down with Russell and staff and were asked to map out a game plan on how we were going to implement this multi-year pilot. The multi-year was going to cover fiscal year 1996 and 1997. So we had to start immediately developing a process. The two states agreed to negotiate a two-year work plan based on the annual national and regional guidance. As you know, national and regional guidance generally doesn't change that much. So we felt that was a fairly simple process. I'm not sure if that required a deviation or not. Russell Bowen: No, it just required EPA Headquarters to make a commitment. John Janak: A commitment was made to do that, so that worked out very nicely. Headquarters did agree that since this was a pilot they would agree to whatever we settled on out of the annual guidance for the FY '96 annual guidance and that would also apply to the FY '97 fiscal year. So we got a lot of help from Headquarters on that. The second thing we did was agree to draft a two-year work plan, and adhere to a time line for negotiating the draft work plan. That was an interesting process because neither one of us knew how to draft a two-year work plan for which we were only going to get one year of funding. So I asked Karen Young, Texas Project Officer from EPA, "What is that work plan supposed to look like? Could we separate the Texas' Project work plan and just make it two separate fiscal years? Do we take a '96 work plan and stack it on top of the '97 work plan, Page 335 ------- and then put a table of contents to it, and that's it? Or do we just consolidate and really make a consolidated work plan for two years?" Karen's answer was, "Yes." So that's important because we're talking about flexibility here. I think that's something that we're going to be confronted with in the future when we get into the Performance Partnership Grant process. So they were just saying, "Yes, okay. Just put something together and get it in and we'll f negotiate it." Which was great. That's something that we hadn't heard in a long time. ! I Another thing was ~ and I think this is really important — that if there were any unresolved 1 issues, after we had gone through this time line negotiating that grant, then that would go to j what Russell called a face-to-face meeting. I found out later that was just a buzz word that he had picked up. I really thought it was a smart thing for him to do to come up with that cliche. That's important, because the State of Texas invariably, when we begin of our fiscal year, is still negotiating with Jack Ferguson (Water Permits Branch Chief) on permits. We would not get our work plan approved until October or November. (Texas' fiscal year starts September 1.) It was decided that if the permit issue or any other issue that came up that could not be resolved during the review or negotiation of that draft work plan that it would come to this face-to-face meeting in early summer. We would get in the room with all the decision makers. We would get the branch chiefs from EPA and we would get the state directors or deputy directors from both states, and we would sit down and negotiate. In the past if it was determined that we couldn't resolve the permits or we sat down and tried to resolve it and it didn't work, you would just walk away from the meeting. You'd say, "Well, we'll go back and we'll try to work it out and get back with EPA on what we can do." Not this time, it was decided that door was closed in the face-to-face meeting. If anybody walked out with an unnegotiated activity, then the remaining group would decide and that would be it. The Regional Administrator apparently agreed to that. Believe me that got a lot of people's attention: And it happened. So for the first time, we were able to go in with an approvable work plan at the beginning of the fiscal year. That was unheard of but we did it. And the same thing happened to New Mexico and it worked just fine. So that's an important part of this process that we felt really did work for us. The last thing is that both states agreed to keep track of our transactional cost of determining the cost benefit of a multi-year process. We're keeping time sheets on how much time we have spent in the development process and negotiation process. Hopefully, when the second year comes up, we won't have to do that. We don't have to go through that process because we already have a two-year approved work plan. So there's no more negotiations unless there's some major national guidance that comes out that we're required to do, or if there was some major cost cutting as far as our budget was concerned. So we have a two-year work plan that has been agreed on, and "it's a done deal." Page 336 ------- The way it works now is the second year the only thing we have to do is go back and amend the application, once we determine what the second year of our annual funding is going to be for the program. Now that sounds simple, but that's the way it works. That's sort of what we agreed to and that's sort of where we stand right now. We've already gone through the negotiation process and the development process of negotiation. We're now in the implementation process of the first year of that two-year program. It's working fine as far as I can tell. We haven't experienced the second year. So we're really not sure what we're going to be faced with, other than the fact that we don't have to sit down and develop another work plan. That's the key point. So we feel there's going to be some cost benefits from this program. I've seen a third quarter report from Russell that shows some results so far. As far as cost savings is concerned, I'm not really sure how that's going to shape up once the program is over with. But it looks encouraging. The thing I can tell you as far as having an annual program that goes to a multi- year program is that number one there's a lot of "partnership" that goes on. That's important. I know New Mexico felt that was very important to have that kind of partnership relationship with EPA. We certainly feel that way. Second thing is that there is a lot of flexibility. That's something that states are not accustomed to. I think that's something we're going to have to get prepared for, especially if the Performance Partnership Grant concept proceeds. Cost benefits? The jury is still out. Hopefully, there's going to be enough cost benefit—dollars saved—that it's going to be advantageous for us to go to multi-year. Russell Bo wen: I might just clarify a couple of points. The reason we picked the Section 106 Program Grant is because it is known as a continuing grant. It's an annual grant. I won't go into the difference between a continuing grant and a project grant, but there's some advantages and disadvantages of both. But the program had determined that the 106 grant would be a continuing grant. As a result, each year we would have to kind of shut down and renegotiate next year's award. What we thought, just from experience, was that there's time lost in there. It's a 20-year-old program. Why do we have to change directions every year? We really don't have to. So that's the reason we picked the 106 grant. The reason we picked Texas and New Mexico is just like John said. Texas, our largest state, gets the most money in the 106 program and New Mexico gets the least. Let's pilot both states to see what the differences might be. We have shown some cost savings. I think those cost savings we've shown are low. The reason I say they are low is because we implemented two things. We implemented a two-year work plan, but we also implemented an improved negotiation process. This face-to-face meeting, we lock the door and we don't come out until somebody bites the bullet and compromises or whatever. There's no more kicking letters back and forth for two or three months. So I think we've saved a lot of resources just on that. Page 337 ------- This also gives the states the flexibility that if they don't get things done this year, they can pick them up in the next year. John Janak: That's a good point. Russell Bowen: They can shift things back and forth, and we didn't have that before. We had to shut the grant down, de-obligate the money, carry it forward, and renegotiate the work plan. We've cut all that out. Moderator: Richard Hoppers Next, we're going to have John deMond talk to us. John coordinates the grants and contract matters for the Planning & Assessment Section of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. John has a Master's Degree in Marine Biology. John, it's all yours. Speaker: John deMond, Environmental Quality Coordinator, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; Baton Rouge, LA As Russell was saying, the beginning of this streamlining effort was with the Love Field group. In a meeting approximately a year ago, this matter came up about why is it so difficult to obtain grants? Why is it so painful or everyone to go through this process? As a result of that discussion, it was decided that there should be a regional work group to look at streamlining the process. To give you an example of what sort of problems people were facing getting their grants, for the 1994 106 Grant, we had a six-month delay in receiving that grant. It was six months into the fiscal year before we received our grant. In mid-June we had our first meeting. There were 30 or so people there. These people were folks who were involved with the grants process, both with the state and the region. A concept was developed there (I think it probably came from John Janak; it could be from Russell Bowen) that there are transactional costs as a result of an inefficient process that reduces resources would normally go to programmatic needs. Perhaps about a year or so before that, there was a National QAT Team that looked into grants and work plans and difficulties. One outcome from that was a statement that 90 to 95% of work plans were the same from year to year, and only five to 10% of those work plans are Page 338 ------- ever changed. It's that five to 10% change that complicates matters and is increasing the transactional cost. In our first meeting, we spent a lot of our time looking at the barriers to the process, and this was kind of a bureaucratic catharsis. We had some controlled venting. Lots of stuff was put on the table. I think it developed an atmosphere of candor that helped us to proceed. We all had to get this out and we all had to let people know what our concerns were and why we were troubled by the process. Some of those barriers that came out, that I thought was significant, were the matters of poor communication and poor trust. We saw that there was a problem of turnover with state personnel, as well as federal personnel. That turnover could be people resigning their jobs or people needlessly moved around from position to position and other reassignments. There seemed to be confusion as to what was really mandated as a requirement of work plans and what things were just discretionary. There seemed to be a problem about comment inflation. John Janak spoke about that before. There seemed to be endless rounds of revisions to work plans and then comments coming back from the Region. These comments had the appearance of having very little screening. Many of the comments were just really not pertinent to the matter. There was concern that we get into this kind of loop of draft and comment, draft and comment. We could not get out of them. There also seemed to be something of an approval paralysis. There was fear of going ahead and approving a work plan. There was a kind of undo concern or requirement for success. We felt like we as states had to prove success before we even initiated work. On the other hand, there was a problem in the eyes of the regional people in that there was inconsistency in work plan format. That there was inconsistency in the level of detail in the work plans. This was within state and also among the states. There also was a problem with excessive conditions on grants that we had several pages of grant conditions. A lot of those grant conditions were boiler plate, but it was difficult to pick out those things that were a potential concern for the agency. So a lot of times, we didn't discover until after we had signed the assistance agreement, that we had a condition that gave us a little difficulty. Not really discussed, but I think playing into this, was the year before all the states underwent an Administrative Oversight Review, in which the Grants & Audit Section of Region 6 went out to the various states to take a look at how they did things. Although many of the states faired well in this review, it kind of upped the ante. It upped the stakes on people. With that sort of increased importance on things, I think people were even more inclined to procrastinate on approval on the federal level. On the state level, they are being careful not to commit to things they felt would be difficult to modify at some later date, once they got into the work plan. Page 339 ------- So we decided that we needed some direction. So we elected co-chairs. Steve Thompson of Oklahoma and Richard Hoppers were elected, conscripted, as the co-chairmen. As we worked through these things and put all the information up on the bulletin boards, there was some order that started to emerge from chaos. It appeared that there were three prime areas in which we needed to direct our attention and form subcommittees. We formed a guidance subcommittee, which would look at the annual headquarter guidance and also look at regional guidance. That was headed up by Russell. There was a work plan subcommittee that John Janak chaired, which looked at transforming guidance into work plans, and the negotiation part of work plan development. The third subcommittee was the grant application subcommittee, which looked at grants and certifications, the approval process, and the assistance award and conditions. We had several meetings through that summer developing our strategy. The idea was to put this all together as a pilot project in which we would select one of the federal grants and apply some of these strategies for streamlining. We adopted a methodology as we worked through this: first of all, we defined the existing problems; we developed pilot solutions to apply to those problems; we considered the legal requirements or legal constraints for doing those things; and we looked at the anticipated results and tried to come up with measures of success. Finally, we put this before another "love-in" on September 7, 1994, and since I'm fortunate enough to be a peon, I did not have to suffer through that. But, from what I understand, that meeting went very well, and as a result, we were rewarded with additional work to do. We continued our work plan committee and our applications committee and also our guidance committees. We added a couple of additional committees; one is on electronic transfer data and also revision—a performance based assistance policy. The specific recommendations made to the committee were for coordinated review and response to national guidance, meaning, coordinated between the states and Region 6. That way there would be a more unified and stronger voice going back to Washington. I think what had happened before is when this guidance was put out for review and comment, the comment that was sent back was largely ignored. I think because no one group had a strong enough voice. By coordinating our comments we may be able to keep Headquarters a little bit within reality. After that, there would be joint development of a regional guidance. Now the work plan group decided that it would be best to put its efforts into training and education. The idea behind that is that no matter what other things you do to change the process to make it streamlined, people should know what they're doing and know what can reasonably be expected from work plans and reasonably be expected from the process. That, in effect, would streamline the process by just getting people competent. Now the recommendations for application would be to come up with a schedule of approval that we would adhere to a bit closer and probably more importantly would be the elimination Page 340 ------- of needless conditions on assistance agreements. Those conditions that were to remain would be grouped according to like condition, those that are somewhat unique. You don't want to call them special conditions. I've been corrected on that a time or two. There's no such thing as a special condition, apparently. But those that may be more likely to alert the concern of the recipient agency would be put together. Many of the conditions that could be referenced by statute would be put together, and thereby, make it a more compact package. Also, there was an overall desire to go to an electronic data transfer system that would cut down on the amount of paper that we would generate and the delays in transmittal and handling. A couple of the ideas that the committee had that were implemented immediately was the face to face meeting. Although that wasn't an original idea, it was one that the committee favored. Another idea that I think Washington stole from us, I'm sure, was to put together all the certifications into one package and have that submitted annually, thereby, cut out all that additional paper with each grant application. Most of what I'm going to speak about from this point on is the training course. Because that was the committee that I was on. The idea was to accomplish two things. One, provide basic training for preparation of work plans and secondly, to be able to transmit information concerning guidance to the states and to those people who are going to actually be putting together the work plans and those people who are going to be reviewing them. The course was attended by approximately 40 people or so from the states and from the region. By and large, I think we've got a favorable response, particularly the basic training aspect of it. We really didn't have a lot of new information to pass on since we were in the second year of two-year guidance. That really didn't play into our training all that much. One side line of this training, it was impressed upon the people there that because of the trend toward standardization prompted by the electronic transfer of data, there is a greater need for standardization of structure of work plans. So the trick is going to be, while as we're standardizing these things, to come up with something that will fit with the national database, but still allow the states flexibility to account for differing priorities and differing structure within their governments. Russell Bowen: I might add for those out that there that haven't caught on yet. We sort of dug this hole for ourselves. What I see was happening over the last 15 years at least, was that we kept getting more mandates and more requirements, but no more money. So we kept negotiating harder and harder as to "we need this, plus this" and each year we keep adding things. The other fact is through inflation the money that we were getting wasn't buying as much and EPA just did not recognize that. We would take these national needs and goals and take it to the state, who does most of the work through these grants, and continually increase the amount of work Page 341 ------- we wanted them to do. Another thing I think we did was we didn't really recognize that in } order to get the federal grant, they had to put up so much state money. We just lumped that in and said, "We're negotiating the whole pot." I think we reached sort of a breaking point and after a while we said, "We need to step back and take a look at this. Is there a better way I we can do business?" So I'll be the first to admit that we sort of dug ourselves into a hole and now we're stepping back and taking a little better look at it. : Several other things happened that made this possible. To a large degree, we got out of the bean counting mentality—how many permits, how many enforcements, actions, how many A.O's, all those kinds of things. This wasn't as important as the water resource. What's the -, watershed that you're focusing on? What are your goals for that resource? That was the new | direction coming out of our Headquarters Office. So we took that and ran with it. We said, "All right. We've got a little more flexibility here." So several things kind of happened that fell in place and set this up. | The other thing that I think really brought it to a head with regard to the Love Field meeting ! is many years ago, we had maybe four grant programs we dealt with. And each year, some 1 of those grants would close out and we would start new ones. So we were running about 30, j 40 grants a year that we had to manage. That wasn't too bad of a work load. What has j happened is we've got a lot of new grant programs. In my section we've got 140 active j grants, worth about $75 million, with more coming. The administrative burden just got to be j overwhelming. So I think all of a sudden we said, "We've got to streamline this." That's j what hit us and I think the states were reacting to it also. j I really think the Streamlining Committee has done some really good work. I think once we get this electronic transfer in place, we're going to save paper, time, mail service, all those things. You know, we're ten years behind the industry in this regard. So I think with all these four things that we're trying to focus on, we're going to make some real improvements, and have people spend more time on working on the program. Moderator: Richard Hoppers Okay. Our next speaker is Kerry McCollough, from the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, and she's a Program Manager in the Nonpoint Source Program. She has her Master's Degree in City and in Regional Planning from Rutgers. Speaker: Kerry McCollough, Program Manager, Water Planning & Assessment, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; Austin, TX Thanks. What I'm going to talk about is a pilot study, a national pilot study, called the Work Plan Integration Pilot Study. Essentially, it's a national pilot project and the purpose of it is Page 342 ------- to organize projects, primarily EPA funded water grants, by watershed. So I'd like to start out with giving you some background on how from the state's perspective we got to this point. Then I'll go into some of the details about how this is going to look, and give you a little update as to where we're at with it, and maybe, time permitting, talk a little bit about what the future might look like with this. On our side, we get questions, particularly being in the Nonpoint Source Program, about what's going on in a watershed. We received interest from, not only from the outside, for instance, regional authorities, like river authorities. "We heard about this project. Do you know about it? What are they doing? Are they coordinating with activities that are already ongoing?" Also, interest from the inside, within our own agency, different divisions not being aware of work that they're both engaging in. So it seemed like some sort of mechanism for coordination of activities was certainly in order. For a brief period, I was going to try to ask different parts of the agency for information about what they were doing, and try to put together some sort of database that was interior to the agency, so that as a program, we could start to look at what was going on, and kind of build on existing efforts, rather than duplicating things. That didn't last very long. I didn't have enough time, of course. So it faded away. Then at one of the end of year meetings that we have for the program, Nonpoint Source Program, Region 6 and Texas got into a discussion about a pilot project that potentially would be beneficial nationwide. So in the following spring, I guess April of 1994, we submitted a proposal. We were pretty excited because at this point we had already started reporting using the electronic tracking system that EPA has called GRTS. Barbara is our GRTS guru. She's sitting in the last row. That was also an interesting kind of component to this, because there is a field in there for latitude/longitude, and wouldn't it be great if we could map this stuff. So that's what we were looking at, something easy, something that you could know, at least, in a sort of list fashion, what was going on, but that you could show local citizens even what was going on in watersheds. That it would be a user-friendly kind of way of communicating activity. So basically, that's what we're going to do. We're looking at certain details that we want to know-what kind of activity is the program implementing, to address what kind of problem, and over what kind of period of time? And how much money is going to that effort? By seeing all of that, naturally, you will also see who is involved in implementation. It will probably give rise to increased coordination between different agencies and stakeholders in an area. Essentially, it boils down to information management. The "customers" in all of this are our water resource managers, initially. I think as I indicated before, the ideal ultimate customers are the people that live in the watershed. Part Page 343 ------- of the state's interest also is how big is the watershed you're attaching this information to? We could do this by river basin. That would be pretty large scale and maybe not quite so meaningful. Or we could look at the smallest, maybe logical unit that data is collected at. We call it a geographic unit for want of a better term at this point. That might include monitoring data. That's part of what the grant is doing. It's looking at which unit would be most useful. You know, this unit right now in our state is a segment. That may or may not be the best kind of data management unit and it hasn't been delineated. So part of what we're looking at is how to compare different options. Put them together into what we're calling so far a kind of planning area, and then the information would be attached at that scale. That's the function of this project is to look at these things and record the process that we go through to arrive at this, because this is supposed to be flexible and responsive enough to be transferrable nationwide. The issue of coordination is something that we're going to come up against pretty shortly. We're putting together two sets of work groups. One on a national scale for upper level management people that need this kind of information and look at the big picture and are looking possibly at more than just water. I don't know. And then our regional work group that's more of a technical advisory kind of work group. I imagine that likely members will be other federal agencies that operate in Texas, neighboring states, river authorities, perhaps municipalities. That's not been decided yet. But the idea being that as we build this product, we need to continually see whether or not we are serving the needs of the customer that we're trying to help. I think that the results of this will be certainly greater access to information and increased coordination. That you will see when you look at this information, who is doing what. If you want to do a project, for instance, since my program depends on a management program to do its activity, if I'm setting up priorities, I need to see what's already going on, and I also need to see who my partners in a watershed might be. So that when I write a work plan for the next grant cycle, I am addressing the priority problems, and that we are not duplicating efforts, but we are maximizing our resources in that given watershed. I think that the future might be something like having all information about all kinds of programs and projects, not just at the national level, but the state level. What regional entities are doing. A good example of that would be the National Estuary Programs in our state, where one is in the implementation stage, but the other is just beginning. They have an enormous job of getting the word out and also finding out what is already going on and making sure that the local citizen is not being bombarded by multiple efforts. We have run into that issue. I think that this would be one way of resolving that. Since the tool that we would be using would be a relational database hooked into GIS, hopefully accessible by a variety of ways. I mean, the idea is flexibility. We want people to be able to have access to this information whether or not they have a full-power GIS Page 344 ------- Department or if they just have an ARC view license or some sort of linkage that doesn't require a lot of investment. I think that's pretty well it. I think we view it as a practical tool. I think that my program, in particular, will benefit from it right away as we begin to rewrite our management program. So it's going to be interesting to see how these things really do hook together, once we start seeing exactly what community outreach efforts are in a given watershed, or seeing, well, what are the different kinds of BMP's actually being implemented in a watershed? And then if you can hook that information together up with maybe water quality data, maybe you can start seeing relationships that weren't evident before, as you see program activity through time. And you have an unrelated perhaps data set originally, but you also might see water quality trends over time and then you have a mechanism to join those two realities together. So I think it could be a very powerful tool. But initially, the bottom line is to enable water resource managers to see what's going in the watershed, when it's happening, what problems are being addressed, and what the money is purchasing. So thank you. Russell Bowen: I might add also, basically, I thought what we're up against is that you had to go to another branch, another department, another group to find out what was going on, and there's just absolutely no sense in that. Here again, the power of computers over the last 15 years have just become incredible. We said that there's got to be a way we can archive this information in some fashion, and we need to look at it. The movement now is to move toward watersheds. That's the control unit. Some level of a watershed, sub-watershed, micro- watershed, whatever you want to use. So basically, we're trying to create and archive information where you don't have to go back and talk to people like me, who have forgotten what they did yesterday, and say, "What did you do here 10 years ago." Particularly if we've paid for it, it should be public information. It should be accessible to the public, so you know what's going on. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. So that's what we hope to accomplish. It's a simple tool, but it could have a lot of power. Moderator: Richard Hoppers Okay. What we'd like to do is open it up for the thousands of questions that I know you've just been sitting there itching to ask. Russell Bowen: Well, I had a few other national projects that are going on. Page 345 ------- Richard Hoppers: Okay, well, hit them with it. Russell Bowen: I'll go fast. The customer service standards. I mentioned that earlier. This was an Executive Order from the President. Basically, what they are saying is the government must be customer driven. In EPA, our primary customer is the general public. The intermediate customers are the state and tribal and local governments that we work with. The standard of quality for service provided to the public shall be customer service equal to the best in business. The best in business means the highest quality of service delivered to customers by private organizations providing a comparable or analogous service. I'm not too sure there's too many private organizations that are regulatory. So it's going to be kind of hard. But in our field, where I work, we deliver funds. So I think there's some areas we can improve on. As part of the customer service standards, they are dealing with hot lines, better responses, and more adequate responses to the general public. Those are some other things that they're doing. In the Water Grants Improvement Pilot Project our goals were very simple. We're going to reduce paperwork by 20%. We want to acknowledge receipt of applications for any grant within 10 days and award grants within 90 days after the application. Now that's providing we have the funds appropriated by Congress. We can't give the money out if we don't have it. Then we're going to try to increase flexibility with regard to how the funds are used. Some of the things that we talked about here are ways to increase flexibility. There are also some national pilots going on in other Regions. One is in Region 8 and it's in North Dakota. They are actually trying to do what they call a block grant. The official word for block grant for EPA is a performance partnership. But in North Dakota, what they wanted to do and they did, but they had to go back and get a Congressional waiver to do this. They combined the 105 Air Grant and the 106 Water Grant and then the 604(b) Water Quality Management Planning Grant into one big grant. Basically, the state of North Dakota wanted to drop the ambient water monitoring program and buy several hundred thousand dollars worth of air monitoring equipment. So allowing them to mix this money allowed them to do that. Whether that's good or bad, really is up to the region and the state. But these are the kinds of trades that you get into when you get into that type of thing. In the state of Massachusetts in Region 1, they took some money from the 105 Air Grant, some money from the 106 Water Quality Grant, and some RCRA Funds ($200,000 from each one of those programs) combined it into a Multi-Media Enforcement Grant. They didn't Page 346 ------- actually reduce the number of grants. They still have three grants, but they added another one and it's a separate one. It's called a Multi-Media Enforcement Grant. In New Hampshire, in Region 1, they also wanted to merge the 319, the 314 Grant and the 106 Grant into one big large grant. So they could move some of that 319 money into some more planning activities. Well, they negotiated the work plan. They got the applications done and they were getting ready to make the award and OMB said, "You can't do this. The reason you can't do it is you can't mix types of money." Some of this money came from what we call the Water Infrastructure Funds (WIF) and the other comes from what we call AC&C funds, and these are the grant funds we traditionally use. But because they are from different pots, different appropriations, you can't mix them. So they got all the way down the line and said, "Stop, you can't do this." It wasn't real fun. But these are some of the things that they're trying. There's another effort going on, on how to redefine how we oversight state agencies that we fund. It's called a Differential Oversight Policy. It's in its formative stages. Some drafts have come out and I'm not sure anybody is really happy with it. But it's an attempt to kind of lessen the reigns and the oversight responsibilities on those states that can perform well. If they perform well, they don't need oversight. What we need to do is direct our efforts, not money, but manpower to other areas. So they're looking at some options to do that. Page 347 ------- Page 348 ------- April 18 - 20, 1995 le Meridien New Orleans, Louisiana SPONSORED BY U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 The Lower Colorado River Authority Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation Terrene Institute ------- |