RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
APALACHICOLA-
CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT
RIVER BASIN/WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
INSITUTE.
or
5EKYIC
Kl£i\ >L;SA\V STATK COL LEG I:
MA KHZ !'-\~\. CiT.OUCJl \ :i()()(S I
COM.M 1 \!|-..\ r ! () COMMUNITY
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
APALACHICOLA-
CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT
RIVER BASIN/WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
Prepared by:
A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service
Kennesaw State College
This document was prepared by the A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service under an
EPA grant, No. X994656-94-1. Points of view expressed in this document do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACF RIVER BASIN/WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
A. Introduction
B. Overview of Initiative
C. Phase One: Formation and Function of a U.S. EPA
Intra-Agency Team for the ACF River Basin
D. Phase Two: Creation of An ACF River Basin Commission
1. Composition of the ACF River Basin Commission
2. Function of the ACF River Basin Commission
3. Creation of the ACF River Basin Commission
E. Summary of Benefits of Approach
II. APPENDICES
A. Appendix A - The Watershed Protection Approach
Annual Report 1992
B. Appendix B - Comprehensive Study
-Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
River Basins
Volume I, Plan of Study, Main Report
January 1992 (Reprint February 1994)
-------
I. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACF RIVER
BASIN/WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACF RIVER BASIN/WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
We need to look at a watershed or river basin as a functioning unit if we are to make
ecological and regulatory sense of it all. The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF)
River Basin is a tri-state watershed covering approximately 19,600 square miles.
Two-thirds of the inhabitants of the 19,600 square mile basin, an area twice the size of
Vermont, live in metro Atlanta. The challenge of maintaining and/or improving water
quality in the basin is complicated by the multiple land uses and water uses as the water
flows from the North Georgia mountains to the Gulf of Mexico.
Chattahoochee means "painted rock" in the Cherokee language. The river starts in the
north Georgia mountains, near Coon Den Ridge in Union County. The Chattahoochee
River is a much-used and abused river that goes from the mountains to the sea, passing
through a major metropolitan area and several multi-use impoundments along the way.
Nearly 500 miles later, the same river has a different name as it empties into one of the
most productive estuaries in North America.
The Chattahoochee River is impacted~by the dense human population in the Piedmont
Region and by agricultural and forestry uses of the land being drained. Erosion is a
major problem due to land disturbances throughout the basin. The agricultural uses
include primarily poultry production in the Northern Piedmont portion, a mix of dairy and
cropland in the Southern Piedmont portion and mostly cropland in the Coastal Plain
portion of the river basin. The headwaters of the Flint River start on the property of the
Atlanta International Airport and are highly impacted by the airport and the urban area
it first flows through. There are many small NPDES sources as the Flint River flows
southward to Lake Blackshear and the city of Albany. Non-point source pollution is a
major problem throughout the basin; erosion is a major problem as the Flint flows
through the developing urban and suburban areas; nutrient & pesticide runoff occur as
the Flint River drains land used mostly for agricultural purposes as it flows throughout
-------
the Southern Piedmont and Coastal Plains of Georgia. The Flint River and the
Chattahoochee River empty into Lake Seminole which is the source of the Apalachicola
River. The Apalachicola River drains rural areas of Florida and receives the Chipola
River. The Chipola River starts near an urban area in southeast Alabama and flows
through agricultural areas as it drains parts of Alabama and Northwest Florida. Dredging
to maintain shipping channels, in the Apalachicola River, in the Chattahoochee River
northward to Columbus, GA and in the Flint River to Bainbridge, GA, also impacts the
quality of the river waters.
The Apalachicola River empties 16 billion gallons of water each day into Apalachicola
Bay, 108 miles south of Lake Seminole. The Apalachicola Bay receives the waters of
the Apalachicola River whose quality and amount reflect the uses of all three rivers and
the land they drain.
Millions could not live where they do if not for the ACF River system that provides water
for homes, businesses, farms and industries. All the abuses, along with the demands
of the entire watershed must be considered. Tons of mud wash down the tributaries into
the three rivers and wastewater and raw sewage add to this pollution mix. Illegal and
legal dumps dot the landscape, many located near rivers and lakes.
The Federal Clean Water Act was passed in 1972. It called for our rivers, lakes and
streams to be "fishable and swimmable" by July 1, 1983. Today, only 40% of our
waterways still fail that test. The Chattahoochee River is one of those failures. In
addition, Federal scientists have determined that a half-dozen smaller tributaries around
Atlanta are nearly dead, unable to support most fish or aquatic life.
We must have both accountability for water-quality issues throughout the water system
and clearly delineated responsibilities with quality staff and a quality approach to
handling these responsibilities. Managing the rivers to ensure water quality in the rivers
and in Apalachicola Bay is a complex task, requiring input from individuals from the
-------
natural and social sciences, environmental planners and engineers, and the diverse
collection of stakeholders in the entire ACF Basin. The following recommendation for
River Basin Management specifically refers to the tri-state
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, but it could be easily extended to any
river basin.
OVERVIEW OF INITIATIVE
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments became known as the
Clean Water Act (CWA). The major features of the CWA included the NPDES permitting
program, funding wastewater treatment, and funding state water quality programs.
Section 303(b) required states to develop basin plans for their point source control
programs. After completing these plans, most of the states had no ongoing river basin
planning function. A river basin/watershed management approach at the U.S. EPA must
stress these water quality programs and those involving toxics and conventional
chemical pollutants, physical water quality, habitat quality, and biological diversity and
health.
The U.S. EPA should form an Intra-Agency ACF River Basin Team composed of
individuals with multifaceted skills and~Rnpwledge to provide a holistic approach to the
ACF Basin. These individuals should also represent each U.S. EPA program that deals
with water quality or watershed issues. The first tier of action will include the
identification of areas of need and of perceived need as it relates to the water quality for
the watershed ecosystem. The team would be responsible for integration of U.S. EPA
programs to avoid duplication of effort within the agency and maximize the results per
dollar spent. Once these needs are prioritized, they may be examined by a
multi-agency, stakeholder based ACF River Basin Commission sponsored by the U.S.
EPA. This Commission would encompass representatives of other groups involved in
water-related programs within federal agencies, the individual states and regions, and
-------
major stakeholders from business, environmental interest groups, and the concerned
citizenry.
The purpose of having the U.S. EPA Intra-Agency Team working with an ACF River
Basin Commission is to coordinate activities among the federal and state agencies for
maximum information about the present and projected state of the ACF River Basin to
minimize duplication of effort among the agencies, so that the resources available are
efficiently used. Involvement of the stakeholders increases grassroots support so a call
for action can arise out of the citizenry within the affected areas. Disputes that arise
between the states or regions may be able to be resolved through mediation by the
Commission prior to judicial actions.
The U.S. EPA's Intra-Agency ACF River Basin Team and the ACF River Basin
Commission can improve communication within the U.S. EPA and between the U.S. EPA
and other agencies. In addition, educational strategies can be developed with the input
of stakeholders which could increase the impact of the public outreach programs.
PHASE ONE: FORMATION AND FUNCTION OF A U.S. EPA INTRA-AGENCY TEAM
FOR THE ACF RIVER BASIN
The U.S. EPA's Intra-Agency ACF River Basin Team should be chaired by the Regional
Administrator or his/her designee. The Team must include one member from each of the
branches or sections of the U.S. EPA that deal with watersheds, water quality, clean
lakes, surface waters, ground water, soils, nonpoint source pollution, point source
pollution, hazardous waste, safe drinking waters, and any other watershed-related topic
deemed appropriate by the EPA Regional Administrator. Each Division Director within
the EPA regional office should assess her or his units and provide a list of programs to
be included and agency participants to serve on the River Basin Team at EPA.
Representatives from the water research laboratories should also be included. A staff
liaison or coordinator should be appointed to be a link between the U.S. EPA's
-------
Intra-Agency ACF River Basin Team and the university community that could provide
specialized information and research as needed by the Team. This staff
liaison/coordinator should be a person from the Watershed Section of the Wetlands,
Oceans and Watershed Branch.
The responsibilities of this team would be diverse. First, they need to identify areas of
duplication concerning EPA programs affecting the ACF River Basin and to make
recommendations as to how to eliminate the duplicative efforts within the U.S. EPA.
Once the internal duplication is eliminated, this group would prioritize the needs of the
ACF River Basin and develop appropriate watershed/river basin strategies that will not
duplicate, but incorporate the river basin approaches developed by the states. With
these strategies in mind, the U.S. EPA's Intra-Agency ACF River Basin Team would
develop a plan of action for the best utilization of available funds. This plan should
include developing coordination mechanisms for interagency/interorganizational
cooperation and collaboration. The River Basin Team would review and prioritize the
U.S. EPA grants within the ACF River Basin given the developed strategies and plan of
action for funding. It would also be the responsibility of this Team to monitor and review
permits and enforcement actions throughout the ACF River Basin and to develop a GIS
system for the river basin to be used for planning and enforcement.
Team actions might consider whether (EMAP) funding should be reallocated to states
to conduct trend monitoring in river basins and watersheds under EPA's authority and
sponsorship. Also, such programs as NPDES and TMDL should be integrated in the
intra-agency work team. This team can help EPA to create a regional identity for
effective basin management.
PHASE TWO: CREATION OF AN ACF RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
No single form of river basin or watershed management approach is appropriate for all
river basins. Any reforms in the way we manage our multi-state river systems must be
-------
tailored to the needs and desires of that system, its water problems, and the political,
social, and legal climate of the region impacted. New innovative approaches must be
built on a case-by-case basis. However, a skeletal framework should be designed to
support the river basin management approach.
A common method, as in the Delaware River Basin situation, is to authorize the creation
of regional commissions with the power to direct those organizations and agencies in the
river basin to make the hard decisions concerning the beneficial future of the river
systems.
A watershed/river basin management approach at EPA must be a strategy for more
effectively protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems and protecting human health.
This strategy has as its premise that many water quality problems are best solved at the
river basin/watershed level rather than at the individual waterbody or state level. The
approach addresses priority issues and problems, involves stakeholders at every level,
and uses the experiences and expertise of many agencies responsible for a myriad of
programs and jurisdictions.
There are numerous federal agencies, state agencies, academic units, industries and
businesses, and interest groups involved in issues that impact the water quality and
. i
quantity of the ACF River Basin. Many of these programs, as well as research and data
collection efforts, overlap. With the massive amounts of data that are available, in order
to do an effective job, the U.S. EPA (and others) needs to be aware of the research that
is presently being done in the ACF River Basin as well as what has been done by other
agencies and research groups. An ACF River Basin Commission, consisting of the
major stakeholders and researchers and sponsored by the U.S. EPA, can lead to more
efficient use of the funds available to the U.S. EPA. Direct interaction with others who
are working in the ACF River Basin/Watershed can also lead to greater interagency
cooperation and collaboration. Utilization of a Citizens Advisory Committee will allow
input from the general public. Knowing public perception of our approaches to meet the
-------
challenges to environmental issues can result in appropriate cost effective responses
that improve the popular image of the U.S. EPA (and other federal and state agencies
as well).
1. Composition of the ACF River Basin Commission:
The Commission would be chaired by the EPA Regional Administrator with staff support
provided by the staff liaison/coordinator from the U.S. EPA's Intra-Agency ACF River
Basin Team. The Commission would include an EPA attorney, one representative from
each of the federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, that deal with issues
impacting the River Basin, and one representative from each of the states' environmental
agencies (Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Alabama Department of
Environmental Management and Florida Department of Environmental Protection). To
represent the different regions with their variety of interests, membership should include
one representative from each of the regional development commissions, regional
planning commissions/councils and water management districts in the ACF River Basin
and a representative from each of the congressional offices within the River Basin.
Local government representatives should be appointed to the Commission.
Representatives from the various clean lakes advisory boards/committees should be
involved in the River Basin Commission-as well as representatives from Georgia Power
s »
and Alabama Power that operate lakes within the ACF River Basin.
Specialized advisory committees would be available to assist the River Basin
Commission in its discussions. These advisory committees would be formed from a
larger base of stakeholders within the Basin. These committees will be set up to advise
and make recommendations to the ACF River Basin Commission.
-A Technical Advisory Committee composed of federal, state, regional and
academic representatives should be formed to work with the Commission. This
group would consist of individuals involved in research on any aspect of the River
Basin which impacts water quality. This involves researchers from the U.S. EPA
-------
labs and state water labs, researchers from the natural and social sciences, civil
and environmental engineering, agricultural engineering, and land use planning.
A subset of this large group would be assigned to projects by the ACF River
Basin Commission.
-A Citizens Advisory Committee would consist of stakeholders from each state
or region that represent business interests, navigation and agriculture interests,
environmental organizations, lake/river advisory groups, developers, and
interested citizens. This Committee would review and respond to
recommendations by the River Basin Commission. They would also identify water
quality issues that are of concern to the citizenry and make appropriate
suggestions for the Task Force to consider.
-An Educational Advisory Committee would consist of U.S. EPA and state
education and outreach personnel, members of environmental groups with an
education mission, and environmental educators. This committee would provide
feedback on the prioritization of educational topics and methods of outreach. One
i
benefit is the potential of every member carrying the information back to their
constituency via a variety of public information campaigns. Through grassroots
publicity and education, local -populations will be more likely to "own the
problems." This results in the public being more interested in solving and
preventing future problems and their desire to have the aid of the U.S. EPA.
2. Function of the ACF River Basin Commission:
Achieving integrated river basin management involves a holistic approach, operated as
a system much like the watershed you are managing, together with coordinated actions
and decisions. Regional water decisions should be made in a forum featuring a
basin-wide and long-term perspective that respects the many values and uses of water.
8
-------
Stakeholders must not be given only a plan/project review role, but they should play a
more active role in defining problems and formulating responses. Clear lines of
accountability to the stakeholders must be included in the Commission's principles.
Our past efforts in river basin and watershed management have been fraught with
fragmentation. This fragmentation of responsibilities and programs with divergent
viewpoints and mandates has created undesirable outcomes in the areas of legal,
economic, and political dimensions and in environmental and water management
decisions. There have been incompatible ideologies concerning how river systems
should be managed, mostly based on jurisdictional boundaries and political geography.
A major function of the ACF River Basin Commission would be to identify overlap and
duplication of federal, state, regional and local programs. When such a situation exists,
the Commission would coordinate the activities for a minimum of redundant research,
data collection, and interpretation. This provides for efficient use of resources.
Knowledge of what each research group is doing in the River Basin will increase the
communication among environmental professionals. The resulting expanded view of the
challenges and potential challenges facing the ACF River Basin can enhance pollution
prevention initiatives throughout the watershed.
Legal issues that are raised may be mediated by the Commission long before they
would impact the judicial system. Currently, the ACF River Basin lacks an appropriate,
long-term forum for cooperative discussion and conflict resolution. The River Basin
Commission should provide accountability by acting effectively as a forum for debate,
conflict resolution, and implementation.
The ACF River Basin Commission would focus on examining interstate water quality
issues, prioritizing the projects and programs, reviewing permitting and enforcement
activities, evaluating proposed hazardous waste sites, recommending research needs,
and providing educational support.
9
-------
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Approach: In 1991. EPA released
its new Ground Water Protection Strategy.
This strategy relies on Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Programs to protect
the Nation's ground water resources. This new
approach is similar to the watershed protection
approach in that it represents an effort to have
EPA and other Federal, State and local agen-
cies better integrate and refocus their pollution
control programs on threatened geographic
areas. EPA is examining ways to better inte-
grate the planning aspects of the CSGWPP
with a more comprehensive watershed
approach.
Develop tools
EPA recognizes the need to provide tech-
nical information to support watershed protec-
tion. As the examples below indicate, the
Agency is working to develop tools and train-
ing for Regions, States, and other interested
organizations.
Watershed Costing Study: EPA under-
took a study to determine the cost implications
of the watershed planning process. A survey
instrument was developed and tested in North
and South Carolina. There were several pre-
liminary conclusions. First, water quality man-
agers believe that even though* little costing
data is currently available making it difficult to
determine actual dollar savings at this time,
savings will occur and efforts to gauge the ben-
efits of watershed protection should continue.
Secondly, program benefits are already occur-
ring and more are expected. Finally, environ-
mental benefits will take awhile to observe but
the watershed approach will improve and/or
accelerate environmental benefits. Efforts con-
tinue to develop a means to collect data and
measure cost impacts of the watershed plan-
ning process.
Watershed Planning Approach Docu-
ment: This document, currently in draft form,
describes a logical process for watershed-based
water quality planning and management. The
document discusses the broad issues associated
with a watershed approach and presents exam-
ples of specific steps that can be undertaken to
define the problem(s) that a watershed may
face, establish realistic goals for the watershed.
gain public support for activities, implement
appropriate controls, and measure the success!
of these control measures. The document
draws on several examples of ongoing water-
shed projects (e.g., Anacostia River Restora-
tion Program, Klamath River Basin Restora-
tion Program, and Black Earth Creek Priority
Watershed) to illustrate some of the technical
and programmatic issues that may arise.
Regional Implementation of National
Monitoring Schemes: The Interagency Task
Force on Monitoring (1TFM), which EPA
chairs and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
serves as vice chair, was established in 1992 to
develop an institutional framework for nation-
wide integrated monitoring. The primary
objective is to provide better information on
water resources and to mobilize water resource
monitoring activities more efficiently. The
ITFM consists of 16 members: from eight Fed-
eral agencies and eight State agencies. Four
task groups address the following problems:
the nationwide institutional framework, envi-
ronmental indicators, data collection methods
and data management and information sharing.
More than 80 Federal and State staff members
sit on the four task groups. The ITFM is a 3-
year effort; it will disband in favor of full
implementation activities in December 1995.
The ITFM recommendations will be car-
ried out by a national entity that will set guide-
lines and establish comparable methods and
procedures. Monitoring will be carried out on
a regional basis. A pilot project in Wisconsin,
which is organized into river basins, is the first
test of the ITFM recommendations.
Environmental Indicators for WPA
Projects: During this past year, the Office of
Water Strategic Planning Steering Committee
and the Environmental Indicators Workgroup
developed an indicators framework, which
links indicators to the strategic goals they mea-
sure. The framework consists of three pro-
grammatic areas: Human Health Protection. -
Ecological Protection, and Ambient Condi-
tions/Reduction of Loadings.
-------
The indicators framework is especially
effective in evaluating watershed protection
itraiegies because it is designed to measure the
effecliveness of both program-specific activity.
such as a point load reduction, and the cumula-
tive impact of all management actions, includ-
ing the improvement of ecological conditions.
For instance, indicators make it possible to:
Evaluate both nonpoinl source and point
source reduction strategies and
comprehensive programs to protect
wetlands and sensitive ground water areas
Assess ecological conditions, including
those affecting fish assemblages, benthic
organisms, and natural habitats found in
rivers, estuaries, lakes, and wetlands.
Among other efforts, the Environmental
Indicators workgroup has produced products of
use to watersheds, including a fact sheet on
selection criteria for indicators and a matrix of
physical, chemical, and biological indicators
that would best measure the attainment of des-
ignated uses.
Geographic Targeting: Selected Slate
Approaches: This document provides general
information on geographic targeting for mid-
level water quality professionals. In addition.
the publication presents several approaches to
geographic targeting, discussing (he advan-
tages and disadvantages of each, and provides
examples of where and how these approaches
are being used. The document also describes
the concepts and issues involved in geographic
targeting, such as ranking criteria, the incorpo-
ration of ground water concerns and riparian
values, the degree of public involvement, insti-
tutional capability, and the involvement of Fed-
eral, State, and local agencies.
Geographic Information System (CIS)
Demonstration Projects: EPA is conducting a
pilot study to map State-defined waterbodies
and individual stream segments to provide an
integrated picture of watershed water quality
and the attainment of State-designated uses.
During the first phase, which is being conduct-
ed in South Carolina, Reach File 3 (a hydrolog-
ic mapping tool) will be used to index water-
bodies and then CIS will be used to add water
quality assessment information from the
National Water Quality Inventory Reports
(305(b) Reports) and other water quality and
land use data.
The second phase of the project will add
other types of spatial data, including land
use/land cover information and additional
water quality data, such as those found in
STORET.
This project is a cooperative effort by the
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control. Bureau of Water Pollu-
tion Control, the South Carolina Water
Resources Commission. EPA's Office of Water,
and EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment - Las Vegas Laboratory
Methods to Delineate Areas of Ground
Water/Surface Water Interaction: This tech-
nical assistance document will describe various
methods to delineate zones of interaction
between ground water and surface water at dif-
ferent hydrogeological settings. It will be used
by Slates to protect ground water connected to
surface water so that human health is better
protected and the environmental integrity of
associated ecosystems is maintained.
Total Maximum Daily Load Case Stud-
ies: Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
established the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) process to provide for more stringent
water quality-based controls when technology-
based controls are inadequate to achieve Slate
water quality standards. The objective of a
TMDL is to allocate allowable loads among
different pollutant sources so that the appropri-
ate control actions can be taken, water quality
standards achieved, and human health and
aquatic resources protected.
As of January 1993, seven TMDL case
studies have been published (see box. next
page) and work is continuing on the develop-
ment of others.
-------
j. TMDL Case Study
f Denver Metro/South Platte River, CO
* South-Foric Salmon River, ID
- West Fork Clear Creek. CO
* - "
f Nomini Creek, VA]
<' Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary, NC
"1 Lower Minnesota River, MN '
< Sycamore Creek, MI. ' .
Primary pollution problem ' ">"'£: "^
Ammonia, toxics, metals (point and nonpoint sources)
Sediment (nonpoint source) - ' '
Toxics, metals (point and nonpoint sources)
Nutrients, sediment (nonpoint source)
Nitrogen, phosphorus (point and nonpoint sources)
Carbonaceous biological oxygen demand, ammonia
' (point-and nonpoint sources)
' * * " -"- ' - ^
Sediment (nonpoint source).
Compendium of Watershed-scale Mod-
els for TMDL Development: This compendi-
um identifies and summarizes the most widely
used watershed-scale models that can facilitate
the TMDL process. It is intended to help water
quality managers and other potential users
decide which model best suits their needs and
available resources. The document describes
simple methods, mid-range models, and
detailed models.
Measure success
As the watershed approach becomes an
integral part of the water program, both pro-
grammatic and environmental successes will
be measured. "*"/,
Programmatic measures of success will
focus on changes made within Headquarters
and the Regions to incorporate watershed pro-
tection into everyday business. Potential indi-
cators of success in this area include:
Shifts in reporting from a Slate basis to a
watershed basis
Implementation of various planning
processes in a coordinated manner and on a
watershed basis
Issuance of permits on a watershed basis
Application of funds to support watershed
projects.
An indicator of success in the Regions
will be the degree to which they use a water-
shed-based approach to meet their responsibili-
ties for implementing EPA's water programs.
Beyond EPA, shifts toward a program based on
a watershed protection approach at the State
level will be a further indicator of programmat-
ic success.
Environmental measures of success will
focus on improvements within the watershed in
water quality and habitat. Potential indicators
of success in this area include the degree tc
which environmental results are obtained as a
consequence of watershed planning and man-
agement. Indicators of environmental results
might include, for example, acres of wetlands
protected/restored, reductions in pollutant lev-
els, improved best management practices,
increases in fish populations, and reductions in
sedimentation. Obtaining accurate measures in
this area will be aided by the products of the
Interagency Task Force on Monitoring.
-------
3. Creation of the ACF River Basin Commission
Whatever authority is created, it should not set out, initially, to achieve some lofty
objectives. In fact, this is why most regional initiatives fail. Realistic goals must be set
for the short-term to establish a solid and long-lasting partnership between the
stakeholders involved in the process.
To ensure the success of the multi-agency Commission, it is suggested that the Clean
Water Act be amended to include provisions for holistic approaches to river
basin/watershed management. The formation of River Basin Commissions under the
authority and sponsorship of the U.S. EPA, in partnership with the states, would be key
to the reduction of duplicative services. A memorandum of understanding (MOD) should
be used as the legal/administrative instrument that (inks together and commits the River
Basin Commission representatives.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS OF APPROACH
Having an EPA Intra-Agency ACF River Basin Team and an ACF River Basin
Commission will prevent the duplication of policies, programs and research and data
collection in the watershed. Improved cooperation among the federal, state, regional and
local groups will lead to efficient and effective policy development and research. Greater
interagency collaboration on watershed projects will facilitate comprehensive holistic
policy and research strategies. An ACF River Basin Commission will set long-term
research goals that would be resilient to short-term changes in policy. The Commission
can act as a mediator for the examination and settlement of disputes at the early stages
of disagreement. With public involvement comes public support for the River Basin
Commission's initiatives.
10
-------
Finally, there is a need for a River Basin Commission that independently addresses
issues and problems not considered or resolved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comprehensive Study and that will endure after the study's completion.
11
-------
ACF RIVER BASIN/WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. EPA
ACFSYSTEM
RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
CITIZENS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TECHNICAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EDUCATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EPA ACF INTRA-AGENCY
RIVER BASIN TEAM
A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service
Kennesaw State College (1995)
-------
II. APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
ANNUAL REPORT -1992
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(WH-556F)
EPA840-S-93-001
January 1993
The Watershed Protection
Approach
Annual Report ,1992
WATERSHED
PROTECTION
An Integrated, Hollitlc Approach
-------
WATERSHED
PROTECTION
An Inlegritcd, Holiillc Approach
as
-*
Q
3
Introduction /
What is the watershed protection approach (WPA)?
Why is a watershed protection approach needed?
Who can benefit and why?
What is EPA's role?
What does the rest of this document describe?
EPA's Strategy 3
What is EPA's strategy for adopting watershed management?
Try it out
Advertise it
Align programs
Develop tools
Measure success
Activities in the Field. 9
How are EPA's Regions adopting watershed management?
How is the watershed approach being implemented at the local level?
What has been learned?
Individual Watershed Projects ,. 15
Appendix: Watershed Protection Funding Sources 55
2
I
I
A list of EPA's Regional Watershed Coordinators is found on the inside back cover.
-------
The Watershed Protection Approach: Annual Report
-------
Introduction
What is the watershed
protection approach (WPA)?
The watershed protection approach is an
integrated, holistic strategy for more effectively
restoring and protecting aquatic ecosystems
and protecting human health (e.g.. drinking
water supplies and fish consumption). This
approach is a renewed effort by the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) to focus
on hydrologically defined drainage basins -
watersheds - rather than on areas arbitrarily
defined by political boundaries. Thus, for a
given watershed, the approach encompasses
not only the water resource, such as a stream,
river, lake, estuary, or aquifer, but all the land
from which water drains to that resource. To
protect water resources, it is increasingly
important to address the condition of land areas
within the watershed because as water drains
off the land it carries with it the effects of
human activities throughout the watershed. By
concentrating on natural resources and sys-
:ms, it is possible to detect and take remedial
action for such problems as declines in living
resources and habitat loss.
The watershed protection approach has
three major cornerstones:
/; Problem Identification - Identify the
primary threats to human and ecosystem
health within the watershed.1
2) Stakeholder Involvement - Involve the
people most likely to be concerned or most
able to take action.
3) Integrated Actions - Take corrective
actions in a comprehensive, integrated
manner once solutions are determined.
Evaluate success and refine actions, as
necessary.
This approach places greater emphasis
on all aspects of water quality, including chem-
ical water quality (toxics and conventional pol-
lutants, e.g., fecal coliform and total phospho-
rus), physical water quality (e.g., temperature,
flow, and circulation), habitat quality (e.g.,
channel morphology, composition, and health
of biotic communities), and biodiversity (e.g.,
species number and range). The approach
encompasses all waters - surface and ground,
inland and coastal. This approach is not a new
centralized program that competes with or
replaces existing programs; rather it provides a
framework and new focus for effective integra-
tion of ongoing programs. In taking this
expanded approach. EPA mjust work closely
with other stakeholders who have responsibili-
ties in this area.
Why is a watershed
protection approach
needed?
Although significant strides have been
made in reducing the impacts of discrete pollu-
tant sources and'billions of dollars have been
spent to build wastewater treatment plants, the
Nation's aquatic resources remain at risk.
Today's challenges include resolving the sig-
nificant pollution problems that come from lit-
erally millions of diffuse or nonpoint sources,
maintaining safe drinking water supplies, and
restoring and protecting aquatic habitats.
These challenges require innovative solutions
and, in a time of dwindling public resources,
cooperation among many panics. The water-
shed protection approach provides the neces-
sary framework for meeting these challenges.
The approach emphasizes the involvement of
all affected stakeholders and stresses the need
for teamwork at the Federal, State, and local
level to achieve the greatest improvements
with the resources available. A wide variety of
sectors are expressing interest in watershed
protection, including all levels of government,
private businesses, academics, environmental
groups, and individual citizens. The watershed
protection approach provides comprehensive
methods for identifying, tailoring, and imple-
menting the solutions needed to protect and
restore the Nation's aquatic resources.
Who can benefit and why?
Everyone - individual citizens, the public
sector, and the private sector - can benefit from
a watershed protection approach. Individual
citizens benefit because watershed protection
improves the environment. The public sector
This cornerstone has
been slightly modified
from that found in
EPA's The Watershed
Protection Approach:
An Overview (Decembe.
1991). The name has
been changed from
"Risk-Based Geographii
Targeting" to "Problem
Identification." and the
definition focuses on
primary threats within
a watershed rather than
highest-risk watershed
This modification has
been made to better
reflect the holistic natun
of watershed protection
and its applicability to
all watersheds.
-------
benefits because agencies can accomplish more
through cooperation with all stakeholders than
they can on their own with limited resources.
Participation by local entities ensures that those
who are likely to be most familiar with a
watershed, its problems, and possible solutions
play a major part, often a leadership role. Users
of the water resources (for example, industry,
agriculture, and recreation) benefit because one
of (he intents of the approach is to distribute
the burden of water resource protection more
evenly among all stakeholders.
In communities across the United States.
effective watershed management can lead to
more environmentally sensitive and sustainable
economJc growth and development. Because
watershed management brings all parties to the
table, the potential exists for greater considera-
tion to be given to protecting and restoring
vital natural resources during planning for new
development.
What is EPA's role?
EPA's overall goal for the watershed pro-
tection approach is:
to maintain and improve the health and
integrity of aquatic ecosystems using com-
prehensive approaches that^qcus resources
on the major problems facing these systems
within the watershed context.
To meet this end. EPA has identified the
following objectives:
Align EPA programs to support risk-based
watershed planning and management
Promote the use of the approach by its
partners in other Federal. State, and local
agencies
Address the primary threats to ground and
surface waters
Promote stewardship and a broad
understanding of and participation in the
approach by the public
Effectively measure progress toward
restoring, maintaining, and protecting our
Nation's waterbodies and aquatic habitats.
In pursuing its overall goal and related
objectives. EPA encourages and advances
watershed protection at all levels of govern-
ment and is actively involved in watershed
partnerships when appropriate. EPA's Office
of Water develops technical tools to assist com-
munities in adopting watershed protection
approaches, promotes the watershed protection
approach concept through various outreach
activities, and works inside and outside of EPA
to align its programs to better complement the
approach.
What does the rest off this
document describe?
The remainder of this publication sum-
marizes the progress EPA has made in promot-
ing a watershed protection approach over Ov
last year. The next section reviews EPA's strai
egy for adopting this approach and the steps
that have been taken in EPA Headquarters to
implement the strategy. The following section
summarizes watershed activities in the field,
beginning with a report on how EPA Regions
have supported watershed protection and con-
cluding with brief descriptions of individual
watershed projects. As an aid for new water-
shed activities, the appendix references perti-
nent EPA funding sources that could support
watershed protection efforts.
-------
EPA's Strategy
What is EPA's strategy
for adopting watershed
management?
EPA is pursuihg a five-pronged strategy
for adopting watershed management. Simply
put, the components of the strategy are:
Try it out Develop tools
Advertise it Measure success.
Align programs
An EPA Headquarters support team with
representatives from the four parts of the
Office of Water (Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water; Office of Science and Tech-
nology; Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance; and Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds) has been convened to serve
the Regions and States, as well as local and
nongovernmental entities, in pursuing water-
shed protection approaches In addition, a sub-
group has been formed to oversee each compo-
nent of the strategy.
Try it out
In October 1991, all four Office Direc-
tors in the Office of Water signed a watershed
protection framework document. This docu-
.ment lays the groundwork to implement
regional watershed projects and institutional
changes in EPA. The purpose of the regional
watershed projects is to devise methods and
tools, develop credible case studies, and lead
by example. In addition, the document com-
mits EPA to make institutional changes that
will result in integrated, focused, holistic water
quality programs.
Advertise it
To promote a broad understanding of the
watershed protection concept. EPA is working
to open, improve, and maintain communication
with potential stakeholders, including other
Federal agencies. State and local governments,
and nongovernmental organizations. Selected
efforts to advertise watershed protection are
identified below.
Federal Interagency Workgroup: EPA
has established an interagency workgroup that
includes representatives from the Department
of Agriculture, the Department of Interior, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, the Department of Transportation, the
Office of Management and Budget, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This group
meets on an as needed basis to share informa-
tion on their agencies' watershed activities and
jointly plan and carry out activities.
Watershed Events: The Office of Wet-
lands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) pub-
lishes this quarterly newsletter to inform its
readers about recent activities related to water-
shed protection. The newsletter circulates to
nearly 1,500 readers.
The Watershed Protection Approach:
An Overview: OWOW produced a document
that explains the watershed protection
approach and provides several examples. To
date, OWOW has distributed more than 10,000
copies.
WPA Exhibit and Sessions at Confer-
ences^ Office of Water personnel at all levels
have given presentations and staffed exhibits
on watershed protection at conferences
throughout the United States and abroad,
including the following:
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies 1992 Summer Technical
Conference
Coastal Society 13th Annual International
Conference
Earth Summit Meeting - ECOBRASIL '92
Lower Colorado River Authority Watershed
Management Partners in Policy Forum
Natural Areas Conference
Water Environment Federation Conference
Watershed Management Council Watershed
Conference.
Watershed Users Croup on Nonpoint
Source Bulletin Board: In October 1992, the
Watershed Restoration Network became fully
operational on the Nonpoint Source Electronic
-------
Bulletin Board System (BBS). The network is
one of the Special Interest Group (SIG)
Forums available on the BBS. This SIG wilt
feature watershed approaches to water quality
and resource management, as well as water-
shed restoration.
WATERSHED '93: EPA is lead sponsor
with 12 other Federal agencies, five local spon-
sors, and numerous nongovernmental groups
for WATERSHED '93, a national conference
on watershed management. This conference,
to be held in March 1993, will highlight proven
and emerging techniques for watershed man-
agement. WATERSHED '93 will give atten-
dees the opportunity to exchange information
on watershed approaches, clarify their roles in
watershed protection, and build new alliances.
Align programs
EPA is striving to modify its programs to
better incorporate watershed protection.
Opportunities are being pursued to eliminate
barriers and identify actions to be taken to pro-
mote and support watershed programs within
EPA and State and interstate agencies. The fol-
lowing paragraphs identify several of these
efforts.
Planning, Priority Setting, and
Reporting Requirements
EPA is committed to identifying and pur-
suing opportunities to modify its operations to
facilitate watershed activities. Some examples
include:
Alignment Opportunities List: EPA's
Office of Water has begun to examine ways to
administratively realign programs to enhance
watershed-based resource management. The
Office is focusing on several areas including
integration of programs, planning, priority set-
ting, reporting requirements, and grants.
EPA/State Watershed Initiative: Many
States are making their programs more com-
patible with watershed management. In
August 1992, EPA worked with the Associa-
tion of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators and several slate repre-
sentatives to initiate this project. The project,
which is designed to examine watershed man-
agement hypotheses more carefully, has tv
primary goals:
Identify changes needed in program policy
and administration to improve the States'
capacity to reorient water quality programs
on a watershed basis
Enhance the State/EPA partnership so that
the statutory responsibilities identified in the
Clean Water Act are carried out in the most
comprehensive, effective manner possible.
Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Pro-
gram Implementation Grants: Watershed pro-
jects designed to directly protect or restore spe-
cific surface or ground waters are seen as
essential to the success of the national nonpoint
source program. Likewise, watershed projects
are expected to provide a means for improving
wetlands protection. Recently issued guidance
from both the nonpoint source and wetlands
programs promotes the use of comprehensive
watershed projects. The nonpoint source guid-
ance emphasizes that watershed projec
should be given a central role in State program
implementation efforts. This guidance also
stipulates that funded watershed protection
activities should form part of a comprehensive
approach designed to control all of the major
nonpoint sources affecting water quality
throughout the watersheds or ground water
areas being protected.
NPDES Permit Issuance: In cases
where Slates are targeting watersheds for com-
prehensive protection efforts, EPA is offering
flexibility in permit reissuance. This flexibility
allows States and EPA Regions lo align
NPDES permits within targeted watersheds on
a 5-year cycle.
Geographically Targeted Programs
EPA has several programs that promote a
geographically targeted, comprehensive
approach. EPA is working to better coordinate ~
those programs and promote them as models f'
the watershed approach. These include, K
example:
-------
Near Coastal Waters (NCW) Program:
Within the framework of watershed protection,
he goals of the NCW Program are:
To dined and focus EPA's coastal activities
within priority geographic areas
To promote linkages among programs
To encourage a comprehensive approach to
problem assessment and management
To maximize environmental results.
These goals are achieved chiefly through
regional NCW strategies and are carried out
through activities described in annual work
plans.
National Estuary Program (NEP): The
NEP exemplifies watershed protection for estu-
arine waters and serves as an excellent model
for the watershed protection approach. The
NEP identifies nationally significant estuaries
threatened by pollution, development, or
overuse, and requires the preparation of Com-
prehensive Conservation and Management
Plans (CCMPs) to ensure ecological integrity.
The program's goals are protection and
improvement of water quality and enhance-
tent of living resources. The NEP's approach
is to convene a Management Conference con-
sisting of a variety of stakeholders to character-
ize the estuary, define the estuary's problems,
and then develop a CCMP to be implemented
by participating parties. The NEP promotes
'long-term involvement of all stakeholders
including elected and appointed policy-making
officials from all government levels; environ-
mental managers from Federal, State, and local
agencies; representatives from local scientific
and academic communities; and private citi-
zens and representatives from public and user
interest groups - businesses, industries, and
community and environmental organizations.
Great Water Bodies: Like the NEPs, the
Great Lakes Program, the Chesapeake Bay
program, and the Gulf of Mexico Program take
a comprehensive, geographically targeted
approach. AH are promoting smaller scale
watershed projects as an important part of their
overall efforts to restore and protect the
Nation's Great Water Bodies.
Clean Lakes Program: This program is
another established model for watershed pro-
tection efforts. National guidance issued in
1987 emphasized that "Clean Lakes projects
need to be developed and implemented on a
watershed basis... This watershed approach
should greatly facilitate the leveraging of their
informational/data, technical, financial, and
programmatic resources for water quality pur-
poses.... The Clean Lakes Program is particu-
larly conducive to a highly integrated and uni-
fied approach to water restoration and protec-
tion."
Integrated Resource Planning by
Municipalities: Over the last five years, many
major municipalities have developed programs
for ensuring reliable and safe drinking water
supplies through integrated resource planning
methods. This approach requires coordination
among all the entities in the watershed, leading
to agreements and controls that ensure a safe
water supply. Although targeted to water sup-
ply objectives, this local planning effort pro-
duces benefits that in the future could extend to
greater protection of the watershed.
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR):
To avoid this rule's requirement to install filtra-
tion treatment of drinking water supplies, pub-
lic water supplies were allowed to demonstrate
that they effectively protect the watershed and
meet .other criteria. EPA and the Stales made
decisions on who must filter in December
1991, and a number of municipalities (such as
Seattle, Portland, New York City, and Lake
Tahoe) were exempted provided that they con-
tinue to maintain effective watershed control
programs. The SWTR has proven to be a
major incentive for continued watershed pro-
tection in these areas.
Drinking Water Vulnerability Assess-
ments: Starting in January 1993 public water
systems are required to monitor for 65 chemi-
cal contaminants, most for the first time. By
regulation, EPA has allowed reduced monitor-
ing if the water system can demonstrate that
the water source is not vulnerable to degrada-
tion by specific contaminants. This vulnerabil-
ity assessment is providing a major incentive
for water systems to establish wellhead protec-
tion programs and other watershed protection
measures.
-------
Activities in the Field
How are EPA's Regions
adopting watershed
management?
This section highlights various methods
being used by Regional offices to foster water-
shed protection. These Regional activities are
largely experimental and provide valuable
lessons.
Throughout the text, several examples of
watershed projects are listed in boldface type.
Greater detail and additional examples of
watershed projects can be found in the next
section, which describes 34 individual water-
shed projects in which EPA is involved. In
addition to these projects, many others are
being organized by local communities; Federal,
State, and local governments; and private citi-
zen groups.
Regional Strategies: Several Regions
have developed Regional strategies or action
plans that outline their Region's approach for
adopting watershed protection and define a
process and criteria through which priority
watersheds are identified and targeted for spe-
cial attention. The foundation of Region II's
strategy is to target ecosystems that continue to
experience use impairments and other adverse
impacts. Region IV uses eight criteria, includ-
ing the following, for identifying the highest
priority watersheds: the magnitude of risks to
human and ecological health, the possibility of
additional environmental degradation if no
action is taken, and the likelihood of achieving
demonstrable results. Region IX focuses its
efforts on addressing cross-cutting water quali-
ty issues in priority watersheds or geographic
areas, such as California's Central Valley,
San Francisco Bay, the Truckee River, and
Santa Margarita Watershed.
Regional Watershed Coordinators: One
of the first steps taken by EPA to support the
concept of watershed protection was to desig-
nate a Regional watershed coordinator in each
Region. The coordinator is responsible for
promoting watershed protection, communicat-
ing ideas, and disseminating information
between EPA Headquarters (the Office of
Water) and other Regional staff involved in
watershed activities. Besides a Region-wide
coordinator, some Regions have designated
coordinators for individual watershed projects.
Involvement in Specific Watershed
Activities: In most Regions,- there are no clear-
ly defined guidelines for EPA involvement in
specific watershed activities. EPA can adopt
either a leadership or supportive role. The
decision regarding EPA involvement often
depends on staffing levels, budgets, and the
project's needs. Region II's approach, for
example, is to assume the lead for all geo-
graphic targeting efforts in interstate and inter-
national waters and for congressional ly man-
dated projects. The Region will also consider
leading efforts where State or local commit-
ment is not adequate to solve the problem. For
other projects, the Region will look to the
States to adopt a similar leadership role in
State-targeted waters.
Regional Action Teams: Many Regions
(Regions I, IV, VII, VIII, IX. and X) have
established a Region-wide team for each pro-
ject. The teams coordinate communications,
provide technical review, and work with State
and local stakeholders to target problem-solv-
ing on a watershed basis. Many Regional
teams (such as the one for the Casco Bay
NEP) are comprised of representatives from all
water programs. Some invite representatives
from programs outside the water arena, such as
Superfund, pollution prevention, and emer-
gency preparedness, to act as participants (such
as Merrimack River) or serve as the lead
(Clear Creek, which is being led by a Super-
fund staff person).
In addition to individual Regional action
teams. Region IX created a Board of Directors
consisting of Branch Chiefs from affected pro-
grams to oversee the numerous individual
watershed action teams in the Region. Region
VU1 established a small workgroup, called the
Watershed Eight, to assess the potential for
adopting a Region-wide watershed approach.
-------
" -orcgions are areas
gions) of relative
lomogeneity in
xological systems
t are delineated
rording to the
.patial disiribuiions
nf environmental
' tors, such as soil
. pe. vegetation.
.limate, geology,
-J physiography.
This workgroup includes staff from many pro-
grams, such as Superfund, ground water, min-
ing wastes, nonpoint source, and geographic
information programs. Their task is to system-
atically evaluate the watershed approach and
prepare a draft action plan outlining how the
Region will more formally implement the
approach. Al present, the workgroup does not
anticipate the need for any organizational
changes other than the addition of a permanent
Watershed Protection Coordinator for (he
Region.
RegionalState Watershed Agree-
ments: Regions II and IX are planning to
negotiate agreements with each State in their
jurisdictions regarding how the Region and
State will invest resources to support watershed
protection. Region II is willing to reallocate
resources from multiple program areas to sup-
port watershed projects with the understanding
that trade-offs in base program commitments
will be required. The Region recently complet-
ed this strategic planning process with the State
of New York, and the process succeeded in
both parties moving toward a geographically
oriented, multi-programmatic approach to solv-
ing problems. In the future, the Region plans
to initiate discussions with its other State and
territoriesNew Jersey. Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. Region IX also plans to
work with its States, especially California and
Hawaii, to explore ways of incorporating the
approach into their State programs^
Interagency Partnerships: Several
Regions are working on building partnerships
with other Federal agencies with similar water
resource programs. For example. Region VIII
has supported a number of watershed projects
that are also pan of the USGS's National Water
Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA).
Although the principal focus of this USGS pro-
gram is an intensive evaluation of water
resource conditions and trends, the number of
agencies and groups participating in the
NAWQA effort provide a natural organization-
al nucleus for developing an integrated water-
shed protection approach. In the case of
Waquoit Bay, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Estuar-
ine Research Reserve in the area provides a
natural setting for fostering watershed protec-
tion, because the Reserve supports conserva-
tion, research, and public outreach activities.
In Coos Bay/Coquille Bay and the Middle
Snake River, project personnel are working
with the Department of Agriculture's Coordi-
nated Resource Management Program, which
uses a similar holistic management approach in
targeted geographic areas, to integrate the con-
cept of watershed protection into their planning
efforts.
Watershed Inventory: Region VIII is
one of the First EPA Regions to conduct a
Regional watershed inventory. To support this
effort, the Region is collecting and organizing
information along watershed and ecoregion:,
rather than political, boundaries. This invento-
ry will present information that describes (1)
the physical characteristics of the watersheds;
(2) human uses, past and present, of the area;
(3) the principal activities affecting the quality
of the watersheds' resources; (4) the current
condition of the habitat and water quality; and
(3) the current value and condition of the
ecosystem. In addition to information about
areas of high water quality and damaged water |
resources, the inventory will include informa-
tion on areas of particular ecological impor-
tance, such as blue ribbon trout fisheries, desig-
nated and candidate wild and scenic rivers,
conservation sites from the Nature Conservan-
cy's heritage data base, and the presence of
threatened and endangered species. For pur-
poses of this inventory, the watershed bound-
aries are defined by the USGS hydrologic sub-
regions. In addition, the information will be
organized along EPA ecoregion boundaries.
The concurrent use of ecoregions as the other
primary unit of organization is intended to pro-
vide an appropriate scale for arranging the
information within the watersheds and to
reflect the effects of environmental characteris-
tics, such as climate and geology, the principal
factors that shape the natural character of
rivers. The inventory cataloging unit is the
point(s) at which a river(s) in a specific USGS
sub-region intersects an ecoregion boundary.
Tracking System: To coordinate the
timing of activities in different programs.
Region IX is planning to develop a computer-
-------
11
ized system to track activities that assist in
watershed management. The system will track
such items as the timing of monitoring, water
quality standards revisions, TMDL develop-
ment, and permit issuances in individual
watersheds.
How is the watershed
approach being Imple-
mented at the local level?
EPA's role in watershed activities ranges
from modest support to very active, primary
leadership. The role varies among watersheds
and often among different segments of a water-
shed. As explained earlier, (he purpose of
Regional demonstration projects is to test ele-
ments of the watershed protection approach by
trying them out. The following discussion
highlights the success of various watershed
projects in terms of:
Organizing
Gaining stakeholder support and
involvement
Obtaining finding
Effecting change.
Organizing
Often, as a first step in organizing a
watershed project, some type of mechanism.
such as a committee or task force, helps to
bring stakeholders together who live, work,
plan for, and effect changes within the same
watershed. Organizational arrangements range
from formal to informal, large to small,
depending on the political and physical nature
of the watershed. In Canaan Valley, for exam-
ple, a single entity, the Canaan Valley Task
Force, develops plans and manages actions. In
many watershed projects, especially those
associated with the NEP. such as New York-
New Jersey Harbor, Santa Monica Bay. and
Long Island Sound, a hierarchical committee
structure is used to funnel input from techni-
cal/scientific and citizen committees into a sin-
gle decisionmaking body.
Watershed projects create these organiza-
tional structures at different limes in their plan-
ning process. In Merrimack River and Hills-
dale Reservoir, committees were established
to attract funding. In Delaware Ba> and Lake
Roosevelt, committees were created after lead-
ing stakeholders had organized the project and
secured funding. These committees serve as a
mechanism for gaining technical and public
input and sustaining political and public sup-
port for the project.
Gaining Stakeholder Support and
Involvement
One of the primary cornerstones of the
watershed protection approach is stakeholder
involvement. Stakeholders include all institu-
tions and people who affect or are affected by
the watershedsuch as Federal. State, and
local government agencies; businesses; envi-
ronmental organizations; educational institu-
tions; civic groups; elected officials: and indi-
vidual citizens.
Each project is developing its own tools
for gaining stakeholder involvement. One of
the greatest success stories is the Canaan Val-
ley Task Force, consisting of Federal, State,
and local private and public representatives.
This task force was charged with resolving
issues and ensuring long-term environmental
protection, as well as economic growth. The
National Environmental Awards Council of
Renew America recognized the task force's
effqgts as a model watershed effort that orga-
nized.community support to successfully meet
current environmental challenges. As the
Canaan Valley effort demonstrates, gaining
multi-agency consensus on a future direction
for watershed protection is important. Another
example is the Truckee River where two
Stales (California and Nevada). EPA. the Pyra-
mid Lake Paiute Tribe, and local and regional
government agencies developed a multi-
agency plan, the Truckee River Strategy, to
address watershed problems. Although the
strategy is currently being implemented, it has
been difficult to measure any changes due to a
long term drought.
Even though a project may wish to
include all stakeholders in the earliest planning
stages, this decision can bring difficulties. For
example, in Malibu Creek, the project has
encountered problems in gaining consensus
-------
among local stakeholders regarding a lead
organizing entity and a facilitator. Although
(he project has been extremely successful in
obtaining and leveraging funding, some feel
that the debate over leadership may impede the
success of this effort. Likewise, Oak Creek
Watershed and Lake Roosevelt have found it
difficult to convene all of the stakeholders and
agree on project phasing.
Projects vary in terms of when they seek
the input of all stakeholders. In the early
stages of the Platte River Ecosystem Man-
agement Initiative, participants learned that
seeking the input of all stakeholders without
having a defined project scope or plan of action
was counterproductive. Therefore, the water
quality agencies decided to delay involving
many other stakeholders until they had com-
pleted initial water quality assessments and had
drafted preliminary goals, objectives, and oper-
ational plans to focus their own activities.
Many projects, especially those associat-
ed with the NEP, develop a public outreach
strategy for the entire effort that discusses what
public outreach tools will be used and how
often. For example, the Casco Bay strategy
includes such public outreach tools as a bian-
nual public forum, a newsletter, slide show,
boat tours, and fact sheets. Many projects.
such as Santa Monica, Lgng Island Sound,
and Casco Bay, integrate volunteer monitoring
into their activities as another vehicle for pub-
lic involvement. To organize local stakehold-
ers, Flint Creek created a Citizens Committee,
an Education and Outreach Committee, and a
Farm Operations Committee, and Hillsdale
Reservoir established an Information and Edu-
cation Subcommittee. In one of the watersheds
that has a large research component, Waquoil
Bay. the National Estuarine Research Reserve
employs a "research translator" to communi-
cate technical information to the general public
and local officials through written bulletins,
user manuals, and training courses. Some pro-
jects also sponsor events for technical input
and training. For example, the Tensas Water-
shed has held 3 wetland field days, targeting
environmental resource workers in the basin.
A project (hat gains political support
often succeeds in attracting funding and turn-
ing plans into actions. Lake Champlain. for
example, had a long history of political sup-
port, dating back to the late 1940s. In 1988,
the States of New York and Vermont and the
* Province of Quebec signed a Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the management of
the Lake, which subsequently led to the initia-
tion and funding (at a level of $2 million per
year) of the Lake Champlain Basin Program by
Congress. Although it is often easier (o gain
political support for such large, multi-agency
efforts, the Regions have found larger projects
to be more challenging because they require
greater time for communication, assessment,
and the development of options.
Obtaining Funding
Unlike most new activities, the Water-
shed Protection Approach has been an experi-
ment using no new funding. Therefore, the
achievements listed in this report are especially
noteworthy. These projects also demonstrate
how Federal environmental programs and
funding can be applied in a geographically tar-
geted area to support watershed protection.
Many Regions have been successful in
using existing funding sources to finance
watershed projects. They have found funding
from a variety of Office of Water programs
(Merrimack River, Platte River Basin,
Casco Bay) as well as from other EPA pro-
gram offices (Upper Arkansas River). For
more information on EPA funding sources that
could be applied to watershed projects, see the
appendix. Funding for watershed projects has
also been obtained from a variety of other Fed-
eral agencies including U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Malibu Creek, Rio
Grande River, Hillsdale Reservoir).
-------
13
Effecting Change
Very few projects have proceeded to the
point of full implementation. Yet several pro-
jects have already taken steps that led to envi-
ronmental improvements. In the Tangipahoa
River Watershed, fecal coliform levels are
beginning to decline' with the construction of
dairy lagoons. In'Lake Roosevelt, growing
public concerns about metals being discharged
from a Canadian firm, Comino Metals, led
Environment Canada to conduct bioassays on
the slag. Environment Canada found high lev-
els of toxicity. Both Environment Canada and
the company responded quickly to accelerate
their schedule for on-land disposal of the slag.
Later the Lake Roosevelt Council was asked to
review the company's recent water discharge
permit, and many of the Council's comments
were incorporated into the final permit. This
increased level of communication demon-
strates how new partnerships can bring
changes. In the Long Island Sound Study.
the States of New York and Connecticut have
agreed to modify NPDES permits for publicly
owned treatment works on or in close proximi-
y to the Sound to "freeze" and in some cases
.educe the levels of nitrogen in plant effluent.
What has been learned?
With any new activity, it is worthwhile to
periodically assess what lessons have been
learned. Many Regions were successful in
finding methods for supporting watershed pro-
tection efforts within their current framework
of programs. Several Regions were able to
shift existing staff responsibilities to create
watershed coordinator positions. Most
Regions found that the job of coordinating a
watershed project generally requires full-time
involvement and financial resources.
In terms of conducting assessments.
Region VHI has learned, through its experience
with the watershed inventory and work on
watershed initiatives underway, that finding
and bringing together information on a specific
watershed is a difficult but necessary step in
'he process of selecting appropriate manage-
ment actions. The Region has also discovered
that a great deal of good information is avail-
able but that it is difficult to locate and acquire.
At present, the Region has no standardized
way of collecting or organizing information
along watershed boundaries. Their intent is to
have the inventory format provide that frame-
work. If the inventory format is successful, a
long-term goal would be to compile this infor-
mation into a centralized data base or geo-
graphic information system mat would provide
a link between mapped information in the
watershed and aquatic resource assessment and
management approaches. For individual
watersheds, historical and contemporary infor-
mation would be organized using the water-
shed as the principal landscape feature and CIS
as the storage and integrative management
tool. The Interagency Task Force on Monitor-
ing, discussed previously in the EPA's Strategy
section, is also working on improving the
availability and usefulness of watershed related
data.
Some projects have encountered difficul-
ties in linking and preventing overlaps in exist-
ing program activities. For example, the Santa
Margarita Watershed is trying to forge a cre-
ative linkage between the permitting, TMDL,
and standards activities and the advance wet-
lands identification process to show the impor-
tance of wetlands protection and enhancement,
as welt^s the pollutant assimilative capacity.
In the case of Malibu Creek, EPA, the Santa
Monica Bay Restoration Project, and the Soil
Conservation Service are examining the link-
age of available hydrologic data and nonpoint
source screening models with data from a geo-
graphic information system to develop a water-
shed model.
The Platte River Ecosystem Manage-
ment Initiative learned several lessons regard-
ing project scope. Because several agencies
were involved in controversial litigation per-
taining to water flow in the river, the Region
and the Nebraska Department of Environmen-
tal Quality decided to concentrate on water
quality issues that could be addressed using a
comprehensive ecosystem approach and not to
-------
become embroiled in the quantity controversy.
When the effort was initiated, existing respon-
sibilities prevented project staff from devoting
the time required for development and coordi-
nation of a project of this magnitude. The staff
also lacked the resources and skills for data
management and analysis using such tools as
Geographic Information Systems. These prob-
lems were addressed by reprogramming posi-
tions to support the project, providing cooper-
ating and training across projects, learning
from pilot efforts, and phasing the project
Also, the participants decided to partition the
basin into smaller, more manageable segments.
rather than addressing the entire river basin as
a whole, to achieve real environmental results.
'14
-------
Watershed Projects
This section describes a selection of EPA watershed projects in alphabetical order. The map
below provides approximate locations of the projects discussed. Several of the watershed projects
encompass more than one EPA Region. EPA is also involved in many other watershed protection
projects that are not discussed here.
* The watershed of these projects encompasses both Regions 1 and 2.
I. Coos Bay/Coquille River
2. Lake Roosevelt
3. Coeur d'Alene Basin
4. Middle Snake River
5. Truckee River Watershed
6. Mono Bay
7. Malibu Creek
8. Santa Margarita Watershed
9. San Luis Rey River
10. West Maui Watershed
11. Oak Creek Watershed
12. Bear River
13. Clear Creek Watershed
14. Upper Arkansas River
15. Platte River
16. Hillsdale Reservoir
17. Upper Tensas River
18. Lower Mississippi Delta
19. Tangipahoa River
Watershed
20. Grand Calumet River
21. Savannah River
22. Rint Creek
23. Upper Tennessee River
24. Pequea and Mill Creeks
25. Canaan Valley
26. Pocono Watershed
27. NY-NJ Harbor
28. Lake Champlain*
29. Long Island Sound*
30. Onondaga Lake
31. Blackstone River
32. Waquoit Bay
33. Merrimack River
34. Casco Bay
-------
Bear Creek Watershed Initiative
Stakeholders
Bear Lake Regional
Commission
Bear River Resource
Conservation and
Development Council
Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality
Idaho Fish and Game
Department
Local citizen groups
Utah Department of
Environmental Quality
Utah Division of Water
Resources
Jtah Division of Wildlife
> Resources
* Utah Power and Light
U.S. Bureau of Land
Management
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
US. Fish and Wildlife
Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Soil Conservation
Service
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Wyoming Came and
Fish Department
The Bear River is the longest river in the
United States, whose flow does not eventually
empty into an ocean. It originates in the high
Uinta mountains of northeastern Utah. From
there, (he river follows a rather torturous path
flowing first north into southwestern
Wyoming, back into Utah, again into
Wyoming, and then into Idaho. In Idaho the
river is diverted into Bear Lake, and then the
water flows or is pumped back into the natural
channel north of the Lake through a series of
canals. After passing Bear Lake, the river
turns south and again flows into Utah where it
finally empties into the Great Salt Lake
approximately 500 river miles from its head-
waters. The 7,600 square mile Bear River
basin includes a wide range of physiographic
settings, containing portions of four different
ecoregions: the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains,
the Wyoming Basin, the Middle Rockies, and
finally the Northern Basin and Range.
Environmental Threats
The principal environmental stressors in
the Bear River Basin are related to agricultural
practices. A combination of favorable physio-
graphic and climatic conditions in the basin
yields productive irrigated and dry farm crop-
lands, grazing lands, and lands suitable for
feedlots and dairy operations. These operations
can contribute to both excessive soil erosion,
increasing sediment loadings to the river, and
high nutrient loadings, principally associated
with animal feeding operations and dairies. In
the Wyoming portion of the basin, riparian
vegetation removal, stream channelization,
stream bank modification, and petroleum activ-
ities all have an impact on the water resources.
Other basin land use practices which affect the
river system include logging, oil and gas opera-
tions, urbanization, and recreation, especially
near the popular Bear Lake area.
Actions
The first stage of the watershed effort
was to target the most severe problems based
on monitoring information. Using this infor-
mation, the Little Bear River, one of the major
tributaries in the basin was targeted for the ini-
tial implementation effort. The State of Utah,
the EPA, and the Soil Conservation Service ini-
tiated a watershed Hydrologica! Unit project on
the Little Bear, using funds from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and EPA. to restore
a-section of the Little Bear River. The project
includes stream channel and riparian habitat
restoration, land management, and animal
waste treatment remediation actions. Several
additional nonpoint source projects are now
underway in Wyoming thai are aimed at restor-
ing tributary streams that have been impacted
by channelization, stream bank modification.
and riparian habitat loss. The unique feature of
these projects is that some of the restoration
work funded by Wyoming is in Utah, and some
of the monitoring effort funded by Utah
extends into Wyoming. Here the States have
given priority to the watershed boundary and
restoration of the resource over strict attention
to Stale boundaries.
These "on-the-ground" demonstration
projects are helping to generate enthusiasm for
more cooperative efforts. Recently, an interest
in increasing the use of the river as a drinking
water source for the growing urban population
in the lower basin and along the Wasatch Front
prompted the Utah Legislature to enact the
Bear River Development Act and fund a Bear
River water development and management
plan. The effort is to address both water devel-
opment and water quality issues, with a water
quality plan that includes a broad-reaching
analysis of pollutant loadings to the River as
well as chemical, biological, and physical habi-
tat assessments. Building on these efforts and
with the support of the three basin Stales and
EPA. the Bear River Resource Conservation
and Development Council and the Bear Lake
Regional Commission are planning a Bear
River Water Quality Symposium in the spring
of 1993. The intent is to bring together all of
the stakeholders, including governors and con-
gressional delegations, with an interest in the
river to seek their input in analyzing the prob-
lems and creating solutions.
-------
Blackstone River Initiative
17
The Blackstone River flows from
Worcester, Massachusetts, to the Seekonk
River in Pawtucket. Rhode Island. The
Blackstone extends 48 miles and drains an area
of 540 square miles. The river, which is the
second largest freshwater tributary to the
Narragansett Bay, is an important natural,
recreational, and cultural resource to both the
States of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In
1986, the United States Congress established
the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor along portions of the river in both
Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Environmental Threats
The Blackstone River has had a long his-
tory of pollution problems associated with both
industrial and municipal discharges. In addi-
tion, problems with water withdrawals and
heavily contaminated sediments have been
identified. The river is considered a significant
source of pollutants to the Narragansett Bay.
Actions
Both Massachusetts and Rhode Island
have adopted numeric and whole effluent water
quality criteria and anti-degradation provisions
in their State water quality standards. Strict
water quality-based permits have been issued
to major wastewater dischargers, and combined
sewer overflow strategies are being implement-
ed. The States are conducting a historic analy-
sis of existing water quality data. They are
also collecting dry and wet weather data to
determine annual weather loads to
Narragansett Bay as well as intermediate loca-
tions along the river and to identify water qual-
ity hot spots to target land use-based best man-
agement practices. This information and other
data will be used to calibrate a dissolved oxy-
gen model to include impacts from phosphorus
and nitrogen and a trace metals model for the
development of a Total Maximum Discharge
Load and Waste Load Allocation.
In addition, the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs has initiated a
technical assistance program that is providing
pollution prevention assistance to industries to
assist them in reducing the use of toxic materi-
als. The assistance, given by a nonregulatory
State office, consists of activities including
multimedia evaluations, economic evaluations,
the provision of educational materials, the pre-
sentation of seminars and workshops, and the
identification of alternative chemicals and
process technologies.
Stakeholders
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Environmental, recreation, cultural, and
watershed organizations
Local governments
Cocql industries and utilities
New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
State of Rhode Island
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
University of Rhode Island
-------
Canaan Valley Watershed
The 35,000-acre Canaan Valley in West
Virginia, designated as a National Natural
Landmark in 1975, encompasses fragile wet-
lands areas containing a unique and irreplace-
able boreal ecosystem. The Blackwater River,
originating in the valley's southern end, is an
important source of drinking water and the
largest stream network in the State with a self-
sustaining brown trout population.
Problems
The valley and its resources attract a
wide spectrum of interests. For example, a
power company proposes flooding 7,000 acres
of the valley; real estate developers plan to
increase the number of vacation homes, golf
courses, ski slopes, and condominiums; a
major off-road vehicle race, called the
Blackwater 100, is held in the valley annually;
and natural resource conservationists strive to
protect rare plants, and wildlife habitat, includ-
ing wetlands.
Actions
In 1990, the partners, listed
below, formed the Canaan Valley
Task Force to resolve a variety^of
issues, ensuring long-term envi-
ronmental protection while allow-
ing reasonable, sustainable econom-
ic growth. Early accomplishments
include a study of the impacts of off-road
vehicles; a study of economic impacts of the
proposed Canaan Valley National Wildlife
Rufuge; suspension of certain nationwide gen-
eral permits for discharges of dredged or fill
material in wetlands in the valley, advance
identification of wetlands, and establishment of
a wetlands surveillance program; and imple-
mentation of a public outreach program. The
residents considered the establishment of an
open, effective, and regular dialogue among all
levels of government, special interest organiza-
tions, and the public to be a key achievement.
Stakeholders
Development interest organizations
Environmental organizations
Landowner associations
Recreational interest groups
Tucker County Chamber of Commerce
Tucker County Development
"Resources Authority
Tucker County Planning Commission
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
-------
Casco Bay Initiative
Casco Bay lies within the Gulf of Maine,
bounded by Cape Elizabeth on the west and
Small Point on the east. Currently the most
heavily developed bay in northern New
England, Casco Bay attracts both business and
tourism. Strategically important for commerce
since colonial times because of its deep water
and protection from open ocean, Casco Bay is
still Maine's most important cargo port and
fishing center. The bay's rich habitat provides
20 percent of all lobster caught in Maine and
supports an abundance of other living
resources, including endangered and threatened
species. In 1988 alone, estimated tourist sales
totaled $236 million.
Environmental Threats
Until the early 1980's, people believed
that Casco Bay was pristine. Studies conduct-
ed in 1983, however, showed that sediments in
Casco Bay were laden with various pollutants.
including heavy metals, PCBs, and PAHs.
.Since then, contamination by pathogens and
nutrients has become increasingly evident.
Although Casco Bay has not experienced pol-
lution problems to the same degree as other
coastal areas of the country, without concerted
attention the problems will only grow as con-
tinued development in the area adds to pollu-
tant loads.
Actions
When the Casco Bay Initiative began m
1989, one of the State's first actions was to
nominate this coastal area to the National
Estuary Program, into which it was accepted in
1990. The Initiative is continuing as a separate
effort in parallel with the Estuary Program,
with the Initiative focusing largely on point
source discharges and other areas where EPA's
base programs are active.
Since 1989. the State and EPA have
identified priority actions each will take under
the Initiative over the next few years to address
immediate problems. Many of the actions
focus on increased enforcement of existing
point source control programs by giving spe-
cial attention to discharge permits, stepping up
inspections, and taking aggressive enforcement
actions. In addition, the State and municipali-
ties have begun programs for assessing the role
of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and non-
point sources and for implementing techniques
to control the contributions from the most sig-
nificant sources identified.
As a result, EPA issued permits for the
10 Casco Bay oil terminals on December 24,
1991, with more stringent discharge limits and
other requirements. The communities
(Portland, South Portland, and Westbrook) in
Casco Bay with CSO systems have been put
under CSO abatement implementation sched-
ules by EPA and Maine's Department of
Environmen-tal Protection (ME DEP). In
addition. ME DEP has initiated a major pro-
gram to address problems associated with
groundwater contamination at Casco Bay oil
terminals.
continues to review discharge mon-
itoring, data from all 49 direct dischargers (9
major and 40 minor), using procedures devel-
oped for the monthly retrieval and review of
effluent data to allow more rapid identification
and response to violations. Enforcement
actions are being taken and will continue to be
initiated as necessary both by EPA and ME
DEP.
Stakeholders
Casco Bay National Estuary Program
League of Women Voters of Maine
Maine 's Department of Environmental
Protection
Town ofFreeport
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Clear Creek Watershed Initiative
The headwaters or Clear Creek originate
in the high mountains near Colorado's
Continental Divide. From there. Clear Creek
flows eastward through a spectacular canyon
on its way to the South Platte River several
thousand feet below. The 400 square mile
watershed has considerable topographic relief,
and Clear Creek is a swiftly flowing river. It is
also a river with considerable annual flow vari-
ation. Annual runoff from snow melt occurs
during the late spring and early summer, with a
peak runoff flow swelling the river to 20 times
its normal base flow. Clear Creek flows
through portions of two ecoregions: the
Southern Rockies and the Western High Plains.
Environmental Threats
The principal environmental stressors in
the Clear Creek watershed are associated with
past mining practices. Severe water quality
problems in the upper reaches of Clear Creek
are attributable to the impacts of resource
extraction and processing. This region is part
of Colorado's mineral belt, and contains rich
deposits of ores, including gold, silver, lead,
molybdenum, and zinc. The primary sources
of surface water quality degradation in this area
are acid mine drainage and runoff from tailings
and waste-rock piles. Loadings of metals,
including zinc, copper, and manganese, from
active and abandoned mining sites in the basin
contribute to the chronic toxicity problems lim-
iting the river's fishery. Some tributaries to the
mainstem of Clear Creek are altogether void of
fish populations as a result of acid mine
drainage and mining impacts on habitat.
Effects are especially significant in and around
the Central City mining district. Clear Creek
also serves as a drinking water source for val-
ley residents and a significant number of citi-
zens along Colorado's Front Range. As a
result, the water quality problems in the upper
watershed are of considerable interest and con-
cern to downstream water users.
Occasionally, one of the mine tunnels
will produce a blow-out, releasing large quanti-
ties of water and sludge in a short period of
lime. A blow-out from the Argo Tunnel in
1980 focused the EPA's attention on Clear
Creek, and it was a significant factor when,
three years later, EPA included the Clear
Creek/Central City site on the Superfund
National Priorities List.
Actions
The Superfund site designations brought
a significant EPA presence, to the watershed,
and the planned Superfund remedial actions
will play an important role in the restoration of
the river. In addition to Superfund, various
regional water programs have been active in
the basin for some time; however, there was
only limited coordination of program activities.
Recognizing the need for a more integrated
effort on this important watershed. EPA's
Regional office formed the Clear Creek
Watershed Initiative Team in late 1991. The)
Team, which includes representatives from a
broad range of EPA programs and the
Colorado Health Department, has been meet-
ing with and identifying a whole range of
stakeholders throughout the valley. In particu-
lar the Team is working closely with Coors
Brewing Company, AMAX Mining Company,
and Solution Gold Limited, which have
emerged as important and active stakeholders
in the valley. The Team has established an
action plan with short- and long-term goals for
watershed restoration.
The Clear Creek Land Conservancy,
another important and active stakeholder, in
cooperation with a major land holder in the
middle basin area, has begun efforts to develop
a vision document for the river. Bike trails,
foot paths, habitat restoration, and set-aside
open space are all components of this vision.
In another part of the watershed, two nonpoint
-------
Source projects are getting underway; both are
being coordinated by the Colorado Division of
Minerals and Geology and involve the recla-
mation of disturbed mining areas. Also, a
number of local municipalities are funding a
nutrient monitoring-program in the watershed.
With funding from EPA, the Colorado
Department of Health recently hired a Clear
Creek watershed coordinator. The coordinator,
who is also a member of the Watershed
Initiative Team, will attempt to bring together
all stakeholders with an interest in the river to
'seek their input in analyzing the problems and
creating solutions. At present, the coordinator
is meeting informally with stakeholders and
soliciting ideas on the formation of a watershed
council. The purpose of the council would be
to foster cooperation, ensure coordination, and
implement jointly planned and sponsored river
restoration projects.
Stakeholders
Adams County
AMAX
Canyon Defense Coalition
Center for Resource Management
City of Brighton
City of Empire
City of Golden
CityofThorton
City of Westminster
Clear Creek County
Clear Creek Metal Mining Association
Clear Creek Land Conservancy
Colorado Department of Health
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Colorado Department of Transportation
Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Colorado School of Mines
Coors
Denver Regional Council of Governments
Jefferson County
National Park Service
Protect Apex Valley Environment
Sierra Club
Solution Gold Limited
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Forest Service
-------
Coeur D'Alene Basin Restoration Project
Stakeholders
Agricultural interests
Benewah County
Coeur d'Alene Basin
Interagency Croup
Coeur d'Alene Tribe
Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of
Land Management
Idaho Department of
Water Resources
Idaho Fish and Game
Kootenai County
Kootenai Environmental
Alliance
Local citizens
Mining interest
Panhandle Health
District
Shoshone County
Three soil conservation
districts
Timber interests
U.S. Bureau of Indian
Affairs
U.S. Bureau of Land
Management
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Soil Conservation
Service
University of Idaho
The Coeur d'Alene Basin (3,700 square
miles) includes Coeur d'Alene Lake, the Coeur
d'Alene River and its North and South Forks,
the St. Joe River, the St. Maries River, the
Spokane River, and the Spokane-Rathdrum
Prairie Aquifer, which underlies Eastern
Washington and Northern Idaho. It has been
estimated that one-third of the Spokane-
Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer (a regional sole
source aquifer to an estimated population of
400,000) is recharged by Coeur d'Alene Lake
and the Spokane River, which originates from
the lake.
Environmental Threats
As a result of more than 100 years of
metals production, the Coeur d'Alene River
and Lake system has been adversely affected
by heavy metals contamination. The South
Fork Coeur d'Alene River is currently listed as
water quality limited as a result of metal point
and nonpoint source loadings. The South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River is the most contaminated
stretch of river in EPA's Region X. It includes
the Bunker Hill Superfund Site, as well as a
Federal facility Superfund docket site. In addi-
tion to metal loadings, thejake suffers signifi-
cantly from nutrient enrichment (eutrophica-
tion) that potentially threatens the quality of the
drinking water from the aquifer.
Actions
Since the South Fork of the Coeur
d'Alene River was identified as a water quality
limited segment, the State of Idaho must devel-
op a Total Maximum Daily Load for both the
point sources and nonpoint sources in the
basin. Another factor that led to action is the
Bunker Hill Superfund Site that sits astride a 7-
mile stretch of the South Fork Coeur d'Alene
River and is one of the major contributors to
the river's problems. Contamination at the
Bunker Hill Site is being addressed through the
Superfund remedial action process. The reme-
dial actions implemented and resulting moni-
toring data will provide information that can
help evaluate cleanup strategies and supple-
ment the Total Maximum Daily Load. Further
information will also be gathered because
another potential National Priority List site, a
Federal facility owned by the Bureau of Land
Management, is located on the Lower Coeur
d'Alene River downstream from Bunker Hill.
Since the solution to the basin's vast environ-
mental problems does not lie within the juris-
diction of any one agency, the Coeur d'Alene
Basin Restoration Project was developed to
coordinate all basin restoration activities.
To effect the long-term restoration of the
basin, a reorganization of the pre-existing
Basin Restoration Project has occurred. This
reorganization combines the efforts of the three
sovereign governments (Federal, State, and
Tribal) in an attempt to cooperatively direct the
activities of the Restoration Project. The reor-
ganization of the Project currently includes a
new Steering Committee whose primary roles
are the oversight of the basin restoration and
the development of policies regarding basin
restoration activities, a Management Advisory
Committee, the Coeur D'Alene Basin
Interagency Group, a Citizens Advisory
Committee, and a Coeur D'Alene Project
Office.
The complexity of this problem has
required the development of a long-term.
basin-wide, multimedia strategy. The goals for
the Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration project
are the following:
Metals containment through nutrient
management (Water Quality Management
Plan) to control eulrophication of Coeur
d'Alene Lake
Metals source reduction through the Total
Maximum Daily Load process to control
point and nonpoint sources of water
pollution
Superfund program long-term activities
(remediations)
Superfund program short-term actions
(removals)
Management of other environmental and
human health problems affecting the
streams, lakes, rivers, and ground water of
the Coeur d'Alene Basin (Coeur d'Alene
Basin Management Program).
-------
Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins
The Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins are
adjacent to the southern part of the Oregon
coast. These watersheds drain the coast moun-
tain range, which drops from about 4,000 feet
in elevation to sea level over a distance of
about 45 miles. The annual average precipita-
tion ranges from 60 to 100 inches. The upper
watersheds are steep, and land use here is dom-
inated by commercial forest activities (85 per-
cent of the upper watersheds). The valley
floodplains are flat, long, and narrow. The land
use here is dominated by agriculture, predomi-
nantly dairy cattle. The relatively short rivers
and streams are highly valued as salmon and
trout habitat. The estuaries provide highly pro-
ductive shellfish beds.
Environmental Threats
Forestry practices have filled salmonid
spawning gravel areas with sediment. Cattle
management practices have allowed cattle to
overgraze/strip the riparian corridors, causing
widespread bank erosion and severely elevated
water temperatures. Increased water tempera-
tures can significantly reduce the survival of
juvenile salmon. Cattle management practices
have also contributed extremely high bacteria
loadings to the streams. These loadings have
either resulted in or threaten closure of com-
mercial shellfish beds.
Extensive diking and water management
structures prevent young salmon from access-
ing wetland habitats. These fringing wetlands
would normally allow juvenile salmon to avoid
the high river flows during winter months.
Without these off-channel habitats, juvenile
salmon are prematurely flushed out of the river
and stream channels, resulting in high
mortalities.
Limited toxics data in the estuary indi-
cated some potentially serious toxics problems
that had not been adequately characterized or
incorporated into agency work plans.
Actions
State and local interests have recognized
the problems described above for some time.
In many instances, individual actions had
already been planned or initiated, but the level
of effort and necessary teamwork was not near-
ly adequate to address the magnitude of the
problem. EPA's Near Coastal Waters program
approached (he lead Slate agencies to attempt a
more integrated watershed approach in a
coastal area where it was thought a difference
could be made and some new working relation-
ships could be tested.
Stakeholders
County Department of Economic
Development
Local drainage district
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Department of Forestry
Soil Conservation District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Stakeholders
Alabama Cooperative
Extension Service
Alabama Department
of Agriculture and
Industries
Alabama Department
of Environmental
Management
Alabama Department
of Public Health
Alabama Forestry
Comm.
Alabama Geological
Survey
Alabama Soil and
Water Conseivation
Committee
Morgan County Sheriff
Department (Litter
Control Officer)
Morgan. Lawrence,
and Collman County
Soil and Water
Consen'ation District
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Tennessee Valley
Resource Conservation
and Development
Board
' U.S. Depart, of
Agriculture
' U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Flint Creek Project
The headwaters of Flint Creek begin in
the Sand Mountain Plateau and flow in a
northerly direction across Morgan County,
Alabama, to the confluence with the
Tennessee River and Wheeler Reservoir. The
lower portion of the creek is rather sluggish
and meanders through tree-lined riparian
areas, ranches, and other agricultural lands.
The watershed encompasses approximately
300,000 acres, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority owns much of the stream side land
in the lower reach. Cotton production was a
major crop from the turn of the century until
the 1960's; this activity brought erosion and
fish kills from pesticides. Now much of the
area is used for pasture and hay production.
Environmental Threats
A 10-mile section of Flint Creek, near
Hartselle, has an Alabama stream classifica-
tion for Agricultural and Industrial Use (A&I).
This classification carries a minimum dis-
solved oxygen concentration of 3.0 mg/1,
which is not adequate to support fish and
wildlife. The City of Hartselle plans
to connect to the Decatur water sys-
tem within the next 2 years; however,
Flint Creek is certainly questionable as a
safe source since it is immediately down-
stream of the A&I classified reach and is also
downstream of the Hartselle wastewater treat-
ment plant discharge. Bacterial levels in the
em-bayment exceed State water quality stan-
dards after rainfall events. The status of the
fishery in the embayment has not been deter-
mined, but dissolved oxygen levels in portions
of Flint Creek are well below those needed to
maintain a good fishery. These water quality
problems also affect the Point Mallard recre-
ational area located on the Flint Creek embay-
ment, which is heavily used for onshore activi-
ties as well as water contact sports.
Actions
The major objective of the project is to
improve water quality so that the stream classi-
fication can be raised. EPA was interested in
working on embayment modeling and
approached the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management and the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to seek
their interest in this project. Several successful
cooperative projects had been completed in
this area in the past few years so there were
very good working relationships with Federal,
State, and local organizations. Also, the water-
shed was relatively small and had identifiable
water quality problems that could be corrected.
An organizational meeting was held in
April 1992 with many of the interested Federal
and State agencies to set up a structure for the
project. The group estalished a Steering
Commit-tee, with representatives from several
of the key agencies and organizations to pro-
vide overall guidance for the project, and four
other committees to perform specific func-
tions: the Technical Committee, Citizens
Committee, Education and Outreach
Committee, and Farm and Forestry Operations
Committee. EPA provided
a full-time project coor-
dinator.
Moulton
Flint Creek
Watershed
The approach is to identify all activities
in the watershed that produce water quality
problems and to implement corrective actions.
TVA is providing aerial photography
with interpretation for the whole watershed.
They have also developed a base map for the
project. EPA and the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management are monitoring
water quality. The Soil Conservation Service
and the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service have contributed tours
and reports. The U.S. Geological Survey has
reactivated two stream gauging stations and is
providing data. Other agencies and organiza-
tions have contributed considerable staff time.
-------
Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Ship Canal
In the northwest corner of Indiana,
efforts are underway to reduce the enormous
amounts of toxic and conventional pollutants
entering southern Lake Michigan. Southern
Lake Michigan serves as the primary drinking
water supply for over 6 million people.
Environmental Threats
The principle source of pollutants to
southern Lake Michigan is the Grand Calumet
River/Indiana Harbor Ship Canal (Grand Cal).
The river and canal are less than 20 miles long,
yet sends over 1 billion gallons a day of treated
wastewaler to Lake Michigan. In addition, the
small watershed of Grand Cal has a population
of approximately 300.000. It contains over 25
percent of the total steel making capacity of the
country, supports one of the largest oil refining
facilities in the U.S., has an estimated SO mil-
lion gallons of petroleum distillate floating on
top of the ground water, and sends an estimated
150,000 cubic yards of grossly contaminated
sediments into Lake Michigan annually.
Actions
Developed in September 1990, the
Northwest Indiana Action Plan currently
guides EPA and the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management. Its objectives
are:
1) Ensure the dredging of Federal Channel
in the Indiana Harbor Canal, and where
possible, other sediments in the Grand
Calumet River
2) Achieve a high level of compliance (90
percent or greater) with all Federal
environmental statutes
3) Assess and initiate remediation of
millions of gallons of petroleum distillate
currently floating on top of the ground
water
4) Launch a broad pollution prevention
initiative with local industries and
municipalities as a supplement to Federal
enforcement
5) Meet the requirements of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement between the
United States and Canada by preparing a
Remedial Action Plan for the Grand Cal,
and by developing a Lakewide
Management Plan for Lake Michigan
6) Integrate an aggressive environmental
communications component into each
aspect of the Plan.
Enforcement actions to date include:
United Stales Steel-Gary Works, $34.2
million settlement for violations of the Clean
Water Act includes $7.5 million in sediment
characterization and remediation of the
Grand Calumet River
City of Gary Sanitary District, multi-million
dollar settlement for Clean Water and Toxic
Substances Control Act violations includes
$J*7 million for sediment remediation and
the-containment of 60,000 pounds ofPCBs.
In addition, EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers developed a Memorandum of
Agreement to enable them to safely dredge and
dispose of 1.2 million cubic yards of contami-
nated sediments from the Federal navigation
channel of the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal.
Pollution prevention elements are being includ-
ed in all consent decrees and settlements
obtained in Northwest Indiana. EPA and
Indiana hosted workshops on sediments, the
new Clean Air Act, and the Action Plan as well
as a pollution prevention symposium for the
iron and steel industry. And, they completed a
nonpoint source assessment and plan for the
area, including the development of a digitized
land use mapping system.
Stakeholders
Indiana Department
Environmental
Management
Indiana Department.
Natural Resources
Indiana Office of the
Attorney General
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department
of Justice
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agenc\
U.S. Fish and \kildlij.
Service
U.S. Soil Conser\aiu,
Service
-------
Hillsdale Reservoir Watershed Project
\ The Hillsdale Reservoir is located in
Northern Miami County, Kansas. Land uses
for this area, which comprises gently rolling
hills, include pasture, row crops, woodland,
and pockets of urban development (Kansas
City). Land prices have increased to a point
where farming is no longer profitable for new
operators, and the average farm size is shrink-
ing. The State of Kansas owns the marketing
rights to water in the reservoir and wants to
protect the future quality of that resource.
Many local citizens wish to preserve the water
quality of the reservoir for the enhancement of
their community.
Environmental Threats
The primary threat to the reservoir is
phosphorus loading. Studies indicate that the
current loading rate will eventually push the
water body into a hyper-eutrophic state. Both
point sources and confined livestock operations
have been identified as the chief sources of
phosphorus loading.
Actions
The catalyst that led te-the awareness of
the watershed's problems and to action being
undertaken was a study initiated by the
Johnson County sewer authority to assess the
impact of a controversial point source.
The Hillsdale Reservoir Watershed
Project began in 1992, and a strategy for
improving water quality is still being devel-
oped. Activities for the immediate future
include continuing to develop the necessary
agreements to manage the project and continu-
ing to develop the watershed committee and its
sub-committees, to evaluate the sources of
phosphorus in the watershed, to develop a suc-
cessful source reduction management system,
and to initiate a 5-year nonpoint source demon-
stration project.
Stakeholders
Hillsdale Reservoir Watershed Committee
Johnson County
Kansas Conservation Commission
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
Kansas Water Office
Miami County
Public interest groups
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hillsdale
Watershed
Hlllsdale
Reservoir
-------
Lake Champlain Basin Initiative
27
Lake Champlain is 120 miles long, is 12
miles at its widest point, and has a mean depth
of 64 feet, although some areas exceed 400
feet. The watershed comprises 8,234 square
miles that lie in Vermont, New York, and the
Province of Quebec. More than 50,000 acres
of wetlands adjacent to the lake and its tribu-
taries depend on the lake's water level. Much
of the landscape consists of agriculture and
forested land.
Environmental Threats
Eutrophication, resulting from both point
and nonpoint sources, is a threat to water quali-
ty, resulting in increased plant growth and
algae blooms in many of the lake's bays. The
phosphorous levels in several parts of the lake
meet or exceed the highest levels found in the
Great Lakes in the 1970's. Ten years of exten-
sive monitoring associated with agricultural
best management practice implementation in
two watersheds has not shown a significant
reduction in phosphorus loads to the lake. The
presence of toxic substances is also a concern.
Preliminary data finds localized presence of
toxic substances, particularly in the more
developed areas of Burlington and Pittsburgh,
as well as a more wide presence of other pollu-
tants. It is possible that these substances may
originate from an airborne source. Nuisance
aquatic flora and fauna threaten the mtegnty of
the ecosystem.
Actions
There has been a long history of lake
protection and planning efforts. The first for-
mal interstate initiative was in 1949, and since
then there have been numerous efforts to bring
the States and the Province of Quebec together
to focus on lake management issues The most
recent was the Level B Study sponsored by the
New England River Basin Commission in
1979. This was followed by the 1988 signing
of a Memorandum of Understanding for
Cooperative Environmental Management of
Lake Champlain among New York. Vermont,
and Quebec. It was renewed in 1992. This
memorandum created Citizen Advisory
Committees to advise each of the three govem-
The Lake Champlain Basin Program was
initiated in 1991 in response to the passage of
the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act
of 1990 by Congress. The program brings
together 31 individuals representing a wide
range of interests in both New York and
Vermont to develop a Pollution Prevention,
Control and Restoration Plan. Although fund-
ing is authorized for 5 years, the plan must be
completed within 3 years. Funds are being
used for research and characterization, demon-
strations, monitoring, planning, and public edu-
cation. Examples include research on toxic
substances in sediment, nutrient loading from
nonpoint sources with a special focus on agri-
culture, as well as demonstration projects to
prevent the introduction of non-native species.
to control water chestnuts, and to implement
agricultural best management practices.
Stakeholders
Academics
Agricultural representatives - Soil and
Water Conservation Districts. Farm Bureau.
fanners
Business Interests
Educators
Lake 'Champlain Fish and Wildlife
Management Cooperative
Lake Champlain Committee
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
Lake Champlain Research Consortium
Local governments
Local residents
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Park Service
New York State agencies
River associations
Stale elected officials
U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Vermont and New York Citizen Advisory
Committees
Vermont Slate agencies
-------
Lake Roosevelt Initiative
[Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (Lake
Roosevelt), the reservoir behind Grand Coulee
Dam on the Columbia River in north-central
Washington, is the largest reservoir in
Washington. Lake Roosevelt extends over 151
miles, almost reaching the Canadian border,
and has a surface area of about 80,000 acres
(125 square miles). Besides the main-stem
Columbia, five other rivers flow into the lake:
the Sanpoil River, the Spokane River, the
Colville River, the Kettle River, and the Pend
Oreille River. Upstream flow on the main stem
is regulated by nine major reservoirs and
numerous smaller reservoirs and power plants.
Outflow is through Grand Coulee Dam or is
pumped from the lake into a feeder canal for
irrigation storage in Banks Lake. The U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation controls the lake eleva-
tion for power generation, irrigation, fisheries,
flood control, and other uses.
Lake Roosevelt provides extensive recre-
ational opportunities and associated economic
benefits to residents of and visitors to the
inland Northwest. It is included in the Coulee
Dam National Recreation Area, administered
by the National Park Service, which attracts
more than 1 million visitors-to.its many camp-
grounds, picnic areas, and boat' launches each
year. Many more use the privately operated
resort and access facilities. Lake Roosevelt
also provides the Colville and Spokane Indian
Tribes with significant economic opportunities.
The tribes (whose reservations also border a
portion of the shoreline) operate houseboat
rentals, marinas, and resorts.
Environmental Threats
Whole fish near the Grand Coulee Dam
were analyzed for zinc, copper, lead, arsenic,
selenium, cadmium, and mercury as part of the
National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cadmium and lead exceeded the 85th per-
centile for two collections during 1978-81;
cadmium concentrations were the highest of
112 stations sampled nationwide. Similar stud-
ies conducted by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) in 1986 also
showed concentrations of metals (zinc, copper,
and lead) in fish tissues and sediments increas-
ing as samples were taken upstream toward the
U.S.-Canadian border. In that same year.
Ecology also reported metals contamination of
lake sediments. Sediments in the upper reach-
es of the lake were found to contain larger con-
centrations of iron, manganese, copper, zinc.
and arsenic than most tributaries to the lake or
to Lower Arrow Lake in Canada. Elevated
concentrations of lead, cadmium, and mercury
occurred in the lower reaches of the lake in
association with finer-grained sediment.
Contamination is not limited to metals.
In recent years, concerns have been raised
about the existence of chlorinated dioxin and
furan compounds that have been found in fish
tissue by Ecology. In some cases, a health
advisory for limiting the consumption of fish
has been issued.
Contamination by metals, chlorinated
organic compounds, and phosphorus is sus-
pected to originate from point source dis-
charges from a complex of Canadian industries
situated along the Columbia River in the
province of British Columbia just north of the
U.S. border. Phosphorus is also discharged to
the river in British Columbia by a fertilizer
plant operation. Nuisance algal mats in Lake
Roosevelt may be related to large phosphorus
loads to the lake.
Actions
The findings of metals and dioxin conta-
mination in sediment and fish, followed by the
fish consumption advisories, led local U.S. citi-
zens to press Congress to appropriate $500,000
to EPA to develop a water quality management
plan for the lake. Along with citizens' con-
cerns were related scientific concerns.
Although studies have been conducted in the
past, there has been no comprehensive or inte-
grated assessment of the extent and signifi:
cance of toxic chemical or nutrient contamina-
tion of Lake Roosevelt on which to base sound
water quality management decisions.
-------
In August 1991, the EPA office in Seattle
and Ecology brought together interested groups
and agencies in the Lake Roosevelt community
to create the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality
Council. The Council is guiding a study that is
assessing the water quality of the lake and
should lead to recommended strategies for
improved protection. The final product will be
a comprehensive water quality management
plan for Lake Roosevelt.
The Council comprises a Management
Committee and a Technical Advisory
Committee. Since October 1992, the following
organizations, as well as several private citi-
zens, have been represented on the Lake
Roosevelt Water Quality Council.
Stakeholders
Boise Cascade. Kettle Falls
British Columbia Ministry of the
Environment
Citizens for a Clean Columbia
Colville Confederated Tribes
Douglas County Commission
Environment Canada
Ferry County Commission
Grant County Commission
Lake Roosevelt Coordinating Committee
Lake Roosevelt Forum
Lake Roosevelt Property Owners
Association
Lincoln County Commission
National Park Service '
Okanogan County Commission
Pend Oreille County Commission
Spokane Tribe
Stevens County Commission
Stevens County Grange
Tri-County Health Department
Upper Columbia River Counties
Upper Columbia United Tribes
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen-ice
U.S. Geological Sun-ey
WA Association of Wheat Gmwers
WA Department of Community Development
WA Department of Ecology
WA Department of Health
WA Department of Wildlife
WA Rural Organising Project
WA Water Research Center
-------
Long Island Sound Study
Long Island Sound, bordered on the
north by Connecticut and on the south by Long
Island, New York, lies within the most densely
populated region of the United States. The
Sound, 110 miles long, stretches westward
from the Race to the East River. Characterized
by the nearly unbroken chain of urban centers,
including the country's largest city, New York
City, the region's central economic and popula-
tion focus lies adjacent to the Sound. More
than 14.5 million people live in counties direct-
ly bordering the Sound.
The Long Island Sound watershed drains
an area of more than 16.000 square miles. It
encompasses virtually the entire State of
Connecticut, portions of Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and Vermont, a small area in
Canada at the source of the Connecticut River,
portions of New York City, and Westchester,
Nassau, and Suffolk Counties in New York
State. With such an extensive drainage basin,
management attention must begin in those
areas most directly impacting water quality in
the Sound. As a result, the specific area
included in the Long Island Sound Study is
smaller than the total drainage basin, focusing
on the watershed within-Uje States of
Connecticut and New York.
Environmental Threats
Hypoxia, or low levels of dissolved oxy-
gen in the water, is the primary concern in
Long Island Sound. Nitrogen emanating from
sewage treatment plants, stormwater runoff,
and atmospheric deposition has been identified
as the major cause of hypoxia in the Sound.
Other concerns include floatable debris; toxic
and pathogen contamination of sediment, shell-
fish, and fish; habitat loss and degradation;
stormwater runoff; and atmospheric deposition.
Actions
The Long Island Sound Study (LISS)
began in 1985 when Congress asked EPA, in
cooperation with the States of Connecticut and
New York, to sponsor a study of the estuary.
LISS officially became pan of the National
Estuary Program in 1987 The goal of the
Long Island Sound Study (LISS) is to prepare
a Comprehensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plan (CCMP) for the cleanup of Long
Island Sound. The plan to clean up the Sound
is being developed under the auspices of the
LISS Management Conference, a* group repre-
senting Federal, State, local, public and private
interests in the Sound. To control nutrients, the
conference is completing a water quality-
hydrodynamic mathematical model, modifying
municipal sewage treatment plant permits to
"freeze" or reduce nitrogen loadings from plant
effluent, developing specific nonpoint source
control actions to freeze niirogen loadings,
identifying cost-effective in-Sound nitrogen
reduction actions, and developing additional
actions to meet the ecological goal throughout
the continued planning process. Measures to
control toxic metals in the western Sound and
in selected harbors will be developed as appro-
priate, and specific commitments to reduce or
eliminate pathogens and ftoatables will also be
developed. As pan of their long-range plan-
ning efforts, the Conference will prepare a site-
specific habitat management strategy, a
description of critical coastal habitats for map-
ping on a Geographic Information System, and
a report on land use and overall watershed
development containing recommendations on
nonpoint and habitat initiatives.
Although these plans are being devel-
oped by the LISS Management Conference.
implementation will involve the targeted use of
existing water quality programs, within the
geographic confines of the Sound. For exam-
ple, through implementation of the NPDES
program, municipal permits for plants on Long
Island Sound are in the process of being modi-
fied to freeze and, in some cases, reduce the
nitrogen loadings to the Sound. An additional
reduction may be warranted when the final
nutrient model runs are completed. EPA is
studying the feasibility of point/nonpoint
source "bubbles" to control nitrogen discharges
in the Connecticut and New York State por-
tions of the Sound's watershed. A statewide
antidegradation policy, focusing on persistent
bioaccumulative chemicals of concern, will be
developed and implemented in New York.
EPA will work to develop and implement.
-------
Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative
The Delta area covers 219 counties in
seven states (Arizona, Illinois. Kentucky,
Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and
Tennessee). The Mississippi River remains
one of the most significant transportation arter-
ies in the world.
Environmental Threats
Nonpoint source pollution, wetlands
loss, industrial/municipal contamination, and
toxic substances are major environmental
threats of concern in the Delta Region. Over
the last century, the Delta has undergone exten-
sive hydrological modifications to accommo-
date agricultural activities on this area's rich
soil. These modifications and other human
uses of the area resulted in a decrease in bot-
tomland hardwoods (21 million acres to 4.5
million acres fragmented throughout the
Delta), as well as habitat for countless species
of waterfowl, neotropical birds, game and non-
game animals (including the endangered
Louisiana black bear). The area once served as
a rich commercial/recreational fishery.
Actions
Government officials joined forces with
agricultural community to conduct reforesta-
tion activities. Reforestation will replace
wildlife habitat, increase forest production, and
reduce nonpoint water quality problems. The
project will have an important role in address-
ing regional economic diversity and environ-
mental equity issues.
Stakeholders
Academic organizations
Agricenter International
Agricultural
industry/organizations
All interests related to
water/habitat quality
within Gulf of Mexico
Conservation
organizations
Cultural heritage
organizations
Delta Center
Farm Bureau
Fish producers/fishermen
Forest industry
Local, State and Federal Agencies
Municipalities
Navigation interests
Other industry
Public: Farm and non-farm
Recreational/tourism industry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
31
Lower Mississippi
Delta Alluvial Plain
Long Island, continued through permit
modifications and enforcement actions, a com-
prehensive abatement program for combined
sewer overflow systems in New York City.
EPA and the States will develop enforceable
instruments to regulate stormwater along tribu-
taries of the Sound, and develop nonpoint
source best management practices to incorpo-
rate into these stormwater controls. The beach
closure/shellfish bed action plan will continue
to be implemented. Finally, EPA will develop
a Memorandum of Understanding with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration, the State environmental agencies, and
the coastal zone management agencies to effec-
tively implement Section 6217 of the Coastal
Zone Act.
Stakeholders
Citizen groups
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
Interstate Sanitation Commission
Local governments
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
New York State Department of
Environmental Consen'ation
New York City Department of
Environmental Protection
Scientific and academic community
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
-------
Malibu Creek Watershed Protection Project
The Malibu Creek Watershed spans
approximately ISO square miles near Los
Angeles, California. The watershed features a
perennial coastal creek that flows to a valuable
ocean lagoon. The watershed supports a natur-
al steel head run and habitat for several endan-
gered species of birds. Primary land use is cur-
rently rangeland, although the upper watershed
and the area surrounding the lagoon are under-
going rapid suburban development.
Environmental Threats
The water quality and habitat within the
watershed are threatened by sediments, nutri-
ents, and toxics loadings; urban runoff both in
the upper parts of the watershed and in the
Malibu Lagoon coastal area; agricultural runoff
from livestock facilities; and a wastewater dis-
charge.
Actions
Efforts to protect this watershed began
when the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Project, the local National Estuary Program,
identified the watershed as a key contributor to
pollution of (he Bay from sedhpents. These
efforts were augmented by the local Resource
Conservation District, which requested and
received watershed planning assistance
through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Small Watershed Program, and by the State.
which targeted the lagoon for early action in
developing Total Maximum Daily Loads and
Waste Load Allocations, because the lagoon is
not meeting State water quality standards.
EPA provides a Near Coastal Waters grant for
restoration activities and communication
among several of the participants listed below.
The Agency also provides technical support in
selecting an appropriate watershed model and
in developing a watershed monitoring plan. In
the future, EPA will work with State and local
stakeholders to identify funds for implement-
ing controls necessary for protecting the water-
shed.
Stakeholders
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Coastal Conservancy
Local dischargers and developers
Local Resource Conservation District
Municipal governments
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
Surfriders Foundation
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ventura and Los Angeles Counties
-------
Merrimack River Initiative
The Merrimack River watershed extends
from the White Mountains in northern New
Hampshire through Massachusetts and into the
Atlantic Ocean. Although the river is only 118
miles long, its watershed covers 5,010 square
miles, of which the last 22 miles are tidal. The
river provides drinking water for more than
300,000 people, water for industrial and agri-
cultural uses, and hydropower. Many people
use the river and its shores for relaxation and
recreation.
Environmental Threats
The primary threats to the environment
are combined sewer overflows (bacteria), toxic
contaminants, nonpoint source pollution (pri-
marily urban runoff), unregulated water with-
drawals, land development, and wetlands loss.
Actions
The Merrimack River Initiative resulted
from interstate water pollution concerns of
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. An inter-
state working group was formed that obtained
funding from EPA and organized efforts to
develop a draft management plan by 1993. A
Management Committee and four issue-orient-
ed subcommittees were created to set priorities
and make funding decisions. Meanwhile, pro-
jects are underway to protect the most valuable
areas by providing information on the extent
and condition of wetlands: to establish an
emergency response network; to provide deci-
sionmakers with information about the poten-
tial contamination of water supplies; to focus
regulatory activities (such as
inspections and permitting);
and to assist industrial pollu-
tion prevention. A Merrimack
watershed management con-
ference is planned in June of
1993.
Stakeholders
Agricultural, environmental, recreational,
and watershed organizations
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Local governments, industries, and utilities
New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
Regional planning agencies
State of New Hampshire
U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen-ice
* Universities
-------
Middle Snake River
The Middle Snake River watershed is
dominated by semiarid land on the Snake River
Plain in south-central Idaho, characterized by a
mosaic of irrigated croplands and open
shrub/grasslands. The major feature of the
watershed is the basalt canyon containing the
Snake River and the extensive spring system
discharging approximately 6,000 cubic feet of
ground water per second to the river.
Environmental Threats
The major environmental threats to the
area are water quality and aquatic ecosystem
degradation due to upstream water with-
drawals, return flows from approximately
930,000 acres of irrigated agriculture, runoff
from dairies and feedlots, effluent from 110
fish hatcheries, hydroelectric development, dis-
charges from sewage treatment plants, and
riparian/wet land habitat degradation. The
water quality parameters of concern include
nulnents, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and
ammonia. The biological resources of concern
include Five species of mollusks listed as
endangered or threatened species, wintering
populations of bald eagles, resident trout and
sturgeon populations, populations of herons
and other wading birds, wintering waterfowl,
and riparian habitat. The recreational resources
of concern include Whitewater boating, fishing,
and unique aesthetic values.
Actions
Obvious violations of water quality stan-
dards, as evidenced by excessive weed growth
in the river, along with the continued threats to
the river led various agencies and the public to
take action. By 1988 EPA became concerned
about cumulative impacts to the Middle Snake
River from existing and proposed hydroelectric
projects. EPA did not believe chat the regulato-
ry agencies responsible for licensing and per-
mitting these facilities were adequately evalu-
ating cumulative impacts. As a result, EPA ini-
tiated an ecological risk analysis of this reach
of the Snake River. This analysis is utilizing
both measurements and models to estimate the
likelihood of deleterious changes in the river-
basis for assessing the ecological risk lo the
aquatic ecosystem from various development
and management options in the Middle Snake
River.
During this same time, the State of Idaho
determined that a portion of the Middle Snake
was not currently meeting water quality stan-
dards despite the presence of water pollution
control measures. Consequently, in 1990 the
State designated portions of the Middle Snake
River as water quality- limited, a designation
which requires the establishment of a Total
Maximum Daily Load. In response to the list-
ing of portions of the Middle Snake River as
water quality-limited, the State began develop-
ment of a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP).
Representatives from industry, hydropower,
nonpoint sources (agriculture and irrigation
companies), environmental groups, and local
government are participating in this effort
through membership on technical and execu-
tive advisory committees. Through this work,
the State will identify actions needed to restore
water quality in the river. The NMP could suf-
fice for a Total Maximum Daily Load (or pol-
lutant management plan) if the plan clearly
defines a pollutant load limit that will achieve
water quality standards and specifies a clearly
enforceable allocation of allowable pollutant
loadings among the various dischargers.
Development of the NMP will be based in
large pan on the ecological risk analysis cur-
rently being conducted by EPA.
Citizens and local officials also became
aware of the water quality problems in the
Middle Snake River during the time EPA and
the State were beginning their efforts. Local
officials believed that local government could
have an important role in working to restore
the river ecosystem and formed the Middle
Snake River Study Group (MSRSG). The
MSRSG is a joint effort among the Counties of
Lincoln, Jerome, Twin Falls and Gooding to
address water quality problems within the four-
county area and ultimately enhance the water
quality in the Middle Snake River. This group
has completed a draft Coordinated Water
Resource Management Plan for the Middle
Snake River. The stakeholders in the Middle
Snake River participated in (he development of
the plan. Many of the strategies proposed by
thr MSRSO relv on the findmes of the EPA
-------
Morro Bay Watershed Project
Morro Bay is located on the California
coast, approximately ISO miles north of Los
Angeles. The Morro Bay watershed is approx-
imately 100 square miles and is bounded by
the California Coast Range and a chain of vol-
canic craters that reach out to the sea called the
Seven Sisters. Two streams. Los Osos Creek
and Charro Creek, drain the watershed into
Morro Bay. Primarily agricultural land sur-
rounds the bay and estuary area, which pro-
vides a habitat for several endangered species.
The watershed is relatively undisturbed by
human activity, but the surrounding population,
presently at 35,000 people, has tripled in size
since 1960.
Environmental Threats
The Morro Bay watershed problem is
simply sediment. At the present rate of sedi-
mentation, sediment would fill in Morro Bay
within an estimated 100 years.
Actions
To protect this endangered area, EPA
supports the Morro Bay Watershed Project
with both funding and technical guidance on
nonpoint source monitoring and implementa-
tion of nonpoint source controls. The Central
Coast Regional Water Quality Board has devel-
oped a proposal for including the project in the
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
to measure the effectiveness of agricultural and
silvicultural best management practices in
terms of sedimentation.
Stakeholders
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Local interest groups and landowners
Resource Conservation District
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Middle Snake River continued analyses and the
State's development of the NMP. At this time,
each of the four counties is seeking county adop-
tion of the plan. It is anticipated that the MSRSG
could have an important function in implementing
measures at a local level to assist in restoring water
quality in the river.
The integration of these three efforts (NMP,
ecological risk analysis, and MSRSG plan) is pro-
viding a coordinated approach to addressing water
quality problems in the Middle Snake. This coor-
dinated approach can provide valuable assistance
to other planning efforts on the Middle Snake,
including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's
resource management plan, the Northwest Power
Planning Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program, the Idaho Water Resources
Board's Comprehensive State Water Plan, and the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game's Fisheries
Management Plan. Recovery plans by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for the Federally listed
threatened and endangered mollusks will utilize
the information now being developed. In addition,
pilot projects are being initiated in economic sus-
tainability and point/nonpoint source trading.
Stakeholders
B&C Energy. Inc.
City of Twin Falls
~~** Clear Springs Trout Company
Cogeneration, Inc.
Dairy andfeedlot owners and operators
Hagerman Valley Citizens Alert. Inc.
Idaho Aquaculture Company
Idaho Cattle Association
Idaho Conservation League
Idaho Dairymen's Association
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Power Company
Idaho Rivers United
Idaho Whitewater Association
L.B. Industries
Middle Snake River Study Croup (elected
officials and citizens from four counties)
North Side Canal Company
Rangen, Inc.
Twin Falls Canal Company
Twin Falls County Parks Department
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
New YorkNew Jersey Harbor
36
The New YorkNew Jersey Harbor
Complex consists of the New York Bight Apex
north of the Sandy HookRockaway
Transect. The watershed includes tidal por-
tions of the Hackensack, Passaic, Raritan,
Navesink, Shrewsburg, Kill Van Kull, and
Arthur Kill Rivers in New Jersey and the
Hudson and East Rivers in New York. The
estuary serves as a recreational resource avail-
able to over 16 million residents and 17.4 mil-
lion visitors to the New YorkNew Jersey
metropolitan area. The port plays a major role
in the regional economy, generating several
billion dollars per year and several hundred
thousand jobs. Among the area's attractions
are beautiful beaches, abundant wildlife (par-
ticularly in the Hackensack Meadowlands), the
Manhattan skyline. Battery Park, and the
Statue of Liberty. Although this urban area is
densely inhabited, there are also many resident
populations of birds and mammals including
whales, harbor seals, osprey, bald eagles, and
snowy egrets.
Environmental Threats
The major threat to the New YorkNew
Jersey Harbor Estuary is its increasing popula-
tion density. Each day, municipal'sewage treat-
ment plants in New York and New Jersey dis-
charge more than 2.6 billion gallons of waste-
water into the estuary; some of these plants do
not yet provide secondary treatment. Penodic
malfunctions or overloads of the sewer system
result in discharges of untreated sewage, a pri-
mary source of toxic metals, organic chemi-
cals, pathogens, nutrients, and floatable debris
in the Harbor area.
Effects of pollution and contamination
can be seen everywhere. New Jersey has lost
75 percent of its wetlands since 1925.
Construction practices, such as deepening
channels, building bulkheads against erosion,
and filling water areas to expand development,
have led to the filling and draining of these
wetlands. Public beaches have been closed in
both states because of bacterial contamination
or floatable debris. New York and New Jersey
have issued advisories limiting consumption of
bluefish, striped bass, and American eel
because concentrations of toxic chemicals in
the fish are often above Food and Drug
Administration limits.
Actions
This watershed effort provides a frame-
work for coordinating activities in two ongoing
related programs, the New YorkNew Jersey
Harbor Estuary Program, formally begun in
1989, and the New York Bight Restoration
Program begun in 1987. The goals of the
Harbor/Bight programs are to prepare (1) a
final plan for the cleanup and "restoration of the
New York Bight in 1993 and (2) a comprehen-
sive management plan for New York/New
Jersey Harbor by August 1994.
The plans to clean up the Harbor and
Bight are being developed under the auspices
of the Harbor Management Conference, a
group, representing Federal, State, and local,
private, and public interests in the Harbor
Complex, created under the National Estuary
program. To control nutrients, the Conference
is considering the development of a sys-
temwide eutrophication model encompassing
the Harbor/Bight/Long Island Sound System.
The Management Conference is also defining
conditions that cause nuisance algal blooms
and hypoxia, investigating ecosystem indica-
tors for hypoxia, and describing the effects of
low dissolved oxygen on the fish community.
Ongoing characterization studies for toxics will
serve to verify or refute exceedances in criteria.
and identify sources causing exceedances or
biological impairments. The New York City
water quality model will be used to prioritize
repairs to combined sewer overflow (CSO)
systems in the Harbor/Bight, and the
Conference will seek commitments from regu-
latory agencies to implement a long-term float-
ables plan. The Conference will also develop
recommendations to improve regulatory pro-
grams for habitat protection, identify signifi-
cant habitats that may warrant extra protection,
determine if existing regulations protect signif-
icant habitats, and develop a system-wide pro-
gram to assess habitat loss due to hypoxia. The
-------
Oak Creek Watershed Project
37
Oak Creek is a perennial desert stream in
the scenic Sedona. Arizona, area. Oak Creek is
a tributary of (he Verde River and is located
southeast of the city, of Flagstaff at an altitude
of approximately 3000 feet. The watershed
encompasses an area of 427 square miles. Oak
Creek attracts many tourists, because it is noted
for its scenic Red Rock geologic formations
and the city of Sedona.
Environmental Threats
Bacteria levels at Slippery Rock State
Park, a popular swimming hole, high nutrient
levels and sedimentation from forestry and
agricultural practices threaten the water quality
of Oak Creek. Furthermore, the City of Sedona
is expecting a population explosion from its
present size of 8000 individuals to 20,000 by
the year 2010.
Actions
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality initiated the Oak Creek project to pro-
vide an analytical, planning, and implementa-
tion framework to address water quality prob-
lems associated with point and nonpoint pollu-
tant discharges.
Stakeholders
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality
Arizona Department ofTransportation
Local county government
Local environmental groups and
landowners
Northern Arizona Council of Governments
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NY-NJ Harbor continued development of a
comprehensive Total Maximum Daily Load
based on a site-specific water quality standard
for copper is a significant effort undertaken by
EPA, the States, and participants of the
Management Conference.
Although these plans are being devel-
oped by the Harbor Management Conference,
implementation will involve the targeted use of
existing water quality programs, within the
geographic confines of the Harbor/Bight. For
example, through implementation of the
NPDES program, cost effective controls for
toxic metals will be identified and permits will
be modified to include water quality-based lim-
its for toxic metals as necessary. In New York,
an antidegradation policy, focused initially on
persistent bioaccumulative substances found m
the Great Lakes, will be developed and imple-
mented statewide, including the Harbor/Bight
waters. An analogous antidegradation plan for
New Jersey's waters within the Harbor/Bight is
.being pursued. EPA will work to develop and
implement, through permit modifications and
enforcement actions, a comprehensive CSO
abatement program for New York City,
Yonkers, and New Jersey discharges to the
Harbor. The beach closure/shellfish bed action
plan will continue to be implemented by EPA.
The Army Corp of Engineers and EPA will
develo>a dredged material management plan
that includes a Mud Dump Site Management
Plan and a plan for selecting new disposal
sites.
Stakeholders
Citizen groups
Interstate Sanitation Commission
Local governments
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
New York Slate Department of
Environmental Conservation
New York City Department of
Environmental Protection
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Scientific and academic community
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
-------
Onondaga Lake
Stakeholders
Cify of Syracuse
New York
Department of Law
New York State
Department of
Environmental
Conservation
Onondaga County
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Onondaga Lake is located along the
northern end of the City of Syracuse in
Onondaga County, New York, and is primarily
surrounded by urban development. The lake is
approximately one mile wide and 4.6 miles
long and has a mean depth of 35 feet and a
maximum depth of 63 feet. The watershed
comprises 248 square miles located almost
entirely within Onondaga County.
Environmental Threats
Nutrient loadings, mainly from point
sources, have resulted in eutrophic conditions
and the violation of State water quality stan-
dards for Onondaga Lake. A ban was placed
on public fishing from the lake in 1970 due to
high concentrations of mercury in several
species of fish. The lake was reopened to fish-
ing in 1986 on a catch and release basis only.
Petroleum products are entering the lake from
contaminated ground water and contaminating
lake sediment. Chlorinated hydrocarbons have
also contaminated the water and sediments of
Onondaga Lake through surface water runoff
and ground water flow from past manufactur-
ing practices near the lake. Mudboils, which
discharge ground water thatv is extremely tur-
bid, are impacting the water quality and aquatic
habitats of Onondaga Creek and Onondaga
Lake.
Actions
In 1989 Congress appropriated funds for
EPA to convene a management conference for
Onondaga Lake. Subsequently, the Great
Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 called for
the establishment of a management conference
for the restoration, conservation, and manage-
ment of Onondaga Lake, and called for the
development of a comprehensive restoration,
conservation, and management plan for
Onondaga Lake that recommends priority cor-
rective action and compliance schedules for the
cleanup of the lake. The Management
Conference consists of all Federal, State, local,
public and private interests in the Lake. To
address nutrients and toxics, the Conference is
developing a eutrophication model for the
Seneca River, a lake productivity model, and a
hydrodynamic model for the lake outlet. The
conference is also funding studies on the
release of nutrients and toxic substances from
lake sediments under changing dissolved oxy-
gen levels and establishing a long-term base-
line water quality program. In addition to char-
acterizing the nonpoint source pollution prob-
lem, the Conference will draft a rural nonpoint
source pollution plan, an urban/suburban non-
point source pollution plan, and a fish and
wildlife management plan. Forthcoming actix-
ities are: the evaluation, and update on a regu-
lar basis, of the contamination status of lake
organisms; the development, with implementa-
tion, of a biological monitoring program; and
the development of a public education plan
Pilot projects to implement flow modification
and sediment load reduction in the mudboil
depression area will be implemented in 1992-
1993 and a mudboil remediation plan will be
issued in March 1994. Finally, the Conference
will begin a large scale macrophyte planting
project, a pilot project in wetland and nonvege-
tative cover restoration and enhancement, and
a study of the role of vegetation in mercury
cycling.
Implementation of the plan will involve
the targeted use of existing regulatory pro-
grams within the geographic confines of
Onondaga Lake. For example, a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study is being
performed pursuant to a consent decree with
New York State. The Study will investigate
the nature and extent of contamination in the
Lake. A court order directs Onondaga County
to bring County sewage treatment plans and
overflow discharges in compliance with legal
requirements. EPA. in conjunction with the
State, will work with the Onondaga County
Department of Drainage and Sanitation in eval-
uating various engineering alternatives for
upgrading and/or diverting the Syracuse
Metropolitan Treatment Plant discharge, and
treating and/or diverting the combined sewei
overflows based on the effectiveness in clean-
ing Onondaga Lake and its tributaries.
-------
Pequea and Mill Creeks Watershed Project
39
Located in the heart of Pennsylvania
Dutch county, the Pequea and Mill Creeks
watershed covers 135,000 acres in southeastern
Pennsylvania. Large dolomite and limestone
aquifers yield a significant quantity of ground
water, but are also particularly vulnerable to
contamination. While ground water is the pri-
mary source of drinking and livestock water,
people in the area also depend upon the creeks
for drinking water, irrigation, boating, fishing,
water sports, wildlife habitat, and industry.
Environmental Threats
Agriculture is the predominant land use
in the watershed: 63 percent of the land is
devoted to cropland and 13 percent to pasture.
The watershed has 55,000 dairy cattle.
5.500,000 poultry, and 122,000 swine.
According to the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, 58 5 stream miles
within the watershed have been degraded by
agricultural storm runoff. Cropland is eroding
bt an alarmingly high rate; high concentrations
of nitrates, nitrate-nitrogen, and ammonia
nitrogen in surface and ground water are sus-
pected of causing high abortion rates and low-
ered milk production in local dairy herds; and
pesticide contamination of the water has been
documented. Human health, especially the
health of infants under 6 months, and livestock
health are at risk.
Actions
The participants identified below are
aiming to significantly reduce nutrients, bacte-
ria, and pesticide contamination to surface and
ground waters and control sedimentation from
runoff and erosion. Geographic Information
Systems will identify those areas of high risk
for contamination of drinking water, and
ground water management plans will be devel-
oped.
The watershed has been designated as a
high priority nonpoint source watershed in
Pennsylvania and as a" national U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hydro-
logic Unit project. The watershed initiative is
receiving accelerated financial and technical
assistance under the USDA Water Quality
Initiative, as well as funding and support from
EPA's nonpoint source management program
under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 and
the ground water program under CWA
Section 106, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, and the U.S.
Geological Survey.
Stakeholders
Environmental advocacy groups
Lancaster County Conservation District
Lancaster County Planning Commission
Local consulting firms
Local fanners
Pennsylvania Agronomic Products
Association
t
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources
Pennsylvania Fish Commission
Pennsylvania Game Commission
Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension
U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
-------
Platte River Ecosystem Management Initiative (PREMI)
Entering Nebraska via the South Platte
from Colorado and the North Platte from
Wyoming, the Plane River traverses 625 miles
through Nebraska before joining the Missouri
River at Nebraska's eastern border. With its
major tributaries, the Elkhom and Loup Rivers.
the Platte constitutes the primary drainage sys-
tem in Nebraska, and supports a unique
ecosystem of national importance. It is a vital
link in the Central Ryway, the major continen-
tal migration route for millions of waterfowl
and shorebirds, providing habitat for over 300
species of migratory birds, including six feder-
ally endangered or threatened species. The
Platte River also supports aquatic life, recre-
ation, irrigation, hydropower generation, and
ground water recharge. Its alluvial aquifer sup-
plies drinking water to more than one-third of
Nebraska's citizens.
Environmental Threats
Sediment and nutrient loading, pesti-
cides, and hydrologic and habitat modification
are the primary environmental threats to water
quality and ecological integrity in the Platte
River Basin in Nebraska.
Actions
The EPA. in conjunction with the
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality (NDEQ). evaluated the analyses
emerging from its Comparative Risk Project
and concluded that several of the areas of con-
cern (risk reduction from pesticides, nitrates.
and toxics, and ecosystem assessment and pro-
tection) could be addressed in a comprehensive
ecosystem approach to the Plane River system.
The Platte River Ecosystem Management
Initiative (PREMI) thus evolved from a EPA
Regional enforcement pilot project in 1991 to a
watershed protection approach project, involv-
ing ecosystem assessment and implementation
of strategies to address identified problems.
with emphasis on NPS pollution control, water
quality and habitat protection/enhancement.
outreach/education, and cooperative efforts
The PREMI project has two stages. Tht
first focuses ongoing activities basinwide. The
second involves longer term actions, such as
developing more detailed water quality assess-
ments, identifying problems, and developing
and implementing strategies to address identi-
fied problems. This stage is most logically
accomplished in phases, the first of which fea-
tures the Lower Platte River Basin. Succeeding
phases will address the Elkhorn Basin, the
Middle, North, and South Platte Basins, and
the Loup Basin. The assessments will feed
into NDEQ's newly adopted basinwide water
quality planning approach and will be used for
targeting of future actions.
Initially EPA. NDEQ, and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) have been the pri-
mary participants in the PREMI as it has con-
centrated on coordinating water quality/ envi-
ronmental assessment activities to define the
problems. As the project evolves, other stake-
holders will participate in developing goals and
approaches for addressing watershed problem'
defining specific actions to be taken, and deter-
mining how they will be coordinated and eval-
uated.
Accomplishments to date include:
Focusing EPA's ongoing program activities.
including assessments, inspections, enforce-
ment, and implementation activities of all
program areas, on the Plane River Basin
Preparation of a bibliography of e \isling
research studies and investigations in coop-
eration u nh USCS
Coordination of \\aler quality monitoring
efforts with USGS's National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program. NDEQ
monitoring programs, and the Tri-Stale
Nonpoint Source Assessment project
Funding for investigations and implementa-
tion activities in the Lower Platte River
Basin, including.
- $50.000 for assessment of critical
areas in pnontv watershed*
- $94.500 for riparian environmental
indicators investigation
40
-------
41
Platte River Basin
- $506.000 for Section 319 Nonpoint
Source Management Program surface
and groundwater protection projects
- $360.000 for Section 314 Clean Lakes
Program Lake Water Quality
Assessment, Phase I diagnostic/
feasibility study, and Phase II
implementation awards.
Compilation and assessment of water quali-
ty data for the Lower Platte River Basin for
entry into a Geographic Information
System.
Support for coordinator positions within
EPAandNDEQ.
The PREMI is also included in a larger
ecosystem management project - the Great
Plains Initiative sponsored by the Western
Governor's Association, the U.S. Department
of Interior, EPA, and others.
Stakeholders
Environmental, agricultural and
recreational organizations
Federal agricultural and natural resource
agencies
Industries and utilities
Local agricultural and natural resource
agencies
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality
Regional and local governments
State agricultural and natural resource
agencies
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
U.S. Environmental Prelection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
-------
Pocono Partnership for Better Environmental Plannin-
Stakeholders
County
conservation
districts
Economic
Development
Council of NE PA
Pocono Chamber
of Commerce
(Pocono Plan)
Pocono NE
Resource
Conservation and
Development Board
Three county
planning
commissions
U.S. Environmental,
Protection Agency
This watershed project encompasses two
smaller watersheds, the Tobyhanna and the
McMichael's watersheds in Pike and Monroe
Counties, respectively, of Pennsylvania, an
area covering approximately 250 square miles.
Natural features include the glaciated Pocono
plateau, as well as the other glaciated (and
unglaciated) portions of the Pocono region.
The watershed includes mixed hardwood
forests, peat bogs, other freshwater wetlands.
lakes, free-flowing streams, and unique plant
communities, such as shrub-oak and pitch-pine
barrens.
Environmental Threats
The major threat facing the watershed is
rapid and uncontrolled urban development and
the various threats associated with such factors
as wastewater treatment, sewage treatment.
highway construction, nonpoint source
pollution, and habitat degradation and
fragmentation.
Actions
The Nature Conservancy has identified
portions of the unglaciated plateau area as har-
boring the largest number of globally rare or
endangered species and, thus, has identified
this area in its bioreserve program and a shrub-
oak/pitch-pine forest found in the watershed as
its highest priority in Pennsylvania. This
recognition led stakeholders to establish an
executive committee to initiate plans to protect
the watershed. To date, a project proposal has
been developed, To gain support of the town-
ships and municipalities associated with (he
watershed, the committee is publicizing us
efforts and is creating a study group, which
will open the process to more people. Major
components of the planning process include
creating a vision statement, setting goals, con-
ducting resource inventory and risk assess-
ment, analyzing alternatives, and implementing
recommendations.
Other activities directed to the watershed
include gap analysis (in cooperation with ih<
New York Cooperative Research Unit a>
Cornell) and a biodiversity project with EPA's
research laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon.
San Luis Rey River Watershed Protection Project
The San Luis Rey, located in Southern
California, is a coastal over that supports valu-
able wetlands resources.
Environmental Threats
The river and its wetlands face degrada-
tion from sand and gravel mining and from the
recent development of orchards, ranches, golf
courses, and resorts.
Actions
To support protection of the San Luis
Rey wetlands and watershed, EPA assists in
coordination of planning, enforcement, and
restoration activities within the watershed.
EPA provides funding for watershed resources
management planning and implementation
efforts and will pursue additional funding for
implementation activities. EPA will also con-
tinue to deveJop additional wetlands protection
activities and will participate in Section 404,
Clean Water Act enforcement activities.
Stakeholders
Coastal Conservancy
Local landowners, sand and gravel mining
operations, and environmental
organizations
Rincon Band of Mission Indians
San Diego County
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
-------
Santa Margarita Watershed Protection Project
The Santa Margarita Watershed, in San
Diego and Riverside counties, comprises an
area of about 740 square miles and is one or
the larger river-basins in the southern
California coastal plain. A perennial river and
lagoon are dominant features in this coastal
watershed, which supports unique aquatic
habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational
resources. The vernal pools and riparian com-
munities provide high quality habitat for a
diversity of plant and wildlife species, includ-
ing 70 special status species. The total bird
densities and diversities observed in this water-
shed are among the highest reported for south-
em California in similar habitats. The River
provides a breeding habitat for one of the two
premier populations of the least Bell's vireo
bird remaining in California. The coastal wet-
lands support around 200 bird species, includ-
ing several Federal and Slate endangered/
threatened species.
Environmental Threats
The primary environmental problems
threatening (his watershed include rapid urban
development in the upper watershed, increased
point source and nonpoint source runoff from
urban areas, and wetlands destruction. Much
of the upper watershed is privately owned and
is subject to intense development pressure.
The area within commuting distance of
Riverside and San Diego is projected to under-
go a threefold increase in population in the
next twenty years. According to (he U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 38 dredge and fill
permits have been issued since 1987, affecting
179 acres of waters of the United Stales. Thus
far, the permit review process has been unable
to address the cumulative impacts of these
activities; however, it is being raised as an
issue of concern as part of a proposed project
by the Riverside County Flood Control District
to channel the lower 11 miles of Murnela
Creek, a major tributary of the Santa Margarita
River.
Many measures of surface water quality,
such as dissolved oxygen, nutrients, total dis-
solved solids and minerals (boron, manganese,
and iron), exceed or appear likely to exceed
recommended concentrations in the River.
The State lists the Santa Margarita Estuary as
an impaired water body due to nutrient load-
ings. Likely pollutant sources include agricul-
tural operations, septic systems, and waste-
water treatment facilities. Ground water quali-
ty is also a concern in the upper part of the
watershed and on Camp Pendleton. Munrieta
Water District relies exclusively on ground
water for its water supply. Camp Pendleton
also depends on the River for its drinking
water, although the Camp has a Federal
Superfund site within the floodplain of the
River. Definitive information about potential
contamination from this site will not be avail-
able until the Remedial Investigation reports
are completed.
Actions
To protect the watershed from environ-
mental threats, EPA will augment Riverside
and San Diego Counties' efforts to develop a
comprehensive watershed management plan.
Specifically, EPA will evaluate the assimilative
capacity of the watershed's wetlands and help
implement necessary actions to protect these
wetlands. To support this effort, EPA will uti-
lize two ongoing activities, the water permit-
ling program and the wetlands advance identi-
fication process. As part of the watershed pro-
tection approach, EPA will evaluate the rela-
tionship between surface water quality and the
quality of ground water used down stream as a
source of drinking water. EPA will provide
funding for nonpoint source control and water-
shed planning efforts and will give oversight to
local watershed planning efforts to ensure that
documented water quality problems will be
addressed.
43
Stakeholders
California
Department of Fish
and Came
California Regiona
Water Quality
Control Board
Camp Pendleton
Marine Base
County and
municipal
governments
Local conservation
and environmental
groups and local
residents
National Park
Service
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agenc\
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Senice
-------
Savannah River
The Savannah River is one of the major
river systems of the southeastern United States,
encompassing a total area greater than 10,000
square miles and including portions of North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The
Savannah River is formed at Hartwell
Reservoir by the confluence of the Seneca and
Tugaloo Rivers and flows southeast to the
Atlantic Ocean at the port city of Savannah,
Georgia. For this watershed project, the study
area is defined as that portion of the watershed
from the Strom Thurmond Dam to the Atlantic
Ocean. This area lies within the boundaries of
Georgia and South Carolina only and includes
150 miles of river and 30 miles of estuary.
Columbia
South
Carolinia
Charleston
Savannah River
Watershed
Basin ecosystem types include forests, agricul-
tural systems, bottomland hardwoods, tidal
freshwater and marine marshes, free-flowing
streams, and the near-coastal waters of the
Carolinian province. Although the study area is
predominantly rural, the watershed includes the
expanding urban centers of Augusta and
Savannah, Georgia, a Department of Energy
nuclear production facility, the Savannah
National Wildlife Refuge, and the Strom
Thurmond Dam, a hydroelectric power plant
facility.
Environmental Threats
Many water quality-related studies of the
Savannah River have been conducted, begin-
ning in the 1950's when Strom Thurmond Dam
was built (then known as Clark's Hill Dam). In
recent years, Georgia and South Carolina water
quality agencies and EPA have invested con-
siderable resources into monitoring, modeling,
and evaluating the watershed problems. Other
State and Federal agencies have contributed
through direct participation in and technical
transfers to these activities.
A review of these studies and discus-
sions with key personnel in several agencies
yielded the following preliminary list of envi-
ronmental issues in the Savannah River water-
shed:
Dam water release impacts e.g., fish kills.
cold water releases, water containing low
dissolved oxygen
Dredging modifications/physical changes in
the estuary e.g.. Tide Gate opening. New
Cut closure, harbor deepening, agitation
dredging
Fishery impacts due to poor water quality
e.g., striped bass, endangered short-nose
sturgeon
Low dissolved oxygen in river and estuary
Habitat alteration/destruction
nonpoint source (NFS) impacts from
forestry, agriculture, and urban
development activities in the Augusta and
Savannah areas
Point source discharge impacts.
Actions
EPA established the Savannah River
watershed project because of the importance of
the watershed as a natural resource, the many
known environmental impacts on the water-
shed, the susceptibility of the watershed to
additional degradation, the opportunity for a
high degree of involvement and coordination
with many Federal, State, and local agencies,
and the likelihood of success because of a high
level of interest in protecting this river system.
Other factors include the economic importance
of the resource to the southeastern United
-------
States and high-visibility issues associated with
endangered species, coastal water quality stan-
dards, and interstate water allocations.
EPA initiated the Savannah River
Watershed Project by convening a meeting
between the primary water quality agencies,
the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(EPD) and the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (DHEC).
The purpose of this meeting was to introduce
the project to the States, receive agreements of
support, gain consensus on the first steps of the
project, and receive any other comments/issues
from these agencies. An organizational struc-
ture of the project was developed with EPA,
EPD, and DHEC as the lead organizations.
EPA is preparing an initial document
outlining the concepts of this project, including
a description of (he watershed, preliminary
identification of watershed issues, a watershed
management strategy outline, discussion of
ngoing watershed activities, a plan for organi-
zational management of the project, a schedule,
and a list of contacts. The EPA is also devel-
oping a monitoring plan for the basin and a
CIS data management system. Options for
obtaining a land use/land cover classification
, system for the project are being pursued. An
EPA Advisory Committee, representing all
Water Management Division programs and
other regional programs, has been established
to provide input into the project. Facilities in
the Savannah watershed have been identified
for inclusion on the EPA's multimedia inspec-
tion list.
EPA, in conjunction with EPD and
DHEC. will develop a Watershed Management
Strategy to identify and prioritize watershed
impairments and to specify appropriate solu-
tion and control plans. This strategy will be
based on existing data and known or potential
environmental impacts to the watershed.
Monitoring of the watershed will be con-
ducted as pan of the Environmental Monitor-
ing and Assessment Program to further investi-
gate and characterize watershed impairments.
Other ongoing monitoring programs will con-
tinue to collect and analyze data for the project.
Ongoing efforts to model water quality impacts
to the Savannah River and estuary are under-
way with EPD, DHEC, and other Federal,
State and local groups. These cooperative
efforts are aimed at ensuring that designated
uses of the river are attained and natural
resources are protected.
Sources of funding for project activities
will be identified and obtained as the strategy
is developed and implemented.
Stakeholders
Georgia Conservancy
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Ports Authority
Local government, consultants, and industry
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
South Carolina Department of Wildlife and
Marine Resources
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
-------
Tangipahoa River Watershed Project
The Tangipahoa River flows southeast-
ward from the Mississippi-Louisiana state line
through the Mississippi Valley Loess and
Southeastern Plains, and the Mississippi
Alluvial Plain into Lake Pontchartrain.
Initially the river is an upland stream, flowing
through rolling hills and having a sand and
gravel substrate. The characteristics of the
river change to those of a lowland stream
as the river widens and flows through
cypress/tupelo swamp before entering Lake
Pontchartrain.
Environmental Threats
This watershed and others that comprise
the Lake Pontchartrain basin are threatened by
extensive pesticide application, physical degra-
dation of water and wetlands, degradation of
terrestrial habitats, hazardous and toxic air pol-
lution, and nonpoint source discharges.
Specific threats to the Tangipahoa River stem
from both industrial point and nonpoint
sources, resource extraction and exploration,
surface mining, and land development Water
quality problems include metals, ammonia,
organics, pathogens, and suspended solids. All
of these problems can be seenTs" outgrowths of
the larger, more generalized problems facing
the Lake Pontchartrain basin.
Actions
EPA characterized land use in the water-
shed to develop an impact assessment for tar-
geting activity in the area. This characteriza-
tion revealed heavy agricultural use. Initial
investigations by the State in response to con-
cerns over high pathogen counts resulted in
enforcement actions for multiple wastewater
facilities. The EPA has shifted its focus to
address permitting of minor point source dis-
charges that predominate in the watershed.
Nonpoint sources have also been identi-
fied as major contributors to the Lake's water
quality problems. In the State's efforts to con-
trol runoff from the 273 dairies in the water-
shed, it has sought the involvement of Citizens
for a Clean Tangipahoa, a group that has been
instrumental in educating and involving farm-
ers about the problems of agricultural run-off.
This partnership lead to the installment of
waste treatment systems on many of the water-
shed's dairy farms. The Soil Conservation
Service and Cooperative Extension Service
provided design specifications, technical over-
sight for installation, and financial assistance
for the construction of these systems. EPA
provided funding through the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality to moni-
tor the effectiveness of this effort. The Citizens
for a Cleaner Tangipahoa continue to sponsor
nonpoint source education programs.
Meanwhile, the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality is also working with
the Louisiana State Department of Health and
Hospitals to address septic tank and non-sew-
ered community problems in the Tangipahoa
watershed, and the State of Mississippi has
begun to monitor the portion of the Tangipaho
within its borders for bacteria levels in an effol
to document and control sources that may orig-
inate in its State.
Efforts to improve the Tangipahoa River
will also be assisted by another local organiza-
tion, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
that received Congressional funding to develop
a comprehensive management plan for the
Lake's basin, which includes the Tangipahoa
watershed.
Stakeholders
Citizens for a Clean Tangipahoa
Lake Pontcha.lrain Basin Foundation
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality
Louisiana Department of Health and
Hospitals
Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service
* State of Mississippi
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
-------
Truckee River Watershed Protection Project
47
The Truckee River travels through a
desert ecosystem while transporting water from
Lake Tahoe, California, into the saline Pyramid
Lake in Nevada. The Truckee River headwa-
ters arise in the Sierra Nevada mountains of
eastern California and western Nevada at the
outlet of oligotrophic Lake Tahoe, and the
River drains approximately 3,060 square miles
in its 140 mile course. The upstream area is
mostly mountainous alpine forest, the middle
area is dominated by meadows and significant
geothermal springs, and the lower watershed is
predominantly desert.
The flow of the Truckee River is highly
regulated with most of the river water fully
allocated via water rights. Lake Tahoe and
Boca. Prosser, Martis, and Stampede
Reservoirs supply water to those with water
rights. Stampede Reservoir is also used by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to induce
spawning of the endangered fish, cui-ui, and to
provide drought relief. Below the cities of
;no and Sparks. Nevada, approximately one-
oiird of the river flow is diverted via dam to
Lahontan Valley to irrigate alfalfa and pastures.
The watershed also supports the resort commu-
nities surrounding Lake Tahoe, the greater met-
ropolitan area of Reno and Sparks, and the
Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Reservation. Key
land uses include residential, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, mining, skiing, fishing,
and hunting.
Environmental Threats
The Truckee River suffers from water
quality degradation caused by nutrients and
sediment loadings and the diversion of water
from the river to irrigation projects. Poor water
quality, including elevated temperatures, dete-
riorates the aquatic habitat, including the
threatened and endangered fish species habitat.
Actions
The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe has taken
numerous legal actions over the last 100 years
to obtain legal compensation for the adverse
impacts resulting from the diversion to
Lahontan Valley. Lake elevations have
dropped 80 feet, thereby restricting fish access
for spawning. The Tribe also pressed for
efforts to reduce pollutant loadings, to amelio-
rate elevated water temperatures, and to restore
the water course. EPA initiated the Truckee
River Strategy to end litigation, and Senator
Reid of Nevada facilitated a negotiated settle-
ment accord through public law. EPA coordi-
nates different program activities and agencies
to focus restoration efforts on the Truckee
River Strategy, a holistic watershed restoration
program. In particular, EPA provides grant
assistance to Native American tribes to assess
problems, to develop a water quality model,
and to implement both nonpoint and point
source controls. EPA also oversees and
approves the development of State water quali-
ty standards. Total Maximum Daily Loads, and
stormwater and treatment works permits.
Stakeholders
V
California's environmental agencies
Citizens and environmental groups
Nevada's environmental agencies
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Reno and Sparks municipal governments
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washoe County. Nevada
-------
Upper Arkansas River Watershed Initiative
At more than 13.000 feet above sea
level, the Arkansas River originates in the
Pike-San Isabel National Forest near
Colorado's Continental Divide. Formed by
snow melt, the Upper Arkansas flows south
through magnificent mountain scenery before
turning east to follow a steep gorge on its way
to the high plains of eastern Colorado. The
Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative defines
the Upper Arkansas watershed as the basin
from the headwaters to Pueblo Dam at the edge
of the high plains. The Upper Arkansas River
flows through portions of two ecoregions: the
Southern Rockies and Southwestern
Tablelands, with the majority of the upper
watershed in the mountainous Southern
Rockies ecoregion. This region is character-
ized by steep slopes (hat are prone to erosion,
especially during the runoff season. The vege-
tation communities shift from tundra to conif-
erous forests dominated by Englemann spruce
and sub-alpine fir, grading into Douglas fir,
Lodgepole pine, and finally open stands of
Ponderosa pine at lower to middle elevations.
Environmental Threats
In the Upper Arkansas""R;ver watershed,
the principal human-related stressors are asso-
ciated with past mining practices, erosion of
rangeland, loss of riparian and wetland areas,
and hydrologic modification. Drainage and
runoff from abandoned hard rock mines and
mine tailings contribute significant loads of
heavy metals and contaminated sediments to
the river's mainstem and a number of tribu-
taries in the upper basin. Agricultural practices
have increased erosion on large areas of upland
rangeland, and the cumulative effect on water
resources has been aggravated through loss of
riparian and wetland areas along many tribu-
taries and portions of the mainstem.
Consequently, stream bank erosion contributes
large amounts of sediment to the river system,
eliminating aquatic and wildlife habitat and
altering channel stability. The river also serves
as a transport system for large water diversions
from the west side of the Continental DivicK.
The overall consequences of this hydrological
modification to aquatic life and channel stabili-
ty are unknown; however, there are channel
effects in the headwater tributary streams.
Actions
Many State and Federal agencies are
involved in a wide range of activities in the
basin. In 1989 a technical workshop brought
all people conducting research in the Upper
Arkansas basin together to inform each other
of their work, discuss specific questions, and
develop recommendations for further research
in the basin. The overarching finding from this
forum was that coordination among agencies
had to be improved. At the same time,
researchers from the EPA developed a pro-
posed management plan for research that
would lead to a comprehensive understanding
and remediation of water quality impacts from
human disturbances, principally hard rock min-
ing. The ongoing work, the workshop, and t
management plan helped generate enthusiasm
for more cooperative efforts and culminated in
a Memorandum of Understanding among the
Colorado Departments of Health and Natural
Resources; the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
and EPA, which, among other things, set a self-
reproducing brown trout fishery as their bio-
logical remediation goal for the river.
Recognizing the need for better and
more effective coordination of its responsibili-
ties, EPA formed a Regional Upper Arkansas
Watershed Initiative Team in 1992. The Team.
which includes representatives from a broad
range of EPA programs, established as its mis-
sion, the goal of "integrating the Region's
water resources assessment and management
programs and expertise to guide the develop-
ment and implementation of a watershed pro-
tection strategy for the Upper Arkansas Basin."
and the Team set out specific objectives for
achieving that goal
*4R
-------
There are a number of current and future
remediation activities already underway or
planned, such as nonpoint source projects at an
abandoned mining site along Chalk Creek and
on rangeland along Badger Creek. These pro-
jects have already provided noteworthy
lessons. For example, the Chalk Creek partici-
pants discovered the importance of and meth-
ods for fully characterizing the hydrogeology
of mining sites before beginning remediation -
techniques and lessons that are being trans-
ferred to other similar sites. Several recently
constructed metal treatment facilities will con-
trol two major point source discharges to the
river, with an expecied significant reduction in
metals load to the mainstem of the river.
Local citizen participation is also under-
way in the watershed. A local Resource
Conservation and Development Council, with
EPA funding support, recently hired a local
teacher to serve as the on-site watershed coor-
dinator for the Initiative. The on-site coordina-
r will foster cooperation among various
stakeholders, solicit ideas for the strategy, and
develop a public outreach program for the
Initiative. A volunteer monitoring program,
with strong participation by local high schools,
is active in the basin. This program was devel-
oped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and
based on its success in the Arkansas basin, the
program is being implemented statewide.
Stakeholders
- ASARCO
Cities ofLeadville. Buena Vista. Salida, and
Canon City
Colorado Association of Conservation
Districts
Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
Colorado Division ofParks^and Outdoor
Recreation
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Colorado Riparian Association
Colorado State Engineer's Office
Colorado Slate Soil Consen'ation Board
Friends of the Arkansas
Irrigation companies
Lake County Consen-ation District
Sangre de Cristo Resource Consen'ation
and Development Council. Inc.
Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy
District
The Nature Consen-ancy
Upper Arkansas River Recreation Task
Force
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Bureau of Mines
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.5. Environmental Protection Agenc\
U.STFish and Wildlife Sen-tee
U.S. Forest Sen-ice
U.S. Geological Sun-ey
U.S. Soil Conservation Sen-ice
-------
Upper Tennessee River Basin
The Upper Tennessee River Basin,
which contains the Clinch, Powell, and
Holston Rivers, is located in Virginia and sup-
ports more than twenty Federally endangered
and over 130 globally rare species, including
mussels, fish, mammals, plants, and other
invertebrates. In addition, there are more than
50 species endemic to the area. The Nature
Conservancy recognized this area as an inter-
national riverine conservation initiative
through its Last Great Places program.
The watershed, characterized by karst
topography, contains a vast network of caves
and sunholes that directly link ground and sur-
face waters. The local economy of this rural
and forested area is poor, based on a single
industry, coal mining.
Environmental Threats
A complex array of threats could signifi-
cantly impact water quality, including point
source pollution, catastrophic spills, nonpoint
source pollution from agriculture and urban
development, and coal mining. The quantities
and sources of threats are~poorly understood
and the specific environmental effects, particu-
larly on aquatic organisms, remain mostly
undocumented.
Actions
The Nature Conservancy launched its
Clinch Valley Bioreserve in 1969 to address
the protection of the rare species. Interest in
the watershed increased as life history studies
of mussels by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service documented their decline.
Declines in the health and numbers of
mussels prompted initiation of creative
answers based on the interconnected nature of
the water dependent resources. This effort was
further supported by the Virginia Division of
Soil and Water, which described many of the
hydrologic units in the watershed as high prior-
ities for nonpoint source pollution potential.
Watershed-wide quantification of sources of
threats led to the adoption of riparian and karst
conservation programs as well as the develop-
ment of new partnerships.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
EPA, the Nature Conservancy, and the Virginia
Division of Soil and Water are now working
together to reduce nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion to the rivers. The Virginia Water Control
Board placed a ban on halogen-based sewage
treatment systems in endangered species
waters, which includes most of the watershed.
and has adopted stricter standards for parame-
ters such as copper in the Clinch River. The
Nature Conservancy has completed a 5-year
strategic plan for the watershed and is commit-
ted to ecosystem protection in the area.
All partners will continue to implement
nonpoint source pollution prevention tech-
niques. EPA will act as facilitator for the part-
nership infrastructure by bringing its water pro-
grams to bear in one geographic area. Thl
watershed protection effort, and other related
projectsEcological Risk Assessment and
Mid-Atlantic Highland projectswill solidify
partnerships throughout the watershed.
Stakeholders
Local governments
State Water Control Board
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Virginia Division of Soil and Water
Conservation
Virginia Tech
-------
Upper Tensas River Watershed Project
As part of the Mississippi River Alluvial
Plain, the Upper Tensas River watershed was
once dominated by bottomland hardwoods.
Today as much as 85 percent of the landscape
has been converted to other uses, primarily
agriculture, and consists mainly of ridges and
swales. Wetlands generally occur as backwater
depressional areas, old scour channels, and old
river cutoffs.
Environmental Threats
According to 1987 land use statistics,
bottomland hardwood forest in the Tensas
Basin has decreased from about 2.5 million
acres to 387,790 acres, an 85 percent decline.
This has resulted in forest fragmentation, iso-
lating small patches of non-contiguous forest.
Further, agricultural fields in the basin typically
extend to the stream edge. In 1987, only 14.7
percent of all streams in the Tensas Basin
remained bordered by bottomland hardwood
forest.
As a result of land use conversion, water
quality in the basin is poor. Total phosphorus
levels exceed the EPA-recommended maxi-
mum concentration in 96 percent of the sam-
ples taken. Total suspended solids (TSS) loads
in the basin were also measurably high, partic-
ularly during storm events. The high TSS val-
ues are a consequence of forest clearing and
the highly credible soils that are found in the
Tensas Basin. Additionally, the Louisiana
black bear, a federally listed threatened species,
lives in the basin.
Actions
Recent wetland regulatory events and the
growing awareness of the environmental prob-
lems threatening the river led the public, espe-
cially the agricultural community, to become
involved in actions to protect the Upper Tensas
River watershed. At the same time, Federal
and State agencies recognized the need for col-
-'iborative action given their shrinking budgets.
he Northeast Delta Resource Conservation
and Development (RC&D) Board formed a 14-
member Environmental Committee represent-
ing a broad range of special interests within the
Tensas Basin. This committee will inform the
RC&D Council on environmental issues and
concerns throughout the local parishes. The
EPA, Soil Conservation Service, the Nature
Conservancy, RC&D, and local Soil and Water
Conservation District provided funding for an
onsite project coordinator. The coordinator
will serve as a direct link between the RC&D
and the various agencies and groups that make
up the Technical Steering Committee, which
consists of representatives from all of the
active agencies. This organizational structure
is designed to reduce duplication of effort,
increase public understanding of various
Federal and State laws pertaining to wetlands
and water quality, improve communication
between partners and land users, target fund-
ing for coordinated restoration and protection
projects, and serve as a model for other States
along the Mississippi Valley.
The Louisiana Department of Environ-
mental Quality currently has a State grant to
document the Tensas Watershed Protection
Approach. As part of this grant, special pro-
jects, such as public outreach and CIS informa-
tion gathering, support the overall effort. Also,
the USgA is developing a river basin study tar-
geting wetlands and water quality. The USDA
will work with EPA's research laboratory in
Corvallis to apply the "synoptic approach" to
wetlands risk assessment in the basin.
Stakeholders
Farm Bureau
LA Association of Conservation Districts
LA Cooperative Extension Service
LA Department of Agriculture and Forestry
LA Department of Environmental Quality
LA Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Louisiana State University
National Assoc. of Conservation District
Northeast Delta Resource Conservation and
Development Board
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Forest Service
51
Tensas River
Upper
Watershed
-------
Waquoit Bay Land-Margin Ecosystems Project
52
Waquoit Bay is a shallow coastal bay on
the southern shore of Cape Cod,
Massachusetts. The bay and its watershed
encompass an area of approximately 20 square
miles. The site is ideal for examining land use
impacts on an estuary since the subwatersheds
draining into the bay exhibit different degrees
of urbanization and forestalion and since many
characteristics of the bay have been document-
ed by previous research because of the bay's
proximity to research institutions at Woods
Hole. In addition, as a designated National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Estuarine Research Reserve. Waquoit
Bay provides a setting that fosters conserva-
tion, research, and public outreach activities.
Environmental Threats
There is good historical evidence that the
bay's waters are steadily becoming enriched
with nitrogen and that water quality, eel grass
beds, and the existing shellfishery are declining
as indicated by an accompanying increase in
fish kills and mats of macroalgae.
Actions
As a result of these disturbing trends, the
EPA and the National Science Foundation
began the Waquoit Bay Land-Margin
Ecosystems Research Project. The primary
goal of the project is to determine the relation-
ship between land use and water quality. Land
uses and nutrient loadings are being character-
ized; physical, chemical, and biological
processes occurring in the bay and surrounding
subwatersheds are being determined: and a
geographical information system (CIS) and a
variety of models are being developed to
understand the links between land use
and impacts observed in Waquoit Bay.
Research results to date are being fd
into an easy-to-use management model that
calculates steady state nitrogen loading rates
for various scenarios. The initial version of
this management model was tested in fall 1992
by a variety of potential users, including the
town planners from the towns in which
.Waquoit Bay is located, planners from other
Cape Cod towns, and planners from the Cape
Cod Commission, the regional planning
authority with regulatory powers. This and
other extensive reviews will ensure that the
model be more than locally applicable since
nitrogen loading is a pervasive problem along
much of the East Coast.
Stakeholders
Association for the Preservation of Cape
Cod
Cape Cod Commission
* Citizens for the Protection of Waquoil Bay
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Science Foundation
Towns ofFahnouth andMashpee
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Sun-ey
Universities
Boston University
- Hampshire College
Smith College
- University of Southern California
Woods Hole Oceanograpln'c Institute
Waquoil Ba\ National Estuarine Research
Resenv
-------
West Maui Watershed Protection Project
Maui is a Hawaiian island formed by
volcanic activity in the Pacific Ocean that is a
popular tourist attraction. The West Maui
Watershed is actually a series of small water-
sheds along a 16-mile stretch of coast between
Olowalu and Kapalua. The topography is very
steep; for example, 5 miles from shore, there is
one peak that is 5,788 feet high. Along this
stretch of coast, the West Maui mountains are
deeply incised by over 24 streams. To the
south, the streams are perennial. To the north,
the drier side of the island, the streams become
annual. Rainfall in the mountains can be more
than 400 inches annually. A freshwater lens
resting on top of a salt water aquifer underlies
the watershed. The freshwater aquifer occa-
sionally extends seaward of the shoreline and
causes fresh water seeps.
Rainforest covers the upper reaches of
these watersheds. At the base of these moun-
tains, residents cultivate sugar cane and
pineapple on the steeply sloping plains. Over
me urban development consisting of resorts,
condominiums, and golf courses has been
replacing agricultural land along the coast.
Environmental Threats
In 1988 the west coast of Maui began to
suffer massive macroalgal (seaweed) blooms
that have killed reefs through smothering and
threatened Maui's tourist industry, because the
decomposing algae along the beach raised pub-
lic health concerns. In the nutrient-poor waters
of Hawaii, nutrient inputs from agriculture,
golf courses, and sewage injection wells appear
to be the likely cause of the algal blooms.
Actions
The algal problem was first brought to
EPA's attention by four Congressional inquiries
in the fall of 1991. EPA responded by forming
an EPA Maui Algae Team to coordinate with
the State of Hawaii's Department of Health.
"*Tiis partnership drafted a strategy to mitigate
the algal problem. The strategy is basically a
comprehensive watershed management plan
focusing on nutrient source controls within the
watershed. EPA is also working with the
Hawaii Department of Health, the County of
Maui, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration on studies regard-
ing the linkage between sewage injection wells
and the ocean and source controls.
Through this effort, the Mayor of Maui
publicly committed to increased water recla-
mation and canceled plans for new sewage
injection wells.
Stakeholders
Hawaii Department of Health
Local sugar and tourist industries
Maui County
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
Watershed Protection Approach Funding Matrix
The watershed protection approach ftind-
jHgmatrix is intended to assist project man-
agers by providing a broad perspective on
EPA's Office of Water funds which potentially
could be applied to watershed activities. It also
delineates the specific applications of those
funds. It is important to note that this informa-
tion may become outdated as the result of
changes in budget levels and/or priorities.
This matrix was developed by EPA's
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
(OWOW), but relies heavily on a table devel-
oped by EPA Region I that describes funding
resources for state water programs. OWOW
would like to thank Region I's Bill Nuzzo as
well as the people in Headquarters and the
Regions who have reviewed the various drafts
of this document.
55
* Catalog of
Federal Domestic
Assistance Number.
Funding
Source*
Funding Purpose/
Eligible Recipients
Allocation Method/
Conditions/ Limitations
Eligible Activities
(Examples)
Funding
Available
($ Million)
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 106
Water Pollution
Control
[66.419]
xtion 604(b)
Title VI set-
aside Water
Quality Man-
agement
Planning
[66.454)
Section 603(d)
Revolving Fund
Title VI set-
aside [66 458]
Section 3 19(h)
Nonpomt
Source
Implementation
[66.458]
To administer programs
for the prevention.
reduction, and elimination
of water pollution
Stale and interstate
agencies, Indian tnbes.
To carry out water quality
management planning
Slate agencies (Planning
activities shall involve
local, regional, and
interstate entities.)
Water Pollution Control
Revolving Fund
Stale agencies
Implementation of
nonpomt source
management program
State designated lead NPS
agencies. (In developing
and implementing a
management program, a
slate shall, to the
maximum extent
practicable, involve local
public and private
agencies.)
State targets determined by
national formula.
Level of Effort (LOE) required
1% of Title VI funds
appropriated; SI 00.000
minimum per state.
40% pass-through to Regional
Public Comprehensive Planning
Organizations (RPCPOS)/
Interstate Organizations
-------
Funding
Source
Funding Purpose/
Eligible Recipients
Allocation Method/
Conditions/ Limitations
Eligible Activities
(Examples)
Funding
Available
-------
Funding
Source
Regional
Initiatives
Wetlands
Protection
Program
Section 314(b)
Clean Lakes
[66.435]
Congressional
Appropriation
Add-Ons
Section 104(g)
Operator
Training
Funding Purpose/
Eligible Recipients
No limitations on
potential participants.
Wetlands protection activ-
ities can involve other
Federal agencies, state
agencies, and local
groups, including
agricultural groups.
To prepare identification
and classification surveys
of all publicly-owned
lakes, to establish
methods & procedures to
control sources of
pollution and restore the
quality of such lakes
Crams are provided to
stales. (Historically, par-
ticipants in Clean Lakes
projects have represented
various levels of both
public and private
sectors )
No limitations on
potential participants
Participants are often
determined by
appropriation language.
To provide an adequate
supply of (rained person-
nel to operate and main-
tain existing and future
treatment works.
Allocation Method/
Conditions/ Limitations
A relatively new process
allowing Regions to develop
individual initiatives within the
framework of the annual budget
process.
Grants in this program can be
made under the authority of
CWA Section 104(b)(3).
Resources may also be used for
lAGs and contract support.
30% match for Phase I -diag-
nostic/feasibility (Not to
exceed $100,000.)
50% match for Phase II -
restoration, assessment
(Priority consideration given to
projects that show a
commitment to program
integration.)
30% match for Phase III -- post-
restoration monitoring (Not to
exceed $1 25,000)
Appropriations language may or
may not impose specific
restrictions on how resources
may be spent (e g through
grants, contracts, etc )
State allocation by performance.
Congressional add-on to budget
25% match required
Eligible Activities
(Examples)
All phases of a watershed
protection project can be
supported.
Funds can be used to provide
technical assistance on effective
nver corridor/watershed
management planning.
Wetlands protection funds can be
used for activities involving
targeted watersheds such as
advance identification, targeted
Section 404 enforcement actions
and education/outreach programs.
Funds can be used for Section 404
compliance monitoring programs
for specific priority watersheds
Lake Water Quality Assessment
(LWQA) -- funds are to compile a
comprehensive, statewide
assessment of lake water quality.
to enhance overall state lake
management programs and to
increase public awareness and
commitment to preserving lakes.
Diagnostic/Feasibility Study ~
funds are provided to perform a
comprehensive study of a partic-
ular lake and its watershed. Funds
can be used to evaluate possible
solutions and recommend restora-
tion and protection methods.
(Phase I)
Restoration/Protection Implemen-
tation Project - funds are provided
to implement recommended in-
lake techniques and watershed
management practices. (Phase II)
Post-Restoration Monitoring -
funds are provided 10 determine
effectiveness of various restoration
techniques (Phase HI)
No limitations on potential
activities.
Activities are generally determined
by appropriations language
Training projects, technical
assistance for publicly owned
treatment works operators
Funding
Available
($ Million)
FY-93 4.0
FY-933
FY-92 4.2
FY-93 40
FY-92 7 0
FY-91 70
FY-93 46 9 4
FY-93 08
FY-92 2.0
FY-91 18
Slate and interstate
agencies, municipalities.
and educational
institutions
Total Regional allocation ofFY93 Wetlands Protection funds has not \et been determined, pending final operating plan.
OW AC&C Add-ons (Does not include Congressional add-ons for Clean Lakes and NPS Grants )
-------
Funding Funding Purpose/
Source Eligible Recipients
Section 104(g) Incentive grants to
Small develop or expand small
Community community outreach
Outreach programs.
State agencies, nonprofit
agencies, universities,
water research institutes,
Indian tribes.
Allocation Method/
Conditions/ Limitations
Regional allocation.
Competition within Region.
50% match of the requested
Federal amount.
Eligible Activities
(Examples)
Intended lo encourage the
establishment or enhancement of
stale small community outreach
programs.
Funding
Available 1
(f Million)
FY-93 0.2
FY-92 0.0
FY-91 0.15
Safe Drinking Water Act .
Section To cany out public water
1443(aXO system supervision
Public Water programs.
System State agencies, Indian
Supervision tribes.
166.432]
Section 1443(b) To carry out underground
Underground injection control program.
Injection State agencies, Indian
Control tribes.
[66.433]
Section 1442(b) Demonstration projects
Wellhead aimed at assisting
Protection municipalities to design
(WHP) anc' implement a wellhead
protection program.
Municipalities, as defined
under the SDWA.
meaning cities, towns, or
other public bodies
created by or pursuant to
state law, or Indian tribes.
State targets determined by
national formula.
Stales must have primacy.
25% match required.
State targets determined by
national formula.
States must have primacy.
25% match required.
Regional allocation.
Competitive process within
Region.
5% match required.
Public water system supervision;
slate drinking water programs
(program costs, technical
assistance, lab capability.
enforcement, data management).
Underground injection control
programs (program costs.
inventories, data management.
technical assistance).
Delineation of WHP areas;
identifying sources of
contamination; public education;
development of ordinances for
WHP; WHP contamination source
surveys; CIS mapping of WHP
areas
FY-93 58.9
FY-92 50.0
FY-91 47.8
FY-93 10.5
FY-92 10.5
FY-91 10.5
FY-93 0.0
FY-92 1.5
FY-91 1.5
-------
For more information on EPA's involvement in watershed activities in your area, contact the
appropriate Regional contact listed below.
Region 1
(ME, NH. VT, MA, Rl. CT)
BillNuzzo (617)565-3480
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Region 2
(NY. NJ, PR, VI)
RickBalla (212)264-5671
Janice Rollwagen (National
Estuary Programs) (212) 264-5170
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 10278
Region 3
(DE,DC.MD,PA,VA,WV)
VickiBmetti (215)597-6511
RichPepino (215)597-1181
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Region 4
(AL. FL, GA. KY. MS. NC. SC. TN)
Meredith Anderson (404)347-2126
Charles Sweart (205) 386-2614
U.S. EPA. Region 4
345 Courtland Street. NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Region 5
(IL, IN. MI, MN, OH, WI)
DougEhom (312)886-0243
U.S. EPA, Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Region 6
(AR.LA.NM.OK.TX)
Russell Bowert (214)655-7140
Beverly Ethridge (214)655-2263
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
Region 7
(IO. KS, MO, NE)
Larry Ferguson (913)551-7447
Kerry Hemdon (913) 551-7286
Donna Sefton (913) 551 -7500
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
RegionS
(CO, MT, ND, SD. UT. WY)
Bill Wuerthele (303)293-1586
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver. CO 80202-1603
Region 9
-(AZ,CA.HI.NV.GU,AS)
Ca'tKuhlman (415)744-2001
U.S. EPA. Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Region 10
(AK. ID, OR, WA)
John Armstrong (206) 553-1368
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle. WA 98101
For general information on EPA's watershed protection approach, contact:
Policy and Communications Staff
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
» Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-9108
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
ACT and AFC RIVER BASINS
VOLUME I
PLAN OF STUDY
MAIN REPORT
-------
ft
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA AND
APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT
RIVER BASINS
VOLUME I
PLAN OF STUDY-
MAIN REPORT
Prepared By:
THE
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
TECHNICAL COORDINATION GROUP
JANUARY 1992
REPRINT FEBRUARY 199A
III
-------
>> COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES STUDY
ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA / APALACHICOUV-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASINS
December 18, 1991
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
The States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, hereby adopt the attached Plan of Study as the general
guide for the Comprehensive Study of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa
and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins. The attached
Plan of Study represents a consensus of the partners. It
incorporates, or addresses in Appendix A, verbal and written
comments received during July and August, 1991.
The Plan of Study will serve as the basis for preparing detailed
scopes of work for the Comprehensive Study. The states and the
Corps, as partners, hereby reaffirm their commitment to the study
process.
We appreciate your interest in the water resources within the
Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
Basins and look forward to continued public involvement as work
commences on the detailed scoping and specific studies for the
Comprehensive Study.
Ala
Florida
Guy Hufet, Governor
LawtorrThiles/
Georgia
D. S. Corps of Engineers
Army Engineers, Mobile
Zell Miller, Governor
Michael Thuss, District Engineer
ALABAMA
Alabama Department of Economic
end Community Affairs
f 0 Bo. 5690
. AL 36103-5690
FEDERAL
US Army Engineer District. Mobile
P O Boi 2?8«
Mobile. AL 36628
FLORIDA
Department ol Environmental Regulations
2600 Blair Stona Rd.
Tallahassee. FL 32399-2400
GEORGIA
Department ol Natural Resources
205 Butler Si. SE
Atlanta. GA 30334
-------
JANUARY 1992
FLAM OF STUDY
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA AND
APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT
RIVER BASINS
Prepared By:
ALABAMA, FLORIDA, GEORGIA
'and the
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLAN OF STUDY
FOR TEE
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
Z. PURPOSE OF THE FLAM OF STUDY
A. Background.
Recent proposals to develop water resource projects and to
revise operating practices in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint (ACF) and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basins
have created controversy between water user groups, the states
and various federal agencies. To address these issues, Congress
has funded a Comprehensive Study to develop the needed basin and
water resource data and recommend an interstate mechanism for
resolving issues.
B. Comprehensive Study.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Study is to determine the
capabilities of the water resources, to describe the water
resource demands of the basins, and to evaluate alternatives
which utilize the water resources to benefit all user groups
within the basins.
II. STUDY AREA DEFINITION
The area for the Comprehensive Study is defined as the
combined basins of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River systems and
the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River systems. The area
covers approximately 42,400 square miles and includes portions of
the States of Alabama, Georgia^Florida, and Tennessee.
III. STUDY MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Study Management.
The multi-level study management organization includes work
groups composed of representatives of Alabama, Florida, Georgia
and the Corps. The principal parties are equal partners in the
study and are responsible for the overall management of the study
process.
B. Coordination Structure.
The formal coordination structure proposed for the
Comprehensive Study process is shown in Figure 4 of this Plan of
Study. Descriptions of each group in the coordination structure
follow.
-------
1. Executive Coordination Committee. The Executive
Coordination Committee (ECC) vill be composed of four members:
the Mobile District Engineer and one designee of each of the
Governors of Alabama, Florida and Georgia. The purpose of the
ECC is to define the vater resources issues to be reviewed in the
study and to manage the overall study effort within each basin.
2, Technical Coordination Group. The Technical
Coordination Group (TCG) will be composed of four members. Each
member of the Executive Coordination Committee vill designate one
representative to serve on the TCG. The purpose of the TCG is to
provide interstate and intrastate coordination for the study
process, recommend the technical content and direction of the
study, and oversee the worX that is performed.
3. Legal support Group. The Legal Support Group (LSG)
will be composed of four representatives. The purpose of the LSG
is to provide legal expertise in support of the study effort.
4. Technical Review Panels. Each Technical Review
Panels (TRP) will be jointly selected, as needed, by the
Technical Coordination Group and will be subject to approval by
the Executive Coordination Committee. The purpose of the TRP
will be to provide peer review of technical analyses and products
produced by the study.
5. Technical support Groups. Each state or federal
Technical support Group (TSG) will consist of agencies and
organizations, public or private, designated by the respective
members of the Executive Coordination Committee. The purpose of
the TSG shall be to provide technical support during the study
process.
«. ^nterest Groups. Interest groups are shown in the
management structure to indTcate that representatives of local
governments, private industry, special interest groups and
citizens shall have access to the study process. Participation
of interest groups is intended to provide groups and individuals
with diverse water resources concerns an opportunity to
participate in the development and conduct of the study.
C. Public Involvement.
The public involvement program for the Comprehensive Study
will include coordination with the interest groups and the
general public within the basins. Public involvement efforts
will involve a wide range of agencies, interest groups,
organizations and the general public.
ES-2
-------
ZV. STUDY ELEMENTS
A. Introduction.
The study elements are grouped into three major categories
reflecting the areas of emphasis. The categories are: Water
Demand, .Water Resources Availability and Comprehensive Management
Strategy.
B. Water Demand.
This section of the Plan of Study presents study elements
for the water demand portion of the Comprehensive Study. The
purpose of the water demand section is to identify, describe and
quantify all water demands within the basins. Water demands
shall include both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of
groundwater and surface water, including reservoirs. The water
demand elements described in this section are as follows.
o Agriculture Demand; Describe and quantify the existing
and projected agricultural demand on the water
resources within the ACT and ACF River Basins.
o Apalachicola River and Bay; Improve knowledge of the
bay and riverine system in order to describe: (1) the
freshwater and nutrient requirements of Apalachicola
River and Bay necessary to maintain historic
productivity and diversity in the system; and (2) the
linkage and correlation between the riverine conditions
and estuarine productivity.
o Environment: Determine significant, water related
environmental needs-of the basins and describe
environmental effects'caused by changes in the existing
water management system.
o Hvdropower Demand; Describe and quantify the existing
capacity and operational procedures for hydroelectric
power facilities within the ACT and ACF Basins.
o Industrial Demand: Describe and quantify the existing
industrial water demand within the ACT and ACF Basins
and project industrial water needs through the planning
period.
o Municipal Water Demand; Describe and quantify the
existing municipal water demand within the basins and
project municipal water demand through the planning
period. Municipal demand includes all uses with the
exception of industrial, agricultural and instream
uses.
ES-3
-------
o Navigation Demand; Describe and quantify the existing
and projected demand for navigation use and determine
the effects of varying flow conditions on commercial
navigation in the basins.
o Recreation Demand; Describe and quantify the existing
and projected recreational demand on the water
resources within the basins.
o Waste Assimilation Demand; Describe and quantify the
existing and projected waste assimilation demand on
water resources within the ACT and ACF Basins.
C. Water Seaourcea Availability.
Water resources availability will examine the factors that
influence .the availability of water resources in the basins
through a review and analysis of climatology, physiography,
geology and existing groundwater and surface water resources,
including reservoirs, and the interaction between groundwater and
surface water resources. The following study elements are
included in this section.
o Groundvater Supply;. Determine the existing and
potential future availability and quality of
groundwater resources within the basins.
o Surface Hater Supply; Determine the existing and
potential future availability and quality of surface
water resources within the basins.
D. Comprehensive Management Strategy.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Management Strategy is to
provide information with which to make informed decisions
regarding the water resources within the basins. The
Comprehensive Management Strategy study element includes two
major components:
o Basinwide Management Program; Develop a range of water
management strategies to guide future water management
decisions in the basins.
o Institutional Framework and Coordination Mechanism;
Analyze the existing institutional framework and
recommend a coordination mechanism for the future
management of water resources in the basins.
ES-4
-------
PLAN OF BTDDY
FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
ALABAKA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA AMD
APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCEEE-FLINT
RIVER BASIHS
TABLE 07 CONTENTS
Section gage
I. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN OF STUDY 1
A. Background 1
B. Comprehensive Study 1
C. Plan of Study 2
II. STUDY AREA DEFINITION 3
A. General 3
B. ftlabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin 3
C. Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin 6
III. STUDY MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . 8
A. Study Management 8
B. Coordination Structure. 8
1. Executive Coordination Committee 8
2. Technical Coordination Group 11
3. Legal Support Group 12
4. Technical Review Panels 13
5. Technical Support Groups 13
6. Interest Groups 14
C. Public Involvement 15
IV. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 15
A. Introduction 15
B. Study Goal 15
-------
PLAN OF 8TDDY
FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA AND
APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT
RIVER BABINS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
C. Study Objectives 16
1. Water Demand Objective 16
2. Water Resources Availability Objective 16
3. Comprehensive Management Strategy Objective ... 16
4. Coordination Mechanism Objective 17
V. STUDY ELEMENTS 17
A. Introduction 17
B. Databases and Models 17
C. Study Element Format' 18
D. Water Demand 19
1. Agriculture Demand 21
2. Apalachicola River and Bay 23
3. Environmental Demand 25
4. Hydropover Demand 27
5. Industrial Demand ...«««««««« 30
6. Municipal Water Demand 32
7. Navigation Demand 33
B. Recreation Demand 35
9. Waste Assimilation Demand 37
ii
-------
PLAN OF 6TUDY
FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE 6TDDY
ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA AND
APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT
RIVER BASINS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section
E. Water Resources Availability
1. Groundwater Supply
2. Surface Water Supply ........
F. Comprehensive Management Strategy
1. Basinwide Management Program
2.
Institutional Framework and
Coordination Mechanism ..,
Page
. 39
. 40
. 41
. 43
. 44
. 47
APPENDIX A - PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSE
Figure
1
2
3
4
LIST OF FIGURES
Study Area Map
Alabana-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin
Study Management Organization
Page
4
5
7
9
iii
-------
Z. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN OF STUDY
A. Background
Recent proposals to develop water resource projects and to
revise operating practices in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint (ACF) and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basins
have created controversy between water user groups, the states
and various federal agencies. Public responses to various
reallocation proposals by the Corps of Engineers were concerned
with projected impacts to reservoir levels and downstream flows,
interbasin transfers, cumulative impacts from water withdrawals,
water quality, and concerns over the adequacy of environmental
protection. These concerns center on relationships among various
uses and a multitude of users. They are indicative of existing
water resource problems which are anticipated to become more
intense in the future. As a result, widespread concern has been
expressed regarding the need to properly manage the water
resources so that regional economies may continue to be supported
within the bounds of the environmental conditions that exist
within the river systems.
To address these issues, congress has funded a Comprehensive
Study to develop the needed basin and water resource data and
recommend an interstate mechanism for resolving issues. Such a
mechanism would allow the water resources to be managed from a
basin- wide context.
A draft Plan of Study was prepared and furnished to the
public for review in July 1991. A series of 11 public meetings
was held in Alabama, Florida and Georgia from the end of July
1991 through the end of August ""19.91. The purposes of these
meetings were to inform the public about the Comprehensive Study,
to solicit comments on the draft Plan of Study and to identify
water resource issues and concerns to be addressed by the study.
Comments received at the public meetings and written comments
pertaining to the Comprehensive Study are summarized in Appendix
A to this Plan of Study. These comments will be utilized in
developing detailed scopes of work for the analyses to be
conducted in the Comprehensive Study.
B. Comprehensive Study
The purpose of the Comprehensive Study is to determine the
capabilities of the water resources, to describe the water
resource demands of the basins, and to evaluate alternatives
which utilize the water resources to benefit all user groups
within the basins. The Comprehensive Study will focus on
providing a good technical understanding of the water resources
in the basins and defining alternatives. Needs and potential
solutions will be identified through the year 2050. Initial
study efforts will concentrate on the basins individually so that
separable concerns can be more effectively addressed. Subsequent
-------
efforts will consider interrelationships between the two basins
BO that cumulative impacts and region-vide problems, needs, and
opportunities can be thoroughly addressed.
The overall completion schedule for the Comprehensive Study
has been estimated to take three to five years, but is contingent
on the 'availability of Federal and State funding. The total
study effort is estimated to cost between $3.0 and $5.0 million.
The states and the Corps have agreed that this program is
important to the region and that all reasonable efforts will be
made to expedite the completion of the Comprehensive Study.
C. Plan ef Btudv
This Plan of Study has been prepared for the Comprehensive
Study of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) and the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basins. The purpose of the Plan
of Study is to describe the methods by which the technical
analyses, other study products, and the coordination of the study
will be accomplished. This Plan of Study presents:
The geographic coverage of the study, which may be
divided into subareas at a later date, if appropriate;
A description of the study management structure;
One goal and four objectives for the Comprehensive
Study;
A general description of the tasks to be performed;
A general description of the results to be attained by
each study element;
An indication of study task sequencing to indicate
which tasks need to be accomplished to make information
available for other required studies.
Following approval of this conceptual Plan of Study a
detailed work plan will be developed. The detailed work plan
will include:
Specific scopes of work for the study elements which
will be based on the tasks identified in this Plan of
Study.
A realistic schedule for conducting the Comprehensive
Study.
A preliminary estimate of study costs.
-------
ZZ. STUDY AREA DEPZNZTZON
A. General
The area for the Comprehensive Study is defined as the
combined basins of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River systems and
the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River systems. The area
covers approximately 42,400 square Biles and includes portions of
the States of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee, as shown
in Figure 1.
B. Alabama-ceosa-Tallapeesa Rivor Basia
The Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin extends about 320
miles from northwest Georgia and a very small portion of
southeast Tennessee diagonally across Alabama to near the
southwest corner of Alabama. The total area of the drainage
basin is 22,800 square miles. The main rivers of the
Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Basin are the Coosa, Tallapoosa, and
Alabama. Figure 2 contains the major features within the basin.
The Coosa River, formed by the Oostanaula and Etovah Rivers
which drain northwestern Georgia, begins at Rome, Georgia. From
Rone, the Coosa River flows west into Alabama, and then swings
southward to Wetumpka, where it joins the Tallapoosa to form the
Alabama River. The length of the main stem of the Coosa River is
286 miles. The Coosa River Basin is highly developed with both
Federal and private dams operated by the Corps of Engineers and
Alabama Power Company. The Coosa River is fed by a number of
smaller rivers in Georgia, two of which are the sites of large
Corps reservoirs (Carters and Allatoona lakes).
The Tallapoosa River begins in Georgia about 40 miles west
of Atlanta and flows southwesterly through hilly terrain for
about 45 miles before entering Alabama. After leaving Georgia,
it continues to flow southwesterly for about 150 miles, then
westerly for about 40 miles to its junction with the Coosa River.
The length of the main stem of the Tallapoosa River is 235 miles.
Four Alabama Power Company dams form lakes for about 33 miles
above Tallassee.
The Alabama River meanders southwest from its source at the
confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers near Wetumpka for
about 15 miles to Montgomery, then in a generally westward
direction for about 85 miles to Selma, Alabama then southwest for
about 215 miles to its junction with the Tombigbee River to form
the Mobile River near Calvert, Alabama about 45 river miles above
Mobile, Alabama and Mobile Bay. The length of the main stem of
the Alabama River is about 315 miles. Three Corps dams on the
river create a series of lakes extending from near Claiborne,
-------
DAM
ALABAMA COOSA-
TALLAPOOSA BASIN
m
«
I
c
n
ft*
OCX *' DA
M1IJJWS
WOODKUW
/.OCK A DAM
APALACHFCOLA -
CHATTAHOOCHEB
FLINT BASIN
GA
cur.*'
-------
COOSA RIVER*
HINMINRHAM
CAHABA
RIVER
TALLAPOOSA
RIVER
ALABAMA
RIVER
MOHII
c
n
n
rs)
MTFCHKI.
DAM
WAI.TKK
BOULDL
M
'TERS
LAKE
COOSAWATTKK
RIVKK
WAH KIVKR
'ALLATOONA LAKE
AND DAM
1MKKT
'I0CK * DAM '
nautr
IjOCK A DAM
TCLAIBONNK
'LOCK A DAM/
ICUUBOMMI
ALABAMA- COOSA-TALLAPOOSA RIVER BASIN
ALABAMA AND GEORGIA
-------
about 82 miles above the mouth, to the vicinity of Wetumpka on
the Coosa River.
C. Apalacbicola-Chattahooehac-Plint River Basin
The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River System drains an
area of 19,600 square miles, of which 6,770 square miles lie
along the Chattahoochee arm and 8,460 square miles along the
Flint River arm, with the remaining 2,370 square miles along the
Apalachicola River below the confluence of the Chattahoochee and
Flint rivers. Figure 3 contains the major features within the
basin.
The Chattahoochee River flows southwesterly from the Blue
Ridge Mountains in northeast Georgia for 120 miles, then
southerly for 200 miles, forming the boundary between Georgia and
Alabama and between Georgia and a small portion of Florida. At
the transition zone between the coastal plains and the upland
plateau of the central part of Georgia, the Chattahoochee falls
about 375 feet. The length of the main stem of the Chattahoochee
River is 320 miles.
The drainage area of the Flint River is in west central and
southwest Georgia, encompassing all or portions of 42 counties.
The river originates south of Atlanta in Fulton and Clayton
counties in the Piedmont province. Zt flows southerly in a wide
eastward arc, crosses the fall line into the upper Coastal Plain,
and terminates in Lake Seminole at the juncture of the
Chattahoochee and Apalachicola rivers. Two existing reservoirs
along the Flint River have.very little storage capacity and are
operated generally as run-of-tne-river reservoirs. The length of
the main stem of the Flint River is 349 miles.
The main stem of the Apalachicola River is 108 miles. It
flows southerly across northwest Florida from the vicinity of the
Georgia line to the Gulf. It is formed by the junction of the
Chattahoochee and Flint rivers in the southwest corner of
Georgia, and its terminus is in Apalachicola Bay in the northwest
portion of Florida. For the purpose of the Comprehensive Study,
the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint River Basin will consist of
the watershed described above and will also include Apalachicola
Bay, East Bay, St. Vincent Sound and St. George Sound, Tates Hell
Swamp and Lake Wimico.
-------
AI.
AI'ALACIIICOLA CIIATTAIIOOCMKE - FLINT
RIVER BASIN \
ALABAMA, GEORGIA AND FLOR^IA
n
YKtJLOW JACKKT CM
WEST POINT LAKE
LANGDAUi DAM
K1VKKVIKW DAM
tfAMJfT JL-7-v<7 A*Xr'A/JLF VltAM
/'An / f+f» / / > /^/i/»/» » MS^/n
GOAT KOCK VIA,
cirr
KAciJi- naonx DAH
CltATTAHOOCHKK KIVKH-
WALTER F. GBORGB; fOCK & DAM
GEORGE W. ANDREWS LOCK &
AI*
PL"
03
C
"I
Ul
HWOKD UA
HOnWMJ
OUVKH DAM
HIGHTA
'LAKE SFPNKY LAWER
HJNT KtVKH
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK A DAM GA
Fl,
AI'AtAOaCOLA H4T
AHAIJWMOOIA^
Af'AI.ACHICO/^
CIIANNKIS
GULF OF MEXICO
-------
III. STUDY MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Study Management
This section of the Plan of Study presents information
related to managing the study and public involvement. The formal
study management structure includes work groups composed of
representatives of Alabama, Florida, Georgia and the Corps.
These four entities are referred to as the "principal parties" in
the following sections. The principal parties shall be equal
partners in the study and shall be responsible for the overall
management of the study process including, but not limited to,
establishing .policies, reviewing and overseeing technical and
legal analyses, developing budgets and financial plans, reviewing
and approving contracts and agreements, and developing
recommendations for the implementation of the study's findings.
Following the completion of this Plan of Study, the
principal parties shall develop detailed scopes of work for the
elements of the Comprehensive Study. For each element in which
one or more of the states desire to participate fully in the
development, implementation, and management, the Corps and such
state or states shall enter into an appropriate cost sharing
arrangement. The Corps shall -maintain its authority under
federal law with respect to any element of the Comprehensive
Study to be funded wholly with federal funds.
The public involvement process is to provide a means for two
way communication between the public and the principal parties.
First, the process will enable citizens and interest groups to
make their views known about the issues to be studied. Second,
the process will inform the-public about the progress and results
of the study components.
8. Coordination Structure
The coordination structure for the Comprehensive Study has
been built on the "Interstate Coordinating Committee*1, a formal
coordination mechanism which has been in place within the ACF
Basin for several years, and the cooperative procedures which
currently exist between the principal parties. The formal
coordination structure proposed for the Comprehensive Study
process is shown in .Figure 4. Descriptions of each group in the
coordination structure follow.
1. Executive Coordination Cog<*|i'tt66.
Composition; The Executive Coordination Committee (ECC) will
be composed of four members: the Mobile District Engineer and one
designee of each of the Governors of Alabama, Florida and
-------
STUDY MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
I
TECHNICAL
REVIEW
PANEL
EXECUTIVE
COORDINATING
COMMITTEE
(AL.R..CA,COE)
TECHNICAL
COORDINATING
GROUP
LEGAL
SUPPORT
GROUP
INTEREST
GROUPS
TECHNICAL
SUPPORT
GROUP
(ALABAMA)
TECHNICAL
SUPPORT
GROUP
(FLORIDA)
[
TECHNICAL
SUPPORT
GROUP
(GEORGIA)
TECHNICAL
SUPPORT
GROUP
(COE)
-------
and Responsibilities; The purpose of the ECC is to
ter resources issues to be reviewed in the study and
overall study effort within each basin. In
rving as a member, the Mobile District Engineer
records of the ECC.
The ECC will have the responsibilities to:
Establish or- approve all policy natters related to the
study;
Provide direct oversight and management of the study
process including technical scopes of work prepared by
the Technical Coordination Group and task assignments
to the Legal Support Group and other committees;
Approve the appointments of Technical Review Panels;
Receive reports, on a quarterly basis, from the Corps
of Engineers and the Technical Coordination Group
indicating all previous quarter expenses to be charged
against the budget for the study and all projected
expenses to be charged against the budget for the study
during the next quarter;
Adopt annual and total study budgets prepared by the
Technical Coordination Group;
Approve all contracts or other agreements for the
performance of work under the study;
Adopt a "ConflicOlesolution Plan" for resolving issues
related to the Comprehensive Study and provide issue
resolution for matters not otherwise resolved;
Report annually to Congress and the Governors;
Approve and coordinate the design and implementation of
the study coordinating mechanism; and
Negotiate agreements between or among the states and
the Corps.
function: The ECC will meet on a quarterly basis. Special
meetings may be called upon request of one of the principal
parties by notification to all other parties and shall be
scheduled within two (2) weeks of the notification. Other
committees shall report to the ECC at regular meetings of the
ECC.
10
-------
2. Technical Coordination Group.
Composition: The Technical Coordination Group (TCG) will be
composed of four members. Each member of the Executive
Coordination Committee will designate one representative to serve
on the TCG. Each representative on the TCG will be 'allowed to
bring other persons to meetings to serve in an advisory capacity.
Purpose and Responsibilities: The purpose of the TCG is -to
provide interstate and intrastate coordination for the study
process, recommend the technical content and direction of the
study, and oversee the work that is performed.
The TCG shall have the responsibilities to:
Report quarterly to the Executive Coordination
Committee on the progress of each task assigned to, or
to be performed by, the TCG;
Provide technical direction for the Comprehensive Study
by:
- Identifying water resource issues to be studied
and establishing the priority, budget and schedule
for each study element;
- Determining the types of analyses to be performed,
the methodologies to be employed, and the
geographic areas to be analyzed;
- Developing and implementing technical scopes of
work for the study elements;
- Developing, for Executive Coordination Committee
approval, annual and total study budgets;
- Recommending, for Executive Coordination Committee
approval, the entities to perform, and the
compensation for, any work to be done; and
- Reviewing, coordinating and synthesizing technical
products;
Coordinate the Comprehensive Study process by:
- Coordinating with the respective Technical Support
Groups;
- Working with the Legal Support Group on legal
issues related to the study;
11
-------
- Recommending for approval'by the Executive
Coordination Committee! when necessary, the
formation, membership and budget of Technical
Review Panels;
- Identifying and appointing special task groups to
perform specific tasks in support of the study;
and
- Receiving reports from Technical Review Panels and
special task groups;
Prepare a "Conflict Resolution Plan" to resolve issues
related to the Comprehensive Study and submit it to the
Executive Coordination Committee for adoption;
Resolve technical issues, and when not resolvable by
the TCG, refer such issues to the Executive
Coordination Committee; and
Design and implement a public involvement program.
Function; The TCG will meet at frequent intervals during the
preparation of the Comprehensive Study* It is anticipated that
monthly meetings will be necessary to maintain interstate
coordination.
3. Legal Support Croup.
Composition; The Legal Support Group (LSG) will be composed
of four representatives. One member of the LSG will be appointed
by each of the members of the Executive coordination Committee.
Each representative on the LSG is allowed to bring other persons
to meetings to serve in an advisory capacity.
Purpose and Responsibilities: The purpose of the LSG is to
provide legal expertise in support of the study effort. At the
request or direction of the Executive Coordination Committee or
the Technical Coordination Group, members of the LSG, consistent
with the representation of their respective principals, shall
cooperate for the purpose of identifying and developing
positions, strategies and agreements which will facilitate
progress of the study.
The LSG will have the responsibilities to:
Recommend necessary studies to the Technical
Coordination Group;
Review information and recommendations produced by the
study from a legal standpoint; and
12
-------
Develop agreements between the states and, where
appropriate, the Corps.
Function: The LSG will work and meet as authorized by, or at
the request of, the Executive Coordination Committee. The LSG
Bay aeet.as an independent group or with other groups formed as
part of the study management structure. Expenses incurred by the
LSG shall be paid by the respective principal parties as a part
of their study support. No expenses of the LSG shall be charged
to the study project unless authorized by the Executive
Coordination Committee. Participation in the LSG shall not waive
or eliminate the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work
product doctrine applicable to a principal party and the members
of the LSG appointed by such party.
4. Technical Review Panels.
Composition! Technical Review Panels (TRPs) will be jointly
selected, as needed, by representatives of the Technical
Coordination Group and will be subject to approval by the
Executive Coordination Committee. The TRPs shall consist of an
odd number of impartial individuals with nationally or regionally
recognized expertise and experience in legal and/or technical
fields relating to comprehensive water resources planning and
management. The Technical Coordination Group, in making
recommendations to the Executive Coordination Committee, shall
assure that appropriate areas of expertise are represented on the
individual TRPs.
Purpose and Responsibilities; The purpose of the TRPs will
be to provide peer review of technical analyses and products
produced by the study. Each TRP' will have the general
responsibility to advise and assist the Executive Coordination
Committee or Technical Coordination Group regarding any issue(s)
referred to such panel.
Function: The TRPs will review technical products and legal
analyses to resolve technical or legal issues and meet with the
Executive Coordination Committee or other committees as
appropriate. The expenses of each TRP shall be paid from the
funds appropriated for the study.
5. Technical Support Groups.
Composition: Each state or federal Technical Support Group
(TSG) will consist of agencies and organizations, public or
private, designated by the respective members of the Technical
Coordination Group.
13
-------
Purpose and Responsibilities! The purpose of the TSGs shall
be to support the respective principal party during the study
process. The TSGs will actively participate in the study effort
and have the responsibilities to:
Recommend necessary studies to the Technical
Coordination Group;
Provide input into the technical scopes of work;
Furnish technical data;
Perform technical analyses;
Recommend potential solutions to issues addressed in
the study; and
Review technical data and analyses produced for the
study.
Function; The TSGs shall meet at the request of the
respective representatives of either the Executive Coordination
Committee or Technical Coordination Group. No expenses shall be
charged to the federal portion of the study project unless
authorized by the Executive Coordination Committee. The TSGs may
communicate through their respective representatives and at
public meetings or workshops conducted during the study.
6. interest Groups.
Composition; Interest groups are shown in the management
structure to indicate that representatives of local governments,
private industry* special interest groups and citizens shall have
access to the study process.
Purpose and Responsibility; Participation of interest groups
is intended to provide groups and individuals with diverse water
resources concerns an opportunity to participate in the
development and conduct of the study.
Function; Interest groups will have the opportunity to
communicate through the respective Technical Support Groups/
representatives on the Technical Coordination Group and the
Executive Coordination Committee, and through public meetings and
workshops conducted during the study process.
14
-------
C. Public Involvement.
The public involvement program for the Comprehensive study
will include coordination with the interest groups and the
general public within the basins. Public involvement efforts
will involve a wide range of agencies, interest groups,
organizations and the general public. The objectives of the
public involvement program are to:
Involve interested persons within each state and basin
in the development of the Plan of Study and the
comprehensive basin planning process;
a Obtain views and concerns from interest groups and the
general public by holding public meetings and workshops
to receive comments and identify issues during the
study;
Provide reports and solicit comments from interested
persons regarding the results of technical
investigations and other aspects of the study.
Prepare and distribute news releases and secure media
coverage during the study.
IV. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
A. Introduction
This section of the Plan of Study presents the goal of the
Comprehensive Study and four oETJ-ectives related to the major
areas of emphasis within the study. Qualifying statements follow
each objective to clarify the meaning and assist in
interpretation. Later, each objective is further refined by the
specific study element objectives.
B. Btudv Goal
The goal of the Comprehensive Study is to:
Develop relevant technical information, strategies and
plans and recommend a formal coordination mechanism for
the long term, basinwide management and use of the water
resources to meet the environmental, public health, and
economic needs of the basins.
15
-------
Objectives
! Water Demand Objective.
Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the demands for water
resources in both basins.
"Comprehensive assessment* shall include historic,
present and reasonably foreseeable future demands.
Historic shall mean the period of record. Future
demands shall be projected, when appropriate, for the
years 1995, 2000, 2010, 2020 and 2050.
"Demands" shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to, both instream and out-of-stream uses such as:
agriculture; environmental quality (including water
quality, riverine, estuarine and terrestrial wildlife
and habitat, wetlands and special natural resources
such as the freshwater needs of Apalachicola Bay];
industrial; navigation; power generation; recreation;
waste assimilation; and municipal water supply.
"Hater resources" shall mean both surface water,
including reservoirs, and ground water.
2. Water Resources Availability Ob-teetive.
Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the historic and
present availability of water resources in both basins.
"Comprehensive assessment" shall include the influence
of the climate andfpertinent physiographic factors such
as topography and geology.
e "Availability of water resources" shall mean both
surface water, including reservoirs, and ground water.
3. Comprehensive Management Strategy Objective.
Develop implement able strategies for the planning period for
the basins to guide water management decisions for a full range
of hydrologic conditions.
"Implementable strategies" shall consider: (a) methods
to influence water availability; (b) interbasin
transfers, (c) water conservation measures, and (d)
other water management practices.
16
-------
"Planning period" shall mean from now through the year
2050 and shall be projected, when appropriate, for the
years 1995, 2000, 2010, 2020 and 2050.
"Water management decisions" are to consider the
impacts of existing water resource commitments, the
.institutional framework, and a cumulative assessment of
actions within the basins, and be aware of the local,
regional and national perspectives.
o "Full range of hydrologic conditions" shall include the
continuum from floods to droughts.
4. Coordination Mechanism
Recommend a permanent coordination mechanism for the
implementation of comprehensive management strategies.
V. STUDY ELEMENTS
A. Introduction
This section of the Plan of Study presents the study
elements that are contemplated for inclusion in the Comprehensive
Study. The study elements are grouped into three major
categories reflecting the areas of emphasis and relating to the
study objectives. The sections presented are:
Water Demand
Water Resources Availability
Comprehensive Management Strategy
B. Databases and Models
Various resources, such as databases, models and existing
reports, are available for use in developing the Comprehensive
Study. Some of these resources are to be located by specific
inventory tasks included in this Plan of Study. One of the
responsibilities of the study managers will be the review of the
available resources to determine their suitability for inclusion
in the study process.
The databases which are available for use in the study
process are maintained by several different agencies and vary in
content and format. The data from existing sources may be
incomplete, in terms of the purposes for which it will be used in
17
-------
the study, and occasionally nay be conflicting, in addition,
much of the data to be gathered during the study process will
overlap many tasks and study elements.
To minimize data related problems a "Comprehensive Study
database" will be established to provide a uniform source of data
for all study participants. Inventories which independently
produce data will be coordinated with the database requirements.
Although a single repository nay be established, the databases
will be accessible to all parties and may potentially be copied.
To establish the Comprehensive Study database, the Technical
Coordination Group will select or direct the development of the
database system to be used, 'determine the data to be entered, and
oversee the maintenance of the database during the course of the
study.
There are numerous models available which will be considered
for use in the study process. One task in the Plan of Study
specifically addresses inventorying the methods of analyses that
are available. Ideally, a single model would incorporate all the
variables and show how decisions with respect to one point in the
study area would effect the total system and describe the impacts
to the socio-economic system. It is highly probable that such a
state-of-the-art model may not exist and will not be available
during the initial study period.
To address this situation a series of models may be used.
The models may be linked so that the output from one becomes
input for another. Or, the models may be integrated by actually
combining two or more models. Decision matrices will be used to
supplement quantitative models where appropriate.
c. Study Element Format
Each study element is described using a uniform format which
is described below.
Study Objective
Each study element has a study objective that directly
relates to a major area of emphasis objective and highlights why
the specific study element is being included in the Comprehensive
Study.
Rationale
This portion of the study element provides a limited amount
of background information as justification for the study element.
-------
*Task Description
The task descriptions reflect the types of work that are
anticipated in order to complete the study element. Each task
item, or bullet entry, is envisioned as representing at least one
major component of the overall study element. ' These conceptual
task statements vill be detailed when the full scope of vork is
developed for the study element.
For purposes of the task description the phrase "state,
river basin, stream segment, and county1* is intended as a generic
term to describe both data collection areas and geographic areas
for analysis. The word "state" shall generally be interpreted as
that portion of each state lying within the designated study
area. The tern "stream segment" shall be subject to definition
by the Technical Coordination Group. The term "county" is
generally included because some types of data are normally
available at the county, level.
The task descriptions indicate the general time frame in
which certain elements should be accomplished. The early, middle
and late designations included in parentheses at the end of each
task description is intended as representation of sequencing.
For example, certain inventory tasks nay need to be accomplished
early in the study process to make information available to
facilitate other studies.
Actual work performance schedules will be developed as
detailed scopes of work are developed for each study element.
Along with the detailed scope of work a detailed budget for the
study element will be developed, including total costs and
sources of funding.
End Results
The end results statement briefly describes the product that
is expected to be produced for each study element.
D. Water Demand
This section of the Plan of Study presents study elements
for the water demand portion of the Comprehensive Study. The
purpose of the water demand section is to identify, describe and
quantify all water demands within the basins. Water demands
shall include both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of
groundwater and surface water, including reservoirs.
To do this, the study must singularly and simultaneously
consider all the water demands under a range of conditions, such
as flood, normal, and drought-, seasonal variability, and
appropriate time scales. The water demand elements described in
19
-------
this section are as follows.
Agriculture Demand
Apalachicola River and Bay
Environmental Demand
Hydropover Demand
Industrial Demand
Municipal Hater Demand
Navigation Demand
Recreation Demand
Waste Assimilation Demand
20
-------
1. Agriculture Demand.
Study Element objective
Describe and .quantify the existing and projected
agricultural demand on the water resources within the ACT and ACF
River Basins.
Rationale
Agricultural demand for water is a recognized use of the
water resources of the ACT and ACF Basins. Several thousand
farmers currently use groundwater and surface water resources for
irrigation, aguaculture and stock watering. A considerable
amount of additional land that is suitable for irrigation and
aguaculture is located in these basins and has yet- to be
developed.
Task Description
1 Determine existing agricultural water use (livestock
watering, aguaculture, and crop irrigation) by both
groundwater and surface water sources by state, river
basin, stream segment, and county. Existing irrigation
usage includes number of systems in use, techniques
used, amount of withdrawal capacity, weather patterns,
number of days irrigation systems are operated, crop
types and number of acres irrigated. (Early)
2 Describe agricultural-production rates, both existing
arid projected, within the basins. (Early)
3 Project unconstrained agricultural water demands by
crop types and other agricultural uses by state, basin,
stream, segment, and county, using appropriate
projections and land suitability analysis. (Middle)
4 Recompute agricultural water demands assuming
conservation practices within the agricultural sector,
including costs and mandatory controls, by state,
basin, stream segment, and county. (Middle)
5 Consider alternate sources for agricultural water,
including but not limited to, farm ponds and treated
industrial and municipal discharges. (Middle)
6 Consider alternative crops that could be grown to
reduce the demand for irrigation water. (Middle)
21
-------
End Result!
This study objective will result in a report or analysis
that summarizes the existing and projected agricultural water
needs.
22
-------
2. Apalaehicola River and Bay.
Study Element Objective
Improve knowledge of the bay and riverine system in order to
describe: (1) the freshwater and nutrient requirements of
Apalaehicola River and Bay necessary to maintain historic
productivity and diversity in the system; and (2) the linkage and
correlation between the riverine conditions and estuarine
productivity.
Rationale
The Apalaehicola Estuary serves as an important commercial
fishery for oysters, shrimp and blue crab and as a-breeding and
nursery ground for a .large variety of commercial and recreational
fin fish species. Research in other estuaries has shown that
productivity is directly linked to the delivery of freshwater and
nutrients. The ACF river system acts as the conduit for this
transport. The potential effects of water management practices
throughout the ACF are therefore important components in the
health of the river and bay system. Though there is a known link
between flow and productivity, this relationship is not well
understood.
Task Descriptions
7 e Examine ecological and natural resource
inventory research dealing within the Apalaehicola
River and Bay, including mapping of historic natural
resources. (Early)
8 Examine research from the Apalaehicola River and Bay
system and from other estuaries on freshwater and
nutrient relationships. (Early)
9 Develop a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model for the
Apalaehicola Estuary and lower River (tidal influence)
including an appropriate data acquisition program.
(Middle)
10 Develop ecological and/or water quality models, as
required, and associated data acquisition programs that
directly link results from three-dimensional
hydrodynamic model to examine the time and space
relationships between salinity distribution and
estaurine productivity. (Late)
23
-------
11 Examine localized effects on productivity in the Bay
(i.e., Sikes Cut and local land use issues). (Middle)
12 Determine the physiological and ecological
requirements for maintaining and enhancing the
productivity of the various fisheries, including
oysters, shrimp, fin fishes, plankton and other
biological communities in Apalachicola River and Bay,
to include seasonal flows and a range of salinity
regimes and nutrient transport. Develop an
understanding of the relationships between oysters,
oyster predators and salinity regimes within the Bay
System. (Late)
13 Determine the effects of varying flow regimes on the
water quality and nutrient transport within and from
the wetlands (both freshwater and saltwater) of the
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers. (Middle)
14 Analyze potential changes to the periodicity of
riverine floodplain inundations due to flow alterations
and structural modifications. (Middle)
15 Determine instream flow needs for the fisheries in the
river system including impacts of flow alterations to
cold water refuges used by anadromous fishes. (Middle)
16 Determine nutrient loading and limitations, including
potential of soils, as a basis for understanding
nutrient releases and estimates of loadings to adjacent
water bodies. (Middle) *
17 Examine the link between productivity and fishery data
including commercial and recreational landings.
(Early)
18 Examine ecosystem processes relative to freshwater
inflows. (Late)
End Reaulta
This study element will examine the ecological relationships
that exist in Apalachicola River and Bay. Documents will be
prepared which describe the physical attributes of the estuary,
the relationships between the physical processes and biological
productivity, and the importance of the hydrologic regime to the
ecological stability of the system.
24
-------
3. Environmental Demand.
study Element objective
Determine significant, water related environmental needs of
the basins and describe environmental effects which could be
caused by changes in the existing water management system.
Rationale
There are environmental conditions which could be improved
or harmed through changes in operating procedures (water control
features) or basin management efforts in each basin. Therefore,
the potential environmental effects of water management practices
in the ACT and the ACF River Basins are important to the users of
the water resources.
Many of the reservoirs, rivers and streams within the basins
serve as important sport fisheries and some as commercial
fisheries. The rivers of both basins have a diverse fishery and
serve as nursery habitat for many species of shell and fin fish.
Wetlands and floodplains, archaeological, cultural, and
historical features and resources throughout the basins should be
protected. Additionally, the basins contain several plant and
animal species which are federally listed as threatened or
endangered, are proposed for listing, or are candidates for
listing. Because of this, future changes in flow allocations or
additions of water control structures must take into account
these species and their essential habitats.
Task Descriptions
19 Evaluate water quality data and describe existing water
quality for both surface water and groundwater sources
for each segment of each basin. (Early)
20 Identify historic and present major water quality and
sediment quality problems in the basins and the
identifiable instream and out-of-stream sources of
problems. (Early)
21 Determine existing water quality classifications
throughout the basins (i.e., fishing, swimming,
shellfish propagation, etc.). (Early)
22 Identify significant archaeological, cultural or
historical features which could be affected by changes
in operation of existing water resources projects or
development of new ones. (Kiddle)
25
-------
23 Identify and characterize aquatic and wildlife habitat
needs throughout the basins and locate designated areas
of critical habitats. (Middle)
24 Identify species that are endangered, threatened,
formally proposed candidates for listing, or sinilarly
protected; and identify habitats and status of these
species. (Early)
25 identify historic and present riverine and estaurine
wetlands. (Middle)
26 Determine the effects of the existing and proposed
water management practices on aquatic and wildlife
resources and habitat. (Late)
27 Determine flow regime requirements for maintaining and
enhancing aquatic and wildlife resources and habitat,
including threatened, endangered, or otherwise
protected species. (Early)
28 Analyze potential changes to the periodicity of
riverine floodplain inundations due to flow
alterations. (Middle)
29 Determine instream flow needs for the fisheries in the
river system including impacts of flow alterations to
cold water refuges used by anadromous fishes. (Middle)
30 Develop a method to describe changes to reservoir,
stream, wetland, and estuary aquatic and wildlife
resources from baseline conditions and existing flow
regimes. (Early)
31 Identify appropriate nutrient and sediment transport
monitoring programs. (Middle)
End Resultf
This study element will result in a series of documents that
describe the relationships of riverine, estuarine, and water
related terrestrial wildlife and habitat to water and sediment
quality and the alterations of flow regimes. The element should
also develop a method to quantitatively assess the natural
resource flow requirements.
26
-------
4. Bvdrepower Demand.
Study Element 01^active
Describe and quantify the existing capacity and operational
procedures for hydroelectric power facilities within the ACT and
ACF Basins.
Rationale
Hydropower generation is an important use of the water
resources of the ACT and ACF Basins. Both the quantity of water
released through the generating turbines and the timing of
releases to coincide with peak electricity demand periods are
important to realizing maximum economic benefits from
hydroelectric power generation,. It is also important to maximize
the value of power generated, and to minimize the cost to
purchase power during shortages subject to constraints caused by
other operational objectives.
Hydropower generated by the federal facilities is marketed
by the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) and is a
component of a power grid which includes federal projects in
other basins. Operational changes implemented at federal
projects which impact private generation facilities, or
recommended changes at federally licensed facilities, may also
influence the power grid and are subject to approval by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Taak Description
32 Identify the existing^hydropower facilities and
describe the existing hydroelectric generating
capacity, based on operating procedures at each dam
within the ACT and ACF basins. Determine the turbine
installation dates at all facilities. (Early)
33 Describe the existing hydroelectric generating
contracts with SEPA and other entities, and their
operating procedures, at each dam within the ACT and
ACF basins. (Early)
34 Project the potential improvement of instream water
quality due to replacing existing turbines with
auto-venting turbines in accordance with the expected
replacement schedule, bubble mixing, tailwater
reaeriation devices, direct oxygen injection, and other
methods. This evaluation shall consider the status of
technology, research needs, and reasonable retrofitting
27
-------
costs. Nominal efficiency losses (e.g. 3 to 5%) should
be expressed as a cost for environnental improvement.
(Middle)
35 Obtain the turbine replacement schedules, based on the
life expectancy of existing equipment, and identify
* windows of opportunity' for installing turbines, or
other methods of aeration, which are more efficient or
will improve water quality. (Early)
36 Develop or utilize an existing computer model capable
of determining dependable system capacity for power
generation. (Early)
37 Determine the cost and impact of offsetting lost
dependable capacity at public and private facilities
due to modified operating practices; determine the
national and regional economic development impacts.
This analysis will include consideration of the effects
of changes made within the study area on other
facilities and projects and systems in other basins.
(Middle)
38 Develop a pricing framework where federally licensed
projects can recover on investments for lost capacity
and energy due to physical or operational changes in
the basins. (Kiddle)
39 Examine water management practices which integrate
system hydropower resources and multiple site
requirements placed on individual dams. (Middle)
40 Identify additional~hydropower capability in the basins
at either existing sites or at potential new sites.
(Early)
41 Evaluate the change in dependable capacity (MW) and
associated energy (MWh) that results from modifying
present operating practices. (Middle)
42 Evaluate the headwater benefit requirements and
impacts, as described in Section 10 of the Federal
Power Act, of any structural or operational changes
made in the basins. (Kiddle)
43 Evaluate the impact of not fully using hydropower
capability by determining the increased costs to
customers and the impact on air quality. (Middle)
28
-------
44 Evaluate operational changes in the overall SEPA system
which, by improving its operation, could have the
effect of off-setting lost capacity in the two basins
without significant adverse impacts to other operating
objectives. (Middle)
45 Assess the effects of energy conservation (including'
pricing, mandatory controls and load management),
develop conservation scenarios and recompute energy
needs for the planning period. Evaluate economic
benefits of phased operational modifications to SEPA
system projects as they relate to water supply and
dependable capacity. (Middle)
3Bnd Reaulta
This study element will result in a document that summarizes
the dependable capacity and secondary energy available within the
basins, identifies alternatives, and determines costs and impacts
associated with hydropower as one of several operating
objectives.
29
-------
5. Industrial Demand.
Study Elament objective
Describe and quantify the existing industrial water demand
within the ACT and ACF Basins and project industrial water needs
through the planning period.
Rationale
Industrial water demand includes not only process water for
industrial processes, such as textiles, chemicals, pulp and
paper, but also cooling water and steam for fossil fuel and
nuclear power plants. These industrial demands are recognized
uses of water resources within the basins.
TasX Description
46 Determine existing industrial water demand and locate
withdrawals for both groundwater and surface water
resources by state, basin, stream segment, and county.
(Early)
47 e Determine the foreseeable future water consumption of
industries (e.g. by Standard Industrial
Classifications) and identify low water demand
industries. (Early)
48 e Develop unconstrained industrial water demand
requirements, by state, basin, stream segment, county,
and metropolitan area, if appropriate, using state
projections, industry expectations, OBERS economic
growth projections, and other appropriate methods.
(Middle)
49 Recompute industrial water demand requirements
considering water conservation practices - including
pricing, recirculation, and mandatory controls - and
develop conservation scenarios by state, basin, stream
segment, county, and metropolitan area. (Middle)
50 Consider the development of alternative water sources.
(Middle)
51 Determine which industrial sectors could potentially
use off-stream storage for industrial water supply.
(Middle)
30
-------
Results
This study element will result in a document that summarizes
the industrial water demand needs and alternatives of the ACT and
ACF basins through the year 2050.
31
-------
C. Municipal Water Demand.
Study Element Objective
Describe and quantify the existing municipal water demand
within the basins and project municipal water demand through the
planning period. Municipal demand includes all uses with the
exception of industrial, agricultural and instream uses.
Municipal water uses and demands shall be identified for
residential and commercial sectors.
Rationale
Municipal demand for water supply is a recognized use of the
water resources of the ACT and ACF basins.
Task Description
52 Determine existing municipal water demand and locate
withdrawal facilities for both groundvater and surface
water resources by state, basin, stream segment, and
county. Include at-least annual average, peak day
usage and seasonal variations as appropriate. (Early)
53 Collect and project population using OBERS, BEA, Census
Bureau and other methods for each state, county, basin,
and stream segment through the year 2050. (Early)
54 Develop unconstrained municipal water demand, by state,
basin, stream segment, and county. The unconstrained
municipal water demand requirements will be needed for
at least annual average and peak day demands. (Early)
55 Recompute municipal water demands considering water
conservation practices, including cost, pricing and
mandatory controls, and develop conservation scenarios.
(Middle)
56 Consider the development of alternative water sources
or the use of treated discharges or 'gray water'.
(Middle)
End Results
This study element will result in a report that summarizes
the projected municipal water demands, through the planning
period and assesses the impacts of varying withdrawal rates on
the water resources within the ACT and ACF Basins.
32
-------
7. navigation Demand.
Study Element OtHective
Describe and quantify the existing demand for navigation use
and determine the effects of varying flow conditions on
commercial navigation in the basins.
Rationale
Water-based transportation is a viable alternative for
shipping heavy and/or bulk products such as fuels, ores, grain,
wood products, chemicals and special products. Federal statutes
authorized the construction and maintenance of navigation
projects in both basins.
TasX Description
57 9 Identify and describe the existing navigation features
and major facilities. (Early)
58 Describe the existing status of navigation, including
historic channel availability and usage (trips, tonnage
and commodities) in each basin. (Early)
59 Analyze existing and projected commodity flows,
seasonality of activities, rates and
origins/destinations in the ACT and ACF basins.
(Middle)
60 Analyze and project changes in the cost of shipment in
response to various flow conditions, and considering
alternative means of transportation (rail and truck);
including the consideration of the cost of light
loading during low water periods, cost of delays,
including the non-availability of channel due to low
flow conditions; and cost of inventory controls. The
analysis should include the costs incurred for dredging
and maintenance of the channel and supporting
facilities. (Middle)
61 Evaluate the volume of navigation traffic, historic and
current, and tonnage supportable under reservoir
operations as delineated in the Congressional
legislation and currently supported navigation under
existing operations. (Middle)
33
-------
62
63
64
65
Evaluate alternatives for supplying navigation channel
availability including: operational changes of the
existing system; additional locks and dans; and
increased maintenance dredging. (Middle)
Conduct the scheduled update of the "Navigation
Maintenance Plan" for the ACF, using other funding
sources. (Middle)
Evaluate environmental impacts relative of changes in
the system or system operation designed to improve
navigation. (Middle)
Investigate national and regional economic development
impacts associated with any changes in existing
operational procedures affecting the duration and depth
of channel availability. (Middle)
End Results
This study element will result in documents pertaining to
the water resource requirements and opportunities of the
navigation industry with emphasis on the actual costs and
benefits relative to operation and maintenance of the industry
and facilities under the various flow regimes.
34
-------
8. Recreation Demand.
Study Element Obiactive
Describe and quantify the existing recreational demand on
the water resources within the basins. The focus of recreation
studies in the two basins will be to determine current and future
recreation demand and use of reservoir, river and stream
resources and the extent to which recreation use and the value of
recreation is affected for each incremental unit of water
allocated to competing existing and future uses.
Rationale
The recreational demand for water resources is a recognized
use of the water resources of the ACT and ACF Basins. Large
public and private investments have been made for recreational
uses at many reservoirs and at other locations. Fishing,
boating, water sports and other recreational uses are pervasive
throughout the basins.
Task Description
66 « Identify existing major public and private water-based
outdoor recreation facilities and describe the capacity
and actual use of facilities in each basin. (Early)
67 Describe the existing water-based outdoor recreation
demand (visitation) in each basin. (Early)
68 Develop recreation demand functions which describe the
level and value of recreation for varying reservoir
levels, river flow regimes, and water quality.
(Middle)
69 * Project the impact of shoreline management and aquatic
plant management on recreational uses. (Middle)
70 Consider alternatives, such as the installation of
floating docks, at recreation facilities to maintain
recreation access during low flow periods. (Middle)
71 Measure the national and regional economic development
benefits of recreation within the basins. (Middle)
35
-------
IPa
This study element will result in a document that summarizes
the water-based recreation demands and values within the ACT and
ACF basins, and how those demands and values change with varying
reservoir levels, river flow regimes, and water quality.
36
-------
9. pasta Assimilation Demand.
Study Element Objective
Describe and quantify the existing and projected waste
assimilation demand on water resources by stream segment within
the ACT and ACF Basins.
Rationale
Waste assimilation demand for water resources is a
recognized use of the water resources of the ACT and ACF basins,
and is strongly related to environmental quality and influences
the type of industrial development that may occur in the basins.
Tasfc Description
72 Identify the major point source and storm water
discharges, and describe the characteristics of their
wastevaters. Major dischargers will be defined by EPA
protocols. (Early)
73 o identify major areas of non-point loadings and their
characteristics using readily available information.
(Early)
74 Quantify projected wastewater loadings (Ibs. per day)
in terms of oxygen demand. (Middle)
75 Determine the waste assimilation demands of the basins
and the impacts to the. capacity caused by any
recommended changes. (Middle)
76 Determine assimilative capacity (Total Maximum Daily
Loads), for organics and toxics, by river segments to
accept existing and future wasteloads and non-point
loadings. (Middle)
77 Determine and evaluate alternatives to direct
discharge, such as land application, holding ponds,
wetland treatment, requiring discharges to be upstream
of intakes, and reuse. (Middle)
78 Describe the effects of various withdrawal and
wastevater treatment conditions on downstream water
quality in each segment of each river basin. (Middle)
37
-------
79 Quantify critical and target flow conditions for each
stream segment to meet existing and projected NPDES
permits needs. (Kiddle)
End Reaultf
This study element will result in a document that summarizes
the projected waste assimilation demands on the water resources
within the ACF and ACT basins for the planning period.
38
-------
E. Water Resources Availability.
Water resources availability is the second area of emphasis
for the Comprehensive Study. It examines the factors that
influence the availability of water resources in the basins
through a review and analysis of climatology, physiography,
geology and existing ground and surface water resources,
including reservoirs, and the interaction between ground and
surface water resources. The following study elements are
included in this section.
Groundwater Supply
Surface Water Supply
39
-------
1. Croundvater Supply.
Btudv element
Determine the existing and potential future availability and
quality of groundwater resources within the basins.
A groundwater resource database is needed as a basis for
measuring the effects of alternative uses, development and
nanag'enent of groundvater resources within the basins.
Taste Descriptions
80 Describe the topographic, physiographic, water quality,
costs and climatologic factors influencing the
availability of groundvater resources, including
floods, droughts and normal conditions. (Early)
81 Quantify recharge to groundvater aquifers from surface
water. (Early)
82 Quantify the availability of dependable groundwater
resources within the basins and establish a groundwater
availability budget. (Early)
83 Determine potentially available groundwater resources
under varying climatological conditions. (Early)
84 Determine opportunities for recharge and regeneration
of stressed aquifers. (Middle)
85 Describe the effects of varying levels of groundwater
withdrawals on water levels and quality in aquifers and
in hydraulically connected water bodies. (Middle)
86 Evaluate and improve, as required, the existing
groundwater monitoring network. (Middle)
End Results
The results of 'this analysis will be a database containing
an inventory of groundwater resources within the basins and a
description of the effects of varying levels of groundwater
withdrawals.
40
-------
2. Surface Water Supply.
Study Element ObHective
Determine the existing and potential future availability and
quality of surface vater resources within the basins.
Rationale
A surface vater resource database is needed as a basis for
measuring the effects of alternative uses, development and
management of surface vater resources vithin the basins.
Task Description
87 Describe the topographic, physiographic, and
climatologic factors influencing the availability of
surface vater resources, including floods, droughts and
normal conditions. (Early)
88 Describe the reservoir system and its historic
operations and evaluate the reservoirs for both project
life and capacity. (Early)
89 9 Determine the quantity, quality and timing of return
flows in the basins. (Early)
90 Quantify recharge to surface vater from groundvater
aquifers. (Early)
91 Describe historic flooding and the projects and
programs in place to"address flooding vithin each
basin. (Early)
92 Describe historic drought conditions. (Early)
93 e Determine potentially available surface vater resources
under varying climatological conditions. (Early)
94 Evaluate and improve, as required, the existing stream
flow monitoring network. (Middle)
95 Quantify availability of surface vater resources vithin
the basins and establish a vater availability budget.
(Early)
41
-------
End Results
The results of this analysis will be a database containing
an inventory of existing and potential future surface water
supplies vithin the basins and the results of the effects of
varying amounts of surface water withdrawal.
42
-------
F. Comprehensive Management Strategy.
This section of the Plan of Study presents study elements
for the Comprehensive Management Strategy portion of the
Comprehensive Study. The 'purpose of the Comprehensive Management
Strategy section is to provide the public and decision makers
with information to make informed decisions regarding the water
resources within the basins. To do this, the study must
simultaneously consider the availability of water resources,
competing water demands, extremes of natural conditions that -will
be encountered, the limitations imposed by law and regulations,
and the impacts of various operational conditions on all uses.
Assuming that management information is being generated to
make mutually agreeable decisions it is necessary to consider the
organizational arrangements for coordination and implementation.
For purposes of this study the organizational arrangement is
referred to as a "Coordination Mechanism". The exact form and
functions of the Coordination Mechanism must also be determined
as a part of the study process.
The Comprehensive Management Strategy study element includes
two major components:
Basinwide Management Program
Institutional Framework and Coordination Mechanism
43
-------
Study Element QbHeetlvea
Prepare a "Basinwide Management Program11 that develops a
range., of water management strategies to guide future vater
management decisions in the basins. The basinvide management
program should:
Address the vater resource problems identified
throughout the planning period for a full range of
hydrologic conditions.
Formulate alternative solutions, for existing and
projected problems and predict the outcomes of
implementing various combinations of alternatives.
Measure levels of attainment relative to problem
resolution and meeting specified objectives.
Analy2e the cumulative impacts of a reasonable number
of the management strategies.
Describe mutually agreed upon basinvide management
strategies that can. be used in a coordinated manner to
address the vater demands vithin the basins.
patlonale
Existing demands on the vater resources are caused by
competition for use, preemption of vater quantity and quality,
and degradation of vater quality making it less suitable for
certain uses. All of these pressures exist to some degree in the
basins and are expected to increase in the future. The basinvide
management program should strive to accommodate all the
beneficial uses vhich are anticipated throughout the basins.
Each study element in the vater demand and availability
sections vill identify alternatives vhich address a particular
vater using sector. The purpose of the data collection and
singular analyses is to provide an objective database to assess
the impacts of projects or changes in vater management practices
vithin the basins. However, many of the changes have the
potential to cause related vater resource issues vhich transcend
political and jurisdictional boundaries. A basinvide management
program is needed to provide a common framevork for proposing
changes, assessing cumulative impacts and defining strategies
vhich resolve vater resource conflicts and issues.
44
-------
TaaX Descriptions
96 Compare the water demand and water resource
availability alternatives developed in the individual
study elements and prepare .a water budget to determine
the problems that must be addressed in the basins
throughout the planning period. (Kiddle)
97 Inventory and evaluate other cumulative impact analyses
performed for other basins and determine the
appropriate methods of analysis to be used. (Early)
98 Project the probabilities of extreme climatic
conditions occurring and determine the management
strategies to effectively respond to the emergency
conditions imposed by droughts and floods. (Middle)
99 Examine technologies and evaluate projects or
modifications to operating procedures that would
increase water storage in the basins. Examples include
the construction of new community and regional
reservoirs, the use of flood storage capacity in
existing reservoirs, increasing-rates of return,
reverse pumping aquifers, raising reservoir levels,
seasonal rule curve modification, real time management,
storage exchange and other alternatives. (Middle)
100 Formulate alternative structural and non-structural
plans to achieve each study element objective to
varying degrees. (Late)
101 Conduct a "Water Resource Impact Analysis*1 to analyze
basin water management practices and projects to
integrate system resources and multiple on site (river
and stream) requirements. (Late)
102 Conduct a "Multiple Objective Analysis" to compare the
degree to which each alternative plan satisfies the
various study element objectives. (Late)
103 Conduct a "Multiple Goal Attainment Analysis11 to
determine if the Comprehensive Study goal and
objectives were met. (Late)
104 Conduct a "System Analysis" to evaluate the basinwide
impacts of individual actions and consider those
individual actions relative to all other water demands
within the basins. (Late)
45
-------
105 Evaluate the positive and negative environmental
impacts of alternatives, throughout the basins, and
incorporate the environmental water needs to protect
natural resources and prevent adverse impacts to
sensitive areas. (Late)
106 Evaluate impact (s) to national and regional economic
development benefits as a result of changes in water
availability or distribution between the various uses
within the basins. (Late)
107 Prepare a Plan of Study for future work beyond the
scope of the Comprehensive Study. (Late)
lad Results
The end product will be a recommended "Basinwide Management
Program11. The program will include strategies that generally
describe approaches for the development and use of the water
resources within the basins. It is anticipated that a formal
document will be produced as a result of this effort.
The scope and content of this document will be defined more
precisely when the results of the various analyses become
available. However, three types of information should be
incorporated in the report. First, the document should serve as
a decision document for making mutually agreeable water resources
management and development decisions in the basins. Second, the
analyses conducted should provide input for appropriate National
Environmental Policy (NEPA) documentation associated with water
resources management and development decisions in the basins.
Last, but an equally import-ant part of the report, will be the
documentation of the various'alternatives that have been tested
and the findings of the analyses so a permanent record is created
to prevent future duplications.
46
-------
2. Institutional Framework and Coordination Mechanism.
Btudv Element Obieetivo
Analyze the existing institutional framework and potential
coordination mechanisms to develop a basis for possible revisions
to the framework and recommend a coordination mechanism(s) for
the future management of water resources in the basins.
o "Existing institutional framework" shall include, but
not be limited to, statutory, regulatory, and water
resource management guidelines that effect water
management in the basins.
"Potential coordination aechanis&s" shall include a
broad spectrum of effective federal-state and
interstate relationships for managing water resources.
Rationale
Federal and common law, regulations, licensing requirements
and management guidelines impact both the water quantity and
quality available in the basins. In addition, a vast body of
state legislation and regulations impose water quality standards
on the basins. The entire institutional framework of federal and
state law, regulation, and operating procedures impacts flow
regimes, reservoir levels, and ultimately, the general use of
water in the basins. It is essential that a complete
understanding of this institutional framework be developed.
Hater resource management decisions within the basins might
be improved through a mutuallyagreeable, coordinated management
approach. Recent droughts and projected water demands have
focused attention on the competitive issues to be addressed in
water management. Recent responses to proposals for water
development projects and modifications to management procedures
have clearly indicated that water resource issues transcend
political boundaries.
Task Descriptions
108 Inventory, compare and contrast federal and state laws,
regulations, operational guidelines, and management
plans related to water resource development and
management in the basins and determine the limiting
factors of each. (Early)
109 Inventory authorized, but undeveloped, projects in each
basin. (Early)
47
-------
110 Inventory coordination procedures which currently exist
among Alabama, Florida, Georgia, the Corps of Engineers
and other federal and state agencies. (Early)
111 Inventory methods of federal-state and interstate
relations used in other areas to manage water
resources, address conflicts and resolve disputes. The
primary source for this information is expected to be
existing coordination methods used by states in other
parts of the country. This shall include, but not
necessarily be United to: interstate planning and
management commissions; interstate and federal-state
compacts; informal agreements; congressional
allocations; and litigation. (Early)
112 Project water management and coordination needs within
the basins. (Middle)
113 Establish the objectives to be achieved by the
coordination mechanism(s) for the basins. (Kiddle)
114 Compare existing management procedures and identify and
recommend needed coordination mechanism(s). (Kiddle)
115 Evaluate the capabilities of the identified management
and coordination alternatives for managing and
coordinating water supplies and demands within the
basins. (Kiddle)
116 Evaluate the need to change certain elements of the
institutional framework to address water management
procedures within the basins. (Kiddle)
117 Evaluate the identified methods of federal, state and
interstate relations by listing the advantages and
disadvantages of each method. (Kiddle)
116 Present the analyses of management and coordination
needs and methods as the range of alternatives to be
considered for use in the basins. (Late)
119 Evaluate and blend the management and coordination
alternatives presented to devise a mechanism to fit the
management and coordination needs of each basin. The
Technical'Coordination Group and the Legal Support
Group shall review the preliminary material and prepare
a recommendation to be forwarded to the Executive
Coordination Committee. (Late)
48
-------
120 Approve a mutually agreeable coordination mechanism to
be recommended to the individual states and Corps for
implementation. Following approval by the Executive
Coordination Committee a detailed recommendation
regarding the institutional framework and coordination
mechanism(s) shall be prepared. (Late)
121 Recommend changes to the institutional framework and
details for the mutually agreed upon coordination
mechanism(s)% A description of the procedures to be
used, tasks to be undertaken, and other required
material or legislation needed to implement this course
of action, shall be prepared. (Late)
End Results
A formal document for the three states and the Corps of
Engineers shall be developed which describes the relevant factors
related to changes needed in the institutional framework and a
description of the recommended, permanent coordination
mechanism(s). The establishment of a permanent coordination
mechanism(s) is to be a primary result. Other tangible working
documents which are expected include the inventory and analyses
of coordination methods and any required agreements, legislation
or other material to support implementation of the coordination
mechanism(s).
49
-------
A.L. BURRUSS
1927-1986
A.L. (Al) Burruss served his
community through elected
public office and business,
religious and personal com-
mitments.-puring his 22-year
career in public service in
Georgia, he gave special atten-
tion to the communities of
northwest Georgia.
A.L. Burruss1 career in the
state legislature was devoted
to providing a better standard
of living for all Georgia citizens.
His dedication to the state of
Georgia and its citizens is now
carried on through the A.L.
Burruss Institute of Public
Service at Kennesaw State
College.
------- |