United States Office of Water (WH-553)
Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460
Agency
v>EPA News-Notes
The Condition of the Environment and the Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
A Commentary . . .
How Not to be Cowed — Livestock Grazing
on the Public Lands: An Owner's Manual
This is the title of a newly published "owner's manual" for public lands. The authors tell us at
the outset that the owners are "hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, photographers,
river runners, native plant enthusiasts ... in short, YOU (the public), as co-owners of millions
of acres of public land in the West." Owners include local and state governments and local
citizen groups interested in the restoration of riparian areas and damaged watersheds and in
keeping nonpoint sources of pollution out of rivers and streams.
This 70-page informative booklet was written by Johanna Wood (Natural Resources Defense
Council), Ken Rait (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance), Rose Strickland (Public Lands
Committee, Sierra Club), and Joe Feller (Arizona State University College of Law). It is a
careful and user-friendly explanation of BLM's planning and decision-making process. The
book clearly explains the statutes and policies under which the public lands are administered,
together with the public's role in that process.
The various interests at play in the public lands drama — the concerned public and BLM's
army of public servants as well as the growing numbers of environmentally-minded ranchers
— will all welcome this book as a guide to the sound management of the public lands — to
compatibly support multiple uses. Its use can help guarantee that each of the involved
interests will remain in business for a long time on ecologically healthy and productive public
lands, ripe with biodiversity, complete with the web of life.
[Copies of the book are $3.00 per copy. To order or for further information, contact Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, 1471 South 1100 East, Salt Lake City, UT84105. Phone (801) 486-3161. Or National
Resources Defense Council (415) 777-0220.]
May 1992
#21
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
Commentary
How Not to be Cowed 1
Noteworthy Governmental Happenings
EPA's Office of Water a "Partner in Flight" 2
Final Report to Congress on Nonpoint Sources 3
Notes on NPS Technology
ORD Nonpoint Source Research Plan 4
Voluntary Label Changes for Atrazine 6
New Registry of Soil and Plant Laboratories 8
EPA Begins TMDL Case Study Series 8
Cover Crops for Clean Water 10
Notes on Watershed Management
Fish & Wildlife Service Studies Irrigation Return Flows 10
Nooksack Tribe Asks for Policy Consistency 12
The Anacostia: An Urban Watershed Begins Restoration 13
Nature Conservancy Participates in Watershed Projects 14
News From The States
Texas Vows a Clean Environment by 2000 16
Agricultural Notes
EPA/USDA Agree on Pollution Prevention Goal 16
Coordinated Resource Management a Vehicle for Agreement 17
Waste From Single Farm Harmful to MD Lake 18
Mo-Ag Industries Council Recycles Pesticides Containers 19
NPS Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) News
Water Monitor to be Regular NPS BBS Feature 20
Message Function Is Where The Action Is 20
Reviews
Decisionmakers Stormwater Handbook 21
Turning The Tide 21
A Year In The Life Of A River 21
Diet For A Small Lake 22
Announcements of Interest
EPA Journal Special NPS Issue Still Available 23
New Journal Features Wetlands & NPS 23
DATEBOOK 24
THE COUPON 27
-------
Noteworthy Governmental Happenings
EPA's Office of Water a "Partner in Flight"
EPA's Office of Water is a participant in an initiative to investigate and stem the decline in
birds that breed in the higher latitudes of North America and winter in the tropics. Research
has shown that populations of many neotropical migrant species are suffering serious
reductions compared to other birds. These migrants include songbirds like the red-eyed vireo,
which went from 41.5 breeding pairs in Washington, DC's Rock Creek Park in the 1940s to 5.8
pairs 40 years later. Other migrants are shorebirds or birds of prey like the endangered
peregrine falcon.
Habitat Loss Contributes to Decline of Migrant Birds
Some of the causes, like reproductive failure caused by DDT, have been proven, while others
are still being studied. One factor contributing to the decline is loss of habitat. In North
America, grasslands, wetlands, forests, and estuaries where migrants breed and rest are
shrinking. The birds' tropical wintering habitat is also contracting.
Partners in Flight — Aves de las Americas, launched in 1990, is working to clarify the complex of
causes and reverse the downward trend in bird populations. The program links federal, state,
and nongovernmental entities in an integrated effort of research, monitoring, and habitat
management for migratory nongame birds.
Many species of migratory songbirds require large mature forests for successful breeding.
Others depend on the food webs of wetlands and estuaries to raise their broods. Deforestation
and fragmentation of habitat expose migrants to predators and nest parasites like the
brown-headed cowbird.
Water Managers Can Help
Because many watershed management activities are beneficial to bird habitat as well as water
resources, EPA feels that water program managers can make a vital contribution to the effort.
For instance, leaving large tracts of steep slopes forested can not only protect water quality
and aquatic life but can provide the large forest areas that many of the neotropical migrants
require. Riparian areas preserved as filter strips can serve as corridors for birds to travel
between habitat "islands" fragmented by development.
According to Dave Davis, EPA's representative on the Interagency Steering Committee for
Partners in Flight,
Clearly, one of the most direct linkages is through our efforts to protect coastal resources,
wetlands, lakes, stream and river habitat, and riparian zones. Programs such as the National
Estuary Program, Near Coastal Waters Program, Section 404 Program, Clean Lakes Program,
the "Great Water Bodies " programs and other watershed protection projects are important
vehicles to protect both the physical and chemical integrity of these systems. However, water
people can also be critical members of the team through permitting and enforcement,
development, and application of criteria and standards, construction and operation of waste- and
stormwater treatment systems, protection of groundwater resources, monitoring and water
quality planning.
For the most part, the best ivay to help is simply to continue to do what we do best; that is,
managing aquatic resources in a manner that retains their integrity and natural functions.
However, knowledge of the special needs of neotropical migratory birds is also important in
helping to protect or enhance those aquatic systems attributes that are critical to the birds.
For example, at the BLM's San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, cottonwood- willow
habitats have the highest avian densities and richness of species of all habitats included in a
study of the San Pedro Valley. According to Dave Krueper, a BLM wildlife biologist, avian densi-
ties reached more than 2,000 individuals per 100 acres during spring migration and more than
1,500 during the summer breeding season. Many of the birds were neotropical migrants, includ-
ing yellow-billed cuckoos, yellow warblers, gray and common black-hawks, brown-crested
flycatchers, northern beardless-tyrannulets, seven species of vireos, and 40 warbler species.
Also at San Pedro, preliminary studies indicate that excluding cattle from riparian areas
resulted in a significant increase in populations of ground-nesting or understory specialists
like the yellow-breasted chat.
2
-------
EPA's Office of The participants in Partners in Flight are linked by a federal/NGO Memorandum of
Water a "Partner in Understanding signed by 11 federal agencies and 19 nongovernmental organizations. In the
Flight" annual report, NGO Committee Chair Stanley Senner said that 1992 would be a year of
(continued) finalizing the program's structure and starting implementation.
[For more information, contact Dave Davis (202) 260-7166 or Janet Pawiukiewicz (202) 260-9194, both at
WH-556F, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW Washington, DC 20460. Or contact Peter Stanget, National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, 18th and C St., NW, Washington, DC 20240.]
EPA's Office of Water Releases Final Report to Congress
On Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
Wildlife and recreation are the state-designated uses most affected by nonpoint source
pollution in both lakes and streams. Fishing and shellfishing in the Great Lakes and other
coastal waters are also impaired, as is groundwater as a drinking water source in at least nine
states. This data, gleaned from state nonpoint source assessments, is reported in EPA's
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution, the final report to Congress1 on section 319 of the Clean
Water Act, released April 6,1992.
The report said, "This information indicates very clearly that nonpoint source pollution has
caused severe damage to aquatic communities nationwide and has destroyed the aesthetic
values of many of our treasured recreational waters."
The report, required by CWA §319(m), describes the status of the national effort to control
nonpoint source pollution as of October 1,1989. Where possible, more current information
concerning the final approval of state NPS assessments and management programs and the
issuance of grants in 1990 is also provided.
Nutrients and Siltation Impact Streams and Lakes
In the 40 states that reported data on rivers and streams, 16 percent (206,179 miles) of the
rivers were impacted by nonpoint source pollution. State data indicated that 20 percent, or 5.4
million surface acres (excluding the Great Lakes, the Great Salt Lake, and Alaska's lakes) of
lakes were affected. In both rivers and lakes, nutrients and siltation had the greatest impacts.
Not surprisingly, agriculture was the biggest source of pollutants.
Watershed Approaches Yield Water Quality Improvement
On the plus side, while the report acknowledges that 1989 was too early to look for significant
water quality improvements from 319 programs, it notes that the Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP), begun in 1982, has had a number of successes. Florida, Idaho, Oregon, and Utah all
documented water quality improvement in demonstration projects. The report points out that
the RCWP projects were implemented effectively on local levels. "Knowing this," the report to
Congress continues, "the states and EPA are working together to establish and implement
targeted pollution control measures in high priority watersheds."
Federal, State, and Local Commitment
EPA saw "increased commitment at all levels to protect and enhance water quality by
controlling nonpoint source pollution," as evidenced by the following:
¦ All states completed EPA-approved nonpoint source assessments and began to use
the appropriated FY 1990 grant funds in their new and existing NPS programs and
activities.
¦ Federal agencies did their part to facilitate progress. EPA fully approved 44 state
NPS management programs and partially approved programs in the remaining
states. EPA promulgated an initial set of stormwater regulations for large
municipalities and some industrial stormwater discharges in November 1990. The
USDA began to implement nonpoint source control technical assistance and
cost-share activities under its Water Quality Initiative.
1 In the legislation enacting §319, Congress required EPA to report on progress in the implementation of the new nonpoint source program.
Congress termed this a "final report." States will continue to report to EPA annually on their progress in implementing §319.
3
-------
¦ Congress passed two important pieces of legislation to control nonpoint source
pollution:
• The 1990 Food Security Act, which expanded the set of water quality programs in
the conservation title.
• The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, which required
states to develop coastal nonpoint pollution control programs.
According to the report,
While state assessments, management programs and grants were the primary focus ofEPA's
activities, EPA also continued or began other activities to promote national awareness and
effective control of nonpoint source pollution.
EPA's Nonpoint Source Agenda for the Future, published in January 1989, developed five themes
for its goal of protecting and restoring the nation's waters: public awareness, successful
solutions, economic forces, regulatory solutions, and good science.
The report to Congress included praise for News-Notes' function as EPA's major vehicle for
sharing local, state, regional, and federal experiences concerning financial and regulatory
solutions. Another highlight was EPA distribution of numerous information and education
materials designed to raise public awareness on nonpoint sources of pollution.
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution includes chapters on:
¦ Methodology and results of the state NPS assessments (nationally and by
waterbody type)
¦ National and state statistics
¦ Regional activities and state programs
¦ Related programs implemented by EPA, other federal agencies, and
nongovernmental organizations
¦ Selected NPS problems and solutions (animal waste and grazing impacts,
sustainable agriculture, composting, irrigated agriculture, using market incentives to
prevent and control NPS)
[The 197-page document is available from Ann Beier, OW (WH-553), U.S. EPA, 401 M St., Slty
Washington, DC 20460. Or FAX your request (clearly written) to (202) 260-7024.]
Notes on NPS Technology
An Agencywide Work Group Is Drafting
ORD Nonpoint Source Research Plan
This article reports on the current status of planning for nonpoint source research to be carried
out by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The Nonpoint Source Research Workshop was held on February 12-14,1991, in Richmond,
Virginia, to ascertain the highest priority research needs of the nonpoint source community.
The workshop was jointly sponsored by ORD and the Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division of the Office of Water (OW). Contributors at the workshop included representatives
of EPA's ORD, OW, Office of Planning and Program Evaluation (OPPE), and EPA's regional
offices. Other participants included the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), many states, and other organizations. The "Nonpoint
Source Research Strategy" that evolved from that workshop was written by ORD and
published August 28,1991.1
Selected portions of the introductory Statement of Purpose from the Strategy speak directly to
the approach taken:
1 The complete "Nonpoint Source Research Strategy" document is electronically stored on the Nonpoint Source Electronic Bulletin Board
(NPS BBS) in the NPS Research & Development SIG Forum. It may be read there or downloaded to your personal computer. For
instructions on how to access the NPS BBS, see the BBS News section of this edition of News-Notes.
EPA's Office of
Water Releases
Final Report to
Congress On
Nonpoint Sources of
Water Pollution
(continued)
4
-------
This Strategy presents art approach to meet the nonpoint source research needs of the Office of
Water (OW), and the Regional, state and local nonpoint source program implementors and to
provide federal leadership in assessing and ameliorating nonpoint source problems over the
next decade. It is intended to focus discussion on the development of research priorities, and
to establish a comprehensive plan for nonpoint source research.
This Strategy will provide a risk-based approach to address five key questions:
(1) Which ecosystems or watersheds are at greatest risk from nonpoint sources?
(2) What are the most significant causes of the observed problems?
(3) Which of these causes are the most amenable to control ?
(4) Which prevention and restoration techniques appear most promising?
(5) How do we determine the effectiveness of restoration and prevention efforts ?
Goals of the Strategy are to provide decision makers with quantitative tools and information
to:
• identify ecological and water quality problems for watersheds within a regional
framework,
• develop risk-based diagnostic approaches for ranking sources within this framework,
• identify and select control options to achieve these goals,
• evaluate the effectiveness of these selected control options in meeting watershed goals, and
• assess the relative risk reduction by implementing these control options at regional scales.
u Research will include short-term evaluation of took for rapid delivery of information to
decision-makers, and long-term fundamental research. Research will have a watershed focus,
formulate ecological criteria over traditional chemical specific approaches, emphasize topics
not addressed by other agencies (e.g., urban runoff), and use a comparative risk framework,
allowing a geographic targeting of watersheds and problem areas within watersheds. It will
integrate effects of all stresses (physical, chemical, and biological) and consider designated
uses.
¦ A technology transfer component will promote the transfer of effective control techniques to
Regional, state, and local agencies and enable early feedback of additional research needs for
projects in the development stage.
The strategy report presented recommendations under four headings: assessment, control
measures, evaluation, and technology transfer and concluded with a section on future funding
of ORD nonpoint source research, stating:
An increase in the nonpoint source research budget could potentially provide within five
years many of the tools and techniques needed by EPA Offices and states for establishing
biocriteria for nonpoint source pollution, developing field methodologies to assess the scope
and magnitude of the problem, and formulating models and decision support systems to
screen and evaluate the feasibility of control and restoration procedures .. .An increase in
environmental processes and fate research ... would permit us to identify the interactions
between surface-water and groundwater ecosystems, assess the assimilative capacity of these
systems to chemical contaminants, improve our understanding and predictive capability of
the ecological effects of nonpoint source pollution, and begin developing realistic biocriteria
for nonpoint source pollution.
In planning for its FY 1994 budget, ORD has instituted a new process this year for focused
research of specific environmental problems. This is a dramatic and important change from the
traditional "media" structure that has been used for planning and budgeting. NPS is one of 40
environmental issues that have been identified along with such items as habitat/biodiversity,
wetlands, indoor air, global climate change, and innovative technology. The new structure
includes a number of cross-cutting research issues, such as human exposure and ecological
risk assessment. This structure for the research program will support EPA's new emphasis on
holistic, multi-media approaches to solving environmental problems.
An Agencywide m
Work Group Is
Drafting ORD
Nonpoint Source
Research Plan
(continued) ¦
5
-------
An Agencywide
Work Group Is
Drafting ORD
Nonpoint Source
Research Plan
(continued)
For each research issue, ORD has prepared a strategy that briefly describes the major science
questions and research directions. An ORD publication containing all of the issue strategies
will be available this summer.
Agencywide work groups, including both program and regional office representatives, are
now assisting in the preparation of research plans for each of the 40 issues. Burnell Vincent of
ORD's Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support has advised News-Notes that"...
authors of the nonpoint source research plan now being prepared were participants in the
Richmond workshop that spawned the NPS Research Strategy and will draw heavily upon
elements of the Strategy in developing the plan."
The work group developing the research plan for the nonpoint source issue is chaired by Dr.
Rosemarie C. Russo, who is the director of the Athens Environmental Research Lab. The
nonpoint source issue has been allocated $2 million in base funding and an additional $1
million target for potential new increases in budget. Unfortunately, this level of funding is not
sufficient to undertake many of the research needs set out in the Strategy beyond work already
underway on midwestern agriculture.
In a late March letter to her Core Writing Group (with copies to the NPS research work group),
Dr. Russo indicated that most of the base funding would be required to support ORD's
Midwest Agriculture Surface/Subsurface Transport and Effects Research program (called the
MASTER program) already in the pipeline. MASTER is a cooperative research effort with
USD A.
She concluded her letter with these comments:
The Issue Strategy calls for expansion in resources and scope beyond the current focus on
agriculture-related nonpoint source problems. The NPS Research Strategy prepared from a
national workshop in 1991 describes the broader need. My view is that current resource
levels for this strategy do not permit expansion to these problems, especially in the near term.
I am seeking additional guidance on how best to include those research project areas for
which additional funding is required. Accordingly, please do include potential projects not
currently planned under MASTER.
At this point, then, funding for additional NPS Research as envisioned at the Richmond
workshop does seem problematic.
When complete, the 40 ORD research plans are to be reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory
board and a number of other scientific organizations, such as the Ecological Society of America
and the American Chemical Society. The research plans will both guide the implementation of
research and describe EPA's research program to interested audiences.
In addition to ORD HQ/Lab personnel, the nonpoint source work group includes the
following program/regional EPA personnel:
Bruce Newton and Dov Weitman, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, OWOW;
Sherri Fields, Wetlands Division, OWOW; Russell Kinerson, Standards and Applied
Science Division, OST; Betsy Behl, OPPTS/OPP; Andy Manale, OPPE; and Harry Wells,
OPPTS/Pollution Prevention. Catherine Kuhlman, Water Quality Branch chief, Region IX,
is the regional representative.
As there are further new developments, Neius-Notes will report them.
EPA Accepts Voluntary Label Changes for Atrazine
To Reduce Water Contamination
Atrazine, used primarily in corn and sorghum, is one of the most widely used pesticides in the
United States. It is also the most widely detected pesticide in water monitoring studies in the
Midwest corn belt.
On April 10, EPA announced its acceptance of a voluntary proposal by Ciba-Geigy
Corporation aimed at reducing surface water contamination by atrazine, particularly in
drinking water. The company will make label changes on atrazine products and carry out
additional water monitoring and educational initiatives on the pesticide.
6
-------
EPA Accepts
Voluntary Label
Changes for Atrazine
To Reduce Water
Contamination
(continued)
Label Changes Include Deletions of Some Uses
Some of the more pertinent label restrictions include:
¦ Deletion of non-crop uses, including rights-of-ways, highways, and railroads.
¦ Reduction in the application rates for corn and sorghum from three pounds per acre
to a range of 1.6 to 2.5.
¦ No ground or aerial application within 200 feet around all natural or impounded
waters (reservoirs and lakes) and within 66 feet of points where field surface runoff
water enters perennial or intermittent streams and rivers (on highly erodible land,
the 66-foot setback must be vegetated).
¦ All mixing and loading operations must have 50-foot setbacks from intermittent
streams, rivers, reservoirs, impounded and natural lakes, and all wells, including
drainage wells, abandoned wells, and sink holes.
The restrictions will go into effect for the 1993 crop season.
1991 Studies Show High Atrazine Levels in Midwestern Rivers
Atrazine has been registered and used in the U.S. since 1959 to control both broadleaf and
grassy weeds, primarily in corn and sorghum. Approximately 80 to 90 million pounds of
atrazine active ingredient are applied annually.
Not surprisingly, corn-growing regions often have high levels of the herbicide in water. The
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for atrazine in drinking water is an annual average
value of 3 parts per billion (ppb), based on a minimum of four quarterly samples.
In November 1991, USGS released monitoring data from the Mississippi River and some of its
tributaries for the period of April, May, and June 1991. The data showed that concentrations of
dissolved atrazine above 3 ppb were sustained for four to six weeks from about mid-May to
mid- or late June in the lower Platte River in Nebraska, the lower White River in Indiana, the
lower Illinois River in Illinois, and the lower Missouri River in Missouri. Atrazine exceeded
the MCL of 3 ppb in 27 percent of the individual samples collected during these months.
Maximum Contaminant Levels
MCLs are enforceable standards for public water systems set by EPA under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. These regulatory standards set achievable levels of drinking water quality to
protect human health. If average levels measured in quarterly samples exceed MCLs,
communities may be required to treat drinking water to achieve acceptable levels.
Although a single sample may exceed the MCL, a water system remains in compliance with
federal regulations until it exceeds the annual average. EPA considers the annual average to be a
better indicator of the long-term exposure and risk than a single sample. The full year's worth
of samples in the study areas must be collected and analyzed before it can be determined
whether water suppliers are out of compliance with federal regulations.
The MCL for atrazine was promulgated by EPA on January 30,1991, and becomes effective on
July 30,1992. Public water suppliers are required to begin monitoring for atrazine beginning
January 1993. EPA requires states to designate one-third of their water systems to sample in
1993 and a second third to sample in 1994. States must begin sampling of the final third by
1995. However, EPA encourages public water suppliers using surface water in areas where
atrazine is used to begin sampling early.
Label Restrictions a "Step in Right Direction"
While the above USGS study indicates that public water suppliers in the affected areas should
be aware of atrazine and other herbicides, EPA does not believe that there is an immediate or
serious health threat posed by these herbicides in the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
These samples represent what are likely to be the peak levels of atrazine because they coincide
with the months (April, May, June) during which it is used. Samples from fall and winter may
show lower levels. Also, the MCL for atrazine is based on risk over a lifetime of exposure, and
it includes a margin of public safety. Occasional or short-term exposure to levels slightly
exceeding the MCL are not believed to pose a serious health risk.
7
-------
However, according to A1 Havinga of EPA's Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, "EPA
has information that lakes and reservoirs used as drinking water sources in areas where
atrazine is used may continue to have elevated levels throughout the year and these situations
may pose year-round rather than seasonal problems." For example, atrazine samples exceeded
the 3 ppb MCL from late March 1991 through January 1992 in Osceolo, IA's West Lake. Other
lakes and reservoirs are showing similar trends.
In response to the USGS study and other surface water quality data, Ciba-Geigy proposed the
voluntary label changes. According to Daniel Barolo, director, EPA Special Review and
Reregistration Division in the Office of Pesticide Programs, "While we believe that the atrazine
label restrictions will reduce surface water contamination, the agency recognizes that some
states may have to impose additional water quality protection measures in areas that are
particularly vulnerable to runoff. However, Ciba-Geigy's voluntary label changes are a step in
the right direction."
[For more information, please contact Kathy Pearce, EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Special Review
Branch at (703) 308-8016 and At Havinga, EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at (202)
260-5555.]
New Registry of Soil and Plant Laboratories Released
A first-ever compilation of services offered by more than 200 U.S. and Canadian laboratories
testing soils, plants, water, and animal/municipal wastes is now available, according to the
Council on Soil Testing and Plant Analysis, publisher of the laboratory registry. The Soil and
Plant Analysis Laboratory Registry for the United States and Canada was sponsored by USDA Soil
Conservation Service and USDA Extension Service. Stated the registry foreword,
This registry will be an important reference for nutrient management specialists, farmers,
and others seeking to improve nutrient management in North American agriculture through
the use of the basic tools of soil testing and plant analysis.
The 246-page registry clusters information into four sections: soil testing, plant tissue analysis,
water testing, and animal /municipal waste analysis. Elements analyzed and methods used are
reported for each lab as well as information on quality assurance and control programs used
by each laboratory and the accreditation or certification status of each laboratory.
Copies of the Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory Registry may be obtained from the Council on
Soil Testing and Plant Analysis, Georgia University Station, P.O. Box 2007, Athens, GA
30612-2007. The cost is $15.
editor's note: The analysis of soil, plants, and animal/municipal waste to be added to the soil is a
most important step in nutrient management. It allows managers to factor in nutrients in the soil and in
field applications of manure and sludge when planning fertilization schedules. More and more farmers
are relying on nutrient testing to avoid over-fertilization of crops and prevent pollution of groundwater
and surface waters. News-Notes #19 describes how Iowa corn farmers cut nitrogen applications dra-
matically by employing nitrate soil tests as one part of a management program.
EPA Begins TMDL Case Study Series
In this issue of News-Notes, the Watershed Branch inaugurates a new series of section 303(d)
total maximum daily load (TMDL) case examples. This series will provide everyday, practical
and specific examples of TMDL development. Over time, the series will feature TMDLs
incorporating nonpoint source load allocations, and it will illustrate the use of TMDLs as an
integral part of the Watershed Protection Approach (WPA). The first case example is included
in this issue as a center-of-the-book, pull-out supplement.
The TMDL process is established by the Clean Water Act to develop wasteload allocations for
point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources based on the assimilative capacity and
maximum possible pollution load that can be absorbed by a waterbody and to assure that
water quality standards will be maintained. The TMDL process is key to the holistic approach
envisioned by the WPA. It encourages federal, state, local, and other agencies concerned with
water quality management to analyze all water quality problems and stressors and
recommend controls on a basin rather than on individual sources.
EPA Accepts
Voluntary Label
Changes for Atrazine
To Reduce Water
Contamination
(continued)
a
-------
EPA Begins TMDL
Case Study Series
(continued)
This is a new emphasis for the TMDL program. In the past, TMDLs were commonly thought
to be applicable only to chemical stressors from point sources. EPA and the states are now
using the process established by section 303(d) to determine needed reductions in pollution
beyond simple chemical loads. In the WPA context, TMDLs can address other types of water
quality stressors that result from nonpoint sources of pollution. Habitat alteration and the
health and diversity of biological communities may also be addressed through the use of
TMDLs. In short, the TMDL process is being used to encourage consideration of all sources of
pollution on a watershed basis. Equally important, the TMDL process is becoming an
important vehicle for engaging the attention of all stakeholders.
Thousands of TMDLs and wasteload allocations have been developed over the years and
many involve innovative approaches. EPA, working with state, local, and other federal
agencies, is documenting straightforward basic TMDLs, TMDLs for challenging water quality
problems, innovative approaches, and creative solutions. Over 70 potential case studies
representing a broad mix of water quality and institutional challenges have been identified.
Case examples will be published as they are finished.
If you want to receive future examples, contact your EPA regional section 303(d) coordinator.
Comments on this first example would be appreciated and should be directed to Donald
Brady, chief, Watershed Management Section (WH-553), Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-5368.
editor's note: Also of interest is a new document released by EPA Region IX, Development of the San
Luis Obispo Creek Demonstration TMDL. This is a practical, real-world example of how to develop a
phased TMDL using available data, information, and EPA guidance. This report is available in limited
numbers through Dave Smith, 303(d) coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Fran-
cisco, CA 94105. Phone: (415) 744-1078)]
EPA Regional 303(d) Coordinators
Dave Pincumbe
Water Quality Management
Section
Jim Greenfield
Water Quality Managment Division
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
phone:(404) 347-2126
FTS/257-2126
fax: (404) 347-3269, FTS/257-3269
Bruce Zander
Water Quality Req. Section
U.S. EPA Region VIII (8WM-SP)
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
phone:(303) 293-1580
FTS/330-1580
fax: (303) 293-1386, FTS/330-1386
U.S. EPA Region I (WQM-2103)
J.F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203
phone:(617) 565-3544
FTS/835-3544
fax: (617) 565-4940, FTS/835-4940
Patrick Pergola
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 813
New York, NY 10278
phone:(212/FTS) 264-8479
fax: (212) 264-2194
Robert Pepin
U.S. EPA Region V (5WQS-TUB8)
77 West Jackson Street
Chicago, IL 60604
phone:(312/FTS) 886-1505
fax: (312) 886-0957
303(d) Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
phone:(415) 744-2019
FTS/484-2019
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dave Smith
Thomas Henry
Water Management Division
Water Quality Section
U.S. EPA Region III (3WM12)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
phone:(215/FTS) 597-8243
fax: (215) 597-8241
Mimi Dannel
Water Management Division (6W)
U.S. EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
phone:(214) 655-7145
FTS/255-7145
fax: (214) 655-6490, FTS/255-6490
fax: (415) 744-1078, FTS/484-1078
Bruce Cleland
Environmental Services Division
U.S. EPA Region X (ES-097)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
phone:(206) 553-2600
FTS/399-2600
fax: (206) 553-0165, FTS/399-0165
John Houlihan
Planning and Evaluation Section
U.S. EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
phone:(913) 551-7432
FTS/276-7432
fax: (913) 551-7765, FTS/276-7765
9
-------
Cover Crops for Clean Water
This book, edited by William L. Hargrove, looks at the positive and negative implications of
using cover crops to achieve water quality and soil conservation goals. In one example found
in the book, the growth of the rye cover crop during the fall and winter following corn harvest
removed more than 134 pounds of nitrate-N per acre from the soil profile, substantially
reducing the soil nitrate pool.
Topics include:
¦ The effects of cover crops on water runoff and soil erosion and on surface and
groundwater quality.
¦ The role of cover crops in nitrogen cycling, maintenance of soil productivity, weed
management, integrated crop and livestock production, and pest management.
¦ The development of cover crop germplasm.
¦ Use of cover crops in sustainable agriculture.
[Copies of the 207-page, softbound book may be ordered from JSWC, Soil and Water Conservation
Society, 7515 Northeast Ankeny Road, Ankeny, IA 50021-9764. Phone: (515) 289-2331 or call
1-800-THE-SOIL. Single copies, $15.00 ($13.00 for SWCS members); 10 or more copies, $12.00
postpaid. Iowa residents must add 4% sales tax.]
Notes on Watershed Management
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Studies Irrigation
Return Flows, Impacts, and Management Options
editor's note: Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977, § 402(1) has exempted "dis-
charges composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture" from the requirement of a federal
NPDES permit. Section 502 (14) contains a definition of "point source." All point sources are subject to
the permit requirement. To make sure the permit exemption sticks, the definition section contains a
provision that the term "point source," so defined, "does not include return flows from irrigated agricul-
ture." States that have received authority to issue their own permits are not bound by this federal per-
mit exemption language. In fact, California has issued a permit to the Bureau of Reclamation covering
the discharge of return flows of irrigation water to the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge.
To assist EPA in developing policies under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US
FWS) and EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in 1991 wherein the US FWS would de-
scribe the impacts of irrigation drainwater (return flow) and its constituents on fish and wildlife and
their habitats. The final report, completed early in May 1992, was prepared by the US FWS's Division
of Environmental Contaminants for EPA's Office of Policy Analysis (OPPE).
The principal findings of the Fish and Wildlife Service's report are summarized below.
Extent and Nature of Irrigated Agriculture and the Problem
The US FWS reported that irrigation accounts for about 90 percent of the water used in the
western United States, and that by 1977, 50 million acres in 17 western states were irrigated.
Irrigated farming produces 25 percent of the total U.S. crop production but occupies less than
15 percent of all agricultural lands. The report says:
Most irrigation practices use open ditches for water transport and simply flood fields to
irrigate the crops. As the water evaporates, increasing concentrations of many salts and trace
elements are left behind. The potential for toxicity to wildlife from these salts (salinity) and
trace elements has only been recognized in recent years. Prior to the 1980's, environmental
studies on agricultural contaminants focused primarily on nitrates, phosphates, and
pesticides. In the early 1980's, attention was focused on deformities and reduced reproductive
capacity of aquatic birds at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in California.
Suddenly, selenium and other trace elements associated with irrigation drainage became
topics of concern.
10
-------
ation Operations/Practices
The water collected from irrigation activities by aboveground ditches or underground tile drams is
disposed of by one or a combination of methods including: discharge to holding ponds or local
waterbodies (i.e., rivers or streams, evaporation ponds or fallow fields); injection into deep wells; or
reintroduction into the local irrigation system.
High rates of evapotranspiration in the western states have led to increased concentrations of toxic
constituents in evaporation ponds, where most of the documented drainage-related impacts to
wildlife have been observed.
Constituents of Concern/Impact Levels
¦ The San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program (SJVDP) identified selenium, boron, molybdenum,
chromium and salts as the primary drain-water elements of concern at sites in the western United
States.
¦ Selenium levels in bird eggs (population mean) and bird livers above 20 ppm and 30 ppm,
respectively, are typically associated loith a biological risk. Waterbody levels of selenium above 12
ppb have also been associated with biological risk to aquatic birds.
¦ Reduced reproductive success and/or survival of young aquatic birds has been documented at
evaporation ponds representing nearly 60 percent of the total acreage of the ponds in the San
Joaquin Valley, CA.
¦ Selenium concentrations were elevated in the zoater (i.e., 5 ppm) at 80 percent of the ponds and in
the sediments (0.5 ppm dry loeight) at all of the ponds investigated in a San Joaquin Valley
investigation.
Biotic Concerns
¦ Elevated concentrations of various drainwater constituents impact both fishery and wildlife
resources by causing decreased hatching success, decreased hatching weight, reduced survival,
reduced growth, and altered behavioral patterns.
m Aquatic plants and animals can accumulate tissue concentrations of some drainage contaminants
100 to 10,000 times greater than ambient water levels via bioconcentration and biomagnification.
¦ Selenium zoas identified as the cause of the disappearance offish, the decrease in aquatic bird
hatching rates, and a high rate (64 percent) of deformed and dead bird embryos at Kesterson NWR.
¦ Based on selenium concentrations in bird eggs (range 2.6-74 ppm), 63 percent of the Tulare Basin
in the southern San Joaquin Valley is considered a high risk area for waterbird eggs.
¦ Many Natioml Wildlife Refuges depend on irrigation drainage for water to maintain wetland
habitats. When these water supplies are contaminated migratory and resident aquatic and
semi-aquatic birds are at risk.
Drainwater Treatment/Disposal
¦ In the San Joaquin Valley there are approximately 6,850 acres of evaporation ponds with an
additional 10-20,000 acres of ponds in various stages of planning, development and construction.
¦ Evaporation pond systems which are non-toxic are not only preferable, but crucial, to the survival
of many fish and wildlife populations that inhabit or frequent these systems.
¦ Source control measures such as water conservation (e.g., drip irrigation), drainage management,
crop management, and alternate land uses are the four approaches that use less irrigation water.
Research Needs
¦ Determine if the present levels of "other" drainwater constituents (in addition to selenium) are
"acceptable" or "safe." Neiv research should focus on the most critical fish and wildlife species
inhabiting the agricultural areas, the most commonly occurring chemical forms impacting those
species, and impacts occurring from varying environmental conditions.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Irrig,
Service Studies
Irrigation Return a
Flows, Impacts, and
Management
Options
(continued) ¦
11
-------
editor's note #2: Several recommendations emerge from the Fish & Wildlife Service's report for con-
sideration by EPA and state water quality managers. Among such are the following general consider-
ations:
¦ Provide incentives to farmers to conserve water by adopting ecologically sound irrigation
methods.
¦ Fully utilize provisions of the 1990 Farm Bill and Food Security Act of 1985 to provide technical
support and monetary incentives for farmers.
¦ Review existing water quality criteria and standards for inconsistencies and flaws and revise to
provide greater protection for fish and wildlife resources.
¦ Incorporate into the Clean Water Act a formal systems (ecosystems) approach to water quality
protection that is responsive to change, and recognizes the dynamic properties of hydrologic
systems.
¦ Conduct additional research to determine cumulative impacts of various irrigation drainwater
constituents and the potential for antagonistic, additive, and synergistic effects on biota.
[For further information, contact Molly Whitworth, Water and Agriculture Policy Division, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation (PM-221), U.S. EPA, 401 MSt., SW Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202/FTS)
260-7561. Or Mary Gessner, Division of Environmental Contaminants, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401
N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, 1/4 22203. Phone: (703) 358-2148.]
Nooksack Tribe Asks For Policy Consistency
In Applying The Watershed Approach
editor's note: The following note was received from Doug Dobyns, who is the director of Water Pro-
grams for the Nooksack Indian Tribe. He used The Coupon to share his Clean Water Experience
with our readers. If other readers want to share their experiences or comment on Doug's note, we'd
like to hear from them. Here's what Doug had to say:
The Nooksack Tribe has been participating in loatershed planning to correct nonpoint
pollution problems through grants from the State of Washington Centennial Clean Water
Fund. This work is noiv in its fifth year and has moved into implementation on two
watersheds.
The Nooksack Tribe subcontracts for rehabilitation work through the lead agencies for these
tivo streams and has been landscaping, planting, fencing, and making plans for fish
enhancement. The programs are on the low end of financing and have more of a training and
educational function than making wide-scale corrections of the damaged ecosystems.
Problems we have encountered are institutional and shoiu us that more work needs to be done
at the coordination level, especially betiveen state and county levels of governments. Tribal
and rural residents have more of a pragmatic interest, while there appears to me to be more of
a regulatory and political interest in the agencies.
Overhead expenses and preparation costs have been borne by the tribes and locals to a large
degree, and the costs of bureaucratic changes of policy which may make substantial delays
and undo community work are never accounted for. The result of this has brought me to
conclude that nonpoint pollution needs to be solved in the communities ivith more flexibility
to tailor programs to watersheds, and it has a high degree of resistance to regulatory
solutions. Where jurisdictional status is confused (as betiueen state and Indian
governments), there need to be policy guidelines brought forzvard in clarifying the rights of
tribes to all levels of state bureaucracies. Tribes should not have to suffer from the lack of state
knowledge on this and have lost patience luith rotations of staff in agencies which continue
the problem.
[For more information, contact Douglas Dobyns, director of Water Programs, Nooksack Indian Tribe, P.O.
Box 157, Deming, WA 98244. Phone: (206) 592-5176. FAX: (206) 592-4721.]
12
-------
The Anacostia: An Urban Watershed Begins Restoration
Rural watersheds have claimed most of the spotlight when it comes to restoration. Yet urban
watersheds are often more severely affected and harder to clean up.
Because so much acreage is impervious, the total sediment load can equal or exceed that of
rural areas. Fifty to one hundred percent of soil eroded from construction sites can end up in
streams, compared to less than 10 percent from most agricultural fields. Phosphorus from that
soil combines with fertilizer spills, runoff from yard wastes, and orthophosphate in vehicle
exhaust to raise phosphorus loads per acre above that in rural areas. Urban toxics are different,
too. They include lead, zinc, pesticides, and other toxics like benzene and PCBs.1
Still other water quality problems are bacteria, elevated B.O.D. and thermal loading from both
heat collected by runoff from impervious surfaces and the absence of canopy.
In urban areas, one of the greatest impacts on watersheds is not a pollutant but rather the
sheer volume and velocity of stormwater rushing off pavement into storm drains and then
into receiving streams. The erosive power of storm runoff has completely changed the biology
and hydrology of many urban streams.
Urban watershed problems are unique and require different solutions: there is little physical
space for structural BMPs. And reaching farmers in an agricultural watershed is one thing —
changing the behavior of 600,000 people in a 170-square-mile urban watershed is another.
If this scenario sounds nightmarish, Washington, DC's Anacostia River and watershed is a
water resources manager's hell. If ever an ecological challenge existed, reclaiming the
Anacostia is it. Flanked upstream by farmland and construction sites, its downstream
watershed 30 percent paved,2 channelized, stripped of its wetlands, and choking in sediment,
the river is dirty and ecologically impoverished from three centuries of abuse.
Daunting as it might be to contemplate, Maryland's Prince Georges and Montgomery counties
and the District of Columbia have organized to reverse the river's degradation. Led by the
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC) and administered by the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments (COG), local and state governments are guided by a 1987
agreement (renewed in 1991) and a six-point action plan.
The plan, according to the Watershed Restoration SourceBook, is a "comprehensive approach
towards restoring an urban watershed, addressing all of the functional components —
including land use, stormwater hydrology, stream habitat, wetlands and forests."
The six goals of the plan and their strategies are set forth in the "Commitment to Restore Our
Home River: A Six Point Action Plan":
Goal 1: Reduce Pollutant Loads to Goal 4: Restore and Enhance Wetlands
Tidal Estuary B Wetlands protection
¦ Sewage overflow controls ¦ Urban wetland restoration
m Urban stormwater retrofits 9 Urban wetland creation
¦ Urban BMPs for new development
n Control of trash and debris Goal 5: Restore and Expand Forest Cover
Goal 2: Restore Ecological Integrity of m Forest protection
Streams ¦ Watershed reforestation
¦ Urban stream restoration m Riparian reforestation
¦ Urban stream protection Goal 6: Increase Public Involvement
Goal 3: Restore Habitat for Fish . Watershed outreach and education
¦ Removal of fish barriers ¦ Restoration stewardship
¦ Habitat improvement
These goals are not merely grand-sounding words. The signatories have committed to
restoring miles and acreages of forest and wetland, for example. In FY 1991, local and state
government invested more than 10 million taxpayer dollars in the restoration effort.
1 See "Urban Notes" section of Keeping Current newsletter, Jan/Feb 1992, UW-Environmental Resources Center, Rm. 216 Agricultural Hall,
1450 Linden Dr., Madison, Wl 53706.
2 This is an average. Some parts of the watershed are more than 60 percent impervious, according to COG's Peter Kumble.
13
-------
Not only has COG's Ariacostia Restoration Team, the workhorse of the effort, been vigorously
attacking technical problems, it also held a conference last fall and recently put together an
indispensable manual on urban watershed restoration techniques. The Watershed Restoration
SourceBook includes the details of the Six Point Action Plan and 14 other papers; including
Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Urbanization on Streams; Developing Effective BMP
Systems for Urban Watersheds; Finding Retrofit Opportunities in Urban Watersheds; Wheaton
Branch Stream Restoration Project; Summary of Stream Restoration and Bio-Engineering
Techniques; Restoring Tidal Wetlands in the Anacostia Estuary; Native Plant Pondscaping
Guide; Environmental Impacts of Stormwater Ponds; Peat Sand Filters; Riparian Reforestation;
Protecting Forests During Development; Anacostia Watershed Restoration Small Habitat
Improvement Program; and Involving the Public in Restoration of an Urban Watershed.
Restoring the water quality and habitat of the Anacostia is a challenge, but the successes and
failures of its restoration will benefit similar efforts in other urban watersheds. For those
involved in planning the future of undeveloped areas, the Anacostia experience contains some
warnings:
For the past two decades, governments in the Washington metropolitan area have attempted to
deal with the complex impacts of urban growth on streams by creating an equally complex series
of regulations, programs, and controls on the urban development process. The success of these
measures in mitigating the impacts on streams, however, has been less than anticipated. The
primary reason has been that individual measures are developed in response to a single impact
that occurs during a unique phase of the development cycle. Until recently, little effort has been
made to craft a comprehensive stream protection strategy throughout the entire development
cycle, from development of watershed master plans to the ultimate realization of that development.
... Unique areas, such as cold-water trout streams ... and extensive stream, wetland, and
floodplain complexes should be targeted for special protection. The upland watersheds draining to
these unique areas can be protected only through a combination of low density zoning, open space
preservation, and stream valley park acquisition, as well as strict subdivision, sediment, and
stormwater controls during the... development process. Based on experience in the Washington
area, it is almost impossible to maintain the quality of these unique systems if upland
imperviousness exceeds 10 to 15 percent.
— From the Watershed Restoration SourceBook's "Mitigating the Adverse
Impacts of Urbanization on Streams" by Thomas R. Schueler
[Also in this issue of News-Notes, see the review section for a review of a video about the Anacostia River.
For more information about the Anacostia restoration or to order the Watershed Restoration SourceBook
($35 post paid), contact: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 777 N. Capital St., NE, Suite
300, Washington, DC 20002-4201.]
Nature Conservancy Says It Is Set To Participate
In Local Nonpoint Watershed Projects
editor's note: The following article was prepared and submitted to News-Notes by The Nature Conser-
vancy. We are pleased to pass this information along to our readers in the interest of restoring and
maintaining the biodiversity of the watersheds of the nation.1
While many environmental groups take an adversarial approach, especially to government, in
their quest for conservation results, The Nature Conservancy, an international nonprofit based
in Arlington, Virginia, looks for partners in its efforts to preserve biodiversity.
A special opportunity is presented by EPA's Office of Water's innovative watershed protection
approach, a close match for the Conservancy's bioreserve planning approach. In many
bioreserves, such as the Cache River of southern Illinois and Big Darby Creek in central Ohio,
Conservancy planning is directed toward the comprehensive protection of an entire
watershed, its water quality, its natural communities and diverse life. In these cases, in fact, the
ecological landscapes that the Conservancy is working to protect have had the advantage of
nonpoint source grant funding awarded by EPA Region V to the states of Illinois and Ohio.
The Conservancy is already benefitting from EPA water quality programs—in wetland and
estuary protection planning, for example, as well as in nonpoint source control—that conserve
habitat and protect biological diversity. The organization is very interested in expanding its
relationships and joint ventures with EPA (in most cases this will be in cooperation with the
1 See also in this issue, "EPA's Office of Water a 'Partner in Flight'" for a description of how water quality programs can protect and enhance
migratory bird habitat.
The Ariacostia: An
Urban Watershed
Begins Restoration
(continued)
14
-------
Nature Conservancy
Says It Is Set To
Participate
In Local Nonpoint
Watershed Projects
(continued)
conservation and environmental protection agencies of the states). To this end, Conservancy
field office staff expect to meet and work more closely with EPA regional office people.
The group has worked with numerous federal agencies, as well as countless other public and
private partners, to identify and preserve natural areas needing protection. Federal partners
with which the Conservancy has accomplished conservation goals include the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Forest Service.
The Conservancy's mission is to preserve plants, animals and natural communities that
represent life's diversity by preserving the lands and water they need to survive. In the
decades since its founding in 1951, the Conservancy and its members, who now number
approximately 640,000, have been responsible for the protection of more than 6.2 million acres
in 50 states and Canada. It has helped like-minded nongovernmental partner organizations to
preserve millions of additional acres in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Over the years, the Conservancy has built a reputation as a quiet force in conservation, often
purchasing land in order to preserve rare and endangered species. Besides fee acquisition, the
Conservancy uses conservation easements and voluntary landowner agreements to ensure
habitat protection. Some Conservancy-acquired areas are transferred for management to other
conservation groups, both public and private. But the Conservancy owns more than 1,300
preserves—the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Stewardship staff and
volunteers who maintain the preserves employ techniques like prescribed burnings, reforestation
and fencing to protect, and encourage the growth of, endangered plants and animals.
Data Inventory Helps Conservation Planning
Science-based since its inception, the Conservancy developed the methodology now used by
Natural Heritage Programs (NHPs) and Conservation Data Centers (CDCs)—a network of
continually updated, computer-assisted inventories of the biological and ecological features of
the country or region in which they are located. There are now 82 data centers operating in the
Western Hemisphere, including one in each of the 50 states, where they are usually run by
state governments (most are called NHPs). The other 32 are located in U.S. Bioreserves,
National Parks and National Forests, Puerto Rico, Canadian provinces and 13 Latin American
and Caribbean countries (most of these are called CDCs).
The data center network helps the Conservancy's planners decide which areas most need help
from the organization, and in which order. The network also responds to more than 200,000
requests each year from governments, educational institutions, and industry for information
that will help in development planning, natural resource management, and environmental
impact assessment.
In addition to its headquarters office, the organization has eight regional offices and 60 state
offices. Over the last 18 years, the group has developed a strong program in Latin America and
the Caribbean, working with partners in 17 countries. Reflecting an increasingly global
perspective, the Conservancy last year also established a program in the Pacific.
The "Last Great Places" Initiative
Building on its accomplishments through direct action, the Conservancy has recently begun
placing more emphasis on the need to work with an even greater range of partners, in order to
protect ecosystems as well as individual species and communities—a goal that cannot be
accomplished by the Conservancy alone. The organization has called for a conservation
approach that will include both people and nature, and last year launched an initiative it calls
"Last Great Places." Large-scale bioreserve projects—an initial dozen were introduced last
year, with more than 60 additional sites to come—are serving as models for the Conservancy's
new conservation vision. The projects, which consist of still-intact natural systems that are
under threat, typically include a core natural area that should be fully protected, surrounded
by a buffer zone where appropriate sustainable development can be encouraged. Government
agencies, private citizens' groups, responsible businesses, educational institutions and other
conservation groups are among the many partners with whom the Conservancy is working on
Last Great Places projects.
[EPA, state, and local staff wishing to locate Conservancy bioreserve projects in their jurisdictions should
feel free to contact Nature Conservancy's state offices for information; addresses and phone numbers are
available on the NPS Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS). Or contact The Nature Conservancy's headquarters
office at 1815 North Lynn Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209. Phone: (703) 841-5300. Overall liaison with
federal agencies is provided by John Humke at the Arlington office (703) 841-8761.]
15
-------
News FromThe States
Texas Vows a Clean Environment by 2000
A statewide pollution prevention campaign involving business, industry, government,
communities, and citizens is off the ground in Texas, launched by Governor Ann Richards and
the Texas Water Commission (TWC). While "Clean Texas 2000" focuses broadly on reducing
household and hazardous waste, many of its initiatives are aimed specifically at protecting
water quality.
One initiative that employs volunteers is the Groundwater Protection Program. In this
program, the TWC provides technical assistance to local communities, water supply
corporations, and investor-owned utilities in setting up groundwater protection areas around
community drinking water wells. TWC trains local citizens to conduct an inventory of
potential sources of contamination around the wells. Based on the inventory and the local
hydrology, TWC writes a site-specific report recommending a plan of action for the
community to protect its groundwater supply. Janette E. Hansen, chief of the Source
Management Section of EPA's Groundwater Protection Division, commented, "Texas took the
initiative to go beyond what is required of state wellhead protection programs by the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Using volunteers helps reduce costs and promotes awareness of
groundwater issues."
Another program involves the expansion of the TWC's citizen volunteer water quality
monitoring program. Citizens from schoolchildren to senior citizens can participate in this
program as individuals or in groups. TWC provides intensive volunteer training, assists with
monitoring design, and provides QA/QC.
TWC is also using Clean Texas 2000 as an opportunity for a complete review of its own
operations, streamlining and enhancing them where appropriate. "We intend to provide for
Texas the very best environmental protection and leadership possible for every tax dollar
spent," said TWC Chairman John Hall.
In kicking off the campaign at a press conference April 7, Governor Richards said that Texas
needs to shed its role as the nation's largest producer of both household garbage and
hazardous wastes. "We must seriously change the way we think and act, or we will wake up
one day in a state unfit for the next generation of Texans."
Clean Texas 2000 asks cities to develop programs for proper disposal of household solid and
hazardous wastes and to develop community composting projects for yard wastes.
Waste generating industries can participate in the campaign by conducting environmental
audits, meeting voluntary pollution reduction goals, adopting a citizens' activity, or creating a
citizens' advisory group. These industries will be eligible for the Clean Texas 2000 Honor Roll.
Businesses, local governments, community groups, schools, and other individuals are invited
to become Clean Texas 2000 "partners" in environmental projects or education efforts. The
Governor's Awards for Environmental Excellence will be presented annually to putstanding
partners.
[For more information, contact Brad Cross, Community Support Section, TWC, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX
78711-3087. Phone: (512) 371-6470.]
Agricultural Notes
EPA/USD A Enter into Memorandum of Agreement
on Agricultural Pollution Prevention
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently announced that a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) was signed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement
increased pollution prevention in the agricultural sector. The MOA puts into place a plan to
address agriculturally related environmental problems.
The agreement, signed by Linda Fisher, EPA's assistant administrator for the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances; and James R. Moseley, USDA's assistant secretary
of Natural Resources and the Environment, calls for EPA and USD A to work cooperatively to
minimize agricultural pollution.
16
-------
Geoffrey H. Grubbs, director of EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, in
commenting on the agreement said, "This is the first time the two agencies have agreed on and
written down a cooperative initiative to adopt and apply a pollution prevention approach. It is
an important step for the agencies to agree to work cooperatively to minimize agriculturally
related pollution and reduce environmental risk."
Four basic strategies are outlined in the agreement:
¦ Implementation of a nationwide pollution prevention program,
¦ Establishment of a coordinated research and technology development and transfer
system,
¦ Implementation of a comprehensive marketing strategy to promote voluntary
pollution prevention, and
¦ A strengthened working relationship between EPA and USD A, using existing
incentive programs, voluntary initiatives, and regulatory programs.
The MOA calls for a senior-level interagency task force to develop, by October 1,1992, a
detailed agricultural pollution prevention strategy. The following five areas, with appropriate
measurable environmental goals, have been targeted for emphasis in the near term:
1) Nutrient Management,
2) Total Resource Management Planning,
3) Voluntary Livestock or Poultry Management Agreements,
4) Safer Pesticide Registration, and
5) Voluntary Action Projects in Selected Watersheds.
[For further information, contact: Anne Weinberg, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, AWPD (WH-553),
Phone: (FTS-202) 260-7107 or Harry Wells, Pollution Prevention Division (PM-222B), Phone: (FTS-202)
260-4472. Both at U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW Washington, DC 20460.]
Coordinated Resource Management is a Vehicle for Agreement
Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP), a concept that originated in the
early 1950s, continues to be an effective vehicle to reach agreement on natural resource issues,
including water quality. CRMP is a resource planning, problem solving, and management
process that allows everyone concerned with natural resource management to participate. The
concept of coordinating resource uses results in improved resource management and
minimizes conflict among land users, landowners, governmental agencies, and interest
groups, according to the California CRMP Handbook. There are currently some 80 CRMP
projects, covering more than 6.6 million acres in California.
Local Focus Key to CRMP Success
In California, CRMP is guided by a state CRMP group, but the primary focus of all CRMP
efforts remains at the local level. Local participation and control is what distinguishes CRMP
from other planning efforts and is the key to a plan's success. The California CRMP effort is
dedicated to stimulating and facilitating this local action. According to the CPMP handbook,
all conflicts are resolved at the local level, and decisions are reached by consensus of the local
participants. Plans are implemented through appropriate agreements between participating
individuals and agencies.
E. William Anderson, range consultant, Lake Oswego, OR, and Robert C. Baum, NACD
regional representative, Salem, OR wrote in the May-June 1988 issue of the Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation:
Preferably, a coordinated plan is initiated at the local level by a request from a person, group,
organization, or agency that perceives the need for a group-action approach to resolving or
averting a local resource problem. Coordinated planning is usually initiated because of a resource
problem or conflict that those involved want resolved.
Local representatives of government agencies often initiate and administer the CRMP effort to
develop a coordinated resource plan for lands they manage. Individuals and interest groups
often present their problems to a Resource Conservation District or Soil and Water
Conservation District. If requested, the CRMP Technical Advisory Council will assist with the
planning process. Steps in the CRMP process are described in the California CRMP Handbook.
EPA/USDA Enter
into Memorandum of
Agreement
on Agricultural
Pollution Prevention
(continued)
17
-------
Working through the CRMP process, private landowners and resource management
professionals identify the issues and initiate positive actions to solve resource-related concerns.
CRMP Process in Operation
The Feather River watershed, one of California's major water-producing regions, has been
using the CRMP approach since 1985, according to Betty Harris, former CRMP executive
officer. Watershed interests include a consortium of public and private partnerships using
innovative funding strategies and technologies. As a result, 758,000 acres in the watershed
have been inventoried for water quality problems; 10 miles of severely degraded streambanks
have been restored; 3,000 acres of degraded wetlands, meadows, and rangelands have been
restored; and many fish and waterfowl have returned.
CRMP in Other States
The CRMP process is used in California and other western states for addressing natural
resource issues, reaching a consensus of agreement, and achieving mutual objectives. In
addition to California, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and
Washington, Montana and Wyoming are using CRMP. Wyoming calls the process Coordinated
Resource Management (CRM).
Handbook Available
A CRMP process handbook that serves as a helpful reference is now available. The handbook
costs $5.00 (25 copies or more are $4.00 each). Make check payable to CARCD-CRMP and send
to CARCD, 3830 U St., Sacramento, CA 95817.
[For more information, contact: Elaine Marquis, chief, Biologic Resources Branch, USDI Bureau of Land
Management, 2800 Cottage Way, Rm. E-2841, Sacramento, CA 95825-1889. Phone: (916)978-4725. FAX
(916)978-4364.]
Waste From Single Farm Harmful to MD Lake
Waste management from a single dairy farm is necessary to abate severe water pollution in the
10-acre Lake Merhl, which drains a 345-acre watershed in Frederick County, MD. The 100-head
dairy operation is the major pollutant source to the lake.
Although a small increment in the management program for the Linganore sub-basin of the
Monocacy River watershed, Lake Merhl lies at the heart of a residential community that would
like to use the lake for swimming. According to Water Resources Biologist Frank Payer of the
Maryland Department of the Environment, high bacteria counts in Lake Merhl presently
preclude swimming.
Extensive BMP plans have been developed by the Frederick Soil Conservation District and the
installation of these BMPs is scheduled for the summer of 1992, according to Payer.
Recommended BMPs for the dairy operation include a waste containment facility that stores
dairy effluent, stanchion barn waste, manure, and barnyard runoff. Also planned are a stream
cattle crossing, and fencing of a vegetative setback that borders the stream. Elsewhere on the
farm, stripcropping will be employed to reduce erosion and sediment contributions to the lake.
Section 319 funds support staffing for this case study. Generous USDA and state cost-sharing
programs have helped provide BMP installation. PL-566 watershed funds to Linganore
watershed are "piggy-backed" with Maryland's MAC funds for water storage. USDA-SCS and
MAC funds provide fencing and vegatative buffers below the cattle exercise lot. The various
funds total 87.5 percent of the project's cost.
According to Payer, Lake Merhl was chosen for this particular case study because local water
quality impacts could be readily abated. Bacteria sampling in the two main tributaries of the lake
(a control stream and the impacted stream) has taken place for the last seven months. These
streams converge just before reaching the lake. Substantial differences in levels of bacteria have
been evident between the tributary, which originates at the dairy farm's barnyard, and the
control stream, whose watershed is primarily well established in pasture and meadow. Sampling
of both streams will continue, following implementation of the BMPs. An eventual decrease in
the level of eutrophication of the lake is also anticipated.
[For more information, contact: Frank Payer, water resources biologist, Maryland Department of the
Environment, 2500 Broening Hwy., Baltimore, MD 21224. Phone: (410)631-3548. FAX (410)631-4883.]
Coordinated
Resource
Management is a
Vehicle for
Agreement
(continued)
18
-------
In Missouri, The Ag Industries Council
Spearheads Pesticide Container Recycling
During the fall of 1991, the Missouri-Ag Industries Council, Inc. (Mo-Ag), in cooperation with
Missouri's agri-chemical dealers and growers, initiated a broad, voluntary, statewide program
to recycle agriculture pesticide containers. During the 1991 program, 70,000 plastic pesticide
containers were collected, ground into pellets, and recycled into new pesticide containers and
other products.
The successful 1991 program is being continued in 1992 "to ensure the safety and cleanliness
of our environment," acccording to Mo-Ag. In announcing the 1992 campaign to its members,
ag-chemical dealers, and growers, Mo-Ag stated
Among our goals for the program are ones we know you share:
¦ Educating dealers and growers in the proper methods of cleaning containers as required by
law.
m Providing an environmentally sound method of disposing of used, clean containers.
¦ Protecting surface and groundwater and the general environment.
m Providing economic advantages to users by extending their accessibility to agrichemcials and
avoiding waste of expensive products.
¦ Helping to avoid mandated recycle programs.
¦ Facilitating a more attractive rural landscape.
u Providing a concrete way for dealers and growers to show they're actively working to
safeguard the environment.
A recent Mo-Ag newsletter described the 1991 campaign with a certain amount of pride:
It took the voluntary efforts from one hundred participating chemical dealers, at least
twenty-six chemical manufacturers' representatives, twenty-seven Missouri Farm Bureau
members, dozens of employees from Mo-Ag member firms, seven different grinding locations
across the state, countless hours of travel time, and cold cash from twenty-four different
corporations ... but Missouri's first-ever, statewide "Clean Pesticide Container Recycling
Program " was an unprecedented success.
During the last three weeks of August, you could find a sixty-foot, state-of-the-art grinding
rig, designed to granulate high quality plastic containers into little chips, traversing the
backroads and interstates of Missouri, stopping periodically, sometimes for days at a time, at
predetermined grinding sites to recycle the empty containers collected from area dealers.
The success of the program can be attributed to the cooperative efforts of all the participants
and, more importantly, will account for approximately seventy thousand fewer plastic
containers landing in Missouri landfills or filling the air with noxious fumes. That's
somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty tons of high density polyethylene plastic that was
returned, recycled and reused. The extremely low four-percent rejection rate statewide is
testimony to the efforts ofgroivers and dealers who took the time to properly rinse their
containers.
Mo-Ag's aim is to double the 1991 recycling performance in 1992. Betty Gagnon, nonpoint
source/agriculture environmental specialist of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
commented on the program to Neivs-Notes:
This project is an example of an industry trying to "clean up its act." Mo-Ag Industries, the
project organizer, has also been a key to Missouri's developing secondary containment regs
for commercial applicator mix sites. We have a high regard for their promises and their
performance.
[For further information, contact: Betty Gagnon, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 176,
Jefferson City, MO 65102. Phone: (314) 751-7225. Or, Missouri Ag Industries Council, Inc., P.O. Box 1728,
Jefferson City, MO 65102. Phone: (314) 636-6130.]
19
-------
NPS Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) News
Nonpoint Source Computer Bulletin Board System — (NPS BBS). The NPS BBS,
through the user's personal computer, provides timely, relevant NPS information, a nationwide
forum for open discussion, and the ability to exchange computer text and program files.
To access the NPS BBS, you will need • a PC or terminal, • telecommunications software (such as
Crosstalk or ProComm), • a modem (1200 or 2400 baud), and • a phone line.
The NPS BBS phone number is (301) 589-0205.
For a copy of the user's manual, complete THE COUPON on page 27 and mail or fax it in.
The WATER MONITOR Will Be A Regular NPS BBS Feature
The EPA Water Monitor newsletter is now a regular feature on the Nonpoint Source Electronic
Bulletin Board System (NPS BBS). The Water Monitor is issued by the Assessment Branch of the
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division and reports monthly on surface water
monitoring activities in the states. Articles are submitted by regional monitoring and TMDL
coordinators, the states, and EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
The NPS BBS version of the Water Monitor will be in ASCII format so it can be downloaded to,
and printed from, any computer type. The files containing the Water Monitor will always be
located in the Main Board File Area 1 and will begin with the letters "WM."
Each individual issue of the Water Monitor will be compressed into a single file using a "zip"
utility program. For instance, the February 1992, issue of the Water Monitor is WM-0292.zip.
(For instructions on how to "unzip" these files for use on your personal computer, read
Bulletin 4 on the BBS.)
Non-BBS types (are there any still not logged on?) can get on the Water Monitor's mailing list
by contacting the editor, Alice Mayio, AWPD, WH-553, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington,
DC 20460. FAX (FTS/202) 260-7025.
Message Function Is Where The Action Is
In the NPS BBS News section of News-Notes, we usually announce fancy new features, like the
NPS Research SIG Forum, or we highlight exciting files like the EPA Journal special NPS issue
file. But the most dynamic of all the BBS's functions has gotten short shrift here.
But just because we've forgotten to remind you about the BBS message system doesn't mean
you should neglect it. It is where the day-to-day, nitty-gritty, down-to-earth action is
happening. You can use the message functions to post questions, announce events and
publications, describe your projects, take a stand, whatever. You can address the water
environment community at large or send a private message to a peer.
Even if the Main Board informs you that you have no mail, reading the messages posted by
other BBS users can open up opportunities and stimulate dialogue. To read all the-messages
left since the last time you logged on, type r s and press at the "Main Board
Command?" prompt.1 If you want to respond to a particular message, type r e at the "End of
Message Command?" prompt. Your reply will automatically be addressed to the sender of the
message you've just read.
To stop reading messages and return to the Main Board menu, type n at the "End of Message
Command?" prompt.
If you want to enter a new message, type e at the "Main Board Command?" prompt. There are
several levels of message security, ranging from messages meant to be read by all users to
those sent privately to an individual. Always choose the Full Screen Editor, which gives you
word processor-type capabilities. (Some software may not be capable of supporting the Full
Screen Editor, in which case you will still be able to enter messages but will have to edit them
on a line-by-line basis.) See the NPS BBS users' manual for more details on messages.
1 If you are a first-time user, this will show you all public messages ever posted that are still active. In the future, this command will show you
only new public and private messages.
20
-------
Message Function While you're logged on, don't forget to read the messages in the Agriculture, Fish
Is Where The Consumption, Waterbody System Support, and Research SIGs. And if your session online
Action Is prompts an idea for how we can improve the BBS, please leave a message for Judy Trimarchi
(continued) or Elaine Bloom. We'd appreciate hearing from you.
Reviews
Decisionmakers Stormwater Handbook — A Primer
A primer on stormwater management has recently been completed by the Water Quality
Workgroup of U.S. EPA Region I and the Watershed Unit of Region V.
The handbook was conceived in response to the need to educate local officials and citizenry on
the basic concepts of stormwater management: why it is a concern, what to do about it, and
where to get help and more information. The handbook includes blueprints of a "typical"
watershed, highlighting the resource areas of freshwater, groundwater, wetlands, and salt
water, and shows the various stormwater best management practices in a systems approach.
[A copy of the handbook is available from: Terrene Institute, 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 1005, Washington,
DC 20006. Phone: (202) 833-8317. FAX: (202) 296-4071.]
Turning The Tide
Spectacular aerial shots of Buzzard Bay are part of the beautiful photography in the new
30-minute video, Turning the Tide, which explores problems caused by nonpoint source
pollution in an estuary near Cape Cod in Massachusetts. The video explains the pollution's
serious impact on shellfishing and recreation areas, and the effects it has had on local business
and the quality of life in Buzzard Bay communities. Local people, including shellfishermen,
relate their concerns very effectively on the tape.
The video is intended for the general public, particularly planning boards, conservation
commissions, watershed groups, and individuals whose day-to-day decisions affect water
quality. It carefully explains the causes of fecal coliform pollution and nitrogen loading, the
two primary kinds of pollution in estuaries.
The good news is the many successes of people and organizations who are "turning the tide"
on pollution in Buzzard Bay. There is the young woman who initiated a citizen monitoring
program. There is Buttermilk Bay ( a small embayment of the main bay), where three towns
voted to limit their own growth to protect the bay.
This is a particularly appealing video because of the wonderful photography, which uses
historic photos, old maps, and paintings to explain the history of the area and the diffuse
sources of pollution affecting it. The musical accompaniment also adds to the ambience with
vocal renditions of familiar songs that relate to the narration.
Turning the Tide was produced by EPA Region 1 with funds from EPA's Near Coastal Waters
Program. It is available for purchase ($25) or rental ($10) from New England Interstate
Environmental Training Center, 2 Fort Rd., South Portland, ME 04106.
[For more information, call NEIETC at (207) 767-2539 or Melissa Paly at (617) 565-4863.]
A Year In The Life Of A River
Calling the Anacostia River "a symbol of the distressed state of our nation's waterways,"
Prince Georges county, the state of Maryland, and America's Clean Water Foundation released
a video depicting the county's efforts to restore one of the most polluted tributaries of the
Chesapeake Bay. "A Year in the Life of a River" outlines the uses and misuses of the Anacostia
in a brief history and describes corrective projects currently underway.
The Anacostia River joins the Potomac just south of the nation's capital in Washington, D.C.
Unlike the Potomac River, which made dramatic strides in recovery when point sources of
pollution were eliminated, the Anacostia suffers largely from nonpoint source pollution, and
21
-------
its cleanup requires cooperation between two counties and the District of Columbia, not to
mention the commitment of citizens and corporate leaders.
The 28-minute video emphasizes raising public awareness and is ideal for viewing by local
officials and community groups. Community action is illustrated in the video by different
groups of people (Boy Scouts, private citizens, and city employees) shown cooperating in a
household hazardous waste cleanup and in stream cleanup events.
The 14-page guide that accompanies the video states that, while state and federal resources are
important, "the driving force for timely effective improvements should be at the local level."
The guide suggests a comprehensive approach for cleaning up waterways, using Prince
Georges program as a model. According to the guide, the Prince Georges plan has five
components:
¦ Implementing strict sediment controls,
¦ Planning and constructing facilities to correct the stormwater management mistakes
of the past,
¦ Identifying and controlling unauthorized discharges,
¦ Enacting and enforcing laws to prevent illegal dumping and other unlawful acts that
are degrading the stream, and
¦ Protecting and enhancing wetlands and vegetated stream buffers.
"A Year in the Life of A River" documents how one county is implementing these restoration
activities on "the nation's forgotten river."
[To order the video, send $10 to Prince Georges County, Department of Environmental Resources,
Community Outreach and Public Information, inglewood Center 3, 9400 Peppercorn Place, Suite 540,
Landover, MD 20785.]
Diet For A Small Lake
editor's note: This is a real-life story of, and by, our associate editor, Elaine Bloom, who is a member
of her town's lake committee in Maryland.
As a new member of my town's lake committee, my ears perked up when I received a flyer
announcing a manual called Diet for a Small Lake: A New Yorker's Guide to Lake Management.
After all, what our town optimistically calls "Maple Lake" is a one-acre, spring-fed swimming
hole. That's small. And I'm a transplanted New Yorker. This book is me, I thought.
So I settled down to savor the 11-chapter manual, figuring on becoming the town hero by
getting the real scoop on how to solve Maple Lake's two most pressing problems: weeds and
algae.
First, Diet reminded me that weeds are not weeds. They are integral to the the ecosystem of
our lake and are only problems because they interfere with one of the primary uses of our
pond: swimming. The aquatic vegetation probably enhances another of our town's designated
uses of the lake — fishing.
As I read on and on through the guide, through the chapters on lake management plans, lake
ecology, lake problems, I was forced to face up to the fundamental conflict inherent in the two
uses we wanted from our tiny lake. And that is where this manual shines—in its reality-based
discussions of lake user constituencies, "best uses," and the mythical "ideal" lake.
In or near the manual's ideal lake, Dear Lake, there is a forested watershed; private waterfront
homes, beautiful vistas; clear water; great fishing; warm, inviting water for swimmers;
abundant wildlife; convenient malls; and accessible roads. In Maple Lake, we only want to
have clear water and good fishing. Alas! it is not to be; as Diet points out, "A lake cannot be all
things to even a few people, let alone all people."
Add the user conflicts to the ubiquitous assault of nonpoint source pollution, and you've got
lake problems. Maple Lake is an oasis perched on the creeping edge of suburbia with all its
accompanying runoff. Its small size makes it even more vulnerable to the effects of nutrient
A Year In The Life Of
A River
(continued)
22
-------
enrichment and sedimentation than a larger lake would be. Of course the macrophytes and
algae love it.
Emphasizing that lake management "is the art (not the science) of balancing the demands of
various users of the land and water," the manual urges lake users to take responsibility for
managing their lake and not pass the job off on governments or private consultants.
Some of the science and diagnostic information seemed a bit muddled, but the book got better
and better as I read on. The best sections in the manual were the chapters on lake and
watershed management techniques, organizing for action, evaluating alternatives,
implementation, and monitoring. Especially helpful to me was the chart on physical, chemical,
biological, and institutional controls for various problems, from nuisance aquatic plants to
acidified conditions. I was able to pick out weed and algae control methods and compare
advantages, drawbacks, cost, and duration of effectiveness of the different methods. Lest
management decisions be made lightly based on the chart, it is followed by a section that
explores each technique in more detail.
Every once in a while, you find a book that contains a hidden gem in the form of a
wonderfully complete and useful appendix. Diet contains such a section: Appendix B, "Public
Involvement," is a how-to guide for a successful public involvement program covering
everything from program planning to preparing news releases and using radio talk shows
effectively. While I doubt that the Maple Lake Committee will need anything higher-powered
than a piece in the town newsletter and some flyers to involve our 700 townsfolk, this
appendix will be handy for those with larger constituencies.
Diet for a Small Lake was a joint effort of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Federation of Lake Associations of New York. While the book contains
much information specific to New York lakes, like the sections on New York's state, local, and
town laws, most of it can benefit lakes anywhere.
And any size. For, though Maple Lake may be little more than a puddle, it is a microcosm of
the social and environmental challenges that face many lake communities today.
[To order the manual, send $10 plus $2 postage and handling to Federation of Lake Associations, Inc.,
Publications Department, 2175 Ten EyckAve., Cazenovia, NY 13035.]
Announcements of Interest
EPA Journal Special NPS Issue Still Available
Demand for the special nonpoint source issue of the EPA Journal has been so great that the NPS
Control Branch has ordered a special printing. If you haven't gotten a copy and would like
one, contact Anne Weinberg, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, WH-553, U.S. EPA, 401 M St.,
SW, Washington, DC 20460. FAX: (FTS/202)260-7024.
Wetlands and Nonpoint Sources Featured
In First Issue of New Journal
The inaugural issue of Ecological Engineering—The Journal of Ecotechnology investigates the role
of wetlands, particularly constructed wetlands, in the control of nonpoint source pollution of
our waterways. The ten papers in the March 1992 issue explore both the science/
engineering/research aspects and the policy/regulatory aspects of using wetlands for
application of ecotechnology.
This special issue, edited by Richard K. Olson of ManTech Environmental Technology,
Corvallis, OR, was the result of a workshop sponsored by EPA in June 1991. Copies of this
issue (Ecological Engineering, 1992, Vol. 1, No. 1) and information about subscriptions can be
obtained free by writing to Elsevier Science Publishers, P.O. Box 181, AD Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. Or FAX 3120-5803-598.
The journal's editor-in-chief is William J. Mitsch, School of Natural Resources, Ohio State
University.
Diet For A Small
Lake
(continued)
23
-------
Datebook
This DATEBOOK has been assembled with the cooperation of our readers. If there is a meeting or
event that you would like placed in the DATEBOOK, contact the NPS NEWS-NOTES editors.
Because of an irregular printing schedule, notices should be in our hands at least two months in
advance to ensure timely publication. A more complete listing can be found on the NPS BBS.
MEETINGS AND EVENTS
1992
June
3-4 Urban Runoff Training Workshop, Chicago, IL. Contact: Lisa Grayson, Terrene Institute, 1000
Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 833-3380. The purpose of this
workshop is to address the widespread need for information and material on local stormwater
quality program implementation. Topics will be resource protection, education and training
efforts as program components, and urban runoff research. The material covered in this
workshop will relate stormwater quality program implementation to §319 opportunities and
NPDES. In addition, the material will help states develop their coastal NPS programs. The
workshop is sponsored by EPA Region 5 Water Division, Terrene Institute, and EPA's Center
for Environmental Research Information.
10-12 Workshop on Water Quality Standards/Criteria and Related Programs, New Orleans, LA. Contact:
Michele Vuotto, Dynamac Corporation, 2275 Research Blvd., Suite 500, Rockville, MD
20850-3268. Sponsored by U.S. EPA's Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. A block
of rooms has been reserved at the Hyatt Regency. Single rooms are $65. Make room reservation
for "SASD Workshop" by calling (504) 561-1234 by May 17. Topics: Proposed revisions to the
WQS Regulation, interagency agreement with the U.S. FWS/Endangered Species Act, Fish
Consumption Advisory database (demonstration), national criteria guidelines, contaminated
sediment management and criteria. Also, setting site-specific criteria, developing biocriteria,
inter-/intra-state issues in water quality standards, fish advisories/consumption, toxicology
and risk assessment, national wildlife criteria program. The NPS BBS and its Fish
Consumption Forum and database will be demonstrated at the workshop.
15-17 Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments, New Orleans, LA. Contact: Nancy
Wallman, ERIM/Marine Environment Conf., PO Box 134001, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-4001. (313)
994-1200. Theme: "Needs and Solutions for Pollution Monitoring, Control and Abatement."
Topics: oil pollution, water quality, coastal processes, coastal habitat, and emerging
technologies and systems.
15-17 Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s, Boulder,
CO. Contact: Katherine Taylor, Campus Box 401, Boulder, CO 80309-0401. (303) 492-1288.
Registration $350 ($150/ day) before 6/1; $400 after. Meeting will be held in conjunction with
the Rocky Mountain Groundwater Conference and will be addressing both legal and
engineering issues. Sponsored by the Colorado Groundwater Assn. and the Natural Resources
Law Center at University of Colorado.
15-18 Designing Stormwater Quality Management Practices, Portland, OR. Contact: Patrick Eagan, The
Wisconsin Center, 702 Langdon St., Madison, WI53706. (800) 462-0876. Sponsored by the City
of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and the OR Chapter of the American Public
Works Association. Attendees receive a copy of DETPOND software. Reserve room at Benson
Hotel (503) 228-2000, ext. 102. Topics: NPDES program, flow and water quality management,
source control, infiltration management, biofiltration, etc.
17-19 Workshop on Water Quality Standards/Criteria and Related Programs, San Francisco, CA. See June
10 for details. A block of rooms has been reserved at the Hyatt at Fisherman's Wharf. Single
rooms are $88. Make room reservation for "SASD Workshop" by calling (415) 563-1234 by May
26.
24-26 Partnerships Protecting Mississippi River Resources, St. Peters, MO. Contact: Ross Braun/Dave
King, Soil and Water Conservation Society, West Northcentral Region. (314) 724-2237.
25-26 Environmental Planning & Growth Management Symposium: "Environmental Issues and Policies in
Coastal Georgia," St. Simons Island, GA. Contact: David Kylar, Coastal GA Regional
Development Center, PO Box 1917, Brunswick, GA 31521. (912) 264-7363. FAX 262-2313.
Rooms and meals available at nominal cost. Two-day symposium covering a wide variety of
resources, programs, and issues: wetlands, water quality, endangered species, marshland
protection, erosion control, environmental audits.
24
-------
Datebook (Continued)
1992
June
28-7/1
28-7/2
July
7-9
11-13
19-22
20-22
20-24
23
August
2-5
9-12
31-9/2
September
1-3
8-9
Urban and Agricultural Water Reuse, Orlando, FL. Contact: Salvadore D'Angelo, Boyle
Engineering Corp., 320 East South St., Orlando, FL 32801. (407) 425-1100.
National Forum on Water Management Policy, Washington, DC. Contact: Martin Reuss, HQ, US
Army Corps of Engineers, Office of History, Kingman Bldg., Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5577. (703)
355-3560.
Workshop on Water Quality Standards/Criteria and Related Programs, Saratoga, NY. See June 10 for
details. A block of rooms has been reserved at the Ramada Renaissance. Single rooms are $60.
Make room reservation for "SASD Workshop" by calling (518) 584-4000 by June 15.
Texas Watch Volunteer Monitoring Conference, Corpus Christi, TX. Contact: Dave Buzan, Texas
Watch, PO Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087. (512) 463-8206. For volunteer monitors,
educators, representatives from coastal cities. Teachers can earn AAT credit by attending
workshops for Adopt-A-Wetland, Texas Watch, GREEN, and other student-related projects.
Annual Meeting of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA), Alexandria, VA. Contact: Roberta Savage, ASIWPCA, 750 First St., NE, Suite 910,
Washington, DC 20002. (202) 898-0905. FAX: 898-0929.
Growing Into the 21st Century: 1992 Sustainable Agriculture Symposium, Memphis, TN. Contact:
NACD, 504 Capitol Court, NE, Washington, DC 20002. (202) 547-6223. Highlights food and
fiber production systems that allow producers to safeguard the environment while remaining
profitable. Sponsored by NACD and 36 other organizations and agencies.
Workshop on Pesticide and Industrial Chemical Risk Analysis and Hazard Assessment (PIRANHA)
Computer-assisted Analysis Technology, Athens, GA. Contact: Joyce Wool, AScI Corp.,
USEPA-ERL, College Station Rd„ Athens, GA 30613-0801. (404) 546-3210. FAX: 546-3340.
Sponsored by U.S. EPA, Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling, University of Georgia
Center for Continuing Education. Attendance is limited.
12th Milan No-Till Field Day, Milan, TN. Contact: John Bradley, superintendent, Milan
Experiment Station, 205 Ellington Dr., Milan, TN 38358. (901) 686-7362. The largest event of its
kind. In 1991, 6,000 people from 31 states and 16 countries attended. Features tours,
demonstrations, research reports, educational booths, and equipment displays.
Water Forum '92: Saving A Threatened Resource, Baltimore, MD. Contact: ASCE Conference Dep.,
345 E. 47 St, New York, NY 10017. (800) 548-ASCE.
Resource Management in a Dynamic World: 47th Annual Meeting of the Soil and Water Conservation
Society, Baltimore, MD. Contact: Tony Vrana/Tim Kautza, SWCS, 7515 Northeast Ankeny Rd.,
Ankeny, IA 50021-9764. (515) 289-2331. Emphasizes the role human resources play in using
and managing natural resources. Three sub-themes are: environmental values, economics, and
policy.
National Irrigation-induced Erosion and Water Quality Conference, Boise, ID. Contact: William
Carmack, USDA-SCS, South Ag Building, 14th and Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC
20013. (202) 720-6037. FAX: 720-0428. Papers and posters invited. Details available late May.
Topics: Water rights; legislation, policy, technical assistance, financial assistance, research and
technology transfer needs; sociological barriers; cost-benefit; impact and treatment of
irrigation return flow; impacts on fisheries, recreation; etc.
3rd National Meeting: Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, Las Vegas, NV. Contact: Patti
Morris, Office of Science & Technology, U.S. EPA (WH-585), 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC
20460. (202) 260-9830. Theme: Fiscal Year 1994-1996 Water Quality Standards Priorities.
Lake Champlain: Its Future Depends On Us, South Burlington, VT. Contact: Don Hipes, Rt. 2, Box
92, Jericho, VT 05465. (802) 244-4510. Co-sponsored by the New Hampshire, Vermont, and
Empire State (NY) chapters of the Soil and Water Conservation Society.
25
-------
Datebook (Continued)
1992
9-10
13-17
13-17
13-17
14-16
20-24
October
1-2
14-16
16-22
November
2-7
24-25
December
14-15
January
10-13
February
8-11
The District Role in Remedial Action Plans Workshop, Milwaukee, WI. Contact: Bill Horvath,
NACD, 1052 Main, Stevens Point, WI 54481-2895. (715) 341-1022. FAX: 341-1023. Focuses on
Lake Michigan.
National RCWP Symposium: Ten Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The
RCWP Experience, Orlando, FL. Contact: Lisa Grayson, Terrene Institute, 1000 Connecticut
Ave., NW, Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 833-3380. Symposium offers the opportunity
to present and discuss the outcome of projects related to the 10-year experimental Rural Clean
Water Program. Hosted by the South Florida Water Management District with U.S. EPA, ASCS,
SCS, and Extension Service.
The Year 2000: Will We Be Ready Technically? Socially? Politically? 1992 Annual Meeting of the
American Fisheries Society, Rapid City, SD. Contact: Bud Griswold, National Sea Grant Program,
1335 East-West Highway, Room 5216, Silver Spring, MD 20910. (301) 427-2431.
Fourth International Wetlands Conference, Columbus, OH. Contact: William Mitsch, School of
Natural Resources, OSU, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH 53210. (614) 292-9774.
The District Role in Remedial Action Plans Workshop, Rochester, NY. Focuses on Lake Ontario. See
Sept. 9 for details.
Surface Water Quality and Ecology: 1992 Annual Water Environment Federation Conference, New
Orleans, LA. Contact: Maureen Novotne, WEF Technical Services, 601 Wythe St., Alexandria,
VA 22314-1994. (703) 684-2400.
3rd Annual Utah Nonpoint Source Water Quality Conference, Ogden, UT. Contact: Jack Wilbur,
Utah Dept. of Agriculture, Environmental Quality Section, 350 N. Redwood Rd., Salt Lake
City, UT 84116. (801) 538-7098. Theme: Urban Runoff and Stormwater Management.
Watershed Resources: Balancing Environmental, Social, Political, and Economic Factors in Large
Basins, Portland, OR. Contact: Conference Assistant, OSU College of Forestry, Peavy Hall 202,
Corvallis, OR 97331. (503) 737-2329. Explores how environmental and human factors interact
and must be considered in order to meet current and future watershed management
challenges. Topics: major ecological, political, social, economic, legal, and institutional issues;
regional, national, international approaches and experience in addressing major watershed
issues; new concepts and visions for future watershed management. An evening session will
highlight posters and other displays.
Interdisciplinary Approaches in Hydrology and Hydrogeology, Portland, OR. Contact: Helen Klose,
American Instit. of Hydrology, 3416 University Ave., SW, Minneapolis, MN 55414-3328. (612)
379-1030. Cost: AIH members $240, non-members $260. After Sept. 15, $25 more. Topics: water
policy, competing water needs, surface/ground water relations, geochemistry, climate,
hazardous and toxic information systems.
12th Annual International Symposium on Lake and Reservoir Management, Cincinnati, OH.
Contact: Bob Mason, (513) 521-7275. Sponsored by the North American Lake Management
Society.
Stormwater Management and Combined Sewer Overflow Technology Transfer Seminar, Contact: Ms.
B. Pasian, conference secretary, Wastewater Technology Center, P.O. Box 5068, Burlington,
Ontario L7R 4L7. (416) 336-4588. FAX 336-4765.
6th National Drainage Symposium, Nashville, TN. Contact: ASAE, 2950 Niles Rd., St Joseph, MI
49085-9659.
The Development of Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Sites, Washington,
DC. Contact: Dr. Eileen O'Neill, Water Environment Federation, 601 Wythe St., Alexandria, VA
22314-1992. (703) 684-2400. FAX: 684-2492.
Geologic Remote Sensing: Exploration, Environment, and Engineering, Pasadena, CA. Contact: Dr.
Robert Rogers, ERIM, Box 134001, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-4001. (313) 994-1200. FAX: 994-5123.
26
-------
The Coupon
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon #21
(Clip or Photocopy and Mail or FAX this coupon to us)
Our Mailing Address: NPS News-Notes (WH-553), Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
Our Fax Number: NPS News-Notes (202)260-1517
Use this Coupon to:
(check one or more) Q Share your Clean Water Experiences, OR
~ Ask for Information, OR
~ Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your question, or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
' Q I want the revised NPS/BBS Users' Manual. Please send me a copy.
I ~ Please add my name to the mailing list to receive News-Notes.
, Your Name:
| Organization:
| Address:
I City/State: Zip:
' Phone: Fax:
I
27
-------
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES is an occasional bulletin dealing with the condition of the environment and the control of
nonpoint sources of water pollution. NPS pollution comes from many sources and is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and
through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural pollutants and pollutants resulting from human activ-
ity, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and ground waters. NPS pollution is normally associated with
agricultural, silvicultural, mining, and urban runoff. Hydrologic modification is a form of NPS pollution that often adversely affects the
biological integrity of surface waters.
NPS NEWS-NOTES is published under the authority of section 319(1) of the Clean Water Act by the Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division (WH-553), Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW,
Washington DC 20460. FAX (FTS/202) 260-1517. Hal Wise, Editor; Elaine Bloom, Associate Editor. Corresponding Editors:
Margherita Pryor, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, OWOW, and John Reeder, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
For inquiries on editorial matters call (FTS/202) 260-3665. For additions or changes to the mailing list, please use the COUPON on
page 27 and mail or FAX it in. We cannot accept mailing list additions or changes over the telephone.
Moving?
Send present mailing label
and new address including
zip code to:
NPS News-Notes (WH-553)
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
First Class Mail
Postage arid Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
J ^ Tl United States Office of Water April 1992
£ f Environmental Washington, DC 20460
^ Protection Agency
TMDL CASE STUDY
Denver Metro — The South Platte River Segment 15
Key Features:
Revision of TMDLs to meet Water
Quality Standards
Project Name:
Denver Metro — The South Platte River
Segment 15
Location:
EPA Region VIII/Denver, Colorado
Scope/Size:
River, drainage area 380 mi2
Land Type:
Smooth to irregular plains
Type of Activity:
Urban
Pollutant(s):
Toxic ammonia (NH3), BOD/DO, toxics,
metals
TMDL Development: PS, NPS, Toxics
Data Sources:
Site-specific data from NPDES
permittee and localities
Data Mechanisms:
STREAMDO and Colorado Ammonia
Model
Monitoring Plan:
Yes
Control Measures:
NPDES permit
Summary: In 1986,
low dissolved oxygen (DO) and the
McKay Road
S. Adams STP
"DO Problems
Sampling Locations
Ammonia Toxicity Problems
presence of toxic ammonia, other toxics, and metals convinced
the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission to identify
Segment 15 of the South Platte River as water quality impaired
and a high priority for TMDL development. EPA Region VIII
developed TMDLs for the segment after assuming authority to
issue the NPDES permit for the Denver Metro Wastewater
Reclamation District's Central Facility. Although numerous
point sources discharge to the river upstream from Segment 15
and nonpoint source pollution was also known to contribute to
its pollutant load, these were considered insignificant when
compared with the discharge from the Central Facility at low
flow. Almost the entire flow of the South Platte is diverted
immediately above Metro's discharge. Using the extensive data
that were key to identifying the water quality problems in this
segment of the South Platte, TMDL development proceeded for
metals, nitrates, nitrites, and ammonia. Ammonia was of
primary concern because it contributed to both un-ionized ammonia toxicity and DO problems. Wasteload allocations
based on the TMDLs were incorporated into the Central Facility's NPDES permit when it came up for renewal in 1986.
Unfortunately, water quality data gathered since then indicate that DO continues to be below required concentrations in
sections of Segment 15. As a result, the Region is now working to revise the TMDLs for those parameters that affect DO
so that the DO standard will be achieved throughout the reach. The revised TMDLs may include "non-chemical"
components, such as habitat restoration.
Pt Upton 4
i Brighton STP
64th Av<
¦s%yr
Metro STP
FIGURE 1. South Platte River/Segment 15
Contact: Bruce Zander, U.S. EPA Region VIII, Water Division, 999 18th St., Ste. 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466,
phone (303)293-1580
-------
BACKGROUND
Programmatic Issues
The Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Metro
District) provides wastewater treatment for a major portion
of metropolitan Denver and portions of surrounding
Adams, Arapahoe, and Jefferson Counties. It consists of
20 municipalities and service districts that are "Member
Municipalities," 23 "special connectors," and 17
"connectors to connectors," discharging approximately 210
million gallons per day (mgd) into the South Platte River
near Sand Creek (Figure 1). The river below this
discharge is considered to be effluent dominated because
estimated background flow is only about 20 mgd.
The Colorado Department of Health is delegated to issue
permits in the State of Colorado. EPA Region VIII
assumed authority to issue an NPDES permit for the
Denver Metro municipal facility in 1986, however, because
of the facility's consistent violations under the Clean Water
Act (CWA). When excessive nutrients, low dissolved
oxygen (DO), and the presence of toxic ammonia, other
toxics, and metals convinced the Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission (WQCC) to target Segment 15 of the
South Platte River as a high priority for TMDL
development, the Region established TMDLs to address
these water quality problems. Wasteload allocations
(WLAs) were incorporated into Denver Metro's NPDES
permit. Metro District was the major cause of water
quality impairment.
TMDL development begins with a thorough evaluation of
available data and information. The Region evaluated the
WLA that had already been established for Denver Metro
by the Department of Health. It was deemed insufficient.
The Region also considered the quality and abundance of
available data to determine whether the data were adequate
to calculate a TMDL and allocate pollutant loads for each
parameter with a reasonable assurance that water quality
standards would be met. Hie data appeared sufficient, and
TMDLs were promulgated. A new NPDES permit, with
limits based on the TMDLs calculated for each pollutant of
concern, was issued to the Denver Metro facility in
December 1986 (USEPA, 1986).
NOTE: Had there been substantial uncertainty that any
TMDL would result in the attainment of water quality
standards, a phased approach to TMDL development could
have been chosen. Under this approach, a formal
monitoring plan is adopted as part of the TMDL to assess
attainment of standards and to support revision of the
TMDL if standards are not attained.
Denver Metro—the NPDES permittee—installed pollution
controls and collected data over the next 4 years so that the
effectiveness of these controls could be evaluated. A
review of the data in 1990 revealed that past problems with
chlorine toxicity and ammonia toxicity appeared to have
been resolved by upgrades of the Central Facility. The
data also indicated that low DO concentrations continued to
be a problem. Water quality standards had not yet been
attained. (The DO profile along this segment of the river
is shown in Figure 2.) This information forced a
reassessment of the TMDLs for those parameters that affect
DO in the stream, followed by a decision by the Region to
update those TMDLs. The possibility of developing new,
phased TMDLs that incorporate non-chemical parameters is
currently being discussed because, while water quality
problems are largely the result of various point source
discharges, habitat degradation is a significant exacerbating
factor.
To facilitate development of the new TMDLs, the State and
EPA Region VIII are working closely with Metro District
to collect and interpret additional data, as well as to model
water quality. EPA's Office of Water is also continuing to
review new approaches, technology, and tools to better
assist in implementing the TMDL process (USEPA,
1991b). Metro District is funding the monitoring,
modeling, and site-specific criteria development for the
TMDLs.
CCMTOAL
TO MGO MfTWlfftQ eFnUENT
11S MGD SECONDARY (LFFUENT
'(
A
Fulton
Oitcft
A ~ A
rttft Mth WcKay
A
12401
A
i«0th
A
LupiOft
Miles below Burlington Ditch Headgate
FIGURE 2. Dissolved Oxygen Profile for South Platte
River Segment 15 (Camp, Dresser & McKee, 1992)
The Resource
The South Platte River originates in the center of Colorado
and flows generally northeast for 270 miles to Nebraska.
Approximately 65 percent of the population of Colorado is
concentrated in a 30-mile-wide strip along the South Platte
River, beginning 18 miles south of Denver and extending
80 miles northward. The land type in the watershed is
mainly smooth western high plains. Natural vegetation on
the plains tends toward gana, or buffalo grass. The soil
types typical of this area are dry Mollisols (Omernik,
1987). The Denver area receives approximately 12 to 16
inches of annual rainfall, and annual natural runoff in the
2
-------
area ranges from 0.1 to 1 inch (USGS, 1985). Runoff
from urbanized areas, however, is greater. Low-flow
conditions are most common from July to October, and
high flows generally occur during the spring (May to June).
Segment 15 of the South Platte River, shown in Figure 1,
flows north from the Denver metropolitan area to Fort
Lupton, Colorado. This segment of the river extends 26
miles and its drainage area is approximately 380 square
miles.
Upstream of Clear Creek, Segment 15 is characterized by
heavy commercial and industrial land uses. Along
Segment 15 itself there are active gravel mines, flooded
gravel mines, pasture lands, and agricultural lands. Erosion
control, which has extensively modified the upstream
channel of Segment 15, has negatively affected the riparian
zone, river hydrology, and assimilative capacity of the
river. Dewatering flows from gravel-mining operations
along the river contribute sediments and also affect the
river hydrology. DO problems tend to occur in large
ponded areas, which are a result of in-stream gravel mining
and small dams built for irrigation withdrawal and utility
line protection. Low species diversity throughout segments
of the South Platte indicates that poor water quality and
habitat degradation are impairing the health of aquatic
communities.
Figure 1 illustrates the major pollution sources and quality-
impaired areas along Segment 15. The location of point
source inflows, nonpoint source loadings, irrigation return
flows, tributary flows, and water supply withdrawals along
the segment are indicated in Figure 3.
The WQCC has classified Segment 15 for the following
uses: (1) Class 2 warm water aquatic life, (2) Class 2
recreation, (3) water supply, and (4) agricultural use. Table
1 presents the water quality standards that were in effect at
the time of TMDL development so that the river reach
would support these uses. It is possible that in the future
the WQCC will adopt more stringent standards for un-
ionized ammonia and a tiered standard for DO. Effluent
limits for phosphorus are not currently in effect for Metro
District's Central Facility. In addition, the State and EPA
are investigating the development of site-specific standards
for DO in the South Platte River. Changes in water quality
standards could require TMDL revision.
ASSESSING AND CHARACTERIZING THE
PROBLEM
Targeting and Prioritizing
Although each State decides how to prioritize impaired
waters for TMDL development, the CWA provides that the
severity of pollution and the intended uses of a waterbody
be considered. EPA policy guidelines (USEPA, 1991a)
suggest additional criteria. TMDL development for
Segment 15 of the South Platte River was targeted and
assigned a high priority because (1) available data indicated
water quality was impaired, and (2) there was an urgent
need to reissue the Metro Facility's NPDES permit.
Monitoring and Data Bases
Denver Metro conducted voluntary ambient monitoring at
various points along Segment 15 for many years prior to
1986 in order to assess the water quality impacts of its
discharges to the river. This information provided the first
indication that there was a DO problem in sections of the
reach, prompting EPA Region VIII to initiate more
intensive water quality monitoring. EPA and the State
conducted a joint data collection effort for approximately 6
months in 1985. The monitoring revealed that, in addition
to low DO, the problems included chlorine and ammonia
toxicity, as well as high concentrations of various metals.
The data from Denver Metro's ambient monitoring, the
EPA/State intensive monitoring efforts, the water quality
records from the South Adams County Water and
Sanitation District and the City of Brighton, and effluent
chemistry data from wastewater treatment facilities on
Segment 15 were combined to form a fairly complete data
base, with a period of record beginning in 1980, for
numerous water quality parameters. This data base was
very useful in characterizing water quality trends in
Segment 15 over time and in completing TMDL analyses
for the pollutants of concern.
After 1986, Denver Metro's ambient monitoring program
was formally modified to provide more complete water
quality data and information. Weekly water quality data
are now collected at designated sampling locations along
the South Platte River, including Segment 15, and in
certain tributaries. In addition, Denver Metro collects a
series of 24-hour (diel) water quality samples two times
each year. Diel data can greatly increase the accuracy of a
water quality model when used to calibrate for diel
variations in DO and other parameters. This monitoring
program was initially outlined in the 1986 EPA-issued
NPDES permit for the Central Facility and has been
sustained through annual CWA section 308 letters to
Denver Metro.
The current data base is particularly valuable because of its
long period of record, broad spatial coverage, and
consistency in sampling and analytical methods. It is quite
useful for (1) determining whether water quality standards
are being met, (2) indicating water quality trends, and (3)
providing better information to revise established TMDLs,
if necessary. In addition, the expanded data base better
supports water quality modeling efforts.
3
-------
FORT UIPTON WWTP
SEGMENT
BOUNDARY-
SEGMENT BOUNDARY
AT BURLINGTON
DITCH H.
legend
GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE SITES
• IRRIGATION RETURN FLOWS 4 NON-POINT
SOURCE LOADING POINTS
¦ WWTP DISCHARGE POINTS
- DISTRICT'S CENTRAL
PLANT
FIGURE 3. Segment 15 Pollution Loading Sources (after Camp Dresser & McKee, 1992)
4
-------
TMDL DEVELOPMENT - 1986
Determining the Load/Waste Load Allocation
Scheme
The objective of a TMDL is to allocate allowable loads
among all of the pollutant sources throughout a watershed
so that appropriate control measures can be implemented
and water quality standards achieved. To do this, EPA
Region VIII followed five distinct steps.
The first step taken to develop the TMDLs for Denver
Metro was selecting the pollutants to consider. Water
quality data for Segment 15 of the South Platte were
reviewed to identify existing water quality problems and
their probable causes. In 1986, Denver Metro concentrated
on ammonia and chlorine toxicity, DO problems, and
metals. Ammonia was of particular concern because it
contributed to the un-ionized ammonia toxicity and DO
problems in Segment 15 of the river (B. Zander,
correspondence, May 23, 1991).
The second step taken was to estimate the maximum
allowable loading of the pollutant(s) of concern that would
not violate water quality standards. The critical flow
condition that resulted in the lowest dilution of pollutants
was identified as the 7Q10 (the 7-day consecutive low
flow, reoccurring every 10 years).
Next, all point and nonpoint sources to Segment 15 were
identified and their contributions estimated. Point source
discharges along the South Platte and its tributaries include
publicly owned treatment works and industrial dischargers
(see Figure 4). The Denver Metro District's Central
Facility, at the head of Segment 15, is the largest
discharger in the area with a design capacity of 185 mgd
(287 cfs). The South Adams County Waste and Sanitation
District wastewater facility and the wastewater facility for
the City of Brighton have design capacities of only 4.3
mgd (6.7 cfs) and 2.6 mgd (4.1 cfs), respectively. Various
industrial discharges to the river are also relatively small.
Nonpoint source pollution contributions, including ground
water inflow, were also estimated. When compared with
the discharge from Metro's Central Facility at low flow,
however, these other loadings were considered much less
significant. For this reason, TMDL development was
centered around this facility and the other pollutant sources
were considered to be background.
Predictive analysis of pollutants in Segment 15 of the
South Platte and determination of total allowable loads
were performed using the model and mass balance
equations developed for the second step. WLAs for point
sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources were
developed and are shown in Table 1. The margin of safety
(MOS), which is required when calculating a TMDL, was
incorporated through the conservative assumptions used
during TMDL development. If these conservative
assumptions had been deemed insufficient, an additional
MOS would have been added as a separate component of
the TMDL.
The final step was to determine the limits to be placed on
individual pollution sources so that the total loading for
each pollutant would be within the specified TMDL.
Because the Central Facility was identified as the most
significant source of pollutants to Segment 15, the facility
was required to upgrade to advanced wastewater treatment.
The other municipal facilities in Segment 15 are required to
treat only to secondary levels. Best management practices
to control nonpoint sources were not recommended.
The WLAs for the Central Facility were incorporated into
its NPDES permit. The TMDLs required the Denver
Metro Facility to be very near water quality standards at
the end of the pipe for many pollutants (e.g., metals and
other inorganics) because of the low dilution during critical
conditions.
Modeling
To predict stream response to various pollutant loading
scenarios, the staff of EPA Region VIII developed
STREAMDO, a steady state, one-dimensional water quality
model. STREAMDO was used for Section 15 of the South
Platte to model dissolved oxygen and un-ionized ammonia.
There were numerous advantages to using this model. It
was accepted by the regulatory authorities, was not overly
complex, and was easily modified and understood. Also, it
ran on Lotus 1-2-3, a common spreadsheet software
package.
Features of the STREAMDO model included a mass
balance approach; subdivision of stream segments; and
representative equations for physical, biological, and
chemical processes. To determine allowable concentrations
for effluent parameters other than biological oxygen
demand and ammonia, modelers used a simple mass
balance calculation.
STREAMDO was calibrated and verified in 1986 using
available historical water quality data. The model
coefficients and inputs used to calculate TMDLs for
Segment 15 were also based on these data. The TMDLs
are presented in Table 1.
FOLLOW-UP
Monitoring
Reporting requirements in the NPDES permit and letters
from EPA issued under CWA section 308 required the
Central Facility to collect ambient water quality,
5
-------
TABLE 1. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the South Platte River at the Points of Discharge for Denver Metro
PARAMETER
WASTE LOAD
ALLOCATION*
(e.g., Permit Limit)
LOAD
ALLOCATION*
(Background)
TMDL
(lb/day)
WATER QUALITY
STANDARD'
(fg^L)
Arsenic (Total)
lb/day (ng/L)
91.0
(52.0)
5.0
(30.0)
96.0
50.0
Cadmium
lb/day (jig/L)
1.8
(1.0)
0.1
(1.0)
1.9
1.0
Chromium (Hex)
lb/day (ng/L)
47.0
(27.0)
1.0
(8.0)
48.0
25.0
Chromium (Tri)
lb/day (ng/L)
95.0
(54.0)
1.0
(12.0)
96.0
50.0
Copper
lb/day (ng/L)
46.0
(26.0)
2.0
(18.0)
48.0
25.0
Lead
lb/day (ng/L)
46.0
(26.0)
2.0
(14.0)
48.0
25.0
Manganese (Diss)
lb/day (|ig/L)
280.0
(160.0)
27.0
(160.0)
307.0
160.0
Mercury
lb/day (|ig/L)
0.09
(0.05)
0.01
(0.05)
0.1
0.05
Nickel
lb/day (|Jg/L)
189.0
(108.0)
3.0
(11.0)
192.0
100.0
Selenium (total)
lb/day (ng/L)
18.0
(10.0)
1.0
(10.0)
19.0
10.0
Silver
lb/day (ng/L)
0.2
(0.10)
0.02
(0.1)
0.2
0.1
Zinc
lb/day (fig/L)
252.0
(144.0)
17.0
(99.0)
269.0
140.0
Nitrite
1000 lb/day (mg/L)b
1.8
(1.0)
1.9
1.0 (mg/L)
Nitrate
1000 lb/day (mg/L)b
18.0
(10.0)
19.0
10.0 (mg/L)
Ammonia
1000 lb/day (mg/L)
June-Sept. 10.5 (6.0)
Oct. 15.8 (9.0)
Nov.-Dec. 22.8 (13.0)
Jan. 35.0 (20.0)
Feb.-Mar. 22.8 (13.0)
Apr.-May 15.8 (9.0)
0.5 (3.0)
0.5 (3.0)
0.5 (3.0)
0.5 (3.0)
0.5 (3.0)
0.5 (3.0)
11.0
16.3
23.3
36.0
23.3
16.3
0.1 (mg/L)
Dissolved Oxygen
May 1 - July 14
July 15 - Apr. 30
mg/L
mg/L
5.0 (mg/L)
4.5 (mg/L)
pH
s.u.
6.5 - 9.0 (s.u.)
Total Residual Chlorine mg/L
0.003 (mg/L)
Based on 210-mgd effluent flow and 20-mgd background flow in the South Platte River.
'The load allocation includes loadings from all PSs and NPSs upstream from the permittee's discharge (£WLA+XLA+MOS=TMDL).
"Nitrite and nitrate limits are based on meeting State water quality standards at the end of the pipe.
cSite-specific water quality standards in place at the time this TMDL was set.
hydrologic, and biological data to ensure that the facility
was complying with its permit, to monitor water quality
trends, and to evaluate whether the TMDLs adequately
protect water quality and the aquatic community. This
monitoring has shown that, while the ammonia toxicity
problem appears to have been resolved, low DO
concentrations persist in specific sections of Segment 15.
This finding has forced EPA to re-evaluate the TMDLs
established in 1986 for pollutants that exert an oxygen
demand.
Modeling
STREAMDO was used for this re-evaluation using the
additional data from the follow-up monitoring. The
Colorado Ammonia Model was also incorporated to
produce the Segment 15 Water Quality Model (Camp
Dresser & McKee, Inc., 1992). This latest round of DO
modeling for the South Platte shows that benthic oxygen
demand plays a key role in causing excursions below the
standard. As a result, more field work is planned to further
6
-------
FIGURE 4. Pollutant Sources Upstream from Segment 15 (after DRCOG, 1990)
Segment 1 4
Segment 15
¦>
So Platte River
Segment 6 :
< {Segment 14
Cherry Cr Res
N
# Point Load
~ Junction
~ Storm Drainage Inflow
¦ Wastewater Facility
Water Withdrawal
Seel*
i—i
1 mile
characterize the link between the quality of Denver Metro's
effluent and the benthic oxygen demand. The water quality
model, as well as certain TMDLs, will be updated based on
information collected this year on the benthic processes.
Although it is anticipated that the TMDLs for several
pollutants will change, Metro District has been required to
conduct engineering studies on alternative solutions to the
DO problem. One solution may involve additional
nitrification/denitrification of the effluent of the South
Complex of the Central Facility; although the Segment 15
Model indicated this will not necessarily alleviate the DO
problem in Segment 15. Modeling also indicated that
ponding above the 88th Avenue bridge and at the Fulton
Ditch diversion is a major cause of oxygen depletion in the
river. As a result, several nontraditional solutions are being
examined. Channel restoration to improve natural stream
aeration is one possibility. By restoring the river's natural
cross-section—alternating riffles and pools to improve
reaeration and increase velocities—it is thought that the
benthic layer will have much less influence on DO.
According to the model, a variety of combinations of
improvements at the Denver Metro treatment facility,
physical habitat improvements, and artificial reaeration may
achieve the specified in-stream DO targets. The artificial
reaeration involves an off-channel facility in which water is
pumped over a cascade structure in a park setting.
Alternative Pollution Controls
The alternative methods to increase DO along Segment 15
of the South Platte River are currently being ranked and
costed by the discharger. The alternatives and their
associated costs are presented in Table 2.
Ranking of the alternatives is based on four criteria: (1)
implementability and relative magnitude of activity; (2)
operatability and reliability; (3) environmental
comparability; and (4) public support. Implementability
and relative magnitude rates each alternative on the
likelihood that the alternative will actually be implemented.
At this stage of the screening process, capital and operating
costs are not listed as separate criteria, but are considered
qualitatively in formulating a rating for this criterion.
Operatability and reliability rates each alternative on how
easy or difficult it is to operate from the District's
standpoint. The evaluation considers the risk that the
Metro District would assume in the operation if water
quality standards are not met. By necessity, multiple-
jurisdiction involvement would be rated at the low end of
7
-------
TABLE 2. Alternative Methods to Increase DO Concentrations and Facilitate Meeting Water Quality Standards for
DO Along Segment 15 of the South Platte River
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE
CAPITAL COST
($ Million)
ANNUAL O&M
COST
($ K/Yr)
• Nitrification/denitrification facilities for Central Plant's 115-mgd South
Complex
72-112a
2,000-4,500"
• Stream modification above and below 88th Ave.
• Effluent dispersal to 3 ditches via ditches
32
630
• Stream modification above and below 88th Ave.
• Effluent dispersal to 3 ditches via pipeline
44
480
• Stream modification above and below 88th Ave.
• Artificial reaeration at 168th Ave.
32
670
• Stream modification above and below 88th Ave.
• Artificial reaeration at 168th Ave.
• Effluent dispersal to 2 ditches via ditches
52
1970
• Stream modification above and below 88th Ave.
• Artificial reaeration at 168th Ave.
• Effluent dispersal to 2 ditches via pipeline
59
840
• Stream and drop structure modification at 88th Ave.
• Artificial reaeration below 88th Ave.
• Artificial reaeration at 168th Ave.
56
880
• Filter all Metro effluent
• Chlorination/dechlorination
102
3,950
• Stream modification above and below 88th Ave.
• Nitrify South Complex effluent to 5 mg/L (NH3-N)
• Chlorination/dechlorination
114
4,636
a 1989 cost.
the scale. Environmental comparability ratings are based
on an alternative's ability to enhance land use, surface
water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat, as well as air
quality considerations. Public support is the most
subjective of all the criteria. Under this criterion each
alternative is rated on its ability to provide additional
community benefits and to garner support from a high
percentage of the surrounding community.
REFERENCES
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1992. Nitrification
alternatives study. Metro Wastewater Reclamation District,
Denver, CO.
DRCOG. 1990. South Platte River Segments 6 and 14
wasteload allocation study. Denver Regional Council of
Governments, Denver, CO.
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous
United States. Annals of The Association of American
Geographers 77(1): 118-125.
USEPA. 1986. Statement of basis, Metropolitan Denver
Sewage Disposal District No. 1, CO-0026638, major
municipal renewal permit issued by EPA. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991a. Guidance for water quality-based
decisions: The TMDL process. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991b. Workshop on the water quality-based
approach for point and nonpoint source controls, meeting
summary. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USGS. 1985. National water summary 1985. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2300.
This case study prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
in conjunction with USEPA, Watershed Management
Section, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, and
Region VIII.
8
------- |