United States Office of Water (WH-553) January -February 1992
Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 *4 ft
Agency ffIO
SEPA News-Notes
The Condition of the Environment and The Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
A Commentary . . .
Kissimmee River Environmental Restoration
Will Be A First-of-its-Kind Undertaking
It has been stated that environmental problems are emotional; environmental issues, political;
and environmental solutbns, technical. That statement seems to summarize the last sixteen
years of Kissimmee River Restoration effort. — M. K. Loftin, Assistant Director, Water
Resources Division and Project Manager, Kissimmee River Restoration, South Florida Water
Management District.
This comment, made at the Kissimmee River Restoration Symposium, held in Orlando,
October 1988, has stuck in your editor's mind as he reviewed a large stack of documents on
the Kissimmee River restoration for the story that starts on page 10 of this issue.
It's the longest story we have ever run in NEWS-NOTES. We think it's worth the effort and the
space. This is a first-ever sort of project. Watershed restoration is going to become more
common, so we had better learn how to do it. The next few restoration projects will
undoubtedly not be on the same grand scale as the Kissimmee River, but we should not forget
that solutions to major environmental restorations — at whatever scale — must have a proper
mix of emotions, politics and technology. Otherwise they're not solutions.
National Notes of Interest
Congress Requires Highway Nonpoint Erosion Controls
Consistent W/State 319/CZM NPS Programs
On December 18,1991 President Bush signed into law the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, the bill that, among other things, reauthorized federal highway
legislation.
Among the other things was the provisions of section 1057, which, in three succinct
paragraphs, deals with erosion control during highway construction, as follows:
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
Commentary
Kissimmee River Environmental Restoration Will Be A
First-if-its-Kind Undertaking 1
National Notes of Interest
Congress Requires Highway NPS Controls Consistency 1
STORET Modernization 2
OWOW Updates Watershed Protection Approach 3
NPS To Be Theme of Upcoming EPA Journal 4
National RCWP Symposium to be Held in September 5
Notes From States and Localities
Boulder Creek, CO: Nonpoint Source Meets Point Source 5
S. California Groundwater Worse Than Treatment Plant
Effluent 9
Notes on Environmental Restoration
In Florida, Corps of Engineers Kissimmee River Restoration
Aims To Return to Original Environmental Conditions 10
Farm Corporation Pays $680,000 Settlement for Wetlands
Destruction in Florida 19
Notes on Watershed Management
Forestry Project Aids in Monocacy River Clean-up 19
Index of Biotic Integrity Expectations for Indiana Ecoregions 22
Agricultural Notes
Farm*A*Syst Program Goes Nationwide 23
USDA Stresses Nitrogen Management in Funding Water
Projects 24
Tips on Using the Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS)
Update for On-Line News-Notes 25
DATEBOOK 25
THE COUPON 27
-------
Congress Requires
Highway Nonpoint
Erosion Controls
Consistent W/State
319/CZM NPS
Programs
(continued)
(a) DEVELOPMENT.— The Secretary shall develop erosion controls guidelines for States to
follow in carrying out construction projects funded in whole or in part under this title.
(b) MORE STRINGENT STATE REQUIREMENTS.— Guidelines developed under subsection
(a) shall not preempt any requirement made by or under State law if such requirement is more
stringent than the guidelines.
(c) CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PROGRAMS.— Guidelines developed under subsection
(a) shall be consistent both nonpoint source management programs under section 319 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and coastal nonpoint pollution control guidance under
section 6217(g)...
editor's note: It looks like Congress is going to continue to write 319/nonpoint consistency require-
ments into the law of the land. The first was the coastal management reauthorization act requirements.
Now the highway act reauthorization. Watch for the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It's likely to re-
quire EPA to be consistent with its own actions (or the actions of the Secretaries of Commerce and
Transporation) under both the coastal legislation and the highway bill.
STORET Modernization Emphasizes Data-Sharing
editor's note: The article below is extracted from a briefing prepared in November 1991 for LaJuana
Wilcher, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water.
STORET, BIOS and ODES, EPA's trio of electronic databases designed to store surface water
monitoring data, are responding to EPA Administrator William Reill/s and the Science
Advisory Board's challenge to integrate and share data with other state, federal and local
programs, and even within EPA itself.
Together, the three databases contain data on surface water and groundwater quality,
contaminated sediments, stream flows, tissue toxicity, macro-invertebrate, fish and marine
NPDES permits.
STORET is a family of specific systems for storing and retrieving physical and chemical data
on surface water and groundwater. Records date back to 1972. The STORET system contains
information on more than 680,000 sampling sites and over 170 million on water column,
sediment and fish tissue observations.
Created in 1986, BIOS contains biological field survey data on aquatic organisms. There are
over 1 million observations in the database, and more than 85,000 taxa are represented.
ODES or Ocean Data Evaluation System was created in 1984 and stores federal and state
monitoring data from marine programs like NEP, 403,301(h), and the Ocean Dumping
Program. Over 5,000 nationwide coastal sampling stations contribute to ODES's 3.5 million
records.
The data are used for comparative risk analysis, enforcement support, criteria and standards,
permitting and special studies. Fifty percent of the database system's 800 users are state
agencies. Other users include EPA (headquarters and regions), other federal agencies, private
industry and universities.
When the modernization is completed, the database system will provide a flexible and usable
system that can respond to EPA's and the public's changing data and information needs. It is
intended to provide a state-of-the-art information system on which to base groundwater and
surface water quality decisions.
New directions within EPA and the national water quality community now demand a better
capability to combine and integrate data across media and programs. Examples of such
directions include the current emphasis on watershed protection andbiomonitoring. A
modernized system will promote participation from agencies outside EPA.
2
-------
The modernization addresses technical concerns as well:
¦ Current systems are obsolete and expensive to repair.
¦ The current non-standard structure prohibits standard links to other systems.
¦ Changing to a standard database management system will facilitate data integration
and information-sharing.
¦ A commercially supported software will reduce long-term maintenance.
Begun in March 1990 with the establishment of a systems modernization fund, the effort will
take a projected seven years and cost $7.4 million. User surveys have shown that their primaiy
needs are for system links, QA/QC,.a GIS interface, biological data storage and public access.
Users have stressed the need for a user-friendly and well-documented system. Input from
users of the present system has generated a set of long-term goals for the modernization
project. These include the creation of a system that allows users to display water quality
conditions geographically, describe trends over time and share information with other
agencies and the public.
Until the new system is ready in 1997, the existing capabilities and functionality of
STORGT/BIOS/ODGS will be maintained. Changes will be made only with the approval of
the STORET modernization Executive Board. Only those changes necessary to prevent the
erosion of current capabilities or those deemed necessary to meet emerging agency needs will
be made.
Any person with access to the EPA National Computer Center IBM-3090 computer has access
to STORET. Although agencies may lock their STORET data, almost all information is
available to the public. To add or change information, you must have a special agency ID and
password. Agencies may change only their own information. For information on how to gain
access to STORET, call (800) 424-9067.
[For more information, contact Bob King, WH-553, U.S. EPA, 401M. St.,SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Phone:(202/FTS)260-7046.]
OWOW Issues Bulletin Updating
Its Watershed Protection Approach
EPA's Office of Watersheds, Oceans, and Wetlands (OWOW) has recently issued an
informative bulletin on its Watershed Protection Approach. Entitled Watershed Events, the
bulletin
... is intended to update EPA offices and other interested parties on progress in the development
and use of watershed protection approaches for improving the environmental quality of aquatic
ecosystems. Watershed protection approaches are those that take an integrated, holistic view of
an aquatic system, accounting for the dynamic relationships that sustain natural resources and
their beneficial uses by society. In contrast to traditional water quality protection approaches, the
watershed protection approach begins with a focus on the condition of and threats to specific
watersheds, rather than on particular pollutants or pollutant sources as a starting point.
In the bulletin, OWOW's Director Bob Wayland made these observations:
"... to find the broad perspective necessary to achieve effective ecosystem protection on a
rational geographic basis." That is the challenge put forth to us by Water Quality 2000, a
consortium of more than 80 public, private and nonprofit organizations. A number of States
have been out in front, showing us that watershed protection concepts can be integrated into our
existing environmental protection and resource management framework—with promising
results... We must continue to coordinate our own programs and provide greater opportunity
for States and other interested parties to fashion their own watershed approaches. We are also
committed to open the National dialogue on watershed protection and to help provide the "tools"
necessary to accelerate watershed protection. I deeply appreciate the commitment of EPA's
Regional offices to work with me in promoting this important concept.
STORET
Modernization
Emphasizes
Data-Sharing
(continued)
3
-------
The final Watershed Protection Framework document was jointly issued by all four Office of
Water office directors1 on October 28,1991. In that document the stated Watershed Protection
Approach (WPA) goals included the following:
The goal of the WPA is to reorient EPA and other Federal agency, State, and local programs to
address watershed protection in a holistic manner.
The watershed approach is an integrated and holistic strategy for watershed protection. As such,
the WPA provides a framework that:
i. empowers Federal, State, Indian Tribes, and local agencies to implement
watershed-specific vlans that prevent, reduce or abate environmental degradation and risks
to ecological systems and public health from all stressors and from all sources in the
watershed;
ii. encourages consideration of the cumulative chemical, vhvsical. and biological effects
throughout the watershed;
iii. enhances coordination among all interested parties, including State, local, Federal
agencies, Indian Tribes, and, most importantly, the public; and
iv. enables States and EPA to assess progress and successfully develop and improve
tools and programmatic methodologies.
The Watershed Events bulletin concludes with this observation:
Effective watershed protection relies on teamwork within EPA, within government at all levels,
and within all sectors of society. EPA headquarters is taking steps to help promote the watershed
approach.
[For more information on the Watershed Protection Approach, contact: Policy and Communications Staff,
OWOW, (WH-556F), U.S.EPA, 401 M Street, SVK Washington DC 20460. Phone: (202) 260-7166, or Amy
Sosin, Watershed Branch, AWPD (WH-553) same address. Phone: (202) 260-7058.]
Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
To Be Theme of Upcoming EPA Journal
An upcoming issue of EPA Journal will be devoted to the topic of nonpoint sources of water
pollution. The issue, expected out in mid-February, features an article by EPA Administrator
William K. Reilly.
Divided into five sections, "The Problem," "Issues and Policy," "Forum," "Finding Solutions,"
and "Taking Action," the issue begins by exploring some of the causes of NPS: agricultural
chemicals and sediment, urban runoff, logging, abandoned mines, and construction. Case
studies illustrate each example for the lay reader.
In one section, the different views of EPA, USD A and the Office of Management and Budget
are highlighted. In another, Robert Wayland III, director of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds answers questions about nonpoint sources posed by readers.
NPS Lesson Plan Included
In the magazine's regular feature, "For the Classroom," the issue's theme provides the
inspiration for a lesson plan on nonpoint source pollution.
EPA's Office of Water's four offices and their directors who signed the document are: Robert H. Wayland III, Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds; Michael B. Cook, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance; James R. Elder, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water; and Tudor T. Davies, Office of Science and Technology.
OWOW Issues
Bulletin Updating
Its Watershed
Protection
Approach
(continued)
4
-------
Nonpoint Sources
of Water Pollution
To Be Theme of
Upcoming EPA
Journal
(continued)
"It's a real indication of the importance that is placed on nonpoint source control to have an
entire issue of EPA Journal devoted to this subject," commented EPA Nonpoint Source Control
Branch Chief Dov Weitman. "I hope that these articles will help to enhance the public's
understanding of NPS."
All regular subscribers to EPA Journal will receive the special NPS issue. A limited number of
single copies will be available from the Nonpoint Source Control Branch through Anne
Weinberg, WH-553, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Available on NPS Electronic Bulletin Board (NPS BBS)
In addition, all of the articles dealing with nonpoint source pollution will be available in files
on the NPS BBS. These files may be downloaded and read, and they may be reprinted in state
and local newsletters. Watch the BBS for these files during the month of February.
National RCWP Symposium to be Held in September
The National Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) Symposium will be held September 13-17,
1992, at the Orlando Marriott in Orlando, Florida, according to Boyd Gunsalus, South Florida
Water Management District. This symposium will present the results of the 10-year
experimental RCWP to federal, state, and local project managers, landowners, and others
interested in solutions to nonpoint source pollution. Successes as well as obstacles will be
addressed in the interest of providing guidance for state nonpoint source management
programs.
The symposium will open on Sunday, September 13, with registration, poster and exhibit
viewing, and an evening reception. Sessions will be held Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday. A
Wednesday field trip will visit selected best management practice sites in the Lake Okeechobee
watershed. The symposium will be hosted by the South Florida Water Management District in
cooperation with U.S. EPA and U.S.D.A's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
Soil Conservation Service, and Cooperative Extension Service.
[For information, contact Lisa Grayson, The National RCWP Symposium, The Terrene Institute, 1000
Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036. Phone: (202)833-3380, FAX:(202)466-8554.J
Notes from The States and Localities
(where the action is)
Boulder Creek, CO: Nonpoint Source Meets
Point Source in Win-Win Situation
In 1985, downstream of Boulder, CO's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), Boulder Creek
was exceeding water quality standards for un-ionized ammonia. Channelization compounded
by nonpoint source pollution prevented the creek from attaining its designated beneficial use
of Warm Water Aquatic Life, according a paper by J.T. Win dell (University of Colorado at
Boulder), L.P. Rink (Aquatic and Wetland Consultants) and Chris Rudkin (Water Quality
Coordinator, City of Boulder).
The paper, "Compatibility of Stream Habitat Reclamation With Point and Nonpoint Source
Controls" in Water Environment and Technology, January 1991, reported that the city of Boulder
did several studies to determine the extent of the problems, their sources, and solutions and
found that degradation of the riparian habitat affected not only the biology of the creek, but its
chemistry as well:
5
-------
Boulder Creek, CO:
Nonpoint Source
Meets Point Source
in Win-Win Situation
(continued)
Absence offunctional riparian habitat and lack of shading compounded normal [seasonal] water
temperature increases. Increased channel width from channelization resulted in many miles of
shallow water depth and a lush growth of photosynthesizing aquatic vegetation. Consequently,
high water temperature and high pH resulting from high photosynthetic activity facilitated
conversion of total ammonia to the toxic un-ionized form and daily excess of the state standard.
While the studies recommended an expansion and update of the 20-year-old WWTP, a
feasibility study cited in the paper concluded that,
aquatic and riparian habitat reclamation using selected best management practices (BMPs)
would serve as a complement to advanced wastewater treatment. The aquatic life use could be
attained by reclaiming aquatic and riparian habitat, controlling NPS pollution, and correcting
poor land-use practices.
Lower toater temperatures could be maintained by concentrating xoater in a restored thalweg
(low flow channel). Lower pH could be maintained during the spring and fall by reducing
photosynthesizing aquatic vegetation.
Furthermore, the feasibility study suggested that rehabilitating the creek's biology and
hydrology might save the city money in the future by eliminating the need for additional
denitrification towers. Based on the studies (two planning studies, a use attainability study,
two water quality studies and a feasibility study), the city upgraded the WWTP (with one
denitrification tower) to meet NPDES water quality standards, and began an aquatic and
riparian habitat improvement project.
The demonstration project, which was funded 60% (state)/40% (city) under the state of
Colorado's nonpoint source control program, focused on using BMPs to attain the beneficial
use. Another objective was to improve water quality in conjunction with the WWTP upgrade.
The plan, according to Windell, Rink and Rudkin, "was to implement those BMPs that would
reduce un-ionized ammonia excursions, control NPS pollution, restore aquatic and riparian
habitat function, and encourage good land-use practice."
In Phase I, six BMPs were designed and constructed in a creek segment downstream of the
WWTP. According to the paper,
The BMPS included constructing high-tensile, wildlife-compatible fencing to exclude cattle from
riparian habitat; restoring streambank stability by using log revetments;... planting 9,000
willow and cottonwood cuttings;... removing streambank berms so that vegetation xoould be
closer to the water table and could grow; excavating.5 miles of thalweg to concentrate and
deepen water flow; reducing the amount of aquatic vegetation; and creating three boulder
aeration structures to increase instream oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations. An increase
in carbon dioxide—although small—xoould replace that used in photosynthesis and help
maintain a lower pH.
Funded like Phase I, the second phase was begun in January 1990, and targeted another reach
of Boulder Creek where similar problems loomed. An year-round irrigation return flow ditch
was an additional problem, dealt with by routing the flow through existing and constructed
wetlands.
Public support for the project is impressive. Boulder County citizens donated time, labor, and
material with a value of about $250,000 to Phases I and II. A local television station featured a
documentary video explaining the problems and showing BMP implementation.
Phase HI, which will begin in spring 1992, seeks to reduce the impact of surface gravel mining
through biotechnical streambank stabilization, revegetation, and creation of wetlands. The
project will use abandoned gravel pits as small settling basins, from which runoff will spill
over into wetlands and finally into the creek.
Monitoring efforts include Rapid Bioassessment, fish and invertebrate Indices of Biotic
Integrity, and temperature, vegetation and water quality analyses. The relationship between
maximum-minimum water temperature, canopy density, fish, and discharge of effluent from
6
-------
Boulder Creek, CO:
Nonpoint Source
Meets Point Source
in Win-Win Situation
(continued)
the WWTP is also being studied. The city plans to use Phase I and II demonstration reaches as
reference sites for future nonpoint source and land-use control.
Windell, Rink, and Rudkin concluded that,
Reported observations and documentation indicated that a final water quality management plan
for the Boulder Creek Basin should include point source and NPS pollution controls. Neither
control type alone will result in a stream that consistently meets its intended uses or water
quality standards. The implemented BMPs will permit NPS pollution control, result in physical
habitat reclamation, and facilitate attaining the heretofore unattainable aquatic life use.
Boulder Creek Enhancement Project Update
Recently, News-Notes interviewed one of the paper's authors, Chris Rudkin, who is project
manager of the Boulder Creek enhancement project. Rudkin reported that since the
publication of the paper over a year ago, two phases of the project have been completed. Phase
III has been designed and will be constructed in the spring of 1992.
The phased implementation approach, in which the creek is treated in segments, has been
useful. "We're learning as we go," said Rudkin. "We can show the city of Boulder, the state,
landowners and EPA what We're doing on a segment and then project future improvements
for the creek as a whole."
"Evolutions in Thinking" About BMPs
The approach also allows the perfecting of BMPs. "Some of these BMPs haven't been used in
this type of situation before. The phased approach lets us see what works in the field," Rudkin
said.
By remaining flexible and viewing technical imperfections as opportunities for improvement,
Rudkin's team fine-tunes its arsenal of BMPs with each phase.
Fencing, for example, is a simple, straightforward BMP with a high pay-off. But Rudkin
discovered that he not only had to keep cows off streambanks, he had to please the farmer. In
Phase I, the first attempt at a cattle-crossing structure proved inconvenient for the landowner,
a farmer, to use. The structure's gates were often left hanging open across the streambed,
where they became clogged with debris during high flows. Rudkin's team worked with the
farmer on a new design. What they came up with presented a visual barrier to the cows but
allowed boaters and flood-driven debris through.
Constructed of four-foot-wide plastic mesh panels suspended across the creek and attached to
PVC pipes floating on the water's surface, the structure looks solid to cattle. It is more
convenient for farmers since they don't have to worry about opening or closing it. The panels
are also inexpensive to repair. "We've learned that it is extremely important to keep the
landowners happy with the project," said Rudkin.
Rudkin has become expert at looking at things from a cow's perspective. Another of what he
calls "evolutions in thinking" involved access of cattle to drinking water. Once the project
designers stopped thinking that cattle absolutely had to have access to the creek for water,
they were able to protect a Phase II riparian zone by constructing watering holes away from
the creek.
Revegetation Essential to Project Goals
An integral step toward achieving the project's goals lies in the revegetation of the
streambanks. The creek's denuded banks allow excessive sunlight to reach the water. The
resulting increases in water temperature and pH favor the conversion of total ammonia to the
un-ionized form.
7
-------
Boulder Creek, CO:
Nonpoint Source
Meets Point Source
in Win-Win Situation
(continued)
Historically and ecologically, willows and cottonwoods are important plants for Boulder
Creek. Cottonwood has proven difficult to propagate, in part because the plant relies on a
flood cycle that no longer occurs on the creek. The Boulder Creek team's early attempts to
grow the tree failed as the young seedlings were outcompeted by opportunistic plants.
Presently, botanists are researching the tree's germination requirements, and in Phase III,
Cottonwood regeneration will be a priority.
Willow trees have been easier to re-establish. In Phase I, willows were planted using the
standard method of inserting cuttings upright into holes punched in the soil. Phase II saw the
development of a brush-layering technique, in which soil is back-filled over willow cuttings
laid horizontally on the soil with the leaves hanging into the water. Brush-layered cuttings
produce more shoots than the conventional method, while havirig the.immediate hydrologic
benefit of breaking up the current's erosional power.
In a third instance that might be termed "creative field engineering," Boulder found that they
could overcome tight finances for stabilizing cutback streambanks by "tucking" the
bank—undercutting it further, allowing the vegetated top to slump down, creating a sloping,
vegetated streambank.
Long-term vs. Short-term Results
The project's goals—restoring Boulder Creek's water quality and achieving the
state-designated Warm Water Aquatic Life Use—will take time to attain. The project's full
impact on un-ionized ammonia won't be seen until the vegetation matures enough to shade
the banks, but Rudkin is pleased with shorter-term results, like BMP implementation.
He reported that he now has quantitative data showing regrowth of native riparian species.
"Fencing is an unqualified success. There is intensive growth inside the protected areas,"
Rudkin noted.
Revetment structures—rocks or logs placed beneath banks to reduce erosion—appear to be
working, although the hydrologic scheme is still establishing itself. Rudkin explained that
when streams are redesigned based on computer analysis the forces of water are not entirely
predictable. "There is a lot of local variation," he said. "What we do is often very much an
in-the-field adjustment. We're still trying to understand new hydrologic regimes—studying,
learning, anticipating."
In the nearer-term, results from a bioassessment study will be available within a year. The
project will be using invertebrates as bioindicators to measure stream health and pinpoint
areas of the greatest nonpoint source impacts. Rudkin expects gradual increases in the
numbers and diversity of aquatic animals. Higher pool-to-riffle ratio and more canopy
resulting from the restoration project will provide important habitat for fish and
macro-invertebrates.
Restoration Cost-Effective
The creek restoration project is viewed as a valuable adjunct to the wastewater treatment
plant's recent $21 million expansion. Certainly it will be more cost-effective to reclaim and
maintain the healthy riparian system than to plan continual expansions of the treatment plant.
Realizing this led Boulder's wastewater treatment division to contribute the city's portion of
funding, according to Rudkin.
Other NPS Projects in Boulder
Boulder is pursuing other projects to curtail the nonpoint source load in the Boulder Creek
watershed. Among them are highway, stormwater and urban runoff projects and the city's
"Tributary Greenway" project that filters sediment through a bikeway/buffer strip along
secondary streams and creeks.
8
-------
The easy scapegoat in this tale would have been the treatment plant. But a closer look revealed
a complex situation where point source and nonpoint source pollution were inter-related. For
Boulder Creek, improved water quality and restoration of the beneficial use has meant
recognizing that relationship and designing innovative solutions.
[For more information, contact Chris Rudkin, Water Quality Coordinator, City of Boulder, 4049 N. 76th St.,
Boulder, CO 80301. Phone: (303) 441-3251. Or contact: Bill McKee, Colorado Department of Health,
Water Quality Control Division, 4210East 11th Ave., Denver, CO 80220.]
Southern California Groundwater Worse
Than Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent
editor's note: The following story was submitted to News-Notes by Ed Lui, Regional Monitoring Coor-
dinator for EPA Region IX.
Southern California. The home of Disneyland, Universal Studios, and the Stealth Bomber
program (now you know where all those graphite tennis rackets were designed!) is also where
you find the highest concentration of dairies in the world. That's right, in the world. It all
occurs in the Chino Basin, where feedlot dairies are located next to each other cheek-by-jowl,
and cows think if s normal to roam on eight-foot mountains of animal waste.
The issue, of course, is groundwater. Dairy country in Southern California lies within the
boundaries of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, one of nine units in the
state that operate as the field arms of the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento.
The local citizens who make up the Regional Board meet monthly to approve NPDES permits,
issue Waste Discharge Requirements, levy fines on enforcement actions, and try to figure out
what to do with the 460,000 tons of manure that are produced each year by 289,600 cows in the
Chino Basin.
Underneath it all, rights to groundwater in the Chino Basin are adjudicated. Of the 9.4 million
acre-ft of producible water in the basin, 140,000 acre-ft/yr is considered the safe yield, and
water pumped up from the basin is divided among three supply pools: agricultural (primarily
dairies), industrial, and municipal. Over the years, the quality of water pumped from the
Chino Basin has declined, and it is expected to decline further in the future:
Chino Sub-Basin 3
1950
1986
2045( projected)
Nitrate(N03)
15ppm
63ppm
211ppm
Total Salts(TDS)
300-500ppm
700ppm
995ppm
(Source: Dairies and Their Relatbnship to Water Quality Problems in The Chino Basin by Roger Turner.)
Chino Basin's groundwater problems surface to impact the quality of the Santa Ana River, the
major waterbody in the region. The Santa Ana River is an effluent-dominated
waterbody—disdiarges from municipal sewage treatment plants make up 80-90% of the river
base flow. At the southern end of the Chino Basin, groundwater rises to make up 5-10% of the
Santa Ana River's flow. The quality of the rising groundwater is worse than any of the
treatment plant discharges; the 10% of groundwater contributes 30-40% of the nitrate load and
about 50% of the total salt load of the Santa Ana River.
What's more, Santa Ana River water rights are also adjudicated; 40,000 acre-ft/yr belongs to
Orange County, downstream. Orange County captures the Santa Ana River water in spreading
basins a few miles east of Knott's Berry Farm. The water sinks underground, and accounts for
about 60% of the recharge of the Orange County groundwater basin, which is a major source
of drinking water for the gold coast.
Boulder Creek, CO:
Nonpoint Source
Meets Point Source
in Win-Win Situation
(continued)
9
-------
Southern California
Groundwater Worse
Than Sewage
Treatment Plant
Effluent
(continued)
The labyrinthine movement of pollutants through the Santa Ana Region waterbodies is typical
of regions that support populations much larger than the carrying capacity of the environment
(7 inches of precipitation/yr). The Chino Basin groundwater story points out how closely
groundwater and surface waters are linked, and the large impact of agricultural nonpoint
source activities on those water sources. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
has published a document, Dairies and Their Relationship to Water Quality Problems in the Chino
Basin. It is recommended reading for people interested in dairy and groundwater issues. The
author, Mr. Roger Turner, is the Dairy Coordinator for the Santa Ana Regional Board, and he
can be contacted directly to request copies of the dairy report or to ask for more information.
His address is: Roger W. Turner, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2010 Iowa
Ave., Suite 100, Riverside, CA 92507. Phone: (714) 782-4494. Fax (714) 781-6288.
[For more information, contact: Edwin H. Liu, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105.
Phone:(415) 484-2012 or (FTS) 744-2012.)
Notes on Environmental Restoration
In Florida, Corps of Engineers' Kissimmee River Restoration
Aims To Return to Pre-Channelization Environmental Conditions
Introductions This article reports on the proposed environmental restoration of the
Kissimmee River and its floodplain in south-central Florida. It is a story containing
several important and significant (and sometimes very exciting) elements, such as:
1) patience over a period in excess of twenty years;
2) a relentless search for a mutually acceptable identification of the public
interest by all levels of concerned government;
3) a truly interdisiplinary effort, wherein teams including biologists, hydraulic
engineers and public administrators searched for restoration answers that all
disciplines could live with, while maintaining the essential flood control
features in urban and other economically essential areas; and
4) innovative scientific discovery and verification in the restoration of an almost
totally destroyed ecosystem.
In the end, each of these elements of the Kissimmee River restoration experience are
part of a whole — blending, supporting and contributing to the bigger story of the
political science of accomplishing such a fundamental, vast and vital environmental
restoration.
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has increasingly taken on
the role of lead agency for the state of Florida since 1983. In the preface to their
Alternative Plan Evaluation & Preliminary Design Report issued in June 1990, they
said:
Kissimmee River Restoration is deceptively simple and extraordinarily
complex. This study is built upon nearly twenty years of previous studies and
extensive new work conducted since 1984.
In reporting on this monumental effort, we have come to believe that this story
contains landmark lessons for all of us who are concerned with the business of
restoring and maintaining water quality and the water-related environment and its
ecosystems. We're anxious to share with our readers what we have learned.
A Flood Control Project in Central Florida — Then and Now (1961-1992)
Thirty years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), in partnership with the state of Florida,
began construction of a massive flood control project on the Kissimmee River in south-central
Florida. The flood control solution was the channelization of the river, converting its 103-plus
10
-------
In Florida, Corps of
Engineers'
Kissimmee River
Restoration Aims
To Return to
Pre-Channelization
Environmental
Conditions
(continued)
miles of shallow, meandering river channel and floodplain to a geometric, essentially
straight-as-an-arrow, fifty-six-mile-long excavated canal, known as C-38. The canal, completed
in 1971, runs from Lake Kissimmee to Lake Okeechobee.
The canal is actually composed of six water control structures that create six stair-step pools
which drop the river a total of 36 feet over its length. Each structure is equipped with a 30-foot
by 90-foot navigation lock to raise and lower boats with drafts of up to 5.5 feet.
Now, twenty years after construction was completed, the COE, in response to a 1990-enacted
Congressional directive, has completed a feasibility report and environmental impact
statement that calls for the environmental restoration of the Kissimmee River and the return of
the river's original meandering state at an estimated cost of some $422,667,000. Fifteen years
will be necessary to complete the reconstruction project, at an average annual cost on the order
of $45 million. The report calls for federal (75%)/state (25%) cost-sharing, with Florida
providing all land and easement acquisitions prior to the start of construction.1
In Florida, the Legislature and three successive governors have endorsed the restoration idea.
The Corps circulated its draft plan and environmental impact statement widely, inviting
comments. It held public hearings on the. proposed plan in the Kissimmee River region in
October 1991. The report was made final in December 1991. It sets out the next steps in the
process:
Following public review of this feasibility report and environmental impact statement, the final
documents will be transmitted through the Division Engine, r [the Jacksonville Division — eds.]
and the Washington-level Federal report review process, which will include reviews by the
Washington Level Review Center, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the Chief of
Engineers, and the Secretary of the Army. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
representing the Secretary of the Army, will coordinate the documents with the Office of
Management and Budget, and send them to Congress. The study authority[i.e., the
Congressional Action — eds.] states that the Secretary shall transmit the final report of the Chief
of Engineers to Congress not later than April 1,1992.
What Happened Between Then and Now (1954-1992)
It is important to recognize at the outset that the 1961-71 flood control work on the Kissimmee
River was a continuation of past federal concerns and the development of the river that began
with the construction of a federal channel for commercial navigation in the early 1900s. In
1954, basin improvements for flood damage reduction were authorized. Upper Basin works
built under that authorization consist of channels and structures in the vicinity of Orlando that
control water flows through eighteen natural lakes into Lake Kissimmee. The Lower Basin
works are the canal and the six water control structures described earlier.
The flood control project was conceived, planned, and designed between 1954 and 1960.
Federal law and policy dealing with the water-related environment did not at that time
include the Clean Water Act of 1972, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, or numerous other bits of environmental law and policy that
are now on the books, both at the federal level and in Florida.
At the time of authorization and construction there were certainly stirrings of environmental
awareness throughout the country, but even so, the first Earth Day had yet to be held.
Governmental processes were relatively single-purpose-minded. The charge in the 1954
authorization was pure and simple: flood damage reduction—in the most cost-efficient fashion. And
that was what was done.
As it turned out, the results were an environmental disaster.
The Corps of Engineers report indicates that fee acquisition of the floodplain up to the five-year flood line will involve approximately
58,487 acres, and an easement acquisition of lands between the five-year and the 100-year flood lines will involve an additional 9,143
acres. The costs of such acquisition will be credited against the state's required 25% match. Florida has its land acquisition program well
underway under the state's Save Our Rivers legislation enacted in 1981.
11
-------
In Florida, Corps of
Engineers'
Kissimmee River
Restoration Aims
To Return to
Pre-Channelization
Environmental
Conditions
(continued)
The veiy encouraging side of this matter is that this disaster is being dealt with today in a
period of environmental awareness and concern, within the framework of contemporary
federal and state environmental law and policy.
The Dimensions of the Environmental Disaster (1971)
In its Kissimmee River Environmental Restoration Report (December 1991), the COE made these
observations on the river's historic natural environment:
Historically, the Kissimmee River meandered approximately 103 miles within a one- to two-mile
floodplain. The floodplain, approximately 56 miles long, sloped gradually to the south from an
elevation of about 51 feet at Lake Kissimmee to about 15 feet at Lake Okeechobee; falling an
average of about one-third of a foot in elevation over each mile of the river. Under historic
conditions, river flows generally exceeded 250 cubic feet per second (cfs) 95 percent of the time,
while overbank flooding occurred when flows exceeded 1,400 cfs in the upper reaches to 2,000 cfs
in the lower reaches. The river moved very slowly, with normal river velocities averaging less
than two feet per second...
The historic floodplain was 49,000 acres... [including] wetlands, wildlife, waterfowl, fisheries
and other components of an integrated and resilient river-floodplain ecosystem that provided an
estimated 340,000 habitat units. Resilience and persistence were emergent properties of the
ecosystem which were derived from the spatial mosaic of habitats, intricate food webs, stable
energy flow, and other complex physical, chemical and biological interactions and processes.
Distribution and maintenance of plant communities within the river wetlands depended on
prolonged inundation and seasonally fluctuating water levels... A fluctuating hydroperiod,
along with the undulating topography of the floodplain, a meandering river channel, oxbows,
and natural discontinuous levees, enhanced and maintained habitat diversity, including a
mosaic of intermixed vegetation types.
The report deals in detail with the great diversity of waterfowl, wading birds and game fish
supported by these vast south Florida wetlands, concluding by stating:
The river and floodplain were not discreet and independent ecosystems, and the ebb and flow of
their life was closely interrelated. In November, ducks and probers, such as snipe and ibis, fed in
the sloughs, potholes and wet prairies in upland areas near the tree line. Many of the same
populations used the potholes, oxbows, backwaters of the floodplain in February, and the river
and the deepest marshes and cypress swamps near the river in May. In the 1950's, peak
populations of ducks and wading birds centered in and around Lake Okeechobee ranged out to
the Kissimmee... and the northern reaches of the Everglades National Park when and where
water and feeding conditions were the most favorable.
The Corps' document reports on ecological degradation brought about by straightening out
the river to manage its flow:
River channelization, upland drainage practices, and other hydrologic modifications have caused
numerous environmental changes in the Kissimmee River ecosystem, including a loss of the
basin's biological resources. These changes stem from alteration of key determinates of ecological
integrity of the river and the floodplain ecosystem.
... About 20,000 of the original 35,000 acres of floodplain wetlands were either drained, covered
with material dredged during canal construction, or converted to canal.
In summary, in addition to the loss of river and floodplain habitat which resulted from canal
excavation and deposition of dredged material, channelization and other basin modifications
have significantly affected the environmental values of the Kissimmee river ecosystem primarily
through altered hydrologic regimes. Ecological consequences of altered floodplain hydrology and
drainage of former swamps, marshes and backwater habitat include diminished floodplain
diversity, reduction in waterfowl and wading bird usage of the floodplain, and loss of habitat for
forage, as well as larger riverine fish species. Elimination or modification of river and floodplain
interactions has affected the functional integrity of both the river and floodplain. Other river
impacts have resulted from interruption of flow. Lack of flow associated with a meandering river
12
-------
system has degraded ivater quality, led to excessive sedimentation of river substrates, diminished
habitat quality and diversity, and degradation of river biological communities.
The Response of the State of Florida (1973-1983)
In June 1990, the South Florida Water Management District issued its Kissimmee River
Restoration, Alternative Plan Evaluation and Preliminary Design Report2. The report deals at its
outset with some historic background:
There was opposition to the flood control project even before construction began [in 1961].
Opposition centered on fear of environmental damage that the flood control project... might
cause. The opposition was poorly organized, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is on record
as having opposed the project.
During the construction of the project, a grassroots movement to restore the Kissimmee River
became organized. Early issues in the restoration movement centered around physical
destruction caused by excavation of the canal and placement of spoil.
The "birth" of Kissimmee River restoration occurred in 1972 when the first public hearing on
this subject was held by the Central and Southern Flood Control District (predecessor to the
South Florida Water Management District)...
In 1976, after four years of public debate, the Florida legislature passed the Kissimmee River
Restoration Act. This legislation created the Coordinating Council on the Restoration of the
Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin which was more informally
called the Kissimmee River Coordinating Council (KRCC). The KRCC was charged with broad
responsibilities of solving many water resource problems of the region, including developing
measures
"... to minimize and ultimately remove the threats to the agriculture industry, the
wildlife, and the people of central and southern Florida posed by land uses and
water-management practices..."
This legislation specifically directed the KRCC to seek to:
¦ Restore the natural seasonal water level fluctuations in the lakes of the Kissimmee
River and in its natural floodplains and marshlands.
¦ Recreate conditions favorable to increases in production of wetland vegetation, native
aquatic life, and wetland wildlife.
m Utilize the natural and free energies of the river system to the greatest extent possible.
Between 1976 and 1983, the State of Florida, through the KRCC, funded a variety of studies
designed to evaluate different Kissimmee River restoration approaches. These studies improved
understanding of hydraulic, biologic, and water quality issues in the basin. y4s a result, many
early hypotheses have been validated or discarded. Especially important are clarifications of
water quality issues and establishment of restoration of lost environmental values via habitat
restoration as a primary goal.
The SFWMD report indicates that in 1978 Florida's Congressional delegation reopened the
question of the Kissimmee River. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
and the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation passed identical resolutions
asking the Corps of Engineers to review the flood control project. The Congress asked the
Corps to determine whether any modification in the project as built was advisable in light of
questions regarding water quality, flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife and "other
current and foreseeable environmental problems, and other loss of environmental amenities."
The Corps was further instructed that"... potential modification alternatives, if any, shall
include... consideration of restoration of all or parts of the Kissimmee River below Lake
Kissimmee..."
2
The report was authored by M. Kent Loften, Assistant Director, Water Resources Division, Resource Management Department, South
Florida Water Management District and Project Manager; Louis A. Toth, Chief Biologist; and Jayantha Obeysekera, Chief Hydraulic
Engineer.
In Florida, Corps of
Engineers'
Kissimmee River
Restoration Aims
To Return to
Pre-Channelization
Environmental
Conditions
(continued)
13
-------
In Florida, Corps of
Engineers'
Kissimmee River
Restoration Aims
To Return to
Pre-Channelization
Environmental
Conditions
(continued)
The SFWMD report states that in response to these requests the Corps undertook extensive
studies of various restoration measures. A study report to the Secretary of Army in 1985
concluded that modifications could greatly improve the environment, but no federal action
was recommended.3
The 1990 SFWMD report's historical summary continues:
The KRCC led the state's coordination vrith the Corps throughout the Corps'study process. In
1983. ..the Corps completed their plan evaluation and disseminated the results. At that time,
the KRCC adopted backfilling as the restoration approach to be used by the state.
Later in 1983, then-Governor Bob Graham signed an Executive Order that created the
Kissimmee River-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades Coordinating Council (KOECC) as the successor
to the KRCC. The KOECC was directed to oversee restoratwn of the Kissimmee River through
involvement and review of various interagency actions that were occurring during the early
1980s.
These legislative instructions and gubernatorial directives to KOECC led directly to SFWMD's
restoration demonstration efforts and five years of intensive enginering studies and
environmental monitoring on what should be done, how things should proceed, and the
environmental consequences of such actions.
The Kissimmee River Demonstration Project (1984-1989)
SFWMD's initial restoration project involved the construction of a backfilling demonstration in
the second pool of the channelized river (Pool B of C-38.) This consisted of an earthen plug,
and
... resulted in identification of significant, valid, technical issues regarding backfilled soil stability.
As a result, the selected demonstration plan utilized sheet steel pile weirs instead of soil to block the
canal. Construction of this "Phase 1 Demonstration Project" was initiated in 1984 and completed in
1985. Effects cfthe project were monitored and evaluated from 1984 through 1989.
Louis A. Toth, SFWMD Chief Biologist, authored a SFWMD report, Environmental Responses To
The Kissimmee River Demonstration Project, published in March 1991, in which he reported:
... The Demonstration Project was conducted in Pool B, a 19.5 km [12.117 miles • eds] section
of canal, remnant river and floodplain... The project had four major components: construction
of three notched weirs across C-38, implementation of a pool stage fluctuation schedule, creation
of a " flow-through " marsh, and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling studies.
Prior to initiation of the Demonstration Project, the SFWMD, Phrida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commisswn (GFC) and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) endorsed
a multi-agency Memorandum of Agreement and assumed joint responsibility to monitor and
evaluate environmental effects of the Demonstration Project. Staff scientists from the SFWMD,
GFC and DER collaborated in the development of this joint monitoring program. The SFWMD
assumed responsibility for monitoring (1) effects of Demonstration Project-related changes in the
Pool B hydrologic regime on floodplain vegetation and secondary productivity and (2) effects of
reintroduced flow on benthic invertebrate communities and river channel habitat charaderistics.
Environmental monitoring data were collected between July 1984, and November 1988,
allowing Toth to report:
Plant community responses to Demonstration Project components showed that restoration of
wetland communities on the Kissimmee River floodplain is feasible...
The Demonstration Project also provided evidence of the feasibility of restoring several
components of floodplain function, including waterfowl and wading bird utilization, small fish
and invertebrate productivity, and processes that could enhance water quality...
O
SFWMD'S 1990 report commented on COE's 1985 report: "The Secretary of Army has not made his final recommendations to Congress
pursuant to the 1978 resolutions."
4 See the 1990 SFWMD Preliminary Design Report cited above.
14
-------
Results of Demonstration Project monitoring also indicate that restoration of ecological integrity
of the river channel is possible...
Monitoring results indicate that ecological integrity of the Kissimmee River can be restored only
with a holistic approach which succeeds in restoring both the form and function of the former
ecosystem...
The Kissimmee River restoration could be an unprecedented project of global significance. The
scope of its value will be determined largely by the quality and rigor of the ecological studies and
monitoring program that are conducted in association with the restoration project. Ecological
monitoring studies must be the "heart" of this model restoration program. Demonstration
Project results provided refined direction guidelines for required ecosystem monitoring studies.
In preparation for implementation of.... the restoration program, baseline data on all
components of the ecosystem, including wading birds, waterfowl, fisheries, fish communities,
habitat, water quality, and ecosystem function should begin immediately. Two to three years of
pre
-------
In Florida, Corps of
Engineers'
Kissimmee River
Restoration Aims
To Return to
Pre-Channeiization
Environmental
Conditions
(continued)
SFWMD Alternative Plan and Preliminary Design Report (1988-1990)
The Restoration Symposium in October 1988, clarified many issues and gave sharper focus
and direction to SFWMD's work on the Kissimmee. Following the symposium, the District
turned to the production and evaluation of a set of specific alternative plans for restoration.
These efforts resulted in a document, Alternative Plan Evaluation and Preliminary Design Report,
published two years after the symposium, in June of 1990.6 That plan document begun by
reciting the contributions made by the symposium to the Kissimmee River restoration process.
It said:
A clear outcome of the symposium was to center the focus of Kissimmee River restoration on the
ecosystem and its emergent properties, rather than individual or discrete biological components.
The report also states:
The symposium's ecological review panel-concurred with participating scientists that
reestablishment of lost ecological values and goals established by the Governor's Executive Order
and state and federal legislative mandates will be achieved only with a holistic ecosystem
restoration perspective (Karr, 1990a)7. In accordance, reestablishment of the ecological integrity
of the Kissimmee River ecosystem was promoted as the primary restoration goal. By definition,
this goal requires reestablishment of an ecosystem that is "capable of supporting and
maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species
composition comparable to that of the natural habitat of the region " (Karr and Dudley, 1981).
To develop the Plan Evaluation and Preliminary Design Report, a team of biologists, chemists,
hydrologists, and ecologists was assembled to tackle the definition of environmental
restoration criteria. The team included staff from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
and SFWMD, all of whom had been actively involved in previous Kissimmee River
environmental studies and resource management.
The team recognized that ecological integrity of riverine systems is determined by five classes
of variables, according to the report:
1) energy source: type, amount, and particle size of allocthonous inputs, primary production,
and seasonal pattern of available energy
2) water quality: temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen regimes, nutrients, organic and
inorganic chemicals (natural and synthetic), heavy metals and toxic substances, pH
3) habitat tiuallty: substrate type; water depth; current velocity; availability of refuges and
reproductive, nursery and feeding habits; habitat diversity
4) flow regime: water volume, temporal variability of discharge
5) blotle Interactional competition, predation, disease, parasitism.
e
The report's comments on the study team and how it operated are instructive: "The SFWMD study team was interdisciplinary. The team
adopted some non-traditional views of interaction among these disciplines. The problem-solving approaches of engineering were applied
to ecosystem restoration. Tasks were divided into three areas: ecosystem restoration, flood control and other hydraulic engineering
concerns, and other related studies and issues. The first two were assigned to the chief biologist (Louis A. Toth) and chief hydraulic
engineer (Jayantha Obeysekera), respectively. These team members were asked to play the role of advocate for their issue and
challenge each other in these often conflicting interests. This was done to assure that diametric views of certain interest groups would get
consideration. Other duties were managed or delegated to other team members by the project manager (M. Kent Loftin). This approach
created more than usual interaction between team members and was partly responsible for the high degree of interdisciplinary
integration. In their advocacy roles, team members were responsible for being the SFWMD point of information for their respective
concerns with other agencies, interest groups, and the public."
7 James R. Karr, then Professor of Biology, Virginia Polytechnical Institute & State University, was moderator of the Ecological Topics
session at the symposium and later was a member of the three-person peer review team for SFWMD's Kissimmee River restoration plan
development and design evaluation. Professor Karr is currently the Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies and Professor of
Zoology and Fisheries, University of Washington.
16
-------
In Florida, Corps of
Engineers'
Kissimmee River
Restoration Aims
To Return to
Pre-Channelization
Environmental
Conditions
(continued)
With these determinants of ecological integrity in hand, the team developed restoration
guidelines, objectives and criteria. Along with these went the clear understanding that,
Because hydrobgical processes created and maintained the ecosystem, restoration of the
environmental values of that system can best be achieved by returning control of the system to
these natural processes. That is, given a chance, natural hydrologic processes will restore the
complex ecosystem attributes and insure the return and preservation of the system's
environmental values.
In short, restore the pre-channelization hydrology, and the ecosystem and its environment will
be restored. With these understandings, alternative plans to achieve the goals of the restoration
could be developed and tested.8
Four alternative plans with varying costs and complexity were developed to provide options.
¦ The first plan would place weirs at ten locations along the canal to return flow to
the ten most extensive remanent river runs. Fixed or gated weirs are variations of
this plan.
¦ The second, a plugging plan, uses stabilized earthen fill at the same locations as the
ten weirs. The plans are otherwise identical.
¦ The third plan is similar to the plugging plan and is called the Level I Backfilling
Plan. Plug locations are duplicated, except plugs are extended longitudinally to fill a
greater canal length. This filling is adjacent to original remaining river channels. The
canal would remain intact at junctions and serve as a linkage between original river
channels and between junctions of river channels and spillways and boat locks.
¦ The fourth plan, the Level II Backfilling Plan, expands on the Level I plan by filling
remaining canal sections between plugs. Level II Backfilling fills as much of the
length of the canal as possible without affecting flood control in the Upper Basin and
at the outlet of the lower basin.
The SFWMD evaluation report concludes:
... restoration criteria cannot be met by the Weir, Plugging and Level I Backfilling Plans. [These
...] Plans would result in excessive river channel velocities, rapid stage recession rates,
inadequate floodplain inundation and would not restore the ecobgical integrity of the river
ecosystem. The Level II Backfilling Plan would meet restoration goals and criteria by
reestablishing prechannelizatian hydrologic characteristics along 52 contiguous miles of river
channel and 24,000 acres of floodplain. The Level II Backfilling Plan would restore the ecological
integrity of approximately 35 square miles of river ecosystem?>10
Re-enter: The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1990-1991)
The Corps of Engineers' Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the
Environmental Restoration of the Kissimmee River (December 1991) sets forth the Congressional
authority for undertaking its "second Federal feasibility study" as follows:
In November 1990, shortly after the completion of the SFWMD restoration study, Congress
authorized a second Federal feasibility study in section 116(h) of the Water Resources
10
The University of California at Berkeley (UCB) under contract with SFWMD, conducted physical and mathematical modeling studies
primarily to evaluate sedimentation and erosion Issues, preliminary designs of fixed and gated weirs, and feasibilities, shapes, and
profiles of plugged and backfilled canal sections. A 60 by 80 foot physical model was constructed representing 400 acres in pool B.
SFWMD reports indicated that *... model studies vividly demonstrated that soil backfill can be placed in the canal and flow returned to
the river channel and floodplain while preventing erosion and the transfer of sediment to Lake Okeechobee and insuring flood protection
for private property." The studies were initiated and directed by Professor H.W. Shen, internationally noted for his river engineering studies.
During the Corps of Engineers' reevaluation and recommendation of SFWMD's Level II Backfilling Plan, these figures became 56
contiguous miles of river channel, 29,000 acres of floodplain, and 50 square miles of river ecosystems.
An extensive peer review of the Plan Evaluation and Preliminary Design Report was undertaken by a panel of experts who also evaluated
the work done at UCB. In addition to James R. Karr, PhD, Landscape/Community Ecologist, mentioned earlier, the panel included Heinz
G. Stefan, Dr. Ing., Civil/Hydraulic Engineer, Professor and Associate Director, Saint Anthony Falls Hydraulic Labratory, University of
Minnesota, and William A. Thomas, Civil/Hydraulic Engineer, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
17
-------
Development Act of 1990. This section of the Act authorized the Secretary of the Army to
conduct a feasibility study of the Kissimmee River flood control project to identify modifications
necessary to provide a comprehensive plan for the river's environmental restoration. The
authority states that the feasibility study,
"... shall be based on implementing the Level II Backfilling Plan specified in the
Kissimmee River Restoration, Alternative Plan Evaluation and Preliminary Design Report,
dated June 1990, published by the South Florida Water Management District."
The urgency to quickly complete the study xoas expressed in the authority's requirement that the
Secretary of the Army submit to Congress the final report of the Chief of Engineers on the results
of this study by April 1,1992.
The feasibility report was prepared following all normal COE analyses and processes.
Modifications to the SFWMD plans were made as necessary. Costs were then re-analyzed and
increased where indicated.
The report lists the names and expertise of the fifteen persons who prepared the integrated
feasibility study and environmental impact statement, together with their experience and role
in the preparation of the document. Their listed talents are:
Biology 5
Civil Engineer 3
Water Resources Planning 2
Aquatic Biology 1
Fish and Wildlife 1
Environmental Engineer 1
Archaeology 1
Outdoor Recreation Planner 1
In the end, the Corps of Engineers' recommendation was, essentially, the 1990 SFWMD plan.
On page 239 of the COE's Jacksonville District report, it states:
I recommend that the Central and Southern Florida Project be modified to allow for the
environmental restoration of the Kissimmee River, and that the modified Level II Backfilling plan
for the restoration of the Kissimmee River, described in the chapter of this report entitled "The
Recommended Plan," be implemented with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the
Commander, HQUSACE, may be advisable. The total estimated cost of the recommended plan is
$422,677,000.
TERRENCE C. SALT
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Commanding
In Florida, Corps of
Engineers'
Kissimmee River
Restoration Aims
To Return to
Pre-Channelization
Environmental
Conditions
(continued)
Conclusion and an Observation (1992-2002 and Beyond)
Presumably, the Corps of Engineers' report and recommendations will be transmitted to the
Congress on schedule, as directed (April 1,1992). Whatever the outcome of subsequent
Congressional deliberations, the people and public officials in Florida have tenaciously
pursued their convictions to put right an environmental wrong. They have demonstrated an
outstanding level of professionalism in the identification of the public interest in this case. We
suspect that the Congress will look with favor on the reports and recommendations of the
Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District. We can then look
forward to ten to fifteen years of precedent-setting environmental restoration work that can
establish new norms for public works improvements in the civilized world.
[For more information contact: Kathy Copeland, South Florida Water Management District, 3301 Gun Club
Road, P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680. Phone: (407) 687-6303.]
18
-------
Farming Corporation Pays a $680,000 Settlement
For Destruction of Wetlands in Florida
In a matter related geographically and spiritually to the Kissimmee River restoration recited
above, the Thursday, November 28,1991 issue of The Palm Beach Post reported an out-of-court
settlement to a South Florida Water Management District suit for wetlands environmental
damage near Lake Okeechobee. As the Post reported:
Cattle and citrus firm Lykes Bros. Inc. loould pay $680,000 in fines and legal fees for digging
canals that threatened 4,900 acres of wetlands near Lake Okeechobee under a settlement
announced Wednesday.
Headlines in the newspaper reported:
Lykes Bros, agrees to pay $680,000 to end wetlands ease
The company must restore marshlands and fill at least 16 miles of
Illegally dug canals
Company calls canals a 'colossal mistake'
The newspaper story reported:
Wetlands are important as wildlife habitats and to recharge groundwater supply. The Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission says the Lykes property is within the range of the
Florida panther and also is home to threatened and endangered birds.
The canals were discovered during a routine District surveillance flight in September 1989. The
Post report stated:
As the District and Lykes argued about the extent of environmental damage, the district
prepared a lawsuit, which it filed in September 1990. The suit sought to make the company
restore the property and pay up to $10,000 a day in fines. The maximum fine had readied $7
million before the tentative settlement was struck.
Under the agreement, Lykes will pay a $550,000fine and $105,000for attorney and
investigative fees. It will also pay for a $25,000 University of Florida study on how canals affect
wetlands.
Tilford Creel, SFWMD executive director, was quoted in the Post story as saying:
What started out as an environmental disaster can be turned into an environmental success.
The size of the fine sends a message to developers that they must follow proper procedures.
Notes on Watershed Management
Forestry Project Assists In Improving
Water Quality in the Monocacy River Watershed
editor's note: George Eberling is with the Forestry Division of the Maryland Department of Natural Re-
sources. His job title is Monocacy Watershed Forester. He read our article concerning the USDA
Monocacy River Water Quality Demonstration Project operating through Frederick and Carroll Coun-
ties, the Maryland Cooperative Extension Service and ASCS {News-Notes, October-November 1991,
Issue #16). He penned the following article, filled out The COUPON and sent it in. (See Dispatch #1
below) It's a good story about forestry's role in cleaning up the river. This project is partially funded
with CWA 319, nonpoint source control funds. Dispatch #2 developed when we asked George for
more information on the cost-sharing programs he is using. We've taken the liberty of editing his work
slightly to fit the News-Notes style. Thanks for sharing all of this good information with us, George.
19
-------
Forestry Project
Assists In Improving
Water Quality in the
Monocacy River
Watershed
(continued)
Dispatch #1
In the last issue (#16) of News-Notes, there was a feature on the Monocacy River Watershed
Water Quality Demonstration Project. I would like to share with you a different type of water
quality project in the Monocacy Watershed called the Monocacy River Basin Forestry Project
(MRBFP). This project, sponsored through annual grants from EPA, is administered by the
Maryland Resource Conservation Service's Forestry Division. The project began in late spring
of 1989, and it focuses on controlling nonpoint source pollution throughout Maryland's
portion of the Monocacy Watershed. Unlike other projects in the watershed, the MRBFP uses
forest buffers along the waterways to control NPS. Depending on site conditions, a forest
buffer as little as fifty feet wide will filter the majority of nonpoint source pollutants out of
agricultural and urban runoff before they can reach the waterway. This is very important,
especially in the Monocacy watershed where the northern two-thirds is still heavily
agricultural while the southern one-third is quickly urbanizing.
The filtering effect of a forest buffer is two-fold. Nutrient-type pollutants (primarily nitrogen
and phosphorous) are actually taken up by the trees and used for growth. Non-nutrient
pollutants (soil, chemicals, etc.) are filtered out and incorporated in the many organic layers of
the forest floor. The floor of a forest buffer can effectively filter up to six inches of rainfall per
hour.
This figure, impressive enough on its own, is exceptional when added to the other benefits
provided by forest buffers. Due to their proximity to water and open areas, forest buffers are
extremely important habitat for numerous wildlife species as well as serving as travel
corridors between different habitat types. Trees shade and cool the waterways underneath
them, thus improving aquatic habitat via lower water temperatures and higher dissolved
oxygen levels. Overhanging branches and roots provide cover for aquatic life. Leaves, twigs
and other detritus provide the fundamental food source in the aquatic food chain. Trees also
produce oxygen, filter pollutants from the atmosphere, and furnish timber products.
[Streamside tree buffers also help in streambank stabilization - eds.]
Establishing a forest buffer simply involves planting seedlings on open land. In Maryland,
there are several valuable incentives to encourage private landowners to plant forest buffers.
First, through the Maryland Green Shores Buffer Incentive Program (BIP), a landowner may
receive a $200 per acre payment for each acre of forest buffer planted. Seedlings for these
conservation plantings are available through the State Nursery at a very low cost. On public
land (local parks, schools, etc.), seedlings are available free of charge for buffer planting
through the Maiyland Green Shores Program and are generally planted by volunteers.
Second, these plantings may also be cost-shared through the USDA Agricultural Conservation
and Stabilization Service (ASCS). If a forest buffer already exists on a site, the effort does not
stop here. Existing forest is often in need of some type of cultural treatment to maintain an
effective filtering function. Forests that are not growing well due to overcrowding, senescence,
insect or disease occurrence, etc., are inefficient filters of nonpoint source pollution. They may
require thinning to remain functional as filters. Activities such as non-commercial thinning are
also cost-sharable through the ASCS.
Two MRBFP foresters develop individual plans for each landowner or municipality interested
in forested buffers, along with administering the various cost-share programs for private
landowners. After only two planting seasons (the springs of 1990 and 1991), over 45,000 linear
feet of forest buffer have been planted. This has resulted in a little over 8.5 miles of newly
buffered waterways. A total of 135 acres of trees have been planted so far. The project has
developed Resource Conservation Plans for another 1,400 acres, including recommendations
for another 25 miles of forest buffer. Two forest buffer demonstration areas have been
developed by the MRBFP and are open to the public, and a project display and brochure have
also been developed and are used extensively. Two other similar projects, also funded by EPA,
exist in Maryland. One covers Maryland's portion of the Susquehanna Watershed, and a new
project covers the highly urbanized Anacostia Watershed.
^ The Maryland Green Shores Private Land Buffer Incentives Program has been established to encourage the planting and maintenance of
forested buffers around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
20
-------
Forestry Project
Assists In Improving
Water Quality in the
Monocacy River
Watershed
(continued)
Although planting trees is an inexpensive controller of nonpoint source pollution, it often
times still requires a cash outlay that many landowners cannot afford. In order to encourage
these types of tree plantings, several cost-share programs have been developed.
ASCS Programs
First, a landowner may get up to 65% of tree planting expenses cost-shared through one of two
USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) programs. These are the
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) and the Forestry Incentive Program (FIP). These
programs are virtually the same in their cost-shares, except that FIP covers only forestry
activities and is only for larger plantings (10 acres or more), while ACP covers many other
agricultural cost-share activities. Either of these may be used to cost-share any type of
conservation tree planting, not just buffer plantings.
Maryland Green Shores Buffer Incentive Program
In order to complement the ASCS programs and to encourage more people to plant forested
stream buffers, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forestry Division developed
the Green Shores Buffer Incentive Program (BIP). BIP may be used alone or in conjunction
with either ACP or FIP and allows for a $200 per acre payment to a landowner. It is strictly for
forested stream buffer plantings. There is a minimum requirement of one acre and a 50-foot
buffer width (either 50 feet of planting or enough planting to make an existing buffer 50 feet
wide).
Fifty feet is the minimum buffer width that will provide effective filtering of runoff. A
fifty-foot-wide forest buffer will trap virtually all sediment and thus most of the phosphorous
bound in sediment. It will trap about 85% of the soluble nitrogen from runoff. Forest buffers
are also extremely valuable in the urban environment for filtering out toxics (petroleums,
pesticides, etc.).
To put this in terms of dollars, here is a brief landowner case study: In the spring of 1990, a
landowner with property on the Monocacy River signed up for ACP and FIP and planted six
acres of forest buffer. About half was to widen an existing narrow buffer along the river, and
the other half was to buffer both sides of a tributary that crossed the property. The
surrounding land was primarily cropland with some hayland and pastureland. The minimum
recommended buffer width of 50 feet was used. This translates into almost one mile of
effectively buffered waterways for this property. Hardwood and shrub seedlings were
purchased from the state nursery at a cost of $750 for the six acres. The landowner paid a
contractor to machine plant the area for another $750. Total expenditure for seedlings and
planting was $1500. Nine hundred and seventy-five dollars in ACP funds were paid to the
landowner upon presentation of the bills and approval by Maryland's Forestry Division.
A survival check was performed one growing season after planting for BIP funding. Provided
acceptable survival (65%) is found, the landowner is paid $200 per acre. This helps to insure
that initial planting maintenance (mowing, etc.) is performed to successfully establish the
seedlings. In this case, the survival rate was 80%, which is considered very good. Through BIP,
the landowner was paid $1200 for six acres.
Total payments to the landowner for planting six acres of forest buffer were $2175, while the
landowner's costs were only $1500. Tlie landowner ended up receiving $675 in net revenue for
planting almost a mile of forest buffer. Pretty good incentive, huh?
Although costs will vary some with geographical region and planting scheme, the costs shown
here are average for the Monocacy watershed. I've worked with buffer plantings from one acre
up to 30 acres, and the one acre plantings are as important as the larger ones to me. One acre of
buffer at 50 feet wide translates into almost 900 linear feet of waterway being protected.
Dispatch #2
editor's note: In the following supplement to be above article, MRBFP'S George Eberling uses a land-
owner case study to illustrate how the project integrates several cost-share programs.
21
-------
Anytime you can effectively filter the runoff to 900 feet of waterway by doing something as
simple as planting an acres of trees, I think you're doing a pretty good thing.
[For more information, contact: George Eberling, Monocacy Watershed Forester, Monocacy River Basin
Forestry Project, 1260 Maryland Ave., Hagerstown, MD 21740. Phone: (301) 416-4010. FAX: (301)
791-0173. We suggest you ask George for a copy of his very informative and attractive brochure.]
Index of Biotic Integrity Expectations
Cooperatively Developed for Indiana Ecoregions
editor's note: Thomas P. Simon, Aquatic Biologist with EPA Region V's Central Regional Laboratory in
Chicago, used The COUPON, to share this story with our readers. We are happy to pass it along.
A cooperative project between the state of Indiana, Department of Environmental
Management, and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Central Regional Laboratory,
Region V, recently completed an analysis of the expectations for a biological characterization
of the fish communities of northwestern Indiana. The study utilized the ecoregion approach
developed by Omernik (1987) and expanded upon by Omernik and Gallant (1988) in
examining regional expectations for assessing degradation caused by point and nonpoint
source inputs on the aquatic community.
The Calumet Region of northwestern Indiana has been exposed to a variety of anthropogenic
alterations from urbanization, industrialization, agriculture, and extensive ditching in the
Grand Calumet, Little Calumet, Kankakee, and Iroquois River Basins. The basins were divided
into three study segments to assess regional heterogeneity based on known historical
alterations within the Lake Michigan, Kankakee and Iroquois drainages. Graphical analysis of
the data enabled the construction of maximum species richness lines for calibrating the Index
of Biotic Integrity for 17 metrics as modified for the application to the regions of Indiana.
Metrics were primarily based on the previous work of Karr (1981), Karr et al. (1986), and Ohio
EPA (1987). A few additional metrics are original to the study and were evaluated to quantify
water quality degradation characteristics.
Separate metrics were developed for headwater (< 20 miles2) and wading sites (> 20 miles2)
drainage area following the rationale of Ohio EPA (1987). Separate scoring criteria and
batteries of metrics were developed for the Lake Michigan drainage while the Kankakee and
Iroquois River drainages were evaluated with similar metric categories. Within the Lake
Michigan drainage, two divisions were recognized based primarily on the presence of
salmonid species. Trout and salmon, as keystone species, determine the fish community where
they are residents. The East Branch of the Little Calumet River Division includes the salmonid
metric and includes the area from Burns Ditch, the East Branch of the Little Calumet River, and
all tributaries. The Lake Michigan Division includes the West Branch of the Little Calumet
River and tributaries and the Grand Calumet River.
The water resources of the three drainages were evaluated based on criteria calibrated for the
Central Corn Belt ecoregion using the Indiana adapted version of the Index of Biotic Integrity.
The distribution of the Index of Biotic Integrity scores approximate a normal curve for the
Kankakee and Iroquois River basins, with respect to site-specific water quality classification. A
trend towards improved water resource quality was evident with increasing drainage area.
The Lake Michigan drainage showed a highly skewed site distribution towards the lower
extremes of water resource quality. The trend was toward a declining water resource with
increasing drainage area in both divisions, although the East Branch Little Calumet Division
possessed a considerably better resource at the headwaters. Site specific data, locality
information, species specific scoring criteria for tolerance classification, trophic guilds, and
reproductive guilds were scored for Indiana taxa.
The project is part of an ongoing study of the biological expectations for the ecoregions of
Indiana project. Sampling completed during 1990 included the Huron-Erie Lake Plain and
Southern Michigan-Northern Indiana Till Plain ecoregions. The Central Corn Belt Plain study
will be available by mid-February 1992 as an EPA Technical Report, EPA 905/9-91/025.
Forestry Project
Assists In Improving
Water Quality in the
Monocacy River
Watershed
(continued)
22
-------
Index of Biotic
Integrity Expectations
Cooperatively
Developed for
Indiana Ecoregions
(continued)
Literature Cited
Karr, J.R. 1981 Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser, 1986. Assessing biological integrity
in running waters: a method and its rationale. 111. Nat. Hist. Surv. Spec. Pub. 5.28 pp.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Ass. Am. Geo. 77:118-125.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1988. Ecoregions of the upper Midwest States. USEPA, ERL, Corvallis,
OR. EPA/ 600/3-88/037.
[For further information contact Thomas P. Simon, Aquatic Biologist, U.S. EPA, Central Regional
Laboratory, 536 South Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60605. Phone: (FTS/312) 353-5524. FAX (FTS/312)
886-2591.]
Agricultural Notes
Farm*A*Syst Demonstrations Established in Michigan;
Program Goes Nationwide
"Seeing is believing," an old education axiom, is being used in a water pollution prevention
demonstration in Michigan. Two farms in the Grand Traverse Bay area of Michigan are serving
as sites to demonstrate the Farmstead Assessment System (Farm*A*Syst), a new groundwater
pollution prevention tool for farmsteads and rural residents.
According to the Farmstead Assessment Program's October 1991 newsletter, the
demonstration farms offer the public an opportunity to view and discuss Farm*A*Syst in
action. The use of Farm*A*Syst, developed in Wisconsin and Minnesota, is being expanded
nationally so that all states will be able to adapt the prototype materials and start their own
Farm*A*Syst programs.
Farm*A*Syst worksheets were used by the Cooperative Extension Service (CES), Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), and Soil Conservation District staff while conducting farmstead
assessments with the two Michigan landowners. High potential risks to groundwater were
found. To reduce these pollution risks, the landowners agreed to modify and install control
structures and change their management practices. On one farm, an animal waste storage and
runoff control system was constructed, and a below-ground petroleum storage system was
replaced with an above-ground system.
On a second farm, the cooperating farmer's highest risks were related to pesticide storage and
mixing. The farmer, a fruit tree grower, also had risks associated with handling and storing
petroleum products. At this site a pesticide storage area on a pad, with spill containment
features, is being designed, and an above-ground petroleum product storage system will be
installed.
Improved farmstead management to reduce pollution risks is also being implemented at both
sites. These practices include better fertilizer and manure management, better pesticide and
petroleum tank-filling practices, improved chemical storage practices, anti-backsiphon
precautions, and installation of check valves.
In NPS NEWS-NOTES issues #9 and #16, we reported on the development of Farm*A*Syst's
pilot versions in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and the funding received from the U.S. EPA, and
U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service and SCS to expand the project nationally.
How The Assessment Works
Farm*A*Syst works by using a series of 12 worksheets that evaluate the risk of well water
contamination from farm and rural activities. For example, worksheet #1 of the series assesses
groundwater contamination risk based on the condition of drinking-water wells. This
groundwater protection tool is especially important because the vast majority of the nation's
rural residents use groundwater to supply their drinking water and farmstead needs. The
assessment system also includes educational materials that aid farmers in conducting
23
-------
Farm*A*Syst
Demonstrations
Established in
Michigan; Program
Goes Nationwide
(continued)
farmstead inventories and evaluating contamination sources. Assessment results are used to
develop a voluntary action plan to reduce pollution risks.
The assessment can be done individually or in group-education sessions. Group sessions
normally involve local professionals and agency technical staff who help farm operators
choose corrective actions.
Farm*A*Syst is a unique program because it examines a wide range of potential contaminants
and remedies in a comprehensive, easy-to-use format. This means that there is now a
mechanism available that allows farmers and rural residents to assess pollution risks
associated with their farmsteads and home sites and take decisive action to preserve the
quality of their drinking water.
Program Goes Nationwide
A cooperative core program team staffed by EPA, CES, and SCS, located at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, will provide guidelines and educational support to states interested in
starting their own Farm*A*Syst programs. Inquiries for Farm*A*Syst information, use, and
possibilities for adaptation have been received from more than 40 states.
As a part of their support of the Farm*A*Syst adaptation in other states, the Farm*A*Syst staff
will:
¦ Provide Wisconsin and Minnesota Farm*A*Syst packets including worksheets and £act
sheets. These packets can be modified by other states for their own programs. The
packets can be purchased for $12.00 plus shipping. Order Wisconsin packets from:
Agricultural Bulletin, Rm. 245,30 N. Murray St., Madison, WI53715. Phone:
(608)262-3346. Minnesota packets can be ordered from University of Minnesota
Distribution Center, 1420 Eckles Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108.
¦ Provide word processed versions of the Wisconsin packet that states can edit on disk.
These cost $25.00 plus shipping. Contact the Farm*A*Syst staff for ordering
information. Disks are available in four formats: Macintosh Pagemaker, IBM
Pagemaker, IBM WordPerfect, or ASCII.
¦ Conduct regional training workshops for states.
[For more information, contact: Susan A. Jones, EPA Coordinator, Jerry Griswold, SCS Coordinator, or
Gary W. Jackson, Extension Coordinator, Farm'A'Syst Program, B142 Steenbock Library, 550 Babcock
Drive, Madison, WI 53706-1293. Phone: (608)262-0024. FAX: (608)265-2775.)
USDA Stresses Nitrogen Management
in Water Quality Funding
In 1991, the USDA Cooperative State Research Service(CSRS) awarded Special Research Grants
to 32 Water Quality Initiative projects involving nitrogen. The projects included ten related to
management practices, five related to nitrogen leaching and movement, five related to
manure, seven related to groundwater contamination, and two involving nitrogen
requirements.
CSRS, in cooperation with the Agricultural Research Service, EPA and other agencies, recently
sponsored a workshop in Washington, D.C. to identify problem areas to be addressed in an
expanded soil testing research grants program. The workshop brought together 40 experts in
agriculture, water quality, and related disciplines to assess current research needs concerning
nitrates in the soil and water. Objectives of the research are to determine nitrogen levels
needed for crop production and to identify excess nitrates that may leach into groundwater
from the soil.
The USDA Extension Service funded 36 nutrient management projects in 1991 as part of an
effort to strengthen state Extension water quality education programs. The primary goal of
these projects is to encourage more farmers to adopt improved nutrient management practices,
especially for nitrogen. Projects include the development of bulletins, fact sheets, and other
educational materials explaining the effects of nutrient management practices on water
24
-------
quality. Other projects emphasize on-farm demonstrations and the refinement of improved
nutrient management practices. Extension field staff will be trained in water quality principles
and practices so that they can educate producers in the latest nutrient management
technologies.
[For additional information, contact: Maurice L. Horton, USDA-CSRS, Rm. 329 Q, Aerospace Center, 910
DSt., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-2200. Phone:(202)401-4504. FAX: (202)401-1706; or contact: Francis
Thicke, National Program Leader, Soil Science, USDA-ES, Rm3346-S, Washington, D.C. 20250. Phone:
(202)720-7165. FAX: (202)690-0289.]
Nonpoint Source Electronic Bulletin Board
(BBS) News
Update for On-Line News-Notes
The on-line searchable Neuis-Notes database has been updated. NPS BBS users will now find
issues #1 through #17 in Door 2 of the BBS. Users will be able to search the articles by article
number, title, text or keywords.
The list of keywords has been updated to reflect emerging trends and technology in the water
quality world. Users who wish to search articles by assigned keywords should print out
Bulletin #5, which contains instructions for using the database, as well as a list of the new
keywords. This is the only place the new keywords are listed at the present time.
To use the database, type "OPEN 2" from the main board command prompt. Once in the
News-Notes database, users will be guided through the user-friendly system.
To access the BBS, use your telecommunications software and modem (1200 or 2400 baud) to
dail (301) 589-0205. For more information, use the COUPON in back of this News-Notes to
write for the free NPS BBS user's manual.
This DATEBOOK has been assembled with the cooperation of our readers and the
Conservation Technology Information Center, 1220 Potter Dr., Rm. 170, West Lafayette, IN
47906-1334. If there is a meeting or event that you would like placed in the DATEBOOK,
contact the NPS NEWS-NOTES editors. Due to an irregular printing schedule, notices should
be in our hands at least two months in advance to ensure timely publication.
Correction: In News-Notes #17; ive inadvertantly printed the deadline for abstracts for WEF's
"Surface Water Quality and Ecology" Symposium as July 15, 1992. The correct deadline is
January 15, 1992. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this error.—eds.
MEETINGS AND EVENTS
1992
March
3-4 Integrated State and Local Wetland Management, Houston, TX. Contact: John Custler, Association of
State Wetland Managers, (518) 872-1804. Theme: Integrating wetland protection, riparian habitat
management, stormwater management, and point and nonpoint source pollution control.
10 National Monitoring and Evaluation Conference and Nonpoint Source Workshop, Chicago, IL. Contact:
Bob Kirschner, Northeastern IL Planning Comm., 400 W. Madison St., Chicago, IL 60606. (312)
454-0400. Registration: $65 before 2/21, $85 later. Sponsors: EPA Region V and CERI, Northeastern
IL Planning Commission, SCS, CTIC, and OK Conservation Commission. Topics include:
measuring biological impacts of nonpoint source pollution, national monitoring guidance.
16-17 Living With Wetland Policies and Politics: 1992 Nebraska Water Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska. Contact:
Bob Kuzelka, 103 Natural Resources Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-0844. (402) 472-3305. There are 12
different registration options, ranging in cost from $10 to $80. Free 2-hour workshop on wetlands
management for landowners. Topics: Nature of NE wetlands; wetlands as habitat; economics of
wetlands; etc.
19-21 Southeast Regional Lake Management Conference, Marietta, GA. Contact: NALMS, 1 Progress Blvd.,
Alachua, FL 32615. (904) 462-2554.
USDA Stresses
Nitrogen
Management in
Water Quality
Funding
(continued)
Datebook
25
-------
Datebook (Continued)
1992
March
21-22
April
24-26
25-26
25-26
29-4/2
5-8
12-16
13-16
May
6-8
27-29
August
9-12
September
1-3
13-17
20-24
New England Environmental Conference, Medford. MA. Contact: Environmental Citizenship Program,
Lincoln Filene Center, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155. (617) 627-3451. Fifty workshops.
Speakers include: Phillip Berry, President, National Sierra Club; Julie Belaga, EPA Region 1
Administrator; Nemiah Arap Rotich, Exec. Dir., East Africa Wildlife Society; Brock Evans, Vice
President, National Audubon Society; Jane Pratt, Environmental Operation, World Bank. On Friday,
March 20, there will be a symposium on zero pollution discharge.
State/EPA Water Quality Data Assessment Seminar, Wagoner, OK. Contact: Charlie Howell, Regional
Monitoring Coord., (6E-SA), U.S. EPA Region 6,1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202. (214) 655-2289.
Sponsor: EPA Region 6. Topics include wet weather monitoring techniques and data analyses.
North Dakota Water Quality Symposium, Bismark, ND. Contact: Bruce Seelig, Water Quality
Specialist, Ag. Engineering, North Dakota State University, Box 5626, Fargo, ND 58105. (701)
237-8690. A forum for exchange of research, information and ideas on a range of water quality
topics.
Water Quality Standards on Indian Lands, Denver, CO. Contact: Patti Morris, Office of Science &
Technology, U.S. EPA (WH-585), 401M St., SW, Washington, EX! 20460. FAX (202) 260-9830.
Sponsored by EPA. Purpose: Assist Indian Tribes to develop WQS.
3rd National Citizens' Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference, Annapolis, MD. Contact: Volunteer
Monitoring Conf., IWLA, 1401 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209. (703) 528-1818. "Building
Partnerships in the Year of Clean Water." Sponsors: EPA, Izaak Walton League of America, Alliance
for the Chesapeake Bay and America's Clean Water Foundation.
Organizing for the Coast: Coastal Society Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Contact: Lauriston King,
Office of University Research, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843. (409) 845-1811.
Possible topics: Estuarine and coastal research, communicating scientific advice to policymakers,
citizen participation, marine education.
Availability of Groundwater Resources, Raleigh, NC. Contact: Robert C. Borden, Technical Comm.
Chair, Dept. of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, PO Box 7908, Raleigh, NC 27895.
(919) 515-7665.
National Wildlife Criteria Methodologies Meeting, Charlottesville, VA. Contact: Lisa Grayson, JT&A,
1000 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 833-3380. EPA-sponsored forum for
discussion of proposed ways for defining wildlife-protective water quality criteria. Register by 3/6.
Make room reservations at Boar's Head Inn in Charlottesville by 3/13. Limited to 40. Others
welcome as observers.
Enhancing States' Lake Management Programs: Strengthening State and Local Interactions, Chicago, IL.
Contact: Bob Kirshner, Northeastern IL Planning Comm., Natural Resource Dept., 400 Madison St.,
Chicago, IL 60606. (312) 454-0400. Sponsors: EPA, Clean Lakes Program, Northeastern Illinois
Planning Comm., NALMS.
Forest Practices and Water Quality Workshop, Green Bay, WI. Contact: Edward Eckert,Forest Resource
Planner, Forest Management Division, MI Dept. of Natural Resources, PO Box 30028, Lansing, MI
48909. (517) 335-3351. Sponsor. Lake States Forestry Alliance. Purpose: To develop ways of properly
addressing the intent of the CWA as directed at timber harvesting and its effects on groundwater
and surface water quality in MI, MN and WI.
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 of human resources in natural
resources.
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), 401M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.
FAX: (202) 260-9830. Theme: FY 94-96 WQS Priorities.
1992 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, Rapid City, SD. Contact: Bud Griswold,
National Sea Grant Program, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. (301) 427-2431.
Theme: "The Year 2000: Mil We Be Ready Technically? Socially? Politically?"
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.
28
-------
The Coupon
Nonpolnt Source Information Exchange Coupon 010
(Clip or Photocopy and Mail or FAX this coupon to us)
Our Mailing Address: MPS 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
Q Ask for Information, OR
G 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.
~ Please add my name to the mailing list to receive News-Notes.
L
Your Name:
Organization:
Address:
City/Statm:
Phono:
Zip:
Fax:
27
-------
Monpolnt 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 which 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 Nonpoint Source Information
Exchange, (WH-553), Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water,
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 Rea-
der, 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)
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
First Class
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 328
Merrifield, VA
Printed on Recycled Paper
------- |