-------
Section 319 Success Stories Volume III:
The Successful Implementation
of the Clean Water Act's Section 319 IMonpoint Source Pollution Program
For copies of this document, contact:
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
Phone: 1-800-490-9198
Fax: 513-489-8695
web: www.epa.gov/ncepihom
or visit the web at:
www.epa.gov/owow/nps
&EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
4503T
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 841-S-01-001
February 2002
-------
Section 319 Success Stories
Volume III:
The Successful Implementation of the
Clean Water Act's Section 319
Nonpoint Source Pollution Program
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
-------
-------
Contents
/
Section 319 Success Stories: 1
The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act's
. _ Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program
ALABAMA
Flint Creek Watershed Project: 7
Multiagency Effort Results in Water Quality Improvements
Tuscumbia-Fort Payne Aquifer Protection Program: 8
Multiagency, Cooperative Approach Protects Aquifer
ALASKA
Restoration Work on the Kenai: 10
Section 319' Funds Are Key to Youth Restoration Corpss Success,
Road and Stream Crossing Project in Tongass National Forest: 11
New Data Help Identify Needed Fish Habitat Restoration
AMERICAN SAMOA
Nu'uuli Pala Lagoon Restoration Project: 12
Efforts Spread to Other Island Villages
ARIZONA
Restoration in Nutrioso Creek: 13
Successful Results Beginning to Show
Sediment Reduction at Hackberry Ranch: 16
Reduction of 4 Tons Per Acre Realized
ARKANSAS
Buffalo National River Watershed Partnerships: 17
Partners Improve Swine Waste Management
A Community Approach to Managing Manure in the Buffalo River Watershed: 19
Local Watershed Assistance Program' Helps Dairy Farmers
CALIFORNIA
Grassland Bypass Project: 21
Economic Incentives Program Helps to Improve Water Quality
Turning History Around: 23
Stream Restoration Reclaims a Meadow While Helping to Control Floods
COLORADO
Mining Remediation in the Chalk Creek Watershed: 25
Project Demonstrates Exciting Possibilities
Rio Blanco Restoration: 27
Adopted Rocks and Homemade Jelly Help Fund Demonstration Project .
CONNECTICUT
Center Springs Pond Restoration Project: 29
Skaters and Fish Return to Pond
Lake Waramaug Watershed Agricultural Waste Management System: 31
One Farm Can Make a Difference
DELAWARE
Partners Upgrade Septic Systems in Coverdale Crossroads: 33
Quality of Life Improved, for Residents
Contents
-------
Contents (cont»)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Marsh Restoration and Island Enhancement Projects at Kingman Lake: 34
Tidal Wetland Habitats Re-created
The Watts Branch Initiative: 36
Community Involvement Key to Success
FLORIDA
Blackwater River Restoration: 37
Project Demonstrates Mechanics of Erosion and Effectiveness of BMPs
Brevard County's Urban Storm Water Retrofitting Projects: 38
Lessons Learned About Design, Location, and Monitoring
GEORGIA
Broad River Streambank Stabilization Project: 40
Tree Revetments Rescue Eroding Banks
North Griffin Storm Water Detention Pond Project: 41
Constructed Wetland System Protects Water, Wins Award
GUAM
Ugum Watershed Project: 42
Students Plant Acacia Seedlings to Help Restore Watershed
HAWAII
He'eia Coastal Restoration Project: 43
Thousands of Volunteers Replace Alien Plants with Native Species
Integration of Aquaculture with Taro Production: 44
Nonpoint Source Pollutants Reduced in Demonstration Project
IDAHO
Conservation in Hatwai Creek: 45
Partners Work Together on Four Successful Projects
Restoring the Paradise Creek Watershed: 47
Phased Approach Implemented to Address Pollution and Flooding
Streambank Stabilization in the Thomas Fork Watershed: 49
Photo Monitoring Sells Landowners on Bank Stabilization
ILLINOIS
Lake Pittsfield Project: 50
Ninety Percent Reduction in Sediment Loading Achieved
Restoration of the Flint Creek Watershed: 52
Restoration Partnership Completes Multiple Projects
INDIANA
Blue River Riparian Reforestation: 53
The Nature Conservancy Gets Landowners Involved
Little Pine Creek and Indian Watersheds: 55
Constructed Wetland System Averts Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
IOWA
Bigalk Creek Watershed Project: 56
Rainbow Trout Population Rebounds
The Lake Fisher Water Quality Project: 57
Chipped Tires Help Protect Public Water Supply
Pine Creek Water Quality Project: 59
Life Expectancy of Pine Lakes Extended
Contents
-------
Contents (corst.)
KANSAS
Braeburn Golf Course Project: 60
Nitrates Reduced by More Than 80 Percent.
On-site Sewage Disposal on Difficult Sites: 62
Special Conditions Demand Alternative Response
KENTUCKY
Elkhorn Creek BMP Demonstration Project: 63
Farmers See Water Supply Alternatives in Action
LOUISIANA
Bayou Plaquemine Brule: 64
Louisiana Applies .Satellite Imagery to Watershed Planning and Management
Flat River and Red Chute Bayou Watersheds: . 66
BMPs Reduce Soil Loss
MAINE
Highland Lake Watershed Project: 67
Hotspots Model Links Land Use and Water Quality
Silver Spring Brook Watershed Demonstration Project:, 69
Landowners' Cooperation Plus Town's Commitment Equals Success
MARYLAND
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Maryland's Forestry BMPs: 71
Paired Watershed Study Tests BMP Performance
MASSACHUSETTS
Broad Marsh River Storm Water Remediation Project: 72
Infiltration Structures Reduce Pollutants, Save Shellfish Beds
Lake Tashmoo Storm Water Remediation Project: 74
First Flush Leaching Basins More Effective Than Expected
MICHIGAN
Innovative Farmers of Michigan: 76
Blending Farm Profitability and Water Quality Protection
Little Rabbit River Watershed Project: 78
One-to-One Approach Wins Landowners''Support
. MINNESOTA
North St. Paul Urban Ecology Center: 80
Wetland Improvements Needed to Control Storm Water
Prior Lake/Spring Lake Improvement Project: 81
Long-Term Implementation Strategy Off to a Good Start
MISSISSIPPI
Muddy Creek Watershed Demonstration Project: 83
BMPs Retain 3,500 Tons of Soil per Year
Roebuck Lake Demonstration Project: 84
Slotted-Board Risers Installed to Save Topsoil and Improve Water Quality !
MISSOURI
Mississippi Delta Irrigation Water Management Project: 85
Irrigation Efficiency Improved •
Upper Niangua Grazing Demonstration Project: 87
Counties Unite to Start Demonstration Farms
Contents
iiii
-------
Contents (cent.)
MONTANA
Careless Creek Watershed Project: 90
Sediment Delivery Reduced by 25 Percent
Restoration in Muddy Creek: 92
Will a Name.Change Be Needed?
NEBRASKA
Walnut Creek Lake Project: 94
Partnership Drives Watershed Protection
Wellhead Protection in Guide Rock: 95
Village Closes Abandoned Wells to Protect Water Supply
NEVADA
Martin Slough Water Quality Enhancement Project: 97
Water Quality Improves in the Upper Carson River Basin
Middle Carson River Restoration Project: 98-
Bioengineering Used to Restore Unstable' Banks
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Chocorua Lake Project: 100
BMPs Reduce Phosphorus by 82 Percent
Lake Opechee Watershed Project: 101
City-State Partnership Takes on Multiple Pollutants
NEW JERSEY
Restoration of Strawbridge Lake: 103
Volunteers Assist in Stabilizing Shoreline and Constructing Wetlands
The Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Restoration Project: 104
Streamwatch Volunteers Monitor Success of Restoration Efforts
NEW MEXICO
Lower Bitter Creek Restoration Project: 105
Sediment Loads Reduced by Implementing BMPs
Valle Grande Grass Bank Water Quality Improvement Project: 107
Success Breeds More Success
NEWYORK
Keuka Lake Watershed: 109
Grap'e Growers Implement Soil Conservation Practices
Wappingers Creek Watershed: 110
AEM Program Plays a Vital Role
NORTH CAROLINA
Edenton Storm Water Wetland Project: 111
Wetland Systems Reduce Nitrogen Concentrations
Goose Creek Urban Stream Rehabilitation Project: 113
Ecosystem Protection Practices Installed in Low-Income Neighborhood
NORTH DAKOTA
Cottonwood Creek Watershed: 114
Project Is a Success in the Works
Red River Basin Riparian Project: 117
Turtle River Site Passes the Test
Jv
Contents
-------
i^r : Contents (cont.)
OHIO
Stillwater River Watershed Protection Project: 119
High Local Interest Helps Launch Watershed Project
Toussaint River Incentive Improvement Program: 120
Buffer Project Becomes a Model of Conservation Partnership
OKLAHOMA
Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Wetlands: 122
A Sustainable Solution for Abandoned Mine Problems
Poteau River Comprehensive Watershed Management Program: 124
Local Involvement Ensures Program Sustainability
The Spring Creek Project: 126
Streambanks Stabilized Through Stream Restoration
OREGON
Dawson Wetland Restoration Project: 128
Landowners and Wetlands Both Win
South Myrtle Creek Ditch Project: 129
Removal of Dam Benefits Aquatic Life
Wet Meadow Restoration in the Upper Grande Ronde Basin: 131
Channel Restoration Brings Cooler Waters
PENNSYLVANIA
Narrows Bioengineering Project: 132
Cold-Water Fishery Restored Through Bioengineering
Villanova's Storm Water Wetland Retrofit: 133
BMP Treats Runoff and Provides Research Site
PUERTO RICO
Coastal Nonpoint Source Controls: 135
Executive Order Adopts Section 6217(g) Management Measures as Official Policy
RHODE ISLAND
Curran Brook Sedimentation Pond: 136
Multiple Partners Construct Storm Water Control System
Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration: 137
Undersized Culverts Replaced with Self-Regulating Gates
SOUTH CAROLINA
Constructed Wetlands for Failing Septic Tanks: 139
. New Technologies Solve an Old Problem
Stevens Creek Watershed Project: 140
Demonstration Sites Show Reductions in Fecal Coliform Bacteria
SOUTH DAKOTA
Big Stone Lake Restoration Project: 141
Better Water Quality Improves Fisheries, Recreation
Management-Intensive Grazing Project: 143
Rotational Grazing Reduces Erosion, Increases Profits
TENNESSEE
Ghost River Land Acquisition Project: 144
River Protected by Restoring Forested Wetlands
Using Constructed Wetlands to Clean Up Pesticides: . 146
Container Nurseries Will Benefit from Successful Pilot-Scale Study
• Concents
-------
Contents (cent.)
TEXAS
Atrazine Problems in the Lake Aquilla and Marlin City Lake System: 147
Farmers Take a Proactive Stance
On-Farm Composting of Dairy Cattle Solid Waste: 148
Protecting Water Quality While Producing a Salable Product
UTAH
Little Bear River Project: 149
Voluntary Approaches Yield Success
Success in the Chalk Creek Watershed:, 151
Reduced Phosphorus,, Enhanced Habitat Result
VERMONT
Flow Restoration Below Hydroelectric Facilities: 153
Relicensing Offers Opportunity to Increase Stream Flows
Lake Champlain Basin Watershed Project: 154
Significant Pollutant Reductions Achieved
VIRGINIA
Cabin Branch Mine Orphaned Land. Project: 156
'Flora and Fauna Benefit from Mine Reclamation
Toncrae Mine Orphaned Land Project: 158
Mine Site Reclamation Increases Species Diversity
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Virgin Islands Partnership: 160
Alternative Treatment Systems Prevent Contamination of Coastal Waters
WASHINGTON
Best Management Practices on Model Horse Farms: 161
Farm Plan Management Reduces Nutrients and Sediment
A Moo-ving Approach to Dairy Waste Management: 162
Fecal Coliform Pollution Reduced in Whatcom County
Sediment Reduction in Yakima River Basin: 164
People Become Stewards of Their Own Watershed
WEST VIRGINIA
The North Fork Project: 165
Farmers' Cooperation Leads to Proposed Delisting of Degraded River
WISCONSIN
Otter Creek Project: 168
319 National Monitoring Program Goals Met
Success in Spring Creek Watershed: 169
Natural Reproduction of Trout Confirms Water Quality Improvement
WYOMING
Jackson Hole Rodeo Grounds Snow Storage Site: 170
Filtration System Reduces Urban Storm Water Runoff
Muddy Creek Coordinated Resource Management Project: 172
Cattle Ranches and Trout Streams Can Coexist
Mil
' Concerns
-------
Contents (cont.J
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Ranch Water Quality Planning: 175
Voluntary Rangeland Management Eases Impacts on'California Watersheds
Colorado Water Protection Project: 176
• League of Women Voters Guides Extensive Urban NFS Campaign
Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO): 177
Successful Connecticut Project Used as Model Nationwide
Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program: 179
More Than 1.2 Million People Reached
The Salt Creek Wilderness: 180
Illinois Zoo Offers Interactive Environmental Learning Experience
North Dakota Eco-Ed Camps: 182
Thousands of Students Have Fun While Learning
University of Rhode Island Onsite Wastewater Training Center: 183
Pioneering Agency Teaches, Demonstrates Innovative Systems
Water Action Volunteers: 184
WAV and Its Partners Make a Difference in Wisconsin
Stream Monitoring Network with Wyoming Schools: , 185
Trained Teams Initiate, Expand School Monitoring Programs
INNOVATIVE STATE PROGRAMS
California's BIOS Program: 187
Growers Adopt Whole-System Management Approach to. Reduce Pesticide Use
Maui County Erosion and Sediment Control Training Project: 189
Workshops Explain Ordinance, Teach BMP Installation
Idaho's Dairy Pollution Prevention Initiative: 191
Unique Program Eliminates Direct Dairy Discharges
Creating a Storm Water Utility in Chicopee, Massachusetts: 193
Project Praised as Outstanding Planning Project
New York's Agricultural Environmental Management Program: 195
Incentive-based Program Helps Farmers Meet Tough Standards
South Carolina Forestry BMP Compliance Program: 197
Proactive Strategy Raises BMP Compliance Rate
Statewide Clean Marina Programs: 198
BMPs, Recognition, and Outreach Help Protect Coastal Resources
Contents
tvii
-------
Contents (cont.)
STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS
California's Water Bond Program 201
California's Loan-Programs 202
Florida Forever Program 202
Georgia's Greenspace Program 203
Iowa's Water Quality Initiative 203
Maine's Funding Programs 205
Clean Michigan Initiative 206
Minnesota's Clean Water Partnership Program 206
Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Program 207
New Hampshire's Water Supply Land Conservation Grant Program 208
New Jersey's Funding Programs 208
New York's Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act 209
North Carolina's Clean Water Management Trust Fund 209
Clean Ohio Fund 210
Oregon's Watershed Restoration Grants 210
Pennsylvania's Growing Greener Program 211
Vermont's Funding Programs 212
Virginia's Water Quality Improvement Act 213
Washington's Water Qualify Funding Programs 214
Wisconsin's Grant Programs for Runoff Management 214
State Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs 215
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs 215
TRIBAL SECTION 319 PROJECTS
Restoring Watersheds by Decommissioning Forest Roads: 217
Karuk Tribe and Forest Service Form Successful Partnership
Winchester Lake Watershed Project: 219
Local Partners Join in Implementing TMDL Plan
Water Quality Best Management Practices Plan: 220
Choctaw Tribe Addresses Soil Erosion
Restoring Little Porcupine Creek: 221
Alternative Water Sources and Grazing Rotation Help to Restore Stream
Streambank Restoration at Bradley and Standingdeer Campgrounds: 221
An Innovative Solution Solves a Common Problem
Glossary G-l
Appendix A-l
Success_Story Index and Sources
vlflBEl Contents
-------
Section 319 Success Stories:
The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act's
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program
This document is the third volume of Section
319 Success Stories, .the first volume of which
was published in November 1994 and the second
in October 1997. The first document illustrated
the states' achievements in their initial efforts to
implement their nonpoint source programs under
section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The second
volume demonstrated the maturation of the state
programs and was replete with many examples of
the documented water quality improvements,
improved fisheries, reduced loadings, and in-
creased public awareness that are a result of the
many projects that have received section 319
funding.
Success Stories: Volume III contains approxi-
mately two new stories per state, highlighting
some of the additional successes achieved since
the 1997 publication. These stories demonstrate
better-defined water quality improvements, as well
as growing partnerships and funding sources, as
state 319 programs-expand and states learn in-
creasingly more from past 319 demonstration
projects. Collectively, they represent only a frac-
tion of the section 319 project successes.
Nonpoint source pollution
After Congress passed the Clean Water Act in .
1972, the Nation's water quality community placed
a primary emphasis on addressing and controlling
point source'pollution (pollution coming from a
discrete conveyance or location, such as industrial
and municipal waste discharge pipes). Not only .
were these sources the primary contributors to the
degradation of our nation's waters at the time, but
the extent and significance of nonpoint source
pollution was also poorly understood and over-
shadowed by efforts to control pollution from
point sources. , , ' -
Today, nonpoint source pollution remains the
Nation's largest source of -water quality problems.
It is the main reason that approximately 40 per-
• cent of surveyed rivers, lakes, and estuaries are
not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fish-
ing Or swimming. . .. • •
Nonpoint source pollution occurs when
rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water runs over
land or through the ground, picks up pollutants,
and deposits them into rivers, lakes, and coastal
waters or introduces them into groundwater.
Nonpoint source pollution also includes adverse
changes to the hydrology of water bodies- and
their associated aquatic habitats.
The most common nonpoint source pollut^
ants are soils and nutrients that storm water run-
off picks up as it flows overland to rivers and
streams; for example, runoff from agricultural
land and other treated open spaces, urban devel-
opments, construction sites, roads, and bridges.
Introduction
-------
Other common nonpoint source pollutants in-
clude pesticides, pathogens (bacteria and viruses),
salt, oil, grease, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals.
The most recent National Water Quality Inven-
tory (1998) indicates that nonpoint sources consti-
tute the leading sources of water pollution in the
United States today. States and other jurisdictions
reported agriculture as the most widespread
source of pollution in assessed rivers, streams,'and
lakes, with hydromodification and urban runoff
following as the second and third leading sources
of pollution.
Nonpoint source pollution causes or contrib-
utes to beach closures, destroyed habitat, unsafe
drinking water, fish kills, and many other severe
environmental and human health problems. It also
spoils the beauty and important functions of
clean, healthy water habitats.
Nonpoint source program—Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act
Congress established the national nonpoint source
program in 1987 when it amended the Clean
Water Act with section 319, "Nonpoint Source
NonpoJnt source pollution causes or contributes to beach closures, destroyed
habitat, unsafe drinking water, fish kills, and many other severe environmental
and human health problems.
Management Programs." States were to address
nonpoint source pollution by
• Conducting statewide assessments of their waters
to identify those that are impaired (do not
fully support state water quality standards)
or threatened (currently meet, water quality
standards but are unlikely to continue to
meet water quality standards fully) because
of nonpoint sources.
• Developing nonpoint source management programs
to address the impaired or threatened
waters identified in nonpoint source assess-
ments.
• Implementing their EPA-approved nonpoint source
management programs over a multiyear time
frame.
All states and territories and, as of September
2001, more than 70 tribes (representing over 70
percent of Indian Country) now have EPA-ap-
proved nonpoint source assessments and manage-
ment programs.
In 1995, recognizing the growing experience
of states, tribes, and localities in addressing non-
point source pollution and the fact that state,
tribal, and local nonpoint source programs had
matured considerably since enactment of section
319 in 1987, representatives of EPA and the
states, under the auspices of the Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministrators (ASIWPCA), initiated joint discus-
sions to develop a new framework for further
strengthening state nonpoint source programs.
These discussions continued for more than a year,
spanning fiscal years (FY) 1995 and 1996, and
resulted in new national section 319 program and
grant guidance that EPA signed and ASIWPCA
endorsed. This May 1996 guidance reflected the
states' and EPA's joint commitment to upgrade
Introduction
-------
The stories highlight the range of best state at
management practices, training
programs, and other acitivites
implemented to achieve measurable
improvements in water quality.
state nonpoint source management
programs to incorporate nine key
program elements designed to
achieve and maintain beneficial uses
of water.
The guidance also provided for
discontinuing competitive award of a
portion of each .state's annual section
319 grant award, thereby ensuring a
firm annual planning target for each
outset, of each annual
award cycle, reducing the amount and
frequency of administrative oversight
and reporting, and offering greater
flexibility for the states and territories in establish-
ing priorities for the use of these funds. Addition-
ally, a state that incorporates all nine key elements
into its revised nonpoint source management
program and has a proven track record of effec-
tive implementation of its nonpoint source pro-
grams is formally recognized by the Regional
Administrator and the Assistant Administrator for
Water as a Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits
State. Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States
are afforded substantially reduced oversight and
maximum flexibility to implement their state
programs and to achieve water quality objectives.
Thus, although EPA greatly streamlined the sec-
tion 319 grants program for all states, it also pro-
vided further flexibility to the Nonpoint Source
Enhanced Benefits States with complete programs
and proven track records.
The nine key elements that form the core of
the states' upgraded nonpoint source management
programs are the following:
1. Short- and long-term goals and objectives.
2. Strong working partnerships with all key
stakeholders.
3. Balanced approach emphasizing statewide
and watershed-level programs.
4. Plans to abate known impairments and
prevent significant threats to water quality.
5. Identifying and progressively addressing
impaired or threatened waters.
6. Establishing flexible, targeted, iterative
approaches.
7-. Identifying federal programs that are not
consistent with state programs.
8. Efficient and effective program manage-
ment and implementation.
9. Periodic review and evaluation of program
success at least every 5 years.
All states and territories will have approved,
upgraded nonpoint source management programs
by the end of 2001.
Responsibility and funding for the 319
Program
EPA is divided into 10 regions "with offices in
Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Atlanta,
Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City, Denver, San Fran-
cisco, and Seattle. Each EPA region has a Non-
point Source Coordinator, •who is familiar with the
nonpoint source programs in each of the states,
territories,-and tribes in that region and the 319
funding process that supports them. In turn, each
state has a designated Nonpoint Source Coordina-
tor responsible for managing the state's nonpoint
source activities and funds. For specific EPA
regional and state NPS Coordinators, see EPA's
•web site at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
contacts.html. In most states, this Coordinator is
located in the state's water quality agency. In sev-
eral states, however, the NPS Coordinator is lo-
cated in the state's conservation agency, health
agency, or agricultural agency. Increasingly, deci-
Intjoduction
-------
sions about funding and program priorities are
made by a broad-based NFS Task Force repre-
senting not only state agencies but also other
stakeholders at the state and local levels.
EPA awards grants to states using an allocation
formula based on population, cropland acreage,
critical aquatic habitats, pasture and rangeland
acreage, forest harvest acreage, wellhead protection
areas, mining, and pesticide use to determine the
amount to be awarded to each state. Each year, the
congressional appropriation for section 319 is
multiplied by the applicable percentage based on
the formula to determine each state's allocation for
that year. Each state or tribe is required to provide
a 40 percent nonfederal dollar match.
From FY 1990 through 2001, EPA awarded an
aggregate of more than $1.3 billion to states and
territories under section 319. Funds available.for
grants in FY 2001 alone have increased to more
than f 237 million, which is nearly double the FY
1998 appropriation. A small portion of the annual
section 319 appropriation, one-third of 1 percent,
is by statute set aside for Indian tribes. In FY 2000
and FY 2001, Congress authorized EPA to award
grants to Indian tribes under section 319 in an
amount that exceeds the statutory cap, recognizing
that the tribes need and deserve increased financial
Nonpolnt source pollution occurs when rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water
runs over land or through the ground, picks up pollutants and deposits them
Into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters or introduces them into groundwater.
Nonpoint source pollution is the main reason that
approximately 40 percent of surveyed rivers, lakes,
and estuaries are not clean enough for fishing or
swimming.
support to implement their nonpoint source pro-
grams. EPA's long-term goal is that the one-third of
1 percent cap on tribal nonpoint source grants will
be permanently eliminated.
Future of nonpoint source programs
With all state 319 programs upgraded by the end
of 2001, EPA and ASIWPCA have established a
new state/EPA Nonpoint Source Management
Partnership to support states in the implementa-
tion of their upgraded programs. The partnership
consists of a state/EPA Steering Committee arid
seven -workgroups to help identify and solve
states' highest-priority nonpoint source needs. The
seven workgroups cover issues relating to
1. Watershed planning and implementation.
2. Rural nonpoint sources.
3. Urban nonpoint sources.
4. Nonpoint source grants management.
5. Nonpoint source capacity building and
funding.
6. Information transfer and outreach.
7. Documenting nonpoint source results.
This new partnership provides an excellent
framework for'the states and EPA to work to-
IniroducDon
-------
gether cooperatively to identify, prioritize, and
solve nonpoint source problems. For more de-
tailed information on particular -workgroup activi-
ties, see EPA's web site atwwwepa.gov/owow/
nps/partnership.html.
Defining success
Many of the projects contained in Success Stories:
Volume III directly address the Clean Water Act's
goal of achieving water quality standards by re-
storing and maintaining the chemical, physical,
The Clean Water Act's goal is to achieve water quality standards by restoring
and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters.
and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
The "state-by-state showcase" stories primarily
demonstrate water quality improvements, a return
to water quality standards, or other objective
evidence of improvement in the water or in the
habitat associated with the water. Many of the
stories also document specific pollutant reduc-
tions or other measurable improvements attrib-
uted to the 319 project, such as increased shade
for temperature-impaired waters and improved
streamside habitat. The stories highlight the range
of best management practices, training programs,
and other activities implemented to achieve these
successes, as well as the funding sources and other
partners that contributed to the successful project.
Although stories contained in Success Stories:
Volume III emphasize "on-the-ground" projects to
solve nonpoint source problems, many states also
have created special programs and authorities to
prevent nonpoint source problems. Interested
readers should refer to two research studies pub-
lished by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI)
for general background on state authorities to
address nonpoint source pollution—Enforceable
State Mechanisms for the Control of Nonpoint Source ,
Water Pollution (1997) and Almanac of Enforceable
State'Laws to Control Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
(1998). Of special interest is an ELI study on how
eight states in particular are using a combination
of authorities and on-the-ground programs to
achieve their nonpoint source goals of both reme-
diation and protection (see Putting the Pieces To^
gether: State Nonpoint Source Enforceable Mechanisms in
Context [2000]). More details about ELI's research
studies can be found on EPA's web site at
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html.
Four "special feature" sections are also in-
cluded in this document, highlighting especially
innovative state programs, information and educa-
tion programs, state funding programs, and tribal
319 projects.
For more information
The stories in this document are abbreviated, •
nontechnical reviews that reflect only a small
portion of each project's larger purposes. For
further information on a particular project, call
the state or local contact listed with the story. You
may also contact EPA Headquarters' Nonpoint
Source Control Branch at 202-260-7100 or find
EPA on the Internet at www.epa.gov/owow/nps.
introduction
-------
6 fa"» ^ Introduction
-------
www.adem.state.al.us/EnviroProtect/WatershedMan/watman/mgtplan/mgtplan.htm
ALABAMA
BUI '
Contact:
Brad Bole
Project Coordinator
3 1 20 Highway 36 West
Hartselle.AL 35640
256-773-6543 (ext. 1 07)
bbole®al.nrcs. usda.gov
•
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (dairy)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
• fecal conform bacteria
•...._ - • • •
Project Activities:
• agricultural BMPs (dry
stacks, dead bird
composters, no-till farming,
heavy use areas for
• feeding, stream crossings)
• riparian zone management
• outreach
Results: '
• decrease in fecal coliform
counts, nitrate
concentrations, turbidity,
and ammonia
concentrations
«, decline in duckweed/
algae blooms
Flint Creek Watershed Project:
Multiagency Effort Results in Water Quality Improvements
The Flint Creek watershed is in southeast
Lawrence County and western Morgan County in
Alabama. The creek is listed as a priority water
body for agricultural nonpoint source pollution
and is documented as having at least 25 miles of
impaired surface water due to nutrients, organic
enrichment, and pathogens originating from ani-
mal holding and management areas, feedlots,
dairies, and other nonpoint sources. The water
quality problems were so severe that a local water
supply on Flint Creek was forced to abandon an
intake and water treatment facility as a result of
excess nutrients.
Multiagency effort
The Flint Creek Watershed Project is a multiagency
cooperative effort led by local leaders and water-
shed residents. In 1994 a Watershed Conservancy
District was established, and plans were developed
with the assistance of five federal agencies, five
Alabama state agencies, and three local soil and
•water conservation districts. Sources of funding for
the project activities included section 319 grants,
U.S. Department of Agriculture programs such as
the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and
the Water Quality Incentive Program, Soil and
Water Conservation District cost-share funds, and
corporate donations.
Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama
A variety of projects were implemented in
the watershed, including poultry, beef cattle, and
cropland demonstrations; well sampling programs;
on-site wastewater demonstrations; and riparian
zone management efforts. Agricultural best man-
agement practices implemented included installing
dry stacks and dead bird composters, promoting
no-till farming and heavy use areas for feeding,
and constructing stream crossings for cattle.
Outreach activities were conducted fre-
quently in the watershed. The annual Flint Creek
Wet & Wild Festival, for example, brought to-
gether more than 800 students in 1999. Other
projects included a household hazardous waste
day, pesticide amnesty day, and volunteer moni-
toring programs.
Water quality improvements
Improvements in fecal coliform counts have been
documented at 11 of the 13 sampling sites. In
addition, nitrate concentrations have decreased
over time at three sites, turbidity has decreased at
two sites, and ammonia concentrations have de-
creased downstream of a sewage lagoon. Al-
though no benefit to dissolved oxygen has been
documented to date, the decline of duckweed and
algae blooms in Flint Creek demonstrates that the
health of the watershed is improving.
Alabama
-------
ALABAMA
www.adem.state.al.us/EnviroProtect/WatershedMan/watman/mgtplan/mgtplan.htm
mi
™
Contact:
Enid Probst
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
PO, Box30H63
Montgomery, AL 3 6 1 3 0
tib9adem.state.al.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (farming)
« failing septic systems
•
Primary NPS Pollutants:
« pesticides
• herbicides
« fecal coliform bacteria
Project Activities:
« aquifer assessments
• education/outreach
programs
Results:
. • assessment of all 14
water systems
. « outreach to more than
3 million people
Tuscumbia-Fort Payne Aquifer Protection Program:
Multiagency, Cooperative Approach Protects Aquifer
One of the fastest-growing regions in Alabama is
the Tennessee River Valley. This area is also one
of the state's most rapidly developing areas in
agricultural production (cotton and corn); recre-
ation, and industry. The expanding economic base
has led to suburban expansion into rural areas,
resulting in more diverse nonpoint sources of
pollution and more land coverage by impervious
surfaces. As a result, one of the state's major
aquifers, the Tuscumbia-Fort Payne Aquifer, was
showing signs of stress due to contamination
from surface sources. ;
The Highland Rim Physiographic Region
of the state, in which the aquifer is located,
includes six counties with roughly 4,500 square
miles within the Tennessee River drainage basin.
About 1.3 million pounds and 146,102 gallons
of pesticides and herbicides are applied in the
area yearly, causing major concern about the
drinking water supplies throughout the region.
Sampling results indicate that there is localized
contamination in the Highland Rim Physiographic
Region: 33 percent of wells and 32 percent of
springs tested positive for pesticides, indicating
that pesticides are entering the subterranean
channel system that discharges into surface water
bodies. Fecal coliform bacteria from poorly main-
tained on-site wastewater treatment systems are
also a concern.
Tennessee River Valley, Alabama
Multiagency project
The Tuscumbia-Fort Payne Aquifer Protection
Program involved a multiagency cooperative
approach. Alabama's Department of Environ-
mental Management (ADEM) received partner-
ship support from the Geological Survey of Ala-
bama, the Alabama Department of Agriculture
and Industries, the Alabama Soil and Water Con-
servation Commission, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), the Alabama Co-
* operative Extension Service, the Alabama Depart-
ment of Public Health, EPA, and the Tennessee
Valley Authority, as well as 17 municipal and 6
county governments. Financial support for the
program came from EPA's 319 grant program,
which funded all aspects of the program.
The purpose of the aquifer protection program
was to create a comprehensive program that would
provide the maximum aquifer protection, given the
regulatory limitations of community and county
authorities. The program incorporated various state
programs and developed a strategy for groundwater
protection through cooperative efforts. The strate- .
gies for aquifer protection were to technically assess
, the aquifer and its characteristics, to assess the non- •
point sources of contamination (such as agricultural
applications of chemicals and improperly maintained
septic systems), and to create educational programs
based on the technical data.
1 Alabama
-------
Technical strategy
Madison County's Wellhead Protection Program
provided a framework for the technical strategy.
That program had previously delineated recharge
areas for 6 of the 14 water systems in the High-
land Rim Region. The Geological Survey of
Alabama delineated the recharge areas for the
remaining eight water systems in the study area.
Water level and geologic field mapping, as well
as dye tracing studies, were used to determine the
flow boundaries and characteristics of each well or
spring. After the recharge areas were identified, a
comprehensive potential contaminant source inven-
tory was conducted to identifiy all potential or
existing sources of point and nonpoint contamina-
tion that could impair groundwater quality. Non-
point sources of particular importance are sink
holes, abandoned wells, residential septic systems,
and agricultural fields under production.
Based on the potential contaminant inven-
tory, the University of West Alabama conducted
a pilot study in Lauderdale County to determine
the relationship between on-site sewage treat-
ment systems and bacteria in well water. One
hundred homeowners voluntarily participated in
a survey that collected information on character-
istics and maintenance of the on-site system, .
factors related to •water usage, and environmental
information that could be related to fecal
coliform contamination. Of the 100 wells and
springs examined, 32 percent were found to
contain fecal coliform bacteria. An examination
of •well depth indicated a possible relationship to
the probability of contamination.. It was found
that 56.3 percent of the shallow wells were con-
taminated and that there was a very high prob-
ability of contamination (83 percent) when
drainfield lines ran toward the well as compared.
to 23 percent probability for drainfield lines that
ran away from the well.
Educational campaign
The foundation for protection of the aquifer and
the identified recharge areas was a regional educa-
tional campaign developed to create public and
private partnerships and instill a sense of respon-
sibility for their drinking water quality in the local
residents.
A pilot Groundwater Festival was held in
Madison County in 1998, and more than 1,200
fourth-grade students participated. Following the
successful pilot, festivals were held in three other
counties. Each festival was unique, depending on
the needs of the county and its schools. The festi-
val organizing committees consisted of public
water system personnel, Cooperative Extension
agents, NRCS agents, regional planning and county
commission representatives, local nongovernmental
organizations, and school system representatives.
The county organizing committees remain intact,
and the festivals have continued annually. In spring
2000 approximately 5,000 fourth graders and their
teachers,attended a Groundwater Festival in the
Tennessee Valley area.
A Cooperative Extension outreach program
•was also designed to introduce both urban and
rural residents to the source of their drinking and
irrigation water, as well as programs and practices
that can protect groundwater. The Cooperative
Extension System worked with AD EM and NRCS
to implement the program. Public presentations
and public service announcements were the pri-
mary methods of presenting information. Other
materials created for, the effort included a slide
show, a tabletop display, brochures, a karst
groundwater flow model, and questionnaires
similar to the Farm,,Home,"and Business*A*Syst
Program questionnaires.
Over the span of 3 years, the agents pub-
lished 24 newspaper articles and aired 31 radio
spots and 7 TV programs. A 30-minute program
Alabama '
-------
describing the Wellhead Protection Program was
aired on the local CBS station. Presentations were
made at farmers' meetings such as the'annual
cotton and corn producers meetings, the county
fair, Master Gardener classes, Pesticide Safety
Programs, Rotary clubs, home and garden shows,
and 4-H clubs. In addition, self-help booklets and
questionnaires were distributed to businesses and
organizations. The Cooperative Extension System
estimates that more than 3 million people were
reached during the 3 years of the media campaign.
The aquifer protection program showed what
can happen when many agencies join forces to
protect a vulnerable groundwater resource. State,
federal, and local agencies collaborated to define
- the aquifer characteristics and flow conditions in
the area and to use this information to build
successful educational and outreach programs.
ALASKA
www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dawq/nps/319pn.htm
BB^f
i Contact:
Kelly Wolf
< YRC Director
I>O. 80X2416
; Kenai. AK 9961 1
907-262-1032
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« streambank degradation
from recreational fishing
Primary IMPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
« sediment • streambank restoration (soil
bags, root wads, coir logs,
, sod layers, dormant willow
cuttings)
" .-•-•-.:-; :~ -—...-.
Results:
• restored more than 7
fee'tofriverbanks
700
Restoration Work on the Kenai:
Section 319 Funds Are Key to Youth Restoration Corps's Success
Alaska's rivers and streams are increasingly being
affected by recreational use. People from around
the world come to fish in some of Alaska's fabled
waters and often return home with incredible
stories and pictures. But all of that fishing is start-
ing to exact a price. One of Alaska's most famous
rivers, the Kenai, has been particularly hard hit,
resulting in the closure of 22 miles of the river to
bank fishing because of concerns regarding the
The Sanctuary Project is one of many efforts to restore eroded streambanks like
this one at the mouth of the Russian River.
KenaCEiver, Alaska
natural habitat. People trampling its banks have
caused severe damage that threatens the riverine
habitat and causes erosion. Many efforts are under
way to prevent further damage and restore the
banks where damage has already occurred.
One of the most successful efforts has been
the work of the Youth Restoration Corps (YRC), a
nonprofit organization established in 1997 to pro-
mote environmental stewardship in youth while
restoring riparian habitat along anadromous
(salmon) streams on public lands. YRC has received
319 funding for its activities since its inception.
Restoration on the Russian River
In 1997 YRC established its first program on the
Russian River, a tributary of the Kenai. The youth
restored 2,219 linear feet of riparian habitat, using
soil bags, root wads, coir logs, sod layers, and
dormant willow cuttings. YRC has continued its
restoration work on the Kenai and its tributary
Russian River every year, and to date has worked
10
Alaska
-------
Casey and Ivy (right) work orv an undercut bank as
Dean Davidson, Assistant Director, and Vera Group
instruct youth on proper use of erosion mat.
on more than 7,700 feet of some of the most
' heavily impacted riverbanks in Alaska. As a result,
a river once in decline is now a river in recovery.
Fostering environmental stewardship and
partnerships
In addition to helping restore Alaska's streams,
YRC has also passed along its environmental stew-
ardship ethic to young people. Each summer, kids
aged 16 to 19 from local communities participate in
this work and education program. They receive
invaluable education on watersheds, healthy habitat,
and the inhabitants that
depend on a healthy eco-
system. YRC's motto is
"We are building partners
to build environmental
ambassadors for the next
generation."
YRC has also played a
critical role in bringing to-
gether stakeholders from
across the spectrum. Many other agencies and groups
have partnered with YRC, including the Alaska Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game
and Natural Resources; the National Guard; the Forest
Service; the US Army, the Natural Resources Conser-
vation Service, and others. Local governments, as •well
as local, national, and international private businesses
and organizations, have also partnered with YRC.
YRC's work has been well publicized each
year by a professionally produced educational
video on youths' participation in the program and
successful completion of each project, which has
been aired several times on statewide and national
television. YRC has received many state and na-
tional awards and recognition for its work.
Although YRC has garnered many matching
funds and in-kind matches from other organiza-
tions and businesses, 319 funds have been key to
its success. The 319 funds have totaled less than
$100,000, but other funds and in-kind match and
value of the project work have been contributed
at die rate of 5 to 1.
www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENVCONSERV/dawq/nps/319pn.htm
ALASKA
UK | . • •
Contacts:
Linda Flanders
ADF&G
907-465-4287
Larry Meshew
Tongass National Forest
907-228-6269
Chris Meade
EPA Region 1 0
907-586-7622
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
» inadequate culverts
• forest roads
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
Project Activities:
• comprehensive
evaluation of stream •
crossings/fish passage
Results:
• database on inadequate
culverts
. • leveraged funding for
remediation
Road and Stream Crossing Project in Tongass National Forest:
New Data Help Identify Needed Fish Habitat Restoration
The Tongass Road and Stream Crossing Project is a
3-year cooperative effort by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture Forest Service and the Alaska De-
partment of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to identify
and correct fish passage problems in the Tongass
National Forest in southeast Alaska. ADF&G's
Tongass National Forest, Alaska
participation was partially funded through section
319 grants. The project evaluated fish passage and
sources of sediment from nonpoint source pollu-
tion along 60 percent of the miles of permanent
(system) roads on the Tongass National Forest; the
remaining 40 percent of the permanent roads, as
Waste i
Lit
-------
well as all of the temporary roads, will have the
road condition survey completed in 2001.
The project involved inspecting all stream
crossings and sources of sediment along the 2,153
miles of roads. There were 273 anadromous fish
stream culverts and 662 resident fish stream cul-
verts evaluated for passage. Adequate fish pas-
sage requires that the weakest-swimming fish
present in a watershed can pass both ways through
a culvert at all flow levels. Although some cul-
verts are complete barriers to both adults and
juveniles, many restrict movement of juvenile fish
only during periods of high stream flow.
Velocity is the most common cause of fish
passage restriction in culverts. If a culvert is in-
stalled at too steep a gradient or the culvert width is
significantly narrower than the stteambed width,
the water velocity is increased within the culvert.
Very slight changes in the slope of a culvert and the.
roughness of the substrate in the culvert can sig-
nificantly change velocity and the ability of fish to
pass through the culvert during all of the times of
year when they normally move upstream or down-
stream. Other frequent causes of fish passage
problems are perching of the culvert outlet above
•the water surface, blockage by excessive substrate
or •woody debris within the culvert, and structural
damage to the culvert. In most cases, multiple
factors interact to restrict fish passage.
Project results
Preliminary results indicate that 66 percent of the
culverts across salmon streams in the Tongass '
National Forest are inadequate for fish passage.
Eighty-five percent of the culverts across trout
streams might also be inadequate. .
The resulting database will be used to maintain
historical information on roads, identify existing and
potential risks to fish habitat and passage, and priori-
tize and estimate the costs of needed road mainte-
nance and fish habitat restoration. The Forest Ser-
vice has been using the data from this collaborative
project to identify needed fish habitat restoration
•work. The data have already helped them obtain an
additional $500,000 in annual road maintenance
funds for the Tongass for the past 2 years.
AMERICAN SAMOA
•HI
Contacts:
Cart Goldstein
EPA Region 9 (CMO-5)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 941 OS
415-744-2170
gotdstein. cari9epa.gov
CdnaBuchan
American Samoa EPA
Executive Office Building
Pago Pago. AS 96799
Primary Sources of Primary IMPS Pollutants: Project Activities: Results:
Pollution: .litter • refuse collection • absence of trash from
• storm water runoff • public education programs coastlines
Nu'uull Pala Lagoon Restoration Project:
Efforts Spread to Other Island Villages
American Samoa's Governor proclaimed "Para-
dise 2000," with the goal of American Samoa
being the cleanest island in the South Pacific by
the year 2000. In support of this goal, American
Samoa initiated the restoration of the Pala La-
goon wetland area, a lagoon with an important
Nu'uuli Village, American Samoa
nursery and spawning ground for fish and inverte-
brates. Restoration activities included identifying
and developing best management practices to
control nonpoint source pollution and supporting
public education, programs on wetlands and non-
point source pollution.
121
I Amencan Samoa
-------
A major effort in this project involved estab-
lishing trash stands in public areas surrounding
the wetlands and hiring a contractor to collect and
properly dispose of the refuse. As a result, refuse
is nearly absent frorn all of the coastline. Public
education about the lagoon and its resources was
also considered integral to this project's success.
A number of signs and posters were produced,
and a wetlands fair was held in the lagoon area,
emphasizing the functions and values of wetlands. .
Work continues to clean up and restore two major
.streams that discharge into the lagoon. Through
the combined efforts of the American Samoa
Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA),
American Samoa Coastal Management Program
(ASCMP), Americorps volunteers, American
Samoa Community College, Department of Pub-
lic Works, and village volunteers, solid waste is
being cleared from the streams and streambank
habitat is being'restored over an estimated few
hundred feet (out of a thousand).
Restoration efforts have spread to other island
villages, and ASEPA now plans to work with area
businesses to continue the momentum. A contrac-
tor has completed a hydrologic assessment of the
areas, and ASEPA has completed an initial,assess-
ment of storm water control problems. ASEPA, in
cooperation with the ASCMP wetlands program
and the village mayor, will continue to monitor the
Nu'uuli village wetland areas to assess whether
improper solid waste disposal remains a problem.
American Samoa is committed ,to rectifying any
problems identified through enforcement under
American Samoa's new water quality standards.
www.adeq. state, az.us/environ/water/non/index.html
ARIZONA
HB
Contact:
Jim Crosswhite
EC Bar Ranch
Nutrioso, AZ 85932
jim®ecbarranch.com
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• grazing
• channel degradation
• . • : • :•••.•• . .
Primary IMPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
•sediment « restoration of the riparian
zone
» improved grazing
.management practices
• increased irrigation
efficiencies
Results:
« reduced sedimentation
• improved wetland habitat
• projected increases in
ranching economics
Restoration in Nutrioso Creek:
Successful Results Beginning to Show
Nutrioso Creek is located in the Little Colorado
River Basin in southern Apache County along the
eastern border of Arizona. It is a 27-mile-long
tributary to the Little Colorado River. Historical
livestock activity caused a loss of riparian vegeta-
tion, such as willows, which has resulted in ex-
posed streambanks aggravated by continued'large
ungulate grazing (cattle and elk). Riparian vegeta-
tion is necessary to,help stabilize banks, dissipate
stream energy, reduce erosion, and naturally filter
sediment to reduce turbidity.
Apache County, Arizona
Nutrioso Creek was listed as an impaired .
water for violating the turbidity standard for
aquatic and wildlife cold water streams. The entire
27-mile reach of Nutrioso Creek was listed on the
state's 303 (d) list, requiring the development of a
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the
watershed. The TMDL Report, issued in July
2000, focused recommendations on 3 miles of .
private property and 4 miles of property owned
by the U.S. Forest Service. The turbidity impair-
ment in Nutrioso Creek is a result of suspended
Arizona '
-------
Turbidity data were collected throughout the
restoration project to determine the project's
effectiveness.
solids in the form of excessive sediment. The
excess sediment comes from the banks of the
stream itself, which is incised in some areas be-
cause of channel degradation. This downcutting
of the channel created a loss in floodplain for the
stream, resulting in higher stream velocities during
high flows. The higher velocities increased the
shear stress/force acting on the streambanks and
thus increased erosional forces.
A local model of success
Restoration of Nutrioso Creek is occurring as a
result of the cooperative efforts of area landowners.
One landowner, Jim
Crosswhite, has under-
taken efforts to imple-
ment water quality
practices while at the
same time improving
ranching economics. In
1996 Crosswhite pur-
chased the 275-acre EC
Bar Ranch, which
included l*/2 miles of
riparian zone within the 3 miles recently recom-
mended for water quality improvements. During
2000 Crosswhite purchased 115 acres from two
neighbors, including another mile of the riparian
corridor downstream. He now owns about 390 acres,
including 2Vz miles of the riparian zone being re-
stored.
Crosswhite has changed range management
practices and has been actively seeking grant
monies to protect the riparian corridor, help
restore the stream, and implement best manage-
ment practices (BMPs). He has used a combina-
tion of 319 funding and grants obtained through
the Environmental Quality Incentive Program,
Arizona Stewardship Incentive Program, Arizona
Water Protection Fund, and Arizona Game and
Fish Department. He receives continued technical
assistance from the Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service (NRCS).
In 1997, at Crosswhite's request, the NRCS
prepared a Conservation Plan for the EC Bar
Ranch. The plan recommended a number of
conservatio/i practices designed to restore the
riparian zone, improve grazing management of
livestock, and increase irrigation efficiencies. In
1998 the riparian corridor was fenced to limit
livestock grazing to dormant winter months,
restore the wetland habitat, and raise the water
table to increase off-channel forage production. A
plan has been followed to eradicate rabbitbrush
because it causes erosion into the creek and con-
sumes vast quantities of subsoil moisture that
could otherwise be used by productive grasses and
crops. Improvements are under way to increase
the efficiency of an irrigation system using water ,
from Nutrioso Creek. Portions of 20,000 feet of
earth irrigation ditches are being replaced with
permanent and temporary pipe. Water is stored in
a 250,000-gallon tank to supply a 1,500-gallon-
per-minute pump to deliver water to traveling gun
sprinklers covering 100 acres of upland pastures
and 2 miles of die riparian zone. A significant
portion of the 100 million gallons previously lost
due to seepage and evaporation in earth ditches
will now remain in the creek to help reduce tur-
bidity, increase wetland habitat, and improve
forage production jfor dormant season grazing; it
can also be applied to upland pastures to help
reduce erosion and improve crop production. .
Improvements in water quality and ranching
economics
Successful results are already beginning to show.
In a study in 1996, the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, using the Proper Functioning Condition
(PFC) score, rated die 1 Vz miles of riparian corri-
741
! Arizona
-------
Controlled burns were used to slow the spread of rabbitbrush and stimulate
the growth of new vegetation.
dor on. the EC Bar Ranch as "non-functional" in
places and "functional-at-risk with-a downward
trend" in other places. In 1999, after implementa-
tion of some BMPs, the same- area was found to
, be "functional-at-risk with an upward trend." In
2000 one reach -was found to be in "proper func-
tioning condition." Turbidity and flow monitoring
by the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality over high- and low-water flow events
between October 1999 and April 2001 indicated
that the level of turbidity has stabilized at 9 NTU,
while flows have
reached 50 percent
above historical high
levels. In another
vegetative study per-
formed during a se-
vere drought in Sep-
tember 2000, the creek
was dry upstream and
downstream of the 2
miles located on the
EC Bar Ranch where
water quality improve-
ment practices had
Through the implementation of BMPs, streams in been implemented.
the riparian corridor have been returned to
"proper functioning condition."
This created a stable wetland habitat for the
threatened Little Colorado River spinedace and
other fish. .
Ranching economics are beginning to im-
prove through a combination of conservation
practices. A new Livestock Management Plan
(LMP) places emphasis on producing forage
during the growing season, assessing forage avail-
ability in the fall, and then acquiring stockers to. be
sold in January to March. This LMP will increase
gross revenues, reduce year-round feeding ex-
penses, allow wetlands to reach PFC, and perma-
nently reduce turbidity.
Ongoing TMDL Implementation in Nutrioso
Creek
Implementation of the Nutrioso Creek TMDL is
ongoing, with a 5-year estimated time frame (and
. a 5- to 20-year time frame to meet turbidity stan-
dards). Primary goals of TMDL implementation
include
• Increased education and public awareness.
• Decreased stream velocities using willows
and streambed vegetation, stream grade
stabilization structures, and increased
floodplains.
• Decreased sheet flow and wind erosion
contributions to the creek with removal of
rabbitbrush and increased density .of
. grasses as land cover.
• Arresting the downcutting of the stream
channel to promote stabilization through
BMPs, revegetation of the stream channel,
and elimination of large ungulate (cattle
and elk) grazing. With strong partnerships
and the support of area landowners, resto-
ration of Nutrioso Creek is guaranteed.
For more information on the project, go to
www.ecbarranch.com.
Arizona '
115
-------
ARIZONA
www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/non/index.html
i Contact:
! Pete Brawley
1 RO, Box SO
; Sa(ford,AZ 85546
' 520-428-2607
i
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• erosion from lack of
vegetation
Primary NPS Pollutants:
» sediment
Project Activities:
• sediment retention
structures
Results:
. • reduction in sediment of
4 tons per acre peryear
Sediment Reduction at Hackberry Ranch:
Reduction of 4 Tons Per Acre Realized
Hackberry Ranch is located east of the Whitlock
Mountains 20 miles south of Safford, Arizona.
The area is composed of \vide and comparatively
flat valleys between narrow, nigged mountains
that generally run northwest-southeast. Vegetation
is primarily desert scrub or desert grassland type.
Most of the rain received (about 9.5 inches per
year) is from intense thunderstorms in the sum-
mer, resulting in heavy runoff into the San Simon
River, which discharges sediment into the Gila
River. Winter rains are usually gentle, but they can
also result in heavy runoff after the soil is satu-
rated. Sampling results from the Arizona Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality revealed that
water quality standards, particularly turbidity
standards, were being exceeded in the Gila River.
A solution: sediment retention structures
Through a 319 grant of $65,530, Boy Scouts and
Americorps employees installed sediment retention
structures on grazing land in the Whitlock Valley
watershed, which drains to the Gila River. The
structures were installed to trap sediment and slow
runoff, thereby allowing die establishment of
vegetative growth. Sediment is trapped behind
structures to reduce the discharge into the San
Stafford, Arizona
Simon. Structures were installed on two different
range sites—a limey upland with predominately
creosote bush cover, and basalt hills with grass over
malpai. The structures were constructed of rock
. and/or brush. They were expected to improve
conditions on some 300 acres of grazing land and
reduce water erosion by around 95 percent.
Improved vegetative condition and sediment
reduction
The project's 540 small sediment reduction struc-
tures are reported to have reduced erosion by an
estimated 4 tons per acre per year. Photo monitor-
ing also reveals that the sediment retention struc-
tures are capturing sediment. Some vegetation
(primarily grasses) i's beginning to grow in the
newly captured sediments. Improved grazing man-
agement is increasing the amount of ground cover
in the watershed and also reducing sediment. The "
success of the project will be demonstrated with a
video,, which will compare pre- and post-project
conditions. Educational materials and events such
as a slide show, photo monitoring, range transect
information, sediment accumulation measurements,
a fact sheet, a brochure, and a field day are being
developed.
16
.Arizona
-------
www.state.ar.us/aswcc/NPS_Webpage/Mgmnt.html
ARKANSAS
ffM ' ' . '"""" '"'•" " " "•'" "
Contact:
Sandi Formica
Environmental Preservation
Division '
Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality
501-682-0020
formica®adeq.state.ar.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (confined
animal operations)
- • • ':'•-" • '•-"""•'' •
Primary NPS Pollutants:
» nitrogen
• phosphorus
» fecal coliform bacteria
">• .•: '"•••'..' ' • • '
Project Activities:
• revised storm water.
diversions and waste
collection systems
« revised operational practices
(changes in phosphorus
application practices and on-
site storage capacity)
. • . ' - •
Results:
• 90 percent decrease in
nutrient concentrations
Buffalo National River Watershed Partnerships:
Partners Improve Swine Waste Management
Buffalo River Watershed, Arkansas
The Buffalo River watershed in north-central
Arkansas covers 860,000 acres. From the headwa-
• ters in the Boston Mountains, the Buffalo River
flows unobstructed for 150 miles eastward to the
confluence with the White River. Because of the
unique scenic and scientific features associated
with the free-flowing river, Congress established
the Buffalo National River Watershed in 1972 to
preserve this national treasure for future genera-
tions. The federal and state governments own 40
percent of the watershed, primarily in the head-
waters and along a narrow riparian corridor of the
river. About 6,0 percent of the basin is privately
owned, including most of the larger tributaries.
The Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) has designated the Buffalo River
an Extraordinary Resource Water and a Natural
and Scenic Waterway, the highest water quality
designation given by the state. Although the water
quality in the Buffalo River at present is very
good, several tributaries have been affected or
threatened by agricultural activities. In 1992 there
were 39 confined animal operations within the
watershed, including 12 swine farrowing opera-
tions, one broiler operation, and 26 dairy facilities.
All of the swine operations and 10 of the dairy
facilities had Liquid Animal Waste Management
Systems (LAWMS). At that time, the ADEQ
Water Division received notice of intent from a
watershed farmer to construct a 540-sow/pig
farrowing operation adjacent to National Park
property and less than a mile from the river. Ma-
nure land application sites for the proposed swine
facility were as close as % mile to the river. All of
the existing -watershed swine operations were
located on the southern edge of the drainage
basin in an area underlain by sandstone and shale.
If the proposed swine facility was built, it would
be the first swine operation located in such close
proximity to the river and within a karst terrain.
Both citizens and resource agencies expressed
concern over the construction and operation of a
confined swine facility so close to the river. Per-
sonnel from the ADEQ Water and Environmental
Preservation Divisions performed an investigation
of confined animal operations within the water-
shed, visiting and evaluating 16 swine and dairy
operations. Results of the watershed investigation
showed that most LAWMS were not being oper-
ated and maintained in a manner that would elimi-
nate or minimize the amount of waste leaving the
farms. Subsequently, the ADEQ secured grant
money to further study the problems revealed
during the watershed investigation.
Project goals and methodology
The Buffalo River Swine Waste Demonstration
.Project was initiated in 1995 with the primary goal
Arkansas
117
-------
of protecting the high-quality water in the Buffalo
National River watershed by •working with the
local farmers and government agencies to identify
and address the problems associated with the
LAWMS. This 5-year, 319-funded project evalu-
ated existing swine liquid waste management
practices and demonstrated the benefits of hew or
improved best management practices (BMPs) in
protecting water quality. The project objectives
included evaluating the effectiveness of existing
LAWMS BMPs (including design, training, and
management aspects) by monitoring water quality
and waste management practices at cooperating
farms, improving existing BMPs or implementing
new BMPs, and evaluating changes in the water
quality and the operation of the LAWMS as a
result of .improved or new BMPs implemented at
cooperating farms.
Other project goals included demonstrating
to farmers and various government agencies the
effectiveness of proper waste management at
confined animal operations in protecting water
quality. Nutrient loads in surface water were esti-
mated before and after BMP implementation.
Storm water runoff studies also were conducted
to document nutrient loss from manure land
application sites. In addition, waste management
practices were documented before and after BMP
implementation through frequent site visits and
farm management surveys.
Waste management and -water quality
improvements
New or modified'BMPs were implemented at the
six cooperating farms based on site-specific prob-
lems and included the following:
• Storm water diversions were improved or
installed.
• All-weather access to LAWMS was im-
proved or installed.
• Storage capacity for liquid waste was in-
creased.
• Waste collection systems were repaired.
New or modified BMPs associated with
operational practices were also implemented and
included decreasing fresh water usage; performing
routine manure solids removal; and improving
overall farm nutrient management by using a
waste pumping service for solids handling, prop-
erly sampling manure holding structures to deter-
mine nutrient content, reducing phosphorus
application rates, and increasing available acres for
land application. In addition, 91 percent of the
watershed's farmers had accumulated solids re-
moved from the LAWMS, reestablishing the maxi-
mum available manure storage capacity at their
facilities.
As a result of the new or modified BMPs,
substantial improvements were documented in
waste management practices. Free-board problems
associated with waste storage ponds were reduced
by 66 percent at cooperating farms. Overall, farm-
ers began to manage the manure generated at their
facilities for its fertilizer value, which reduced the
time and expense associated with the LAWMS.
Using water quality monitoring data collected on a
stream (less than 1 square mile drainage area) adja-
cent to a poorly operated swine facility, preliminary
estimates indicated that 3,000 pounds of total
nitrogen and 400 pounds of total phosphorus were
lost to the stream on an annual basis. Following
BMP implementation, preliminary estimates
indicated that nutrient loads in the stream were
decreased by approximately 90 percent.
Partnerships to solve complex problems
This project involved building working relation-
ships with watershed swine farmers, the swine.
industry, local Natural Resources Conservation
Service staff, the Newton County Conservation
IS
Arkansas
-------
District, and the Environmental Preservation,
"Water, and Technical Services Divisions of
ADEQ to improve LAWMS operation and
swine manure management. All of the partners
in the project cooperated to evaluate the data
generated on -LAWMS and to develop BMPs.
New or improved BMPs were installed by ex-
tending cost-share programs and working one-
on-one with individual farmers to ensure that
all aspects of the waste system were under-
stood. Emphasis was placed on finding eco-
nomical solutions to •waste management prob-
lems. Other groups, such as the Arkansas Soil
and Water Conservation Commission, the Ar-
kansas Pork Producers, and the University of
Arkansas, contributed a considerable amount of
time, resources, and technical expertise to help
make this project a success.
Swine farmers in the Buffalo River watershed
have successfully changed their waste manage-
ment practices and are using the fertilizer benefit
of the manure generated at their facilities while
minimizing their impact on the environment.
Information gained from this project has been
presented at farmer training meetings and has
helped swine producers statewide to improve their
manure management practices. All of the partners
participating in the project received an EPA Re-
gion 6 Partnerships for Environmental Excellence
Award in 1998. The award acknowledged the
contribution of each partner in cooperating to
solve complex environmental problems.
www.state.ar.us/aswcc/NPS_Webpage/Mgmnt.htmI
ARKANSAS
•
Contact: .
Sandi Formica
Environmental Preservation
Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality
501-682-0020
formica@adeq.state.anus !
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (dairy waste)
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
• bacteria
Project Activities:
• dairy manure
management practices
» manure clean-out service
• comprehensive nutrient
management planning
Results:
• comprehensive local
watershed assistance
program
A Community Approach to Managing Manure in the
Buffalo River Watershed:
Local Watershed Assistance Program Helps Dairy Farmers
The Environmental Preservation Division of the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) was awarded a section 319 grant in 1997
to evaluate the effectiveness of "dairy manure
management alternatives," designed for facilities
with 100 cows or fewer, in minimizing nutrient
and bacteria loads leaving farm sites. The dairy
319 project worked with dairy farmers and gov-
ernment agencies in the Buffalo River watershed,
Buffalo River Watershed, Arkansas
as •well as with state and federal agencies, to de-
velop and implement solutions to better manage
manure in the watershed.
From the beginning of the dairy 319 project,
the ADEQ project staff sought out cooperation
with other agencies, the dairy cooperative, and
dairy farmers in the Buffalo River watershed by
forming a task force with representatives from all
interested parties. Key relationships were devel-
Arkansas '
I 19
-------
oped between the ADEQ project staff and the
Conservation District Boards, Natural Resources
Conservation Service staff, and the dairy farmers
in the watershed.
Most of the dairy farm owners in the Buffalo
River watershed volunteered to participate in the
dairy 319 project. The Buffalo Conservation
District staff contacted farmers and requested
individual meetings with them at their farms.
During these meetings, the project staff explained
the project to the farmers and requested their
participation on a voluntary basis. In exchange for
participation in the study, farmers hoped that the
project would result in developing better informa-
tion regarding the operation of manure manage-
ment systems or finding a source of funding for
improving thek manure management systems.
Dairy operations and manure management
In 1994 there were 27 dairy facilities operating in
the Buffalo River watershed. Recent financial
difficulties have taken thek toll on Arkansas daky
farmers, and today only 18 daky facilities still
operate in the watershed. Finding economic solu-
tions to improve manure management at these
small daky facilities continues to be a challenge.
After an exhaustive investigation into the
manure management practices.of the daky industry
in the Buffalo River watershed, it became apparent
that the 18 watershed farmers did not have the
specialized equipment requked to handle the differ-
ent waste streams generated from the confinement
of the cows at thek farms.. Although several indi-
vidual problems were identified, such as ineffective
fertilizer utilization and improper land application
practices that increase the potential for contami- .
nants to be transported in storm runoff, all of
these problems originate from the kck of adequate
manure handling equipment in the watershed.
Therefore, the funding set aside for implementing
best management practices (BMPs) in the water-
shed as part of the daky 319 project was focused
on solving identified manure handling problems.
Local watershed assistance program
To help accomplish the daky 319 project goal of
improving daky manure management,-partner-
ships were formed among the ADEQ, local
NRCS, and the Buffalo Conservation District to
develop a local watershed assistance program
(LWAP). The program is administered through
the Buffalo Conservation District office. It has
been designed to provide a low-cost, effective
solution to the manure handling problems identi-
fied throughout die watershed. In addition, the
program will enable farmers to receive the maxi-
mum fertilizer benefits of thek daky manure
•while minimizing farm impacts on the envkon-
ment. The LWAP includes the development of a
local clean-out service, long-term clean-out sched-
uling, initial cost-share assistance, and comprehen-
sive nutrient management planning.
As part of the LWAP, the Buffalo Conservation
District provides a manure clean-out service for
daky farmers and an operator to maintain and oper-
ate the equipment. Easily transportable equipment
for manure removal, including a side-discharge
manure spreader, submersible pump, and pit agitator,
will be purchased as part of the LWAP. This service
provides dairy farmers in the Buffalo River water-
shed with a method to handle dairy manure without
having to purchase and maintain specialized and
seldom-used equipment. Additionally, by providing
an operator, the program allows the daky farmer
more time to spend on milk production and other
farm management responsibilities.
Widi the hope of increasing participation, up
to 75 percent of the cost-share money will initially
be available for watershed dairy farmers who use
the program's manure handling service. To be
20
Aikansas
-------
eligible for the program, the farmer is required to
develop a long-term clean-out schedule for the
dairy facility. ADEQ and NRCS staff will assist
participating dairy facilities -with the development
of the 12-month clean-out schedules. This will
ensure that solids are removed within the designed
storage time for each manure management system.
Meetings were held to present the results of
the dairy 319 project and introduce the LWAP,
and they were attended by most of the dairy
farmers in the watershed. Farmers in the Buffalo
River watershed understand the importance of
preserving water quality and were receptive to the
LWAP. They realize that the program can help
. them economically manage and utilize dairy ma- •
nure while protecting water quality in the water-
shed in which they live.
www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/npsndx.html
CALIFORNIA
KB3' — - -..-•• -— .-.,.-
Contacts:
Joe McGahan
Drainage Coordinator for the
Grassland Area Farmers
559-582-9237
jmcgahan®summerseng.com
Joe Karkoski
Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board
916-255-3368
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agricultural drainage
^-•.-— . ---v .- • ,^~,. -,-,.,.. .. .. _,.... _ _ — ^ , — „„, .. _ .
Primary IMPS Pollutants: Project Activities: Results:
• selenium • establishing selenium • reductions in selenium
discharge caps load discharges ,
• instituting tradable loads
program
Grassland Bypass Project:
Economic Incentives Program Helps to Improve Water Quality
Grassland Drainage Area, California
Agricultural runoff is one of the primary sources
of discharge to rivers and streams that do not
. meet water quality standards, affecting 70 percent
of these impaired waters. This problem is particu-
larly challenging in the western United States,
where roughly 50 million acres of land are de-
voted to irrigated agriculture and where agricul-
tural drainage and runoff provide a significant
proportion of river flows during dry seasons.
The Grassland Drainage Area is an agricul-
tural region on the west side of California's San
Joaquin Valley. The agricultural land there is pro-
ductive, but the soil contains a high level of sele-
nium, a naturally occurring trace element.
Selenium accumulates in the agricultural drainage
water that collects in the tiles installed to drain
excess water from the fields. In 1983 this problem
received national attention when deaths and de-
formities in wildlife at the Kesterson Reservoir
were attributed to selenium-contaminated drain-
age from outside the Grassland Drainage Area. In
the early 1990s, selenium-laden drainage from the
Grassland Drainage Area was still being dis-
charged into other federal and state wildlife ref-
uges, threatening important ecosystems and
associated fish and wildlife.
An innovative tradable loads program
The Grassland Bypass Project is an innovative
program designed to improve water quality in the
channels used to deliver water to wetland, areas. In
1996 several irrigation and drainage districts
formed the "Grassland Area Farmers," a regional
drainage entity that includes some 97,000 acres of
irrigated farmland.
California
I2f
-------
The group's initial goal was to use the San Luis
Drain, owned by the federal Bureau of Reclama-
tion, as an outlet for agricultural drainage. To do so,
they entered into a Use Agreement with Reclama-
tion, incorporating monthly and annual selenium
load limits. A procedure was included in the Use
Agreement to assess incentive fees if the monthly
or annual load limits were exceeded. In addition, a
maximum cap was established on the total amount
of selenium that the Grassland Area Farmers could
discharge. The Use Agreement for the project
continued until September 2001, at -which time
development of a long-term plan began.
To meet the selenium load limits, the Grass-
land Area Farmers have implemented a wide vari-
ety of practices, including formation of a regional
drainage entity, newsletters and other communica-
tions with the farmers, a monitoring program, an
active land management program to use subsurface
drainage on salt-tolerant crops, installation of
improved irrigation systems, installation and use of
drainage recycling systems to mix subsurface drain-
age water with irrigation supplies under strict limits,
and tiered water pricing.
Additionally, with support of section 319 fund-
ing, the Grassland Area Farmers developed and
adopted a "tradable loads" program to help achieve
regional water quality targets. To date, pollution
trading policies have been designed for trades be-
tween point sources, such as factories, and trades
between point sources and nonpoint sources, such as
farms. This project is unique in that it also estab-
lishes a trading program between nonpoint sources.
Under the tradable loads program, the total
allowable regional selenium load is allocated
among the member irrigation and drainage dis-
tricts. The districts can then either meet their load
allocation or buy/trade selenium load allocation
from other districts. The theory is that the region
will meet its selenium load target at the lowest
possible cost because reduction measures will be
taken where they are cheapest to achieve. In addi-
tion, the program should spur innovation by
bringing selenium reduction decisions to a more
localized level. FinaEy, the tradable loads program
aims to distribute the costs of selenium discharge
reduction equitably among the districts.
Environmental benefits
The environmental benefits of the project to
•wetland areas, including state and federal refuges,
are significant. Drainage water has been removed
from more than 93 miles of conveyance channels,
allowing for delivery of fresh water to the wetland
areas. Goodrquality water from areas upslope of
the Grassland Drainage is now separate from
selenium-contaminated drainage water and can be
put to use in the Grassland Water District and in
the state and federal refuges.
Compared to data on preproject conditions
observed in 1996, year 2000 data reflect that
drainage volume has beeri reduced 41 percent;
selenium load, 54 percent; salt load, 29 percent;
and boron load, 14 percent. With the exception of
the very -wet year 1998, data show a continuous
reduction in selenium discharge since 1995—
reductions from 16 ppb to 2 ppb in some channel
segments and reductions from 55.9 ppb to an
average of 2 ppb in others. Selenium load targets
were met every month in 1999 and 2000 and have
been met every month to date in 2001. Selenium •
loads in 1999 and 2000 were the lowest ever dis-
charged from the drainage in the past 15 years.
Other related efforts
The tradable loads program works together with
other policies in place in the Grasslands Drainage
Area. Many of the programs designed to encour-
221
i California
-------
age •water conservation through irrigation effi-
ciency also decrease selenium discharge. For
example, one of the member districts of the
Grassland Area Farmers pioneered a tiered water
pricing policy in which increasing block-rate pric-
ing motivates the use of water conservation prac-
tices. Other districts in the Grassland Drainage
Area have followed suit by implementing their
own tiered water pricing policies.
Additional incentive-based water conserva-
tion programs in the Grassland Drainage Area
include low-interest State Revolving Fund loans
and land management incentives. Irrigation sys- ,
tern improvements in the Grassland Drainage
Area include quarter-mile furrows, gated pipe,
sprinklers, and drip Irrigation systems. Districts
are also pursuing methods aimed directly at sele-
nium reduction.
In addition to providing local water quality
benefits, this project provides valuable insight for
controlling agricultural nonpoint source dis-
charges elsewhere. Through a combination of
quantitative discharge limits and economic incen-
tives, a model that provides for direct accountabil-
ity within a system that is locally controlled is
emerging. In the long term, the use of economic
incentives might enhance implementation by
promoting cost-effectiveness and preserving
farmers' flexibility to choose the most appropriate
pollution reduction practices.
www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/npsndx.html
CALIFORNIA
Contact:
JimWilcox
Plumas Corporation
Crescent Street
RO. Box 3880
Quincy, CA 9597 1
530-283-3739
plumasco®psln.com
Primary .Sources of
Pollution:
• over-logging
» overgrazing
Primary NPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment » restored natural drainage
« new channel construction
• re-watering of meadow
Results:
• Increased stream flows,
1 8 acre-feet or more of
water each year
• eliminated flooding
Turning History Around:
Stream Restoration Reclaims a Meadow While Helping to Control Floods
Some of the worst floods in California have oc-
curred where the Feather River, draining out of
the Western Sierra Nevada Mountains, meets the
Sacramento River in'the Sacramento Valley of
Northern California. Contributing to these major
floods, as well as to localized flooding, the East -
Branch of the North Fork of the Feather River
and its tributaries drained a land diat had been
over-logged and overgrazed for hundreds of
years. Erosion and downcutting characterized the
landscape, not only contributing to the flooding
problem but also sending tons of sediment down-
stream, impairing water quality and fishery habitat.
Feather River, California
Cottonwood Creek was one such tributary.
The creek drained almost 11,000 acres of Big Flat
Meadow, which was once covered with forage
grasses and sedges. But all that had changed with
a combination of livestock grazing, fire, and tim-
ber harvesting, leading to the channel's
downcutting, a lowered water table, and a sage-
brush wasteland where once lush grasses had
flourished. Cottonwood Creek began to dry up in
the summer, adversely affecting the fishery.
A headcut had created an incised gully that ,
cut across die meadow. Over the years, the gully
had downcut 15 feet and captured the flow from
California
123
-------
Cottonwood Creek, the meadow's natural drainage
channel. Before restoration, the downcut channel
functioned like a fast-flowing drain, carrying off
rainfall and snowmelt so quickly that the meadow
was completely dewatered.
Restoring natural drainage
With 319 funding, the Feather River Coordinated
Resource Management (CRM) team began work,
with the goal of restoring the natural drainage
regime, re-watering the meadow, and regaining
wet meadow grasses and sedges. The restoration
strategy was to construct a new channel on top of
the meadow at the same location where the creek's
historic channel had been and to fill the gully. Dirt
from the newly constructed creek channel was
used to fill the gully. At the same time, a number
of intermittent ponds were left open within the
former gully for the use of waterfowl.
Impressive results
The restoration process, dubbed "pond and plug,"
was so successful it is being used to restore other
meadows in the area. With the meadow floodplain
restored, fioodfiows now remain in the meadow
long enough to percolate to the underground
aquifer. Because they are saved and released as
baseflow later in the year, they no longer add to
downstream floods.
Data show the meadow is storing and later
releasing about 18 acre-feet of water a year. For
many years previous to 1997, the stream usually
had stopped flowing by the first of July. In 1997
water flowed year-round, providing cool-tempera-
ture flows for a restored fishery.
Leveraging additional restoration
The Big Flat Meadow restoration is part of a
larger vision of Plumas Corporation, a nonprofit
economic redevelopment firm that coordinates
the CRM projects. Plumas is promoting the
natural water storage concept to attract restora-
• tion dollars from downstream water contractors,
proclaiming that such meadow restoration
projects can provide water that otherwise would
run off as winter flood flows. This water is then
available later in the season, when it is most in
demand for delta fisheries and urban and agricul-
tural communities south of the delta. Plumas
now has four additional meadow restoration
projects in progress. In one of the projects,
Plumas is experimenting •with a cost-cutting .
strategy that allows for the stream to build its
own channel after they plug and pond the gully.
This is a slower process, but much less expensive,
and so far it's •working.
Through the CWA section 319(h) grant pro- •
gram, the State Board helped fund many of the.
early Plumas County projects that paved the way
for the restoration successes enjoyed today. The
most recent project to be funded is development
of a stream restoration guidance document that
will document what has been learned from the
many projects implemented.
241
I California
-------
www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/cnpsmpu.html
COLORADO
Contact:
, Bruce Stover
Colorado Division of Minerals
and Geology
1313 Sherman Street .
Denver, CO 80203
303-866-3567
bruce.stover®state.co.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• hard-rock mining
• acid mine drainage
-
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• zinc
. " cadmium
Project Activities:
• diversion of mine works
drainage into constructed
wetland
.« underground diversion/
earthen dam to segregate
contaminated flows
Results:
• surface diversion moved
recovery zone upstream
from 1 2 miles to 4 miles
• below the mining activity
• underground diversion
decreased dissolved zinc
flows from 5,000 mg/L to
250 mg/L
Mining Remediation in the Chalk Creek Watershed:
Project Demonstrates Exciting Possibilities
Chalk Creek Watershed, Colorado
Hatd-rock mining in the Chalk Creek watershed
of central Colorado was extensive, continuing on
and off from the late 1870s into the 1950s. Chalk
Creek and its tributaries drain the eastern slopes
of the Collegiate Range, and the creek enters the
Arkansas River 10 miles south of Buena Vista.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife maintains die
Chalk Cliffs Fish Rearing Unit in the lower
reaches of- the creek.
The single greatest contributor of heavy
metals to the creek is the Mary Murphy Mine,
located 1 mile above the town of St. Elmo. The
Mary Murphy developed steeply dipping gold-
silver deposits and lead-zinc sulfi.de fissure-vein
deposits through extensive underground workings
on 14 different levels in the Tertiary-aged Mount
Princeton quartz-monzonite. The two lowest adit
levels,'the 2200 level Golf Adit (10,400-foot
elevation) and the 1400 level Main Adit (11,200-
foot elevation), continue to discharge at a rate of
222 gallons per minute (gpm), contributing 66.2
pounds per day of zinc to Chalk Creek at high
flow. Chalk Creek was identified on Colorado's
1998 303(d) list as impaired due to zinc; the
TMDL is scheduled for completion in 2006.
The watershed first came under scrutiny .in.
1986 after a fish kill at the rearing unit. The kill
was attributed to elevated concentrations of met-
als in Chalk Creek during spring runoff. Water
quality sampling at that time found zinc and cad-
mium at levels exceeding state water quality'stan-
, dards. The effects were reduction of the number
of brown trout and elimination of young fish for
a 12-mile stretch below the mining district. Metal
concentrations in Chalk Creek peaked in the
vicinity of the Mary Murphy Mine and the Iron
Chest.tailing piles. At that time it was s.uspected
that interaction between mine drainage, creek
flows, and the tailings piles contributed most of
the metals in the stream.
Diversion to reduce metal loadings
A 319 project in 1991 consolidated five tailings
piles to a location just below the Mary Murphy
mill ruins. The consolidated tailings-were stabi-
lized and revegetated with grasses, forbs, and .
trees. The drainage from the mine works was
diverted around the consolidation pile into a
constructed wetland between the consolidated
tailings and Chalk Creek.
Biotic sampling conducted by the Division of
Wildlife in 1994 and 1997 found the recovery
zone had moved upstream, from 12 miles to
approximately 4 miles below the mining activity.
• Greater numbers of individuals, greater species
diversity, and more .diverse age classes are now
'Colorado '
125
-------
represented in the creek. However, despite the
impressive reductions in metal loadings from the
now-reclaimed tailings sites, zinc loads still exceed
state water quality standards.
Underground approaches to control continued
discharges
The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
(CDMG) completed hydrologic characterization at
the Mary Murphy Mine in 1997. This work sug-
gested that most of the flow coming from the adit
portals was groundwater intercepted at discrete
fault/fracture structures within die mine work-
ings. Based on this work, underground inspection
of the Golf Adit workings, and historical records
of mining activity, an underground source-con-
trols approach was developed and proposed,
through the 319 NFS program and two other
Clean Water Act grant sources.
In 1998 CDMG received $310,000 through
three separate grants—198,000 in 319 funds,
§62,400 in 104(b)(3) funds, and f 150,000 in an
EPA multimedia grant—to implement under-
ground flow characterization and control work
over a 3-year period. This project was designed to
demonstrate the source control approach, on a
pilot scale, in only one level of die underground
mine. This effort would essentially "untangle the
plumbing" of the underground metals sources by
determining where the groundwater was interact-
ing with mineralized rock.
A loading analysis developed from flow and
metals concentration data showed that 85 percent
of the metals load exiting the Main Adit was
attributed to one inflow from the north drift on
the Mary Vein. The inflow constituted only 1.5
percent of the total discharge from the adit, but at
high flow it had a total zinc concentration of
190,200 micrograms per liter (mg/L). The con-
taminated inflow was traced back to an ore chute
on a high-sulfide stope on die north vein, which
drained 15 gpm. This same high-concentration
source also accounts for 70 percent of the zinc
load discharging from the Golf Adit.
Flow measurements taken along the cross-cut
adits of the Main level and Golf level indicated
, that clean groundwater inflows intercepted by the
workings downstream from die contaminated stope
inflow accounted for 70 percent of .the total mine
discharge volume. This proved diat, at a minimum,
•it is possible to segregate die clean groundwater
inflows from the mine discharge, reducing the total
discharge needing treatment from the 90 to 222
gpm (low flow—high flow) range to the 5 to 20 gpm
range. At these low volumes and high concentra-
tions, many more passive-or semipassive treatment
options are available.
Success realized
CDMG conducted a demonstration of an under-
ground diversion to control metals loading on the
Main Adit level. A temporary, underground
eardien dam was-constructed by hand to divert
the high-concentration flow. Subsequent sampling
showed diis diversion reduced dissolved zinc in
the Main Adit flow from 5,000 mg/L to 250 mg/
L, essentially eliminating the need for a treatment
alternative at the 11,200-foot elevation site.
This project demonstrated exciting possibilities
for addressing acid mine drainage. If clean inflows
can be segregated, the volume of contaminated
flows is greatly reduced and the scale of treating
the remaining,-waste stream is greatiy reduced. It
now appears technically feasible to isolate under-
ground sources of pollution to such an extent that
it might be possible to eliminate 80 percent of the
pollution source within a mine, rather than having
to treat the discharge in perpetuity.
261
Cokxado
-------
www.cdphe.state.co .us/op/wqcc/cnpsmpu. html
COLORADO
•Hi
Contact:
Dan Beley
Lower Colorado Watershed
Coordinator .
Colorado Department of
Public Health and
Environment
Water Quality Control Division
303-692-3606
daniel.beley®state.co.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• stream-flow diversion
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• high water temperature
Project Activities:
• hydrologic modifications
• bank stabilization
Results:
• increased pool depth and
water levels
• well-defined channel '
« increased fish population
Rio Blanco Restoration:
Adopted Rocks and Homemade Jelly Help Fund
Demonstration Project
The J-hook in the foreground is typical of the
structures installed in the river. It directs stream flow
toward the thalwag and away from the banks.
The Rio Blanco, a
tributary to the San
Juan River, originates
at the Continental
Divide in Archuleta
County, Colorado.
Elevation ranges from more than 13,000 feet to
around 6,400 feet at the confluence with the
San Juan River. Land ownership is mixed: the
headwaters lie within the Southern San Juan
Wilderness area, and the confluence is on the
Southern Ute Reservation. Private land is inter-
spersed, but primarily in the lower 12 miles.
The river runs about 30 miles from source to
confluence. The watershed averages about 250
inches of snow in the winter and 13 inches of
rain in the summer.
In the 1950s Congress appropriated funding to
construct the San Juan—Chama Diversion Tunnel.
The tunnel would take water from the Rio Blanco,
which is part of the Colorado River Basin, under
the Divide into the Rio Grande Basin for use in
New Mexico. The diversion is located about 12
miles from the confluence.
The system began operation in 1971 and
diverted approximately 70 percent of the in-stream
flow.of the Blanco. A basin summary prepared in
1990 by the U.S. Forest Service found that
Rio Blanco River, Colorado
• Fish habitat was poor.
• Sediment loads were high because of flow
changes and streambank erosion.
• Sediment supply was greater than stream
transport capacity.
• .Water temperatures were high.
• Diversion and land use practices had cre-
ated a wide, shaEow stream with little pool
and cover habitat.
The Rio Blanco is classified as an Aquatic Life
Cold Water Class 1, Recreation Class 1 stream.
Those uses, however, are not attained, resulting in
the river's being listed on Colorado's 1998 303(d) list
for sediment. A Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) is scheduled for June 30,2006. Colorado
also holds an in-stream flow water right that provides
for 29-cubic-foot-per-second (cfs) flows from May 1
. to September 30 and for 20-cfs flows from October
1 through April 30. The right was appropriated in
1974 to protect fish and aquatic life in the river;
however, the physical structure of the river pre-
cluded adequate habitat under those flows.
The diversion,had created a completely new
flow regime in the river. The -principle being ap-
plied in Colorado's Nonpoint Source Management
Program for Hydrologic Modification is to make
the best use of the water remaining in the stream
and to restore the stream to its designated uses.
Colorado !
127
-------
The diversion altered the river's natural flow
regime and adversely affected fish habitat.
Hydrologic
modification projects
In 1997 the San Juan
Water Conservancy
District and Colorado
Water Conservation
Board initiated a dem-
onstration project
under Colorado's
Nonpoint Source
Aquatic habitat was improved by adding a drop
structure. The pool in this area is 7 feet deep and
supports trout.
Management Program for hydrologic modifica-
tion. The goal of the project was to improve
stream water quality and aquatic habitat through
(1) reducing low-flow water temperatures by
narrowing and deepening the channel and creating
overhead and in-stream cover and (2) reducing
sediment loading by stabilizing banks and enhanc-
ing sediment transport capacity by increasing the
stream width/depth ratios.
. A total of $96,000 of 1997 section 319 funds
were used in the demonstration. Matching funds
totaling more than the required $64,000 were pro-
vided by contributions from the San Juan Water
Conservancy District, Southwest Water Conserva-
tion District, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colo-
rado Water Conservation Board, Archuleta County
Commissioners, Pagosa Public Schools, Wetlands
Hydrology, Lower Blanco Property Owners Asso-
ciation, and local landowners.
Match contribu-
tions were collected in
unique ways, includ-
ing an "Adopt a
Rock" campaign that
allowed people to
sponsor a rock for use
in the restoration.
Also, the local homeowners association sold .
homemade chokecherry jelly, offering the pro-
ceeds as match. The Bureau of Reclamation
provided a significant contribution by providing
staff and equipment to haul large boulders to
strategic sites along the river.
Early signs of restoration
The project overcame considerable opposition on
the part of some adjacent landowners, who feared
the reconstruction would adversely affect the water
level in their alluvial wells. The project was finally
constructed in fall 1999 over 1.1 miles of the river
below the San Juan/Chama diversion. Some of the
early observations include the following:
• Pools within the river are now nearly 7 feet
deep; previously, they were nonexistent or
less than 2 feet deep.
• The channel is well defined and meanders,
instead of braiding through the width of
the riverbed.
• Water levels in alluvial wells,have increased
by 7 to 10 inches.
• Within a week of the completion of con-
struction, children were again catching 10-
• to 16-inch fish in this segment of the river.-
These observations are particularly notable
because the river was at its lowest flow of the
year, approximately 17 cfs, when data were col-
lected. Data collected after construction are still
being evaluated.
The goal for the Rio Blanco has now ex-
panded from demonstration to full restoration of
the impaired segment of the river. An application
has been made for FY2001 319 funding to com-
plete the next 2.2 miles, with the intent of restor-
ing the entire 12-mile segment.
28|
Colorado
-------
www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/nps/npsplsum.htm
CONNECTICUT
Contact:
Mel Cote
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street
Suite 11 00
Boston, MA 02203
617-918-1553
cote.mel@epa.gov
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• urban storm water runoff
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• nutrients
• trash
Project Activities:
• trash rack
» sedimentation forebay
• dredging of pond
Results:
• debris and duckweed
blooms eliminated
• return of fishery
• 1,200 cubic yards of
sediment removed in
1998
Center Springs Pond Restoration Project:
Skaters and Fish Return to Pond
Center Springs Pond is the central feature of a
55-acre urban park in the center of Manchester,
Connecticut, in the Hockanum River watershed.
Center Springs Park and its pond are valued
resources, providing residents with a variety of
recreational opportunities. The pond has a sur-
face area of 6.1 acres and is fed by Bigelow
Brook. From the late 1920s through the mid-
1970s, the pond was a popular site for skating
and fishing, attracting people from all parts of
Manchester. In addition, during the warm
weather people were drawn to the area_to enjoy
picnic lunches or simply to sit by the pond and
enjoy the scenery. .
'Environmental problems
Bigelow Brook, which feeds Center Springs Pond,
runs through a heavily urbanized area. As a result,
the brook receives high volumes of storm water
runoff. This storm water carries with it pollutants
such as sediment (from .road sanding and con-
struction activities), nutrients (from atmospheric
deposition, septic systems, and lawn fertilizer),
and trash (everything from common litter to
shopping carts).
The filling of the pond with sediment and
• nutrients contributed to weed growth and increased
water temperatures by allowing sunlight to pen-
etrate to the pond's bottom. The combined effect
of the sediments, increased temperature, and die-
Manchester, Connecticut
off of the algae and weeds consumed oxygen and
led to low-dissolved-oxygen conditions. These
impacts rendered the pond inhospitable to most
species of fish and too shallow for ice-skating. The
trash, bottles, cans, plastic containers, tires, lumber,
logs, shopping carts, and even a doghouse made the
park a less appealing place to visit.
The solution
The goals of the Center Springs Pond Restoration
Project were to improve water quality in the pond
and to reestablish the pond and surrounding area
as a focal point for recreational activity in the
town of Manchester.
The project's design was based on the recom-
mendations of a diagnostic/ feasibility study con-
ducted by the Connecticut Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (CT DEP) Lakes Manage-
ment Program on behalf of the Town of Manches-
ter. It included the following components:
• ^Installation of a trash rack upstream of the pond.
A trash rack collects large debris before
items enter the pond. The trash is held in
areas easily cleaned by the town mainte- ••
nance crew. ' .
• Construction of a sedimentation forebay at the
eastern end of the pond. The forebay accumu-
lates sediment entering from Bigelow
Brook in a confined area for easy removal.
The forebay is separated from the main
Connecticut 1
129
-------
pond by a gabion wall/weir. The wall/weir
directs the flow to the southern end of the
forebay and extends the detention time,
allowing sediments to setde before water
enters the main body of the pond. The
town also developed and has implemented
a pond maintenance plan, which includes
periodic sediment removal.
• Dredging of the pond. Approximately 25,000
cubic yards of material was removed. The
pond was excavated to die bottom of the
soft sediment, and die materials were
trucked to a landfill. At the landfill, the
material was stockpiled, dewatered, and
then used as landfill cover.
Project partners and funding
This project was a combined effort by the Town
of Manchester, the CT DEP, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.(EPA), and several private
consultants and contractors. The total cost of the
project was $342,900 (including construction of
buildings and other park infrastructure). It was
covered by $250,000 from CT DEP special bond
act funds authorized by the state's General As-
sembly, $62,900 from federal Clean Water Act
section 319 funds, and $30,000 from Town of
Manchester capital improvement funds.
Section 319 funds were dedicated to non-
point source controls in and around the pond, and
other watershed management activities. Nonpoint
source controls included the construction of the
trash rack and the sedimentation forebay. As a
condition of the section,319 grant, CT DEP and
EPA required the town to conduct watershed
management activities, including a review of
street sweeping programs, a public education
program (in the form of mailed pamphlets and
newspaper articles); and an investigation of high-
nutrient-loading areas.
Promising results
The Center Springs Pond Restoration Project was
completed in 1995. Since then, there have been
many noticeable changes. The most obvious of
these is the improved appearance of the pond and
the park. Before the restoration project, Center
Springs Pond's extensive duckweed growth ren-
dered the pond unattractive for recreation and
unsuitable for most fish. Since the project was
completed, the duckweed blooms have been
eliminated. Floating debris has been brought to an
end by the trash rack and watershed management
activities. Watershed residents have done their part
by responding to public education and helping to
reduce the amount of litter and other household
and yard pollutants.
Before the project, sedimentation of the
pond and winter draw-downs for weed control
had reduced the surface area, greatly limiting ice-
skating for the past 20 years. Now the pond once
again is used for skating. Perhaps the most aston- '
ishing change is the return of fishing as a viable
recreational opportunity. Before the restoration
project, the town's annual fishing derby, which
usually attracts 600 to 700 people each spring, was
held at other ponds in the region. Since the
project •was completed, the annual fishing derby
has been held at Center Springs Pond, which is
stocked with trout and bass.
The Town of Manchester now has a regular
maintenance program for the pond and park that
includes weekly litter pickup and periodic dredg-
ing of the sedimentation forebay. Other amenities
have been added since the completion of the
restoration project, including a fishing pier/look-
out point on the gabion wall and a picnic .area.
Future plans
Future plans for Center Spring Pond include
regular maintenance of the immediate park
3OBHI Connecticuc
-------
grounds. There are also plans to rebuild a picnic
pavilion/observation deck over die foundation of
die old skating lodge, which burned down. A
concrete fishing pier, which is present in addition
to the recently added pier, will be "dressed up" to
match die decor of the new skating lodge.
Also proposed ate stone dust ttails throughout the
park and a picnic pavilion at the top of the sliding
hill. It is easy to see that, through the Center
Springs Pond Restoration Project, this picturesque
place in Manchester has been restored as an im-
portant recreational resource for the community.
www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/nps/npsplsum.htm
CONNECTICUT
Contact:
Mel Cote
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street
Suite 1 1 00
Boston, MA 02203
617-918-1553
cote.mel®epa.gov '
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (dairy farm)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
Project Activities:
• farm waste management
(waste collection, storage,
and upland spray-irrigation)
Results:
• reductions in nutrients
(phosphorus) and
bacteria, allowing
compliance with water
quality standards
Lake Waramaug Watershed Agricultural
Waste Management System:
One Farm Can Make a Difference
Lake Waramaug is in the Housatonic River water-
shed in northwestern Connecticut in the towns of
Washington, Warren, and Kent. This deep, 680-acre
lake is the scenic center of the area's tourism busi-
ness and is used for a variety of recreational activi-
ties, including boating, fishing, and swimming.
Waramaug is the second largest natural lake in die
state. The lake's 14.3-square-mile watershed is
largely forested, with land use consisting of low-
density residential development and several farms.
Much of the lake's shorefront is developed with
large-lot, single-family homes. Two state parks are
located on and near the lake, Lake Waramaug State
Park and Mount Bushnell State Park.
Problems caused by overenrichment
Twenty-five years ago, thick mats of algae covered
the surface of Lake Waramaug, causing serious
concern among property owners and local busi-.
nesses. Dead fish washed ashore and became food .
for seagulls, raccoons, and otiier wildlife. The cause
of the problem was overenrichment caused by
Washington, Warren, and Kent, Connecticut
runoff of phosphorus and other nutrients from
farms, lawns, roads, and septic systems. These
nutrients are considered a significant nonpoint
source problem in the Housatonic River -watershed.
The nutrients fed die growth of algae, which
turned' the lake's surface green every summer. When
the algae died and sank to the bottom, the decompo-
sition of the organic material consumed the oxygen
that the fish and other aquatic life needed to survive.
The algae also prevented sunlight from reaching
native aquatic plants, which were both a food source
and refuge for aquatic organisms.
By the mid-1990s, many of these problems
had been solved through the joint efforts of die
three -watershed towns, area residents, and state and
federal government agencies. However, water
quality monitoring in Sucker Brook, which feeds
die lake, was still finding elevated levels of nutrients
and bacteria. Stream monitoring determined that a
single dairy farm was the largest remaining source
of nutrients in the watershed. This farm houses
255 cows, heifers, and calves, and die milking room,
Connecticut I
-------
corn bunker silos, and barnyards are located uphill
and adjacent to Sucker Brook. Runoff from the
farm, containing high concentrations of nutrients
and bacteria, entered the stream, which transported
the pollutants to the lake.
Solving the problems
One of the first steps to solving Lake Waramaug's
problems was the formation of the Lake
Waramaug Task Force in 1975. In 1978 the Task
Force, with assistance from federal and state
agencies and a private consultant, completed the
Lake WaramaugM.anagementl'lan, which contained
recommendations on how to restore and protect
water quality. Major in-lake management projects
include a 2.0 million-gallon-per-day "withdrawal-
treatment-reinjection system"; two-layer aeration
systems that mix the top water with the mid
depths of the lake to create a large zone of cold,
well-oxygenated water; construction of a channel
through the delta formed at the Sucker Brook
outlet to direct cold, well-oxygenated stream flow
to the oxygen-depleted bottom waters; and several
in-stream sediment collection basins. Numerous
watershed nonpoint source controls were also
established, including streambank and lakeshore
erosion stabilization projects, a dairy farm manure
storage system, and a vineyard wine waste lagoon.
As described previously, however, one major
pollution source remained unchecked. To address
this problem, in 1999 the farmer requested technical
assistance from the litchfield County Soil and Water
Conservation District and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA's) Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service (NRCS) to plan, design, and build a
farm waste management system. The Task Force
raised private funds and, through the conservation
district, also solicited financial assistance from the
towns that border the lake and the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection (CT
DEP). The CT DEP subsequently applied for.and
received section 319 funds from EPA. The farmer
applied for funds through the USDA Farm Services
Agency and the Connecticut Department of Agri-
culture and a loan from the Lake Waramaug Task
Force.
Monitoring results
Water quality monitoring data collected since
completion of the project indicate that the waste
management system has significantly reduced
pollution levels in Sucker Brook and in Lake
Waramaug. Nutrient levels (especially phosphorus)
in the stream have been drastically reduced. Be-
fore the •waste management system was con-
structed, the farm was contributing more than 20
percent of the total phosphorus entering Lake
Waramaug. Now, instead of flowing into Sucker
Brook and Lake Waramaug, the nutrient-rich
runoff from the farm area is collected, stored, and
spray-irrigated on farm fields located hundreds of
yards from Sucker Brook. This allows the nutri-
ents to become incorporated into the soil, sup-
porting plant growth on the farm rather than
algae growth in the lake. Bacteria levels are also
lower than before the water management system
was installed, allowing the lake to meet state water
quality standards for swimming and other pri-
mary-contact recreation.
Continuing the success
To ensure the future protection of water quality,
the farm waste management system needs to be
regularly inspected and maintained. It is expected
that the dairy farm (with the assistance of local
conservation organizations) will continue to take
measures necessary to protect water quality in
Sucker Brook and Lake Waramaug by following
through with a new operation and maintenance
plan established for the farm. The Lake
32
Connecticut
-------
Watatnaug Task Force and local health depart-
ments will continue to monitor the lake and its
feeder streams to determine whetiier die farm
waste management system and other best manage-
ment practices are working to maintain and im-
prove •water quality. As a Task Force member
noted in a recent local newspaper article, "This is
a success story, but it wouldn't take much to turn
it around. There has to be constant monitoring,
constant improvement. Everything has to be kept
working, brought up to date . .. ." (The New
Milford Times, July 21, 2000).
Project Partners and Funding
This project was a combined effort by LCSWCD, CT DEI? USEPA, USDA, Lake Waramaug Task Force,
and the dairy farmer. The total cost of the project was $211,864. Funding was provided by the
following organizations:
$33,000 from an EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 grant awarded by CT DEP
$35,000 from the USDA Farm Service Agency (Agricultural Conservation Program)
$40,000 from the Connecticut Department of Agriculture . •
$61,864 from the farm through a loan agreement with the Lake Waramaug Task Force
$642,000 from the -USDA NRCS for in-kind and technical services
www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Libra,ry/NPS/NPSPIan.pdf
DELAWARE
~ :
contact:
Sharon Webb
Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
302-739-8014
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• failing septic systems
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• ammonium
• nitrate
• phosphorus '
Project Activities:
• upgraded septic systems
and wells
Results:
• upgraded 1 00 septic
systems and more than
50 wells
Partners Upgrade Septic Systems in Coverdale Crossroads:
Quality of Life Improved for Residents
The Coverdale Crossroads Community is in Sus-
sex County, Delaware. Failing septic systems were
resulting in contaminated drinking water wells and
nutrient loss to surface water and groundwater
supplies. Prior to restoration, most residents uti-
lized a cesspool, a failed septic system, or no
system at all.
Septic system upgrade
In October 1997 the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) entered into a 3-year partnership with
die Coverdale Crossroads Community and First
State Community Action to upgrade septic systems
and wells. Greenwood Trust Bank and die Sussex
Conservation District provided matching funds.
Sussex County, Delaware
During the first year of implementation, the
project had to overcome a number of unantici-
pated obstacles, resulting from some members of
the community living in substandard housing. An
upgraded septic system and well are of little use
without electricity and plumbing. Near the end of
the first year, DNREC joined forces with die
Delaware Housing Authority, and donated homes
were provided to those in need.
The local Prison Boot Camp and Work Re-
lease Program provided laborers for demolishing
the substandard homes and clearing debris and
trees to make way for subsequent installation of
new septic systems and wells. Residents contrib-
uted by helping to remove debris and by providing
temporary housing for those displaced. The final
Delaware 1
33
-------
year has added a partnership with the Resource
Conservation and Development Council, which is
lending its support in coordinating the last year of
project implementation and installation of new
housing.
Most of the replacement systems are gravity
systems, with the exception of a few low-pressure
pipe systems. Follow-up education on mainte-
nance of the system is provided to each home-
owner after installation.
Benefits to water quality and residents
By the end of September 2000, about 100 septic
systems and more than 50 wells had been up-
graded. Based on studies conducted in the Inland
Bays watershed, the gravity systems have an effi-
ciency rating for nutrient removal as follows:
ammonium, 25 percent; nitrate, 35 percent; and
total phosphorus, 90 percent. The efficiency rating
for the low-pressure pipe systems is as follows:
ammonium, 94 percent; nitrate, 66 percent; and
total phosphorus, 90 percent.
Before the failing systems were replaced,
remediation of nutrient loads was negligible.
Through partnerships, this project has provided
direct environmental benefits to groundwater and
surface waters while improving the standard of
living for many residents of Coverdale Crossroads.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
www.environ.state.dc.us/watershed/
HHH
Contact:
Di-.HamldKarlm!
D,C, Deportment of Health
SI N Street N& 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20002
202-535-2240
i1
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• wetlands dredging/filling
•
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
Project Activities:
• wetland restoration
• recreational/habitat
enhancements
Results:
• mudflat transformed into
wetland
• monitoring in progress
Marsh Restoration and Island Enhancement Projects
at Kingman Lake:
Tidal Wetland Habitats Re-created
Years of sedimentation had turned Kingman Lake, once a tidal marsh, into
a mudflat.
Anacostia River, District of Columbia
Kingman Lake is not a true lake, but a 110-acre
tidal freshwater impoundment created during the
1920s and 1930s to provide a recreational boating
area for District of Columbia residents. The lake is
connected to the tidal Anacostia River by two inlets
located at the northern and southern ends of
Kingman Island, a wooded 94-acre dredge/fill-
created island that separates the lake from the river.
Historically, .the area emerged as an expansive
. freshwater tidal marsh, renowned for its migratory
sora rail population. As wetlands were dredged
and filled, many such migratory birds stopped
coming. The open water tidal "lake" gradually
34
Dana of Columbia
-------
The restoration project has succeeded in transforming Kingman Lake back
into a marsh.
filled with sediment until the dominant low tide
feature was a mudflat. Because of the lack of
suitable substrate elevation, most species of emer-
gent marsh vegetation have not been established
over the existing mudflats.
From mudflats to wetlands
With support of section 319 funding, in 2000 the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District,
led the restoration of 42 acres of the freshwater
tidal emergent wetland in Kingman Lake. Other
key partners included the U.S. National Park "
Service, the D.C. government, and neighboring
Prince George's County in Maryland. The primary
goal of the restoration plan is to restore histori-
cally significant wetlands, thereby enhancing the
habitat diversity and structure of an area currendy
dominated by unvegetated tidal mudflats.
To re-create vegetated tidal wetland habitats,
the morphology of the lake was altered by filling
and grading existing lake mudflats with Anacostia
River dredge material. Establishing new (higher)
substrate levels on Kingman mudflats was key to
creating an environment suitable for the growth
of emergent wetland macrophytes, which can
tolerate only moderate levels of tidal inundation.
Approximately 700,000 emergent wetland
plants were planted in the newly elevated and
graded mudflat areas. It was soon discovered mat
goose exclusion fencing -would be necessary to
prevent the plants from becoming a "free lunch"
for the lake's resident Canada goose population.
The fencing will allow the plants to gain a foot-
hold during their first crucial growing season.
In concert with the wetland restoration work,
Kingman Island is also being restored. The resto-
ration primarily involves die removal of materials
that historically have been dumped on the island.
A number of low-impact actions are also under
consideration, including die removal of invasive
exotic plants. Also being considered is the con-
struction of ramps and a floating boat dock for
canoes and kayaks, as well as an interpretive na-
ture trail for die recreational enjoyment of Dis-
trict residents. Enhancement of habitat for resi-
dent and migrating wildlife is also considered a
priority. It might take the form of bird boxes,
nesting areas for ospreys and eagles, and bat
boxes, as well as artificial deadfalls and snags for
species-specific nesting.
Ongoing monitoring
A prerestoration study will establish a baseline
data set of aquatic biota and water quality param-
eters by collecting mondily water quality data and
conducting a multiyear summer seasonal assess-
ment of the bendiic macroinvertebrate, fish,
plankton, and bird communities living in or using
Kingman Lake. After restoration is complete, die
study will continue for 5 years to determine die
relative impact of the restoration efforts on die
•water quality and the aquatic community.
Implementing diese two significant restoration
projects in the main stem of the Anacostia River is
important not only for the improvements to wild-
life habitat or water quality. The projects also dem-
onstrate die success of large-scale environmental
restoration projects involving multiple federal and
local government agencies and funding sources.
District of Columbia '
135
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
www.environ.state.dc.us/watershed/
••Bf "
Contact:
Dr, H.im!d Kodmi
1 D,C. Department of Health
1 SI N Street, NE, Sth Floor
Washington. DC 20002
202-535-2240
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• urban runoff
• sewer overflows
Primary NPS Pollutants: >
» fecal coliform bacteria
« sediment ,
« nutrients
• • •-.
Project Activities:
• streambank stabilization
• education/outreach
* "™ " " ' '™r~~ •"•--- - - •'.-!»•
Results:
• monitoring in progress
• riparian buffers
established (1,600 plants)
The Watts Branch Initiative:
Community Involvement Key to Success
Watts Branch is the largest and one of the most
polluted tributaries of the Anacostia River. It
flows from Maryland into the District of Colum-
bia for 4 miles. About 80 percent of the stream's
watershed is urban residential and commercial
property; less than 15 percent is forested. Because
of its location, the stream corridor is affected by
runoff from a primarily impervious area. It is
plagued by trash and debris dumped into the
stream by local and upstream residents and busi-
nesses. The tributary is also a source of excessive .
fecal coliform bacteria loadings attributed to
overflows from faulty sewers.
The Environmental Health Administration of
the District's Department of Health established die
Watts Branch Task Force to coordinate restoration
of the Watts Branch watershed. The Task Force
created the multiphased Watts Branch Watershed
Initiative, which includes streambank stabilization
Anacostia River, District of Columbia
and restoration, education and community out- -.
reach, and a strategy to prevent illegal dumping.
Public-private partnerships
The success of the Watts Branch Task Force has
primarily been the result of its ability to effectively
create partnerships between the public and private
sectors arid promote a high level of community
involvement. Some 1,600 native trees, shrubs, and
plants have been established to create and extend .
the Watts Branch riparian buffer. Through the
efforts of the Task Force, in partnership with the
Anacostia River Business Coalition and the Earth .
Conservation Corps, the work was funded largely
through a section 319 grant. Section 319 funding
also supported streambank stabilization efforts in
the spring of 2001, in partnership with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Money from Washington, D.C.'s Summit Fund
supported the purchase of three surveillance cam-
eras that are now being used by the Environmental
Crimes Unit of the Metropolitan Police Depart-
ment to monitor illegal dumping in and around
Watts Branch. A grant from the Summit Fund also
supported a community education day in the park,
which helped to spread the word about illegal
dumping, nonpoint source pollution, and the im-
portance of riparian buffer plantings to the stream.
Many young people from the District helped plant trees throughout the Watts
Branch watershed.
36
District of Columbia
-------
Plans for the future
Future work will address riparian and aquatic
habitat concerns, as well as water quality impacts
from sediment and nutrients. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service will provide monitoring assistance
and will use the information it gathers to develop
designs for areas still in need of stream restora-
tion. The projected completion date for the
stream restoration work is October 2004. The
District of Columbia anticipates that continued
stream restoration work will be funded through
the District's 319 nonpoint source program.
wyvw.dep.state.fl.us/waterAlerp/n6npoint_storrnwater/3I9h/docurnents/npsmgrntpln2000/npsmgmtprog2000.pdf
FLO R.I D A
•m
Contact:
Brad Bole
Project Coordinator
3 120 Highway 36 West
Hartselle,AL 35640
256-773-6543 (ext. 107)
bbole®ai.nrcs,usda.gov •
" ' '•--'•.'•• ••"•/• . -.-'.•. '••:-. • • ...-..,"..:
Primary Sources of Primary NFS Pollutants:
Pollution: . sediment -
• roads, (timber, recreational)
Project Activities:
• road stabilization
• redirection of water flow
-••-;- — ." ~ ~ ; ~" " v ~~~*.
Results:
• reduced sediment
delivery
Blackwater River Restoration:
Project Demonstrates Mechanics of Erosion and Effectiveness of BMPs
Ever know of a natural area that the users "loved
to death"? The Blackwater River and the adjacent
Blackwater State Forest in the Florida panhandle
are good examples. Primitive roads created for and
by the timber industry and by recreational users,
including canoeists, tubers, horse riders, and hunt-
ers, have led to serious soil erosion problems in the
forest. Roads leading to or along the river and its
tributaries have caused erosion in the sandy, ex-
posed soils of the watershed and along the shore-
line, resulting in heavy sedimentation to the river.
Stabilization project
The Florida Division, of Forestry treated 17 roads
on the river's south side, closing 14 and repairing 3.
Methods of closing and repairing the roads varied
depending on the slope, likelihood of continued
traffic, natural stabilization mechanisms in place,
sources of water creating the erosion, and suitabil-
ity of the best management practices (BMPs). The
objective in each case was to remove or redirect the
source of water flow causing the problem and to
Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida
stabilize the soil. The overall project cost was
$55,928, of which $25,268 was provided by a sec-
tion 319 grant to the Florida Division of Forestry.
Encouraging results
Despite willful damage to treated areas by locals
(subsequently repaired), the project was considered
a success because sediment production from the
roads was reduced and the restored areas were
returned to timber production. The project taught
the forest staff that soil cover is the key to reducing
soil loss.' The cover can be in the form of erosion
fabric, vegetation, or mulch. Permanent native
vegetation is expensive to procure, especially for .
large restoration areas. To continue this type of
work on a forest-wide basis and make a'significant
impact on the soil erosion problems at a reasonable
cost, some other means of revegetation will need
to be used. The forestry staff believes transplanting
forest materials will be one of the solutions.
This demonstration project-helped state
foresters better understand the causes and mecha-
Florida
137
-------
nisms of erosion and sedimentation. Just as im-
portant, the project allowed the foresters to learn
more about the effectiveness of BMPs that can be
used to minimize erosion problems and where
various BMPs work best. Consequently, state
foresters have developed a management plan to
continue addressing the erosion problems result-
ing from dirt roads and gullies that are negatively
affecting the quality of the Blackwater River, an
Outstanding Florida Water. Implementation of
the management plan is proceeding using a variety
of funding sources, including section 319 grants
from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, state funds, user fees, and in-kind
contributions by forest users.
FLORIDA
w\An/v.dep.state.fl.us/water/slerp/nonpoint_stormwater/319h/documents/npsmgmtpln2000/npsmgmtprog2000.pdf
mil
Contact: Primary Sources of
Ron Jones Pollution:
Bfevaitf Surface Water • urban storm water runoff
Improvement Division
2725 Judge Fran Jamfeson
VKy
Suite A203
Vtera,FL 32940
321-633-2014
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• suspended solids
•
Project Activities:
» (Indialantic storm water
retrofitting) baffle boxes in
storm drain pipes
• (Indialantic} wet detention
pond
• (Micco area retrofitting)
exfiltration trenches_
» (Micco) inlet system
- -
Results:
« (Indialantic) 67 cubic
meters of sediment
removed per year
• (Indialantic) 60 percent
less discharge of
pollutants
• (Micco) 14,076 pounds of
sediment removed
• (Micco) 80 percent less
discharge of pollutants
Brevard County's Urban Storm Water Retrofitting Projects:
Lessons Learned About Design, Location, and Monitoring
Brevard County, Florida
With the implementation of the state storm water
rule in 1982, Florida became the first state in die
country to require that storm water from all new
development be treated. However, reducing the
pollutant loadings discharged from older drainage
systems is also essential to die protection and resto-
ration of water bodies throughout Florida. The
Indian River Lagoon, an estuary of national signifi-
cance and a water body of importance to both
Florida and Brevard County, has been adversely
affected by storm water discharges from older
drainage systems. Fortunately, Florida's Surface
Water Improvement and Management program, in
conjunction with the Indian River Lagoon National
Estuary Program, has developed a comprehensive
watershed management plan to restore this impor-
tant water body. A significant component of diis
plan is the implementation of urban storm water
Retrofitting Project Costs
Project
Alamanda
Cedar Lane
Franklin (2)
Indialantic 1
Monaco
Pinetree
Puesta Del
r- Rivershore
Riverside
Sunset Park
Drainage area
1 .8 acres
0.9 acres
36 acres
25 acres
.54 acres
1 34 acres
2.2 acres
7,2 acres
161 acres
24 acres
Cost
$14,376
$25,027
$33,362
$)3,58(D
$32,835
$33,925
,$25,181
$ 9,463
$24,944
$23,422
retrofitting projects through partnerships between
the Florida Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, the St. Johns River Water Management Dis-
trict, and local governments.
Brevard County has implemented a storm
water utility fee to help fund retrofitting projects,
and its,storm water program has initiated several
38|
1 FJonda
-------
projects leading to a reduction in the pollutant
loadings discharged to the lagoon. The county has
received a number of section 319 grants to assist
in funding these projects. The costs of the retro-
fitting projects are provided in the table.
Indialantic area retrofitting
Several storm water retrofitting projects have been
conducted in the town of Indialantic to reduce
pollutant discharge to the Indian River Lagoon.
The first phase of retrofitting involved the instal-
lation of numerous baffle boxes (sediment boxes)
at the end of existing storm drain pipes to 'capture
sediment before it is discharged. The frequency of
cleanout depends on rainfall frequency, land use,
and drainage basin size but has averaged six
cleanouts per baffle box per year. The mainte-
nance records for 24 baffle boxes show that 202
cubic meters of sediment were removed from
these boxes over a 3-year period.
Later phases of retrofitting in this area fo-
cused on treating storm water from an urbanized
residential watershed of 120 contributing acres.
The best management practices installed to cor-
rect storm water quality and quantity problems
included construction of an exfiltration trench
that discharges to a •wet detention pond. The pond
was planted with cordgrass and pickerelweed to .
provide nutrient removal and cattail control. The
new sideslope Geo Web cells were planted with
blanket flowers and sunflowers for additional
erosion control.
Based on Florida's rainfall records and the
design treatment volume of the exfiltration sys-
tem, it is removing about 60 percent of the pollut-
ants that would have been discharged: Water
quality sampling of several storm events showed
that the pond is providing significant treatment of
storm water pollutants through settling and bio-
logical processes. Overall, the treatment system
appears to be removing most nutrients, metals,
and suspended solids from the storm water before
discharge to the Indian River Lagoon.
Micco area retrofitting
The Micco area of Brevard County is an urban-
ized single-family residential area that was built
'before the 'storm water treatment requirements.
The area's existing storm water system provided
no treatment of the area's runoff, which was
discharged to the Sebastian River and ultimately to
the Indian River Lagoon. Prior to this project,
Main Street ran directly down to its lowest point
at a boat ramp. Because there were no curbs or
gutters, storm water ran down the edges of the
pavement, causing considerable erosion and trans-
porting a lot of sediment into the river.
To arrest the direct discharge of storm water,
the county developed a trench system designed to
remove sediments. The county installed 1,536
linear feet of exfiltration trenches down the center
of the road along with asphalt curbing to direct
flow to inlets installed along the road's edge. The
trenches capture 0.39 inch of runoff from the
15.5-acre watershed, and pretreatment is provided
by sumps and skimmers at the inlets.
For a variety of reasons, monitoring on this
project proved to be problematic. However, main-
tenance activities were able to document the
effectiveness of the trench system in removing
sediments. The inlet system was cleaned twice
during the postconstruction monitoring period,
• and a total of 14,076 pounds of sediment was
removed. In addition, based on Florida's rainfall
patterns and the diversion of runoff into the
trenches, it is estimated that the system removes
80 percent of the pollutants that previously were
discharged to the Sebastian River.
Florida
139
-------
Lessons learned
Many valuable lessons were learned from this
project related to design, location, and monitoring.
Brevard County staff are applying this information
to current and future projects designed to address
water quality and quantity problems throughout the
Micco watersheds. Other local governments in
Florida also are benefiting from the project as they
develop and implement storm water master plans
to reduce storm water pollution.
GEORGIA
www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/
•••I
Contact:
Jim Wren
Ocortec River RC&D
Council Inc.
RQ Box 247
Watkinsviffe GA 30677
706-769-7922
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• erosion
Primary IMPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment « tree revetment
. . ., ^r ~JX
Results:
• decreased sediment loads
• monitoring in progress
Broad River Streambank Stabilization Project:
Tree Revetments Rescue Eroding Banks
Streambank erosion on the streams and rivers of
Georgia continues to be a growing problem.
Erosion is particularly evident in the Broad River
Watershed District of northeastern Georgia. The
accepted consensus is that it is much easier, and
more cost-effective, to prevent erosion before it
occurs than'to restore streambanks after the dam-
age has been done. However, because in many
cases erosion already exists, new and better ways
of solving the problem are being explored.
One of the methods being tried in the Broad
River watershed is the technique of installing
"tree revetments." New to Georgia, this technique
is relatively inexpensive when compared to other
types of Streambank stabilization techniques
currently in use.
Demonstrating the technique
The Chestatee-Chattahoochee Resource Conser-
vation and Development Council, through a 319
grant from the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Environmental Protection Division, is
implementing a project designed to demonstrate
Northeastern Georgia
to landowners the positive effects of tree revet-
ments on eroding streambanks. The project calls
for 15 tree revetment sites, plus additional best
management practices, to be installed on selected
streams throughout the Broad River watershed.
A tree revetment is a bioengineering method
that uses whole trees cabled tightly together in
giant bundles. These bundles are then secured to
the eroded Streambank in a shingling effect, just
like the shingles on a roof, through an anchoring
system of cables. The trees used in the installation
are selected by the contractor with assistance from
an Natural Resources Conservation Service spe-
cialist or by the participating landowner from the
landowner's own property. The Streambank height
should usually be 6 feet or more, with a steep
incline; revetments can't be constructed on gradu-
ally sloped streambanks.
Tree revetments have been shown to gready
slow the stream current along an eroding bank,
decreasing erosion and allowing sediment to be
deposited in the tree branches of the revetment.
The deposited sediment forms an excellent seed-
40
Georgia
-------
bed in which the seeds of riparian trees such as
sycamores and maple, as well as other plants, can
sprout and grow. The resulting growth spreads
roots throughout the revetment and into the exist-
ing streambank. In addition to slowing streambank
erosion, tree revetments also provide excellent
habitat for birds, fish, and other forms of wildlife.
Continuing efforts
As of August 2001, seven revetment demonstra-
tion sites had been installed throughout the water-
shed. An additional five sites will be installed
through the end of 2001, as weather permits. The
progress of these sites will be monitored over the;
next 2 years.
www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/envirprr/
GEORGIA
•El : "•"• '':"-
Contact:
Brant Keller
Public Works Director
Storm Water Utility Division
RO. Box T
Griffin, GA 30224
770-229-6603
;- -~" " . ; • - •--•'• -: • •- -
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• urban storm water runoff
Primary NPS Pollutants:
« nutrients
» metals
• oil
• grease
Project Activities:
• constructed wetland
system
-.-•-.• • - .•• •- ' - - •
Results:
• reduction of storm water
constituents
-
North Griffin Storm Water Detention Pond Project:
Constructed Wetland System Protects Water, Wins Award
An important function of wetlands is thek role in
maintaining and enhancing water quality. Urban
storm water contains a variety of constituents,
such as nitrogen, phosphorus, metals, oil, and
grease, that can contribute to nonpoint source
pollution. Because many complex chemical and
biological processes that affect water quality occur
in wetlands, a vegetated wetland system can incor-
porate and transform many of .these storm water
constituents through biological breakdown by
microorganisms or vegetative decomposition.
In addition to providing water quality-enhancing
attributes, constructed wetland systems offer
other potential.advantages, including compara-
tively simple operation with low maintenance,
process stability under varying environmental
conditions, and low construction and operating
costs when compared with traditional water treat-
ment facilities. Additionally, the introduction of
emergent wetland species not only provides sev-
eral benefits for water quality enhancement but
also results in improvement of wildlife habitats.
Griffin, Georgia
Comprehensive watershed management
In 1997 the City of Griffin began a comprehen-
sive watershed management program by imple-
menting a Storm Water Utility to address the city's
aging infrastructure and improve the quality of
storm water runoff. One of the first projects
successfully completed under the management
program was construction of the North Griffin
Regional Detention Pond (NGRDP). This re-
gional pond was designed for flood control and to
enhance and preserve water quality in Shoal Creek
and Wildcat Creek of the Flint River Basin.
The NGRDP features a drainage channel, a
regional detention pond, and two constructed
wetland areas for storm water filtration. The pond
and wetland areas use natural filtration and other
biological processes, rather than traditional me-
chanical means, to improve the quality of storm
water runoff. The pond serves as a comprehensive
storm water management system that eliminates
flooding problems in a ISO-acre area of North
Griffin while enhancing -water quality.
Georgia
141
-------
Evaluating the performance of the NGRDP
To determine the overall performance of the
wetland system, an evaluation of water quality was
performed by collecting and laboratory testing
storm water samples from locations upstream of,
within, and downstream of the detention pond. A
baseline sampling protocol was developed to
establish the initial quality of storm water runoff
from the North Griffin Drainage Basin.
Review of the monitoring data for the first 21
months (between January 1999 and September
2000) indicates that the actual removal efficiencies
are showing significant reductions for the constitu-
ents listed (see table). The City of Griffin antici-
pates that the future monitoring results for the
mature site will be comparable to the theoretical
removal efficiencies documented. Wetland matura-
tion should result in utilization and transformation
of these constituents through biological breakdown
by microorganisms and vegetative decomposition.
The American Consulting Engineers Council
awarded the City of Griffin and Integrated Sci-
ence & Engineering the 2000 Engineering Excel-
lence Award for this project.
Monitored Removal Efficiencies
This table shows the removal efficiencies for several constituents that are currently being monitored. The table represents data
cqllected between January 1999 and September 2000 by the City of Griffin, Georgia.
Constituent
Total suspended solids
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Chemical oxygen demand
Total lead
Total zinc
Fecal coliform bacteria
Station 1
(influent)
42.86 mg/L
4.53 mg/L
0. 1 7 mg/L
52.00 mg/L
BDL
0.1 3 mg/L
25,457 no/1 00
Station 3 Average removal
[effluent)
36.71 mg/L
1 .76 mg/L
0. 1 0 mg/L
31. 86 mg/L
BDL
0.07 mg/L
mL 8, 1 69 no/1 00 mL
efficency
14%
61%
41%
39%
0.%
46%
68%
Theoretical removal
efficiency
65% to 80%
60% to 80%
25% to 50% . .
35%
50%
60% to 70%
NCLI
limits; NCLI - no comparison level identified.
GUAM
www.gepa.gov.gu/programs/water/poll.html
HH '
Contact:
Denny Cruz
Water Planning Committee
Guam EPA
67M7S-1665
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• soil erosion
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
'
Project Activities:
• planting native acacia trees
. *w
Results:
• 50,000 acacia tree
seedlings planted in a
50-acre area
• projected to reduce
turbidity and improve
drinking water supply
Ugum Watershed Project:
Students Plant Acacia Seedlings to Help Restore Watershed
The Ugum watershed is one of Guam's last rela-
tively pristine natural areas. It has been identified as
one of Guam's highest-priority watersheds in the
island's Unified Watershed Assessment. The water-
shed consists of 19 square kilometers of lush
Ugum Watershed, Guam
vegetation, productive wetlands, savanna grasslands,
.if
and badlands with numerous springs and feeder
streams. Located in the southern part of Guam, it
is home to wild pigs, deer, and carabao, as well as
many birds, some of which are endangered.
Guam
-------
The tJgum Water Treatment Plant on the
Ugum River supplies drinking water to southeast-
ern island villages. Soil erosion and increased
turbidity levels in the Ugum River have been
adversely affecting water quality and drinking
water supplies.
Acacia tree planting
In 1999 Guam's Water Planning Committee
(WPC), composed of a broad spectrum of gov-
ernment agencies and other'stakeholders (includ-
ing Department of Agriculture, Division of For-
estry; Aquatic and Wildlife Resources; Depart-
ment of Commerce; Guam Environmental Pro-
tection Agency; Natural Resources Conservation
Service; University of Guam; Guam Waterworks
Authority; Department of Defense; and Bureau
of Planning), initiated the watershed action plan
for one of its highest-priority watersheds. The
WPC determined that the most effective means
of preventing and minimising soil erosion was to
encourage actions that maximize vegetative cover,
particularly forest.
To achieve this, section 319 funding was used
to'plant a 50-acre area within the Ugum watershed
with some 50,000 trees. One hundred students
from Guam's southern schools helped plant the
seedlings. The WPC goals were to conserve and
protect the ravine forest, revegetate badlands
within the savanna grasslands, minimize fires,
increase public involvement and education, and
obtain special recognition and standing that sup-
port the Ugum watershed as a priority watershed.
Reforestation of Ugum watershed
Once established, the acacia trees will allow the
opportunity for native trees to restore the area to
its native state. This is the beginning of a long-
term program of forestation of the watershed.
Another sign of success is the WPC's devel-
opment of a Watershed Executive Order, which
the Governor signed in August 1999. The Execu-
tive Order affirms the WPC's work on watersheds,
gives direction for agency leaders, and emphasizes
a watershed protection approach involving mul-
tiple ownership and use perspectives.
www.state.hi.us/dbedt/czm/6217.html
HAWAII
Hm
Contact:
Carole McLean
Executive Director
Friends of He'eia State Park
808-247-3156
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• erosion from alien coastal
plants
Primary NFS Pollutants:
• sediment
. • nutrients
Project Activities:
• removal of alien plants
• planting of native species
Results:
• projected decrease in
sediments and nutrients
He'eia Coastal Restoration Project:
Thousands of Volunteers Replace Alien Plants with Native Species
Friends of He'eia State Park is a nonprofit educa-
tional institution that offers interpretive programs
in the sciences and Hawaiian culture: The park sits
on an elevated peninsula on the shores of
Kaneohe Bay. Bordering the park are a unique
fringing reef, a mountain stream, and an ancient
Hawaiian fishpond. This project was part of a
Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii
larger master planning effort to rehabilitate por-
tions of the entire He'eia watershed.
The state's Department of Health has desig-
nated Kaneohe Bay a Water Quality Limited
Segment because of the nonpoint source pollu-
tion, specifically sediments and nutrients.
Kaneohe Bay and He'eia Stream are part of
Hawaii '
-------
Koolaupoko watershed, designated a priority
watershed in need of restoration by Hawaii's
Unified Watershed Assessment Plan. Alien coastal
plants were causing problems by preventing ad-
equate filtering of waters that emanate from the
watershed above before they entered the bay.
Replacing alien plants with native species
The major goal of this project was to expand and
enhance the He'eia Stream and coastal area by re-
placing existing alien coastal plants with native strand
species. The area was surveyed, and plans were
developed for the. removal of the alien plants. Two
40-square-foot test plots were identified to be
cleared .and planted with native species. Some of the
trees removed were 60 feet tall with 16-inch diam-
eters. The trees were cut at the top of the prop roots
so the remaining roots could serve as traps or filters.
The project was very successful in removing
alien flora from the streambanks and in planting
native species such as milo, naupaka, kukui, kou
and puhala in their place. The native species are
expected to provide continuous protection to
Kaneohe Bay by filtering the •waters that come
from the watershed above. Thousands of people
from community groups, schools, service clubs,
businesses, and prison work teams provided labor
for the project. . •
Benefits to waters and the community
Students and professors from Windward Commu-
nity College monitored the water quality of He'eia
Stream at five sites in the watershed. The .commu-
nity benefited from this project through the many
formal presentations made to the public and'from
the Hawaiian Lecture Series, which focused on the
cultural relationship of the land to the sea. The
success of this project has given Friends of He'eia
State Park a huge boost in their continuing efforts
throughout the watershed.
The total cost of this project was $155,000;
funding included f 60,000 in 319 grant funds.
HAWAII
www.state.hi.us/dbedt/czm/6217.html
Hi
~
Contact:
DonHcacock
Department of Land and
Natural Resources
; 3060 Etwa Street
UniM. HI 96766
808-241-3400
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
» aquaculture
• taro production
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• dissolved chemical
fertilizers
• high-nutrient-content
aquaculture effluents
• total dissolved solids
• pesticides
Project Activities:
• integration of aquaculture
with taro production
.,.--.•;.• ;
Results:
• reduced levels of
ammonia, nitrate,
phosphate, and BOD
Integration of Aquaculture with Taro Production:
Nonpoint Source Pollutants Reduced in Demonstration Project
Both aquaculture and taro production play impor-
tant roles in the Hawaiian culture but can some-
times result in significant nonpoint source pollu-
tion. Puali Stream and Nawiliwili Bay have been . .
particularly affected by agricultural discharges of
dissolved chemical fertilizers, nigh-nutrient-con-
tent aquaculture effluents, sediment, total dis-
solved solids, and pesticides.
Niumalu, Hawaii
Hawaii initiated a 319 project to demonstrate
that the integration of aquaculture with taro
production systems can significantly reduce
nonpoint source water pollution: The goal of the
project was to demonstrate that the application of
various best management practices (BMPs) to
integrated aquaculture (fish)—agriculture (taro)
production systems can result in significant eco-
441
Hawaii
-------
logical and economic advantages, including, ulti-
mately, the reduction of nonpoint source pollu-
tion. Equally important was the goal that the
project result in the improvement of the social
and economic conditions of taro growers and
aquaculturists throughout the state.
New approaches to production
The project involved stocking four pairs of fish
tanks with both tilapia and Chinese catfish. Each
taro.treatment then received the effluent from two
fish tanks. Each pair of tanks that discharged into
each loi (pondfield) was integrated with four treat-
menttaro pondfields planted with lehua maoli,
which then drained into adjacent fields planted with
bun long. Two taro controls were integrated with,
and discharged into, a wastewater polyculture pond.
One was solarized and one was not. The
polyculture pond was stocked with fish, taro, and
aquatic plants, dependent on waste products from
the two controls for their nutritional needs. The
system -was expected to control eutrophication,
recycle organic and inorganic wastes, decrease soil
erosion, and abate water pollution.
Quantitative water quality data were collected
bimonthly with the use of a Hydrolab and other
water quality testing equipment to monitor the
following parameters: dissolved oxygen, percent
saturation, pH, conductivity, temperature, turbid-
ity, total dissolved solids, total nitrate, total phos-
phate, total ammonia, and biological oxygen de-
mand (BOD). The purpose of the monitoring was
to assess which BMPs and integrated methods are
most effective as pollution abatement techniques.'
Increased •water quality without affecting crop
yields
This project was successful in demonstrating that
the traditional Hawaiian cultural practice of taro
production can efficiently meet today's standards
of water quality without affecting taro yield. Al- .
though the growth rate of the tilapia and Chinese
catfish were considered relatively slow, it must be
considered that two crops (fish and taro) are being
grown and the goal is to optimize the production
of both while at the same time protecting the
quality of receiving waters. The taro functioned
•well as a "biofilter" to recover nutrients in aquac-
ulture effluent. Overall levels .of ammonia, nitrate,
phosphate, and BOD were 'significantly reduced
after the aquaculture effluent flowed through the
taro l&i.
www2.state.id.us/deq/water/nps/nps.htm
IDAHO
•
Contact:
Lynn Rasmussen
IMRCS District
Conservationist
208-746-9886
Lynn.Rasmussen®id.usda.gov
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• nonirrigated cropland
(headwater sites) •
• rangeland (grazing
activities)
• surface mining operations
• streambank erosion
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• sediment
« nutrients
» high water temperature
Project Activities:
» landowner education
• streambank stabilization
structures
Results:
• 20 tons per acre per year
reduced erosion from erosion
control structures
• 7 tons per acre per year
reduction from sheet and rill
erosion control practices
• 20 percent reduction in use
of pesticides and fertilizers
• increased trout density
Conservation in Hatwai Creek:
Partners Work Together on Four Successful Projects
Nez Perce County, Idaho
Hatwai Creek is 3 miles east of Lewiston, Idaho. pasture/hayland (5 percent), riparian areas
Its -watershed consists of 19,785 acres of crop- (2.5 percent), roads (2 percent), forestland
land (56 percent), rangeland (31.5 percent), (1 percent), mining (1 percent), and farms and
Idaho '
-------
suburban areas (1 percent). The watershed eleva-
tion ranges from 775 feet to 2,964 feet. Annual
precipitation ranges from 10 inches at lower
elevations to 22 inches at higher elevations.
The watershed was listed on Idaho's 303(d)
list and also listed as critical habitat for steelhead
salmon. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) listed steelhead as threatened in' Hatwai
Creek. The creek's beneficial uses are agriculture
water supply, secondary contact recreation, and
salmonid spawning. The nonpoint source pollut-
ants include sediment, nutrients, and high water
temperature. The primary sources of such pollut-
ants are nonirrigated cropland (headwater sites),
rangeland (grazing activities), surface mining
operations, and streambank erosion.
Combined resources to address watershed
In the early 1990s the Nez Perce Soil and Water
Conservation District (NPSWCD) organized
local, state, and federal stakeholders to address
water quality and fishery concerns. The watershed
plan resulting from that partnership consisted of
four separate projects to address water quaEty and
fisheries issues: an EPA 319 project, a U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture Water Quality Incentives
Project, a riparian demonstration project funded
by the Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, and
a USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Pro-
gram project.
The Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) funded a sediment and nutrient
reduction project through section 319 funding. The
project included landowner education for water-
shed management and nonpoint source pollution.
Many structural conservation practices were in-
stalled, including 12 water and sediment control
basins, nine grade stabilization structures, two
ponds, one off-site water development, eight sedi-
ment basins, 8,000 linear feet of terrace, and 5,400
linear feet of riparian improvement practices
(brush mattresses, pole plantings, and revetments).
The USDA Water Quality Incentive Program
project provided incentive payments for nutrient
and pest management and for well testing. Thirty-
five landowners participated and received training
on soil testing, nutrient budgets, Integrated Pest
Management practices, and wellhead protection
practices. More than 11,000 acres were treated
through this program.
The riparian demonstration project began in
1993 and will be completed in 2001. The primary
areas of focus are grazing management on riparian
and upland areas, enhancement of the riparian
areas, streambank stabilization, and fish habitat
improvement.
In June 1999 a special project for reducing
sheet and rill erosion on cropland was initiated
through the support of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service's (NRCS) Environmental
Quality Incentives Program. Conservation prac-
tices will focus on the implementation of direct
seeding systems, a new technology for this area,
and there is a possibility of reducing sheet and rill
erosion by as much as 25 percent.
Success of cooperative efforts
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game col-
lected fish data in Lower Hatwai Creek, monitor-
ing the responses of wild trout, natural rainbow
trout, and steelhead trout. Monitoring results for
the 1995 to 1998 period indicate that the trout
density increased annually throughout the length
of the demonstration project. Trout density in the
project area increased from 0.32 per 100 square
meters in 1995 to a high of 13.24/100 m2 in 1998;
in the control area, on the other hand, trout den-
sity was only 0.87/100 m2 in 1996, 3.00/100 m2 in
1997, and 3.06/100 m2 in' 1998. This improve-
ment is attributed to improved riparian health,
46
fdado
-------
including improved streambank, increased canopy
cover, and decreased stream temperatures^
Nineteen erosion control structures were
installed, reducing concentrated-flow erosion of
sediment by an average of 20 tons per acre per
year. Installing sheet and rill erosion control prac-
tices on 10,000 acres of nonirrigated cropland
resulted in a reduction of 7 tons per acre per year.
Installing 9,000 acres of pest and nutrient manage-
ment practices produced a 20 percent reduction in
the amount of pesticides and fertilizers applied.
The NPSWCD also completed a landowner .."
survey to document technology adoption. Eighty-
five percent of those surveyed had participated in
at least one of the four projects, and 69 percent
confirmed that they would participate again in a
similar project if given the opportunity. Pirty-f our
percent of those surveyed were willing to partici-
pate in watershed advisory groups. Nineteen differ-
ent types of conservation practices were installed
on more than 14,000 acres of land, representing
about three-fourths of the total watershed acreage.
Success is the result of the cooperative efforts
of landowners, the public, and various agencies.
Groups assisting included DEQ, EPA, Idaho De-
partment of Fish and Game, Idaho Soil Conserva-
tion Commission, Nez.Perce County Commission-
ers, Lewiston Senior High School, Lewiston Retired
Senior Volunteer Program, Idaho Department of
Lands, Idaho Department of Water Resources,
NRCS, University of Idaho, local Boy Scout
groups, NMFS, and the NPSWCD.
www2.state.id.us/deq/water/nps/nps.htm
IDAHO
Contact:
David Urban
Palouse-Clearwater
Environmental Institute '
208-882-1444
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• •agriculture
• urban wastewater
• channelization
• streambank erosion
Primary NPS Pollutants:
sediment
nutrients
high temperatures
pathogens
ammonia
Project Activities:
« remeander channel
segments
restore floodplains
revegetate riparian areas
stabilize streambanks
construct wetlands
conduct community
education
Results:
• projected decreases in
sediment, nutrients, high
temperatures
• projected 1 .5-foot drop in
flood elevations
Restoring the Paradise Creek Watershed:
Phased Approach Implemented to Address Pollution and Flooding
Paradise Creek originates on Moscow Mountain
(elev. 4,356 feet) and then flows in a southwesterly
direction for 20 miles, through Moscow, Idaho
(elev. 2,520 feet), ultimately entering the South
Fork of the Palouse River in Pullman, Washing-
, ton. The creek drains 34 square miles and consists .
of 55 stream segments, 49 of which flow through
agricultural fields. Wedands associated with ripar-
ian areas along Paradise Creek are in poor condi-
tion because of past and present management
activities such as draining and tiling.
Moscow and Pullman, Idaho
Today, Paradise Creek is a simplified ecosys-
tem adversely affected by habitat destruction,
excessive sediment, nutrients, high temperatures,
altered flow, pathogens, and ammonia, •which in
combination have significantly decreased its bio-
logical integrity. Cropland is the most prevalent
land use (about 73 percent) in the Paradise Creek
•watershed but provides the least diverse plant
community type. Historically, Paradise Creek sup-
ported cold water fisheries; currently, the creek
supports only limited nongame fish species. Be-
Watvo '
-------
cause negative impacts on the stream continue to
increase along with growth in the urban areas of
Moscow and Pullman, it is becoming even more
difficult for the creek to repair itself.
A multiphase approach
For the past decade, the Palouse-Clearwater Environ-
mental Institute (PCEI), a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organi-
zation, has directed watershed restoration projects in
Paradise Creek. From 1994 to the present, PCEI has
led a seven-phase comprehensive watershed restora-
tion approach in the Paradise Creek watershed. In
addition to 319 funding, support for this project was
provided by a multitude of partners, including Mos-
cow School District No. 281; numerous private indi-
viduals and businesses; City of Moscow; Latah Soil
and Water'Conservation District; University of Idaho;
Palouse Conservation District in Whitman County,
Washington; City of Pullman, Washington; Idaho
Department of Fish and Game; Idaho Department
of Water Resources; Idaho Department of Lands,
Soil Conservation Commission; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; US. Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resources Conservation Service; and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. ,
Phase 1 of the project began in fall 1995, and
the project continues today with restoration efforts
in Phase 7. Most of the activities have involved
floodplain and wetland restoration, streambanfc
stabilization and revegetation, and relocation of the
previously straightened stream channel to its natu-
ral pattern in the Paradise Creek watershed. These
efforts have involved the cooperation and partici-
pation of both public and private landowners along
the Paradise Creek corridor, dealing with various
contributors of nonpoint source pollution.
In 1995 Phase 1 began with the restoration of a
floodplain and streambanks at a site owned by the
Moscow School District Before the restoration
project, this section of Paradise Creek was
channelized with unstable banks. The riparian zone
was farmed, and plant diversity along the stream
channel was low Phase 1 involved efforts to
retneander 1,200 feet of stream channel, as weE as
streambank stabilization practices, including the plant-
ing of more than 750 native plants on some 3,000
square feet of streambank and 5 acres of floodplain.
Also in 1995, the commencement of Phase 2
involved the development of wastewater treat-
ment wetlands with the help of local community
volunteers and students, who planted the newly
constructed cells with 23,860 native herbaceous
wetland plants. The wetlands were completed in
1998, and PCEI has given tours of the site to
classes from universities and to local groups like
the Native Plant Society.
In 1996 Phase 3 projects were aimed at flood-
plain restoration, streambank stabilization, and the
remeandering of a 1,250-foot segment of the creek
owned by the University of Idaho that had previ-
ously been channelized. The creek's path had been
tamed, but it had little value for flood control,
aesthetics, or wildlife. The floodplain was therefore
revegetated with a native riparian plant community,
and a sinuous, low-flow channel with bioengineered
bank stabilization and habitat structures was con-
structed. In addition, biofilters, including grassy
swales and "pocket" wetlands, were installed to
treat storm water runoff from a planned parking
lot. Models of the completed project showed a
drop in flood elevations of up to 1.5 feet.
The Phase 4 projects, begun in 1999, focused
on streambank and floodplain restoration in pri-
vate backyards along Paradise Creek. Need for
this project was high, as demonstrated by one
landowner's loss of a 60-square-foot strip of her
backyard to streambank erosion. Interested land-
owners provided buffer strips. The widths of their
strips varied based on the erosion potential of
their reach of Paradise Creek.
48
Idaho
-------
Restoring riparian areas on agricultural land -
along Paradise Creek was the goal for Phase 5.
Before restoration, the stream channel had been
straightened and acted as a drainage ditch for
active agricultural land directly adjacent to the
stream. As part of the restoration project, 3,600
feet of stream channel was relocated to follow its
estimated historical path. Vulnerable banks were
stabilized, and two new wetlands were excavated
to act as a flood storage and groundwater re-
.charge area and to provide habitat for wildlife. In
spring 2000 PCEI and the landowner planted a
150-foot-wide buffer strip with a mix of native
woody plant species.
Phase 6 involved the urbanized riparian
floodplain and associated wetlands on public land
along Paradise Creek within Moscow. Work took
place along two reaches of the creek, resulting in
the revegetation of more than 4,000 feet of
stream by fall 2000.
Phase 7 of the project is under way, focusing
on the implementation of nonpoint source controls
to achieve Total Maximum Daily Load allocations.
The project includes construction of animal waste
biofiltratiori swales and treatment wetlands, reveg-
etation of riparian areas, streambank stabilization,
and agricultural land restoration activities in asso-
ciation with other local agencies.
www2.state.id.us/deq/water/nps/nps.htm
IDAHO
•IB '
Contact:
Craig Thomas
Bear Lake Regional
Commission
208-945-2333
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture
• stream channelization
• streambank modifications
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• nutrients
Project Activities:
« streambank stabilization
• fencing
•.••••. ' ; •. •" ".
Results:
• decreased
sedimentation— more
than 200,000 cubic feet
of sediment retained on
streambank
Streambank Stabilization in the Thomas Fork Watershed:
Photo Monitoring Sells Landowners on Bank Stabilization
The Thomas Fork watershed covers 150,100 acres,
with 39 percent in Bear Lake County, Idaho, and 61
percent in Lincoln County Wyoming. The watershed
is near where the states of Idaho, Wyoming, and
Utah meet arid is a subwatershed of the Bear River
Basin. Because of the latitude and elevation of the
watershed, the area typically has short, cool summers
and long, cold winters. The watershed receives about
50 percent of its annual precipitation during the
winter months. Most of this precipitation falls as
snow and is stored in the snowpack at higher eleva-
tions for spring and summer runoff.
Thomas Fork is a tributary to the Bear River
and is upstream from the point where the Bear River
is diverted into Bear Lake. Bear Lake, which is half
Thomas Fork Watershed, Idaho '
in Idaho and half in Utah, is a unique body of water
with about 110 square miles of surface area. It con-
tains five endemic fish species. In Idaho the lake has
been designated a Special Resource Water.
The designated uses of Thomas Fork are
cold water biota and salmonid spawning. The
stream is listed among Idaho's 303(d) "water
quality limited stream segments." The pollutants
the state has identified as contributing to the
watershed's water quality problems are sediment,
nutrients, and habitat alteration. The primary .
nonpoint sources of pollutants to surface water
are cropland and rangeland, animal feeding areas,
riparian areas, stream channelization, and
streambank modification.
idano'
| 49
-------
Streambank stabilization
The Bear Lake Regional Commission, a bistate
organization, worked in partnership with the Bear
Lake Soil and Water Conservation District, U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and local landowners to
reduce the pollutant loading to Bear Lake that
comes from the Bear River and Thomas Fork. The
Soil Conservation District developed a watershed
management plan, funded through an Idaho state
agricultural water quality project.
The plan identified 12 critical areas needing
treatment. Remediation activities for the first area
selected focused on riparian and streambank
problems and encompassed 100,842 linear feet.
This area was further refined to a 20,000-foot
segment of high streambank erosion in the Idaho
portion of the Thomas Fork watershed.
The Bear Lake Regional Commission re-
ceived 319 funding to install a series of best
management practices, in partnership with area
landowners. The types of practices employed
included rock stream barbs, bank shaping and
reseeding, tree revetment, rock riprap, channel
armoring, fencing, and animal water gaps. The
project was successful in treating 4,767 linear
feet of streambank, installing 41 rock stream
barbs, and installing 2,000 linear feet of perma-
nent fencing.
Decreased sedimentation
The stabilization work resulted in a marked de-
crease in the amount of sediment entering Tho-
mas Fork. Three types of monitoring techniques
were used to measure the results of the stabiliza-
tion work: photo points, water chemistry, and
surveyed stream transects. The stream transects
have revealed that for each foot of treated stream-
bank as compared to an untreated site, 50 cubic
feet of streambank material was retained on the
banks over a 3-year period. This quantity of re-
tained material per foot, when expanded to the
entire treated area, amounts to more than 200,000
cubic feet of material retained.
Photo monitoring helped demonstrate the
rewards of bank stabilization work to other land-
owners. As a result, another 4,000 linear feet of
streambank is scheduled for remediation in 2001.
ILLINOIS
www.epa.state.il.us/water/watershed/nonpointLsource.html
Htm
: Contact:
1 Scott Tomkins
\ WKIOisEPA
! Bureau of Water
i! «D. Box 19276
i Spnngfteld.il. 62794-9276
ji 217-782-3362
i sco«,tomkins®epa,state,H.us
i
I
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (farming
operations)
:
Primary NPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment • sediment-reducing practices
(installation of water and
sediment control basins.
conservation tillage.
integrated crop
management, livestock
exclusion, filter strips,
terraces, wildlife habitat
management)
Results:
» 90 percent reduction in
sediment loading
Lake Pittsfield Project:
Ninety Percent Reduction in Sediment Loading Achieved
Lake Pittsfield was constructed in 1961 to serve as
a flood control structure and as a public water
supply for the city of Pittsfield. Pittsfield is a
western Illinois community of some 4,500 people.
Pittsfield, Illinois
The Blue Creek watershed, a 7,000-acre watershed
draining into Lake Pittsfield, is predominantly
agricultural, consisting primarily of rotational
corn and soybean cropland.
501
Illinois
-------
Sedimentation was a major water quality
problem affecting Lake Pittsfield. Sediment from
farming operations, gullies, and shoreline erosion
had decreased die capacity of the lake by 25
percent over the past 33 years.
Project design
Based on a thorough analysis of lake problems and
pollution control needs conducted under the Clean
Lakes Program, project coordinators developed a
strategy to reduce sediment transport into Lake
Pittsfield. The keystone of the land management
strategy was the construction of 29 water and
sediment control basins (WASCOBs) throughout
the watershed, including a large basin at the upper
end of the lake. Funds from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentive
Project, Illinois's Conservation Practices Program,
and the Illinois EPA 319 Program supported instal-
lation of additional sediment-reducing practices
such as conservation tillage, integrated crop man-
agement, livestock exclusionj filter strips, terraces,
WASCOBs, and wildlife habitat management.
Land-based data and a geographic information
system (GIS) •were used to develop watershed maps
of sediment sources and sediment yields.
Monitoring conducted
. In 1994 die project was approved for the section
319 National Monitoring Program. Money has
been approved until 2004, allowing monitoring to
continue for 9 years past installation of the sedi-
ment retention basins.
The objective of the Lake Pittsfield section
319 project was to evaluate the effectiveness of
WASCOBs in reducing sediment delivery into die •
lake. Water quality monitoring consisted of tribu-
tary sampling after rainstorms to determine sedi-
ment loads, pre- and post-project lake water qual-
ity sampling (104 Clean Lakes Phase I and II
Assessments) at three lake sites to determine
trends in water quality, and lake sedimentation rate
monitoring to determine changes in sediment
deposition rates and patterns.
Key successes and lessons learned
'A 90 percent reduction in sediment loading to
Lake Pittsfield was achieved through the installa-
tion of water and sediment control-basins. The
large sediment basin covering 147 acre-feet up-
stream of die lake was more effective, in general,
than the smaller basins upstream. The 'effective-
ness of the 29 smaller upland basins was depen-
dent on watershed geology and basin position.
Stream stabilization of Blue Creek was an
important component of die overall program to
reduce sediment loading to Lake Pittsfield. Install-
ing low stone weirs prevented further channel
incision and mass wasting of streambanks.
Strong local partnerships, along with inter-
agency corporation, were key to achieving the
desired success of this project.
Illinois ]
151
-------
ILLINOIS
www.epa.state.il.us/water/watershed/nonpoint_source.html
MHI
1
Contact:
Scott Ristnu
Kiinois EPA
Bureau of Water
PO, Box 19276
Springfield. IL 62794-9276
217-782-3362
seott,ristau®epa.stateJ.us
Primary Sources of Primary NPS Polfutants: 1
Pollution: . . sediment
• land development
« channelization
» urban runoff
~ "• .
'reject Activities:
detention basin retrofit
wetland swale
sand filters
shoreline and streambank
stabilization
stream corridor restoration
native plant installation
:
Results:
• no impairments due to
NPS pollution on 2000
Illinois Water Quality
Report
Restoration of the Flint Creek Watershed:
Restoration Partnership Completes Multiple Projects
The Flint Creek watershed covers approximately
28 square miles of Lake and Cook Counties in
northeastern Illinois. The watershed includes
several high-quality wetlands and lakes, as well as
Flint Creek. The creek was listed in the Illinois
Water Quality Report (1994-1995) as being im-
paired, in part, due to nonpoint source pollution
from land development, channelization, and urban
runoff. Problems in the watershed included shore-
line erosion, streambank erosion, and debris
blocking areas of the stream.
In spring 1996 the first of many projects
using section 319 funding began in the Flint
Creek watershed. The approach of the restora-
tion partnership was to implement several
projects to make a difference in the quality of
water and aquatic habitats in the watershed. The
planners also wanted to involve the community
through information and education. The restora-
tion partnership consisted of the Northeastern
Illinois Planning Commission, Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Village of Barrington, Village
of Lake Zurich, Lake County Forest Preserve
District, Good Shepherd Hospital, Natural Areas
Ecosystem Management, Applied Ecological
Services, and Citizens for Conservation, a local
citizens group.
, Lake and Cook Counties, Illinois
Urban runoff BMPs
The project involved retrofitting outdated prac-
tices and installing new practices to deal with •
urban runoff. One component involved, retrofit-
ting an outdated basin that was no longer effective
at handling runoff. Different pools of •water were
. created for settling, as well as a shallow marsh for
filtering. An installed •walkway created an opportu-
nity for a nearby elementary school to use the
basin as a "living classroom," with a place to view
aquatic plant and animal life.
A wetland swale was created to remove pollut-
ants and reduce the flow rate of runoff coming
from an auto repair shop, landscape nursery, office
buildings, and roads. The swale was constructed in a
long, linear shape with a forebay where heavier solids
would be captured. Sand filters, which were effective
in achieving pollution control, were constructed
using PVC piping and standard manhole structures
connecting the settling chamber and sand filter.
In addition, 250 feet of shoreline and 5,600
feet of streambank were stabilized using a combi-
nation of bioengineering techniques such as A-
jacks, lunker structures, cok fiber rolls, brush
layering, willow staking, and native plant installa-
tion. Lunker structures, made of real or recycled
plastic lumber, were used to form artificial under-
cut banks. These structures stabilized the toe of
521
B.'inofi
-------
the streambank and -were found to be effective at
creating a cover for aquatic habitat. A vegetative
zone was created by using A-jacks to stabilize the
shoreline and fiber rolls to reduce the effects of
wave action. Native plants were then installed in
the fiber roll and the newly created zone.
Many impediments to fish migration, includ-
ing debris blockages and logjams, were removed.
Riffles were installed to dissipate stream energy
and improve aquatic habitat. Through prairie and
savanna restoration, native deep-rooted vegetative
communities were used to stabilize the soil and
enhance infiltration.
Normative woody vegetation had been grow-
ing along the banks of Flint Creek, allowing an
undercover that was not effective in stabilizing the
banks to grow. A combination of techniques,
including physical removal, herbicide treatment,
and burning, was used to remove the nonnative
vegetation. Native plants •were installed., and some
subsequent reinstallation was necessary. These
efforts resulted in stable slopes, vegetated'mostiy
with native species.
The Flint Creek projects were completed at
the end of 1999 and will continue to be moni-
tored and maintained. The goals of the restora-
tion planners have been accomplished, and the
result is evident in the water quality of Flint
Creek. The Illinois Water Quality Report (2000)
now lists Flint Creek as having no impairments
due to nonpoint sources. Successful restoration
came about with the help of both municipalities,
as well as some landowners who continue the
projects in the watershed. The Flint Creek water-
shed restoration is an example of how completing
multiple projects and educating communities can
make a difference in die quality of a watershed
today and in the future.
www.stateJn.us/idem/owm/planbr/wsmAvatershed/NPSplan/NPSManagementPlan.pdf
INDIANA
HUffll
Contact:
Amy Reeves
1 00 North Senate Avenue
P.O. Box 60 15
Indianapolis, IN 46206
317-232-6566
alreeves®dem.state.in.us
Primary Sources of
'Pollution:
• deforestation for row crops
• livestock access
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
• sediment
• high water temperature
Project Activities:
• riparian reforestation
. • • • .
Results:
* planted nearly 300 acres
of riparian buffer
Blue River Riparian Reforestation:
The Nature Conservancy Gets Landowners Involved
The Blue River originates in Washington County,
Indiana, and flows south to form the natural
boundary between Crawford County, Indiana, and
Harrison County, Indiana, continuing south to the
Ohio River. The Blue River has been designated a
State Natural and Scenic River and is a favorite
recreation site in Indiana. The river is home to
many globally rare fish and mussels. The southern
.fork of the Blue River flows through die Harrison
Washington, Crawford, arid Harrison Counties, Indiana •
Crawford State Forest, and the river also flows
near Wyandotte Caves. Much of the northern part
of the river was located in a primarily agricultural
area, which was cleared of riparian forest to make
•way for row crops and livestock access. The prob-
lems "that resulted include reduced bank stabiliza-
tion and lack of filtration of nutrients. The lack
of shading and higher turbidity have also caused
the temperature of the water to rise.
-Indiana
153
-------
Role of The Nature Conservancy
In 1997 the state of Indiana provided |34,865 of
section 319 dollars to The Nature Conservancy to
replant the riparian forest and to educate the
community on its purpose, progress, and results.
The Nature Conservancy brought a large group
together for the project, including landowners,
Friends of the Blue River, Harrison County
Cattlemen's Association, U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Washington County Farm Bureau, Indi-
ana University Southeast, University of Louisville,
and Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Division of Forestry. This group began in 1994 to
coordinate a comprehensive river conservation
approach.
The Nature Conservancy placed the project
in the hands of a coordinator, Allen Pursell, with
the goals of aiding landowners in riparian refores-
tation, teaching reforestation best management
practices, and publicizing its work. The group
advertised its intent to aid landowners in reforest-
ing portions of their land through local papers, a
field day, and one-on-one contact with landown-
ers. Personal contact proved to be the most suc-
cessful method, and seven landowners agreed to
implement riparian reforestation.
By the end of the contract, The Nature Con-
servancy, with the help of the seven landowners
and a professional forester, had planted 72.1 acres
along the corridor of the Blue River with 56,000
trees. These acres translated to 3.1 miles of corri-
dor reforestation. Tree species planted included bur
oak, shumar oak, black walnut, yellow-poplar,
swamp white oak, white ash, and black cherry. The
landowners agreed at the start of the contract to
enroll each area as a Classified Forest if it qualified
for the program; of die seven, five have qualified.
Sharing lessons learned
During the course of this first grant, The Nature
Conservancy learned the best ways to involve
landowners, to plant trees at a high density for best
results, and the importance of keeping weeds out
of seedling areas. They have shared this knowledge
with many other groups with interest in riparian
reforestation. They also shared their lessons learned
by sponsoring a field day on tree planting for gov-
ernment and private sector conservation practitio- '
ners. All attendees planned to begin a riparian tree
planting program in their areas. ;
Indiana has given The Nature Conservancy a
second 319 grant for Blue River riparian reforesta- '.
tion. Under this new grant, which started in Au-
gust 1999, The Nature Conservancy has signed on
13 landowners. They have also planted 103 acres ;
of riparian buffers, representing 4.3 miles of
riparian zone. ALL planted lands have completed or
are going through the process of enrollment in
the Classified Forest or Classified Riparian Land
program, which allows landowners tax breaks and
periodic free inspections by a professional forester j
on at least 10 acres of private land that has been
left or restored to forest. In Washington County,
4,000 feet of fencing was placed on a dairy farm
to exclude the livestock from the Blue River. The
riparian area just outside the fence was planted :
with native hardwoods and is going through the
classification process. To date, a total of almost
300 acres of Land has been planted.
541
i Indiana
-------
www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/wsm/watershed/NPSplan/N PSManagementPlan.pdf
INDIANA
Bali
Contact:
Jody Arthur
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
1 00 North Senate Avenue .
Indianapolis, IN 46206-601 5
317-234-1424 .
jarthur@dem.state.in.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (spray irrigation
of lagoon water,
agricultural cultivation,
chemical application to
crop field, storm events)
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• nitrates
• phosphorus
• total suspended solids
Project Activities: Results:
• constructed wetland system • reduction of more than
60 ppm in nitrate
concentrations
• improved wildlife habitat
Little Pine Creek and Indian Watersheds:
Constructed Wetland System Averts Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
Throughout the Indian and little Pine Creek water-
sheds, the concentrations of nitrates, phosphorus,
and total suspended solids in the stream water are
among the highest in the nation. The largest inputs
of chemicals to streams occur from March through
June, corresponding to spray irrigation of lagoon
water, agricultural cultivation, chemical application
to crop fields, and storm events. Because these
pollutants reach agricultural ditches via overland
flow and tile drain systems, best management
practices that can reduce pollutant levels without
significantly interrupting drainage of cropland or
converting cropland to other uses are needed.
Filtering pollutants
In 1999 the Department of'Forestry and Natural
Resources at Purdue University used 319 funding
provided by Indiana to construct an experimental
wetland system to remove nonpoint source pollut-
ants from agricultural ditches before the pollutants
reached the'more natural parts of litde Pine Creek
and the Wabash River. Agricultural ditch water is
pumped through a series of wetlands to filter out
the pollutants and is then returned to the ditch.
Tippecanoe County, Indiana
Monitoring results
Although the effectiveness of this wetland system
in reducing nonpoint source pollution is still being
assessed, follow-up monitoring results are variable
but promising. Preliminary results show a reduc-
tion of more than 60 parts per million in nitrate
concentration in the water treated by the system
after an intense rain event. The reduction in ni-
trate concentration varies depending on spray
irrigation timing and rainfall. Monitoring the
success of this project in terms of the nonpoint
source pollution mitigation continues. Various
wildlife species, including reptiles and amphibians,
birds, and mammals, have colonized the wetlands,
showing their value as habitat.
This project has-been successful in another
important way—increasing the awareness of the
public and the next generation of environmental
stewards about nonpoint source pollution. Since
its inception, the project has provided many op-
portunities for individuals and classes to get in-
volved in designing and constructing the wetlands
and evaluating their effects on water quality, habi-
tat, and wildlife.
Indiana
155
-------
IOWA
•H ' "•
Contacts:
UbboAgcna
: DNR Nonpofrit Source
: Coordinator
SI 5-28 1-6402
i Kevin B,ukins
QNR Nonpoint Source
Information Specialist
5IS-28I-839S
www.state.ia. us/epd/wtrq/npsource/nonpt/nps_0900. htm
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« agriculture
• cattle watering
Primary NFS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment . , • cattle exclusion
« stream corridor
! . , improvements
• sediment basins
• innovative farming
practices
Results:
• reduction of 12,285 tons of
soil delivery into Bigalk
Creek (projected future -
reductions of 5, 000 tons/
year)
• livestock manure reduced
by 50 percent
• rebound of rainbow trout
population, including .
natural reproduction
A stream corridor restoration and watershed improvement project reduced
nutrient and sediment delivery to Bigalk Creek.
Bigalk Creek in nordieast Iowa historically has
been used for watering catde. As a result,
streambanks along die creek were severely de-
graded, causing extremely high sediment delivery
from streambank erosion.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources
(using section 319 funds), die Iowa Department
of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, and die
Natural Resources Conservation Service
partnered in a 5-year effort (from 1995 to 1999)
to reduce erosion in die watershed, hoping to also
increase the rainbow trout concentration.
Bigalk Creek Watershed Project:
Rainbow Trout Population Rebounds
Howard County, Iowa
Cattle exclusion and BMPs to reduce soil
erosion
The first major step in the Bigalk Creek watershed
project involved fencing catde off a primary
stretch of the stream where most of the trout
stocking takes place. Nose pumps were used to
provide water for the cattle while keeping diem
away from die streambank. The project dien
focused on a subwatershed of 3,140 acres closest
to die 1.2 miles of stockable stream and complete
restoration of the stream corridor by the Iowa
DNR, which included reshaping die streambank,
installing rock riprap, constructing fish hides, and
reseeding die bank.
Improvements to the stream corridor were
augmented by preventive measures in the water-
shed to reduce erosion. Practices used to achieve
sediment delivery reduction goals included grade
and stream stabilization, strip cropping, sediment
basins, no-till, grass waterways, and grass/legume
A naturally spawned rainbow trout from Bigalk
Creek. Iowa DNR fisheries biologists now consider
the creek Iowa's most productive stream in terms of
natural rainbow trout reproduction.
56
fowa
-------
rotation. These practices are targeted at protecting
the integrity of stream restoration work accom-
plished. '
Rebounding trout population
The Bigalk Creek project demonstrated the feasi-
bility of several new and innovative resource
management systems. Major accomplishments
include reducing sediment delivery to the creek by
50 percent, reducing the amount of livestock
manure reaching the stream by 50 percent, and
reducing the amount of sediment from
streambank erosion by 60 percent. Erosion was
reduced by 12,285 tons of soil in the Bigalk Creek
watershed during the project. It is estimated that
if current sediment control structures remain in
place, erosion will be reduced by more than 5,000
• tons a year.in the future.
The rainbow trout population has also made
a comeback. Bigalk Creek has now become only
the third stream in Iowa with documented natural
reproduction of rainbow trout.
www.state.ia.us/epd/wtrq/npsource/nonpt/nps_0900.htfn
IOWA
jjm ' • ' ' •-•'.•• ••-" •• - • •.
Contacts:
UbboAgena
DNR Nonpoint Source
Coordinator
515-281-6402
Kevin Baskins
DNR Nonpoint Source
Information Specialist
515-281-8395
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« agriculture
« failing septic systems
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• sediment
» pesticides
.• nutrients.
• bacteria
Project Activities:
• agricultural BMPs
• sediment control basins,
ponds, and constructed
wetlands
« septic system upgrades
Results:
• sediment reduced by 60
percent
• nutrients, pesticides, and
organic materials reduced
by 50 percent
• bacteria reduced by 50
percent
The Lake Fisher Water Quality Project:
Chipped Tires Help Protect Public Water Supply
When the 100-acre Lake Fisher reservoir was
constructed in 1936 as a Works Progress Ad-
ministration (WPA) Project, it was to serve a
purely functional purpose as a water supply for
local residents. Today, that reservok has the
capacity to hold 326 million gallons of water,
making Lake Fisher the primary source of ,
drinking water for the 3,100 residents in and,
around the city of Bloomfield in southeast
Iowa. Over time, Lake Fisher has also become a
notable fishery and home to Iowa's state record
largemouth bass.
Originally 12 to 15 feet deep, the southwest
leg of the lake is now only 3 to 5 feet deep be-
cause of soil erosion from the lake's watershed.
This portion of the lake has silted so extensively
Bloomfield, Iowa
that it can no longer handle drainage from the
land above it. During heavy precipitation, this
portion of the lake fills until water spills onto the
road, closing South Lake Fisher Drive. The water
draining from 1,380 acres of land in Lake Fisher's
•watershed deposits an estimated 2,100'tons of
sediment each year to the reservoir.
Treating the public water supply also is be-
coming more challenging because of the sedimen-
tation of Lake Fisher. Often attached to the par-
ticles of dirt are pesticides and nutrients that can
degrade the quality of water in the lake. Water
quality is also hampered by the presence of bacte-
ria from private sewage disposal systems that .
simply don't work .as well as intended because of
the soil characteristics of the watershed.
Iowa 1
IS7
-------
Tom Sperfslage, Lake Fisher Watershed
Project Coordinator, handles chipped tire
used to upgrade 19 private household
septic systems In the watershed.
Partnership for land
management
The Lake Fisher project is a
partnership that provides govern-
mental funding and assistance to
local farmers, landowners, and
residents who want to improve
the quality of their drinking water
supply now and in the future.
Beginning in 1998, the 3-year
watershed protection project has
used funding from various spon-
sors (including 319 funding, the
Water Protection Fund adminis-
tered by the Iowa Department of
Agriculture and Land Stewardship, and the City of
Bloomfield) to fund structural improvements on
properties designed to reduce the amount of sedi-
ment flowing into the lake.
Project activities include treating more dian
900 acres of agricultural land with a combination
of terraces, water and sediment control basins,
ponds, and constructed wedands. The project also
includes nutrient management, whole farm plan-
ning, manure management, bank stabilization, and
abandoned well plugging.
An innovative approach to upgrading private
septic systems was also used, resulting in 19 of the
22 failing systems (86 percent) in die watershed
being improved to meet the Iowa Administrative
Code. Although the original goal of die project
was to upgrade five systems during the life of the
project, this number was greatly increased because
of a grant of nearly $83,000 from the Waste
Management Division of the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources. Through this grant, chipped
tires were used as aggregate in the secondary
treatment portions of the new systems installed.
In all, more than 300 tons of chipped tires were
used as part of die project for septic systems.
Monthly samples are being collected over the next
2 years to measure die treatment efficiency of the
chipped tire medium.
Results of project activities
Preliminary results show that all three of the
project's original goals have been met. As a result
of implementing agricultural best management
practices, die sediment load reaching Lake Fisher
has been reduced by 60 percent. The amount of
nutrients, pesticides, and organic materials flow-
ing into die lake has been reduced by 50 percent.
As a result of septic system improvements, die
amount of bacteria delivered to die lake has also
been reduced by 50 percent. Meeting these objec-
tives will improve die quality of Lake Fisher for
the more than 3,100 people who rely on it for
drinking water.
58B53 Iowa
-------
sw\ww.state.ia.us/epd/wtrq/npsource/nonpt/nps_0900.htm
IOWA
IHH '
Contacts:
Ubbo Agena
DNR Nonpoint Source
Coordinator
515-281-6402
Kevin Baskins
DNR Nonpoint Source
Information Specialist
515-281-8395
... . — . — „ „ ., __
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture "
;! '• ' - "' ' ' """"" -'. --.--- ------ .-.. ,- •
Primary IMPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment • dredging
' » soil conservation BMPs
- ^
Results:
• sediment delivery
reduced by 66 percent
• life expectancy of lake
extended by more than
1 00 years
Pine Creek Water Quality Project:
Life Expectancy of Pine Lakes Extended
By the early 1990s, the water in the Pine Lakes
might have been murky, but the eventual fate of
the two lakes was unmistakably clear. If nothing
was done, the Hardin County lakes created more
than a half century ago by impounding water
from Pine Creek would eventually choke to death
on the rich Iowa soil of the watershed. The degra-
dation had even reached the point where it could
be quantified on the 75-acre Upper Pine Lake: in
1991 studies indicated that Upper Pine Lake
would be completely filled with sediment in less
than 45 years. Lower Pine Lake, Iowa's first man-
made, state-owned lake, had also lost nearly half
of its original volume.
Doing nothing was not an option. The Pine
Lakes and the surrounding 572-acre state park '
draw some 500,000 visitors annually.
Streambank stabilization was a key component used to reduce sediment
delivery at Pine Lakes.
Hardin County, Iowa
Combined efforts to reduce sediment delivery
From 1993 to!998, the Pine Creek Water Quality
Project, through the leadership of the Iowa De-
partment of Natural Resources (DNR), undertook
a monumental effort to reduce sediment in the
Pine Lakes. Through intensive dredging of the
Lower and Upper Pine Lakes, DNR set out to
increase the volume of the lakes and restructure
the bottom for better fishing habitat. In 1997 DNR
removed more than 179,000 cubic yards of sedi-
ment from the two lakes. Dredging increased the
average depth of 5 to 7 feet in Upper Pine Lake to
12 to 14 feet throughout a large portion of the lake.
Lower Pine Lake now has a depth of approxi-
mately 15 feet in its west end, compared to 8 to 10
fee.t before the dredging.
Dredging alone, however, would result in
treating only a symptom of the overall problem.
The effort to take accumulated sediment out of
the lakes would be worthwhile only if the amount
of soil coming in could be significantly reduced.
By implementing a variety of soil conservation
measures on their land, farmers in the watershed
have helped to reduce the amount of sediment
flowing into the Pine Lakes. Practices like stream-
bank stabilization, terracing, no-till and contour
farming, and critical area seeding have all made a
positive difference in the watershed.
Iowa
159
-------
A total of 180,000 cubic yards of sediment was
dredged from Pine Lakes as part of a comprehensive
project that targeted watershed protection and lake
renovation.
Extended life
expectancy
Overall, the Pine
Creek Water Quality
Project has reduced
the amount of sedi-
ment coming into the
lake by more than
4,000 tons per year, a
66 percent reduction. Not only is the water
cleaner for swimming and fishing, but the water-
shed improvements and dredging have also ex-
tended the life expectancy of Upper Pine Lake
alone by more than 100 years.
KANSAS
The Pine Lakes are an excellent example of a
combined resource enhancement and protection
effort by the Iowa DNR. But the success of this
project would not have been possible without the
work and commitment of dedicated landowners
in the watershed. In addition to 319 support,
project sponsors included the Iowa Publicly
Owned Lakes Program, U.S. Department of.
Agriculture Water Quality Incentive Program,'
Iowa Financial Incentive Program, Emergency
Conservation Program, Section 314 Clean Lakes
Program, and local Friends of Pine Lake organi-
zation; Marine Fuel Tax funds were also used to
support the project.
www.kdhe.state.ks.us/nps/index.html
HUH
Contact:
Nate Davis
Wichita State University
1 S'tS North Fairmount
Wkhto, KS 6726
-------
Wetlands were created to catch runoff water and reduce the nutrients entering
the ponds.
form of nitrates and total phosphorus were found
in the ponds, prompting the growth of excessive
aquatic vegetation and algae blooms.- The golf
course superintendent had reported fish kills in
the past, likely due to the biodegradation and
subsequent oxygen depletion caused by these
algae blooms. Periods of elevated pesticide con-
tamination were evident, typically in the spring
and early summer during major application times,
and herbicides had caused violations of water
quality criteria during those.times. In addition, the
algaecide copper sulfate was being used to control
algae .blooms. Copper sulfate can have extremely
toxic effects on aquatic organisms, especially when
found in combination with various pesticides. An
assessment of macroinvertebrates revealed that
only a few tolerant organisms inhabited the ponds.
Alterations in golf course maintenance
Because of these circumstances, researchers at
WSU selected Braeburn as the site for BMP
• implementation. In cooperation with golf course
superintendent Kent Trexler, various alterations to
golf course maintenance procedures were imr
posed. Chemical application procedures were .
modified, using slow-release fertilizers and apply-
ing chemicals at a reduced rate. Thirty-foot buffer
zones in which no chemicals were applied were
established around the perimeters of the ponds
on the golf course, increasing grass density and
biomass to aid filtration of runoff. The use of
copper sulfate for algae control was' discontinued;
instead, biological controls (grass carp), as well as
aquatic 'dye to act as a photoinhibitor to the algae,
were used. Rainwater drainage patterns also were
changed to route runoff into filtration areas, not
directly into the ponds as done previously.
Water quality improvements
Post-BMP water sampling, conducted for more
than a year in two ponds at Braeburn, revealed
that nitrates were reduced by more than 80 per-
cent and total phosphorus values dropped by 40
percent and 60 percent in the two ponds. In addi-
tion, contamination from pesticides was all but
eliminated. An assessment of macroinvertebrates
showed an increase from 5 families collected
before BMP implementation to 16 families
sampled following BMPs, along with a shift from
tolerant organisms to those more sensitive to
•water quality such as mayfly, butterfly, dragonfly,
and damselfly larvae. These improvements in
macroinvertebrate family richness provide biologi-
cal evidence that BMPs are improving water qual-
ity conditions on the golf course.
A backhoe removed accumulated sediment from
the pond in an effort to improve aquatic habitat
and control future algae blooms.
Kansas 1
I 61
-------
KANSAS
www.kdhe.state.ks.us/nps/index.html
HUB
Contact:
Don Snethcn
Kansas Department of
Health and Environment
Nonpoint Source Section
i 3-8S-296-5S67
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« failing on-sitewastewater
treatment systems
__.„ ..- _ „.„!. _J . ._
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
• fecal coliform bacteria
• total suspended solids
(TSS)
Project Activities:
• constructed wetlands
Results:
•' decreased concentrations
of TSS, fecal coliform
bacteria, biochemical
oxygen demand,
ammonia, phosphorus
1
i
p-
,' L
On-site Sewage Disposal on Difficult Sites:
Special Conditions Demand Alternative Response
Many of the soils in Kansas present challenges to
the on-site disposal of domestic wastewater.
When site evaluations reveal shallow or heavy clay
soils, bedrock close to the surface, or other limit-
ing conditions, alternatives to conventional septic
tank lateral fields are needed to provide adequate
treatment and disposal of the wastewater. Con-
structed wedands are a relatively inexpensive
technology to achieve this. Although constructed
wetlands have been successfully used in other
states, die Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE), which is responsible for
die on-site wastewater program, funded die instal-
lation of some demonstration systems that were
monitored for 2 years to verify tiieir effectiveness
in die midwestern climate.
In cooperation with the See-Kan Resource
Conservation and Development District, which
covers nine counties in southeastern Kansas, three
home sites with failing wastewater systems were
identified. The sites were characteristic of the
shallow, heavy clay soils that predominate in die
area, and the homeowners were willing to partici-
pate in the demonstration with the hope that the
, Southeastern Kansas
data would assist odiers having similar problems.
KDHE designed the constructed wedands sys-
tems, which were installed in spring 1994. The
design and construction included easily accessible
sampling ports to monitor the quality of the
effluent at various locations throughout die treat- -
ment cell.
Evaluation of mondily sampling results,
conducted for 2 years by students from Pittsburg
State University, showed significant reductions in
all of the parameters analyzed. As a result of tiiis
demonstration project, additional constructed
wedands have been installed tiiroughout die state.
Several hundred people, including sanitarians,
homeowners, conservation district personnel,
contractors, and odier interested parties, have
attended tours of die sites to observe the systems
firsthand. Two manuals have been written: Rock-
Plant Filter Design and Construction for Home Wastewa-
ter Systems and Rock-Plant Filter Operation, Mainte-
nance, and Repair. Now in operation for 6 years, the •
original demonstration projects are all thriving and
die homeowners are thrilled to have solved their
wastewater disposal problems.
62IQ Kansas
-------
http://water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/grants.htm
KENTUCKY
Contacts:
Randal Rock
USDA-Natciral Resources
Conservation Service
180 Beasley Road
Versailles, KY 40383
606-873-4941
rrock@kcc.fsa.usda.gov
Douglas Mines
USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Route 7, Box 37
Harrison Square Shopping
Cynthiana, KY 41031 -8800
606-234-3364
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture [livestock)
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• nutrients
• pathogens
Project Activities:
• alternative livestock
exclusion practices (pumps,
' electric fencing)
Results:
• • monitoring in progress
Center
Elkhorn Creek BMP Demonstration Project:
Farmers See Water Supply Alternatives in Action
Elkhorn Creek drains 311,000 acres in Fayette,
Franklin, Scott, and Woodford Counties in Ken-
tucky. At one time, the stream was ranked among
the best in the nation for smallmouth bass fishing.
It continues to be a valuable recreational resource
and has provided an emergency source of drink-
ing water during prolonged summer droughts.
The Elkhorn Creek watershed has been
identified as impaired due to sediment, nutrient,
and pathogen loading from nonpoint and point
sources of pollution. Livestock production is
important in the watershed and potentially con-
tributes a significant part of the nonpoint source
pollutant loading. Direct access of livestock to
streams in the watershed contributes to the stream
degradation. This degradation affects water qual-
ity, aquatic habitat, and recreation activities. Pri-
mary contact recreation (swimming) and •warm
water aquatic habitat uses are being adversely
affected in much of the watershed. *"
Livestock management alternatives
Often, traditional methods of excluding livestock
from streams arid providing livestock water supply
are not cost-effective or practical. However,
promising fencing systems and-water supply alter-
natives are available. The principal objective of
this project is to demonstrate to farmers four
Fayette, Franklin, Scott, and Woodford Counties, Kentucky
alternatives for managing livestock: the ram pump;
the pasture pump (cattle-activated pump); the
solar-powered water pump; and use of limited-
access watering points, using modern electric
fencing components.
The solar-powered livestock watering system
excludes livestock from the stream by using a
solar-powered electric fence charger. So far, solar
pump system performance has been very good. In
full sunlight, the system pumps about 180 gallons
per hour. The pasture pump (or nose pump) is a
cow-activated diaphragm pump, reputed to be
quite dependable. Use of this pump is limited,
however, because the pump can't be used •when
temperatures are below freezing. Another demon-
stration farm uses a limited access watering point,
• using modern electrified water gaps. This type of
system reduces but does not eliminate livestock
access to a stream.
These systems have the potential to protect-
stream quality while providing a cleaner, safer
water supply for livestock. To facilitate acceptance
of the new management practices, four demon-
stration farms were located in the watershed.
Because this project emphasizes use of nontradi-
tional best management practices (BMPs), the use
of field days as an educational tool is very impor-
tant and is an integral part of the project.
Kentucky !
-------
Results in progress . . .
Monitoring of changes in water quality and habitat
resulting from the use of BMPs is ongoing. One year
of stream data was collected for each of four dem-
onstration farm sites before installation of BMPs,
and 2 years of post-BMP data are to be collected.
Parameters measured include total Kjeldahl nitrogen,
NO2-NO3 nitrogen, ammonia, total-phosphorus,
water pH, temperature, conductivity, turbidity, and
fecal coliform bacteria. Monitoring is conducted at
upstream and downstream stations at each site.
LOUISIANA
The demonstration sites have provided oppor-
tunities for local farmers to share their experiences
with alternative technologies for providing livestock
•water and to encourage their neighbors to consider
the benefits of reducing livestock access to riparian
areas. The use of local examples has proven very
effective in promoting nontraditional farm prac-
tices. The project is already considered a success in
that it has resulted in.more adoption of rotational
grazing and livestock exclusion from the creeks in
the project area and even outside the project area.
http://nonpoint.deq.state.la.us/nonpoint.html
Contact:
Jan Boydstun
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
no Box 822 15
Baton Rouqe, IA 70884-22 1 5
225-765-0773
jarLb@aeq,org
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (croplands)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• organic loads
Project Activities:
• GIS map of land use
classifications
Results:
• agricultural watershed
model to identify "hot .
spots" of high pollutant
loading and predict BMP
effectiveness
Bayou Plaquemine Brule:
Louis/ana Applies Satellite Imagery to Watershed Planning and Management
As states continue to implement watershed planning *
and management strategies, several analytical tools
are necessary to classify the types of land use present
in each watershed. One tool that has become impor-
tant for Louisiana's Nonpoint Source Management
Program is satellite imagery. The images provide so
much detail on the watershed that the people in-
volved with developing management strategies,
educational programs, monitoring designs, or math-
ematical models can clearly see what needs to be
done. The maps are also very, important for educat-
ing formers, landowners, and public officials about
what a watershed is and the complexity of land use
patterns. The visual image seems to provide a basis
for all of the people involved in watershed planning
and management to begin to understand what steps
will be necessary to implement best management
practices (BMPs) and reduce nonpoint source pollu-
tion loads that are affecting water quality.
. Bayou Plaquemine Brule, Louisiana
Pilot watershed project
The pilot watershed project where this geographic
information system (GIS) tool was initially used
was Bayou Plaquemine Brule, a bayou that flows -
through the Mermentau River Basin in southwest-
ern Louisiana. This is rice and crawfish country,
rich in Cajun heritage and traditions that have
existed since the 1700s. Bayou Plaquemine Brule
is on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters and
is not meeting the designated uses for fishing or
swimming. The high sediment and organic loads
that enter the water body each spring affect the
dissolved oxygen concentrations and cause the
water body to fail to meet water quality standards.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ) prioritized the Bayou
Plaquemine Brule for a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) in 1998 and completed all of the
sampling and modeling involved to develop the
Louisiana
-------
TMDL by December 1999. The results of the
TMDL study indicated that a 50 percent nonpoint
source load reduction was needed in the upper
tributaries of the bayou and a 30 percent load
reduction was needed in the main stem.
Application of GIS to land use classification
To allocate this pollutant load to the various types
of land uses or crops in the watershed, more de-
tailed information was needed on land use patterns.
LDEQ's GIS Center agreed to tackle this compli-
cated task by purchasing and classifying Landsat 5
Thematic Mapper satellite imagery of Bayou
Plaquemine Brule. Before the imagery could be
classified, a multi-temporal data set had to be cre-
ated from three separate scenes of source satellite
imagery. The resultant data set was classified, pro-
ducing a map of Bayou Plaquemine Brule that
contains land use data for all of the major crops
grown in the watershed during the 1998 growing
season. This map was the result of a year of coor-
dinated effort among numerous individuals and
included extensive amounts of both lab and field-
work. Furthermore, interagency cooperation was
essential to the success of this project and resulted in
. a maximization of all'available resources. Agencies
involved included the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality; the Louisiana Department
of Agriculture and Forestry, Office of Soil and
Water Conservation; the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture (Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources
Conservation Service [NRCS]); the Acadia Parish
Soil and Water Conservation District; and the
St. Landry Soil and Water Conservation District
Watershed modeling and monitoring
Once the land use classification was completed,
LDEQ's .Nonpoint Source Unit began work with
the NRCS and the Agricultural Research Service
on an agricultural watershed model called
AnnAGNPS. This watershed model is being used
to predict the amount of water and sediment
transported through the watershed and to assist in
identifying "hot spots" of high pollutant loading.
The model also allows LDEQ to predict the
effectiveness of BMPs that have been recom-
mended for reducing pollutant loads to the bayou
from rice, sugarcane, and crawfish farms. The
result is that LDEQ is now working with Louisi-
ana State University's Agricultural Center, NRCS,
and the local Soil and Water Conservation District
on a comprehensive watershed implementation
strategy that will be implemented over the next
3 years. The water bodies will be carefully moni-
tored as BMPs are implemented to track the water
quality response to implementation of the prac-
tices. As these data are collected, they will be
shared with the farmers so that they can know
whether their efforts have been successful. Local
meetings with the farmers are being held to in-
form them of the watershed effort and ask for
their support.
Future activities
LDEQ has prioritized five additional watersheds
for this type of intensive watershed planning and
management. Each of the watersheds is in a dif-
ferent part of the state, where the soils, hydrology,
land use patterns, and water bodies function dif-
ferently. The goal is to have a broad database that
can be used throughout the state and guide future
watershed planning and management in each of
the watersheds where the water body is not fully
supporting the designated uses. This type of
comprehensive watershed planning effort requires
many partners, including local universities, educa-
tors, landowners, and resource agencies, but.it
results in an effective process for understanding
how watersheds function and how water bodies
can be improved through long-term management.
Louisiana I
|65
-------
LOUISIANA
http://nonpoint.deq.state.la.us/nonpoint.html
•m
| Contact:
' JiinBoydstun
i Louisiana Department of
i Environmental Quality
[ PO, Box 822 15
' Baton Rouge, IA 70884-22 IS
i 225.765-0773
j jan_b®t
-------
www.state.me. us/dep/blwq/docwatershed/npsstrategy.pdf
MAINE
mi ~"~ •'• "'.~
Contact:
Norm Marcotte
Nonpoint Source
Coordinator
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
State House Station #17
Augusta, ME 04333
207-287-7727
norm.g.man:otte®state.me.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• urban runoff .
• -
erosion
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• phosphorus
• sediment
Project Activities:
• erosion control training and
BMPs
— — - •--.
Results:
» reduction of 14.3 pounds
of phosphorus in the first
• year
i"
Highland Lake Watershed Project:
Hotspots Model Links Land Use and Water Quality
Like many lakes in southern Maine, Highland
Lake has experienced a long history of adverse
watershed development patterns. Highland Lake is
a picturesque, blue water lake in the foothills of
the White Mountains of western Maine. The
1,300-acre lake is the centerpiece for the town of
Bridgton, Maine. The watershed was developed in
stages: the expansive farm fields of the 1800s
• gave way to reforestation and second homes in an
odd combination of old land uses and new devel-
opment patterns. Since the early 1900s, 10 miles
of shoreline frontage have been developed. Ac-
cess roads were designed and built at a time when
eroding roads were not believed to be pollution
sources. Although much of the land remains
forested, geographic information system (GIS)
studies showed that existing developed areas
accounted for 70 percent of the phosphorus
reaching the lake. '
The development patterns have affected the
lake's water quality. Currently, the Lakes Environ-
mental Association (LEA), a nonprofit conservation
group, considers the lake at risk for developing algae
blooms. Long-term monitoring data indicate the lake
is threatened with gradual declines in water clarity
and dissolved oxygen. A persistent loss of oxygen
would reduce or eliminate trout habitat. In the lake's
deeper waters, phosphorus is recycling in the bottom
sediments. Increases in phosphorus levels could lead
Bridgton, Maine
to significant declines in water quality and aquatic
habitat. Reductions in water quality could lead to
financial problems as well: recent studies by the
University of Maine and the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) show a direct
relationship between high lake water clarity and
higher property values. Concerns have been raised
that property values along Highland Lake's shoreline,
currently valued at $17 million, could decrease if the
lake's water quality worsens.
Reducing phosphorus and sediment
These concerns prompted LEA to carry out an
intense, 3-year section 319 project (January 1997
to March 2000) to control and reduce pollution
impacts on the lake. As a first step, LEA used
DEP's phosphorus loading methodology to deter-
mine a phosphorus reduction goal for the water-
shed. It was estimated that a reduction of 50
pounds of phosphorus per year would result in a
noticeable improvement in water quality.
LEA then used GIS technology and its "Phos-
phorus Hotspots Model" to assess the watershed.
The model overlays land use information (GIS
coverage) with phosphorus export coefficients for •
each land use, adjusted for soil type, slope, and zones
of proximity to the lakeshore or shorelines of tribu-
taries. "Our model represents an automated way of
applying common sense principles of phosphorus
Maine
167
-------
export in order to better understand the effects of a
watershed's land use patterns on water quality,"
explains Peter Lowell, Executive Director of LEA.
As an adjunct to this method, LEA con-
ducted a field survey of secondary roads under
deluge-like storm conditions. Observing areas
under a worst-case scenario helped to identify
erosion sites and offered ideas regarding which
management practices would be most effective.
Throughout the project, LEA collaborated
with volunteers and key organizations, especially
Portland Water District and DeLuca-Hoffman .
Associates, along with the Town of Bridgton, the
Town of Sweden, Maine DEP, and EPA. LEA
worked with its partners to encourage, design, and
construct "fixes" using a multifaceted approach.
Under the project's Clean Lakes Check-Up
program, LEA assisted property owners with a
wide range of storm water runoff and erosion
problems. Upon request, LEA conducted site
visits and developed field reports and detailed
erosion control plans. In total, 42 Clean Lake
Check-Ups were performed.
Erosion Control Workshops, focusing on
camp road maintenance, shoreline buffer strips,
and a wide range of erosion control techniques,
were held over three seasons. LEA and Maine
DEP staff also provided training on the latest
erosion control techniques to earth-moving con-
tractors, resulting in the certification of 17 con-
tractors. In addition, LEA worked closely with the
CEO from the Town of Bridgton to assist code
enforcement Officers in preventing and addressing
shoreline violations. LEA worked closely with
contractors on a variety of sediment problems
related to roads and riparian buffers, resulting in
the installation of best management practices
(BMPs) at 19 key site locations..
Encouraging results .
After the BMPs were installed, LEA recalculated
the Hotspots 'maps in consultation with engineer-
ing staff from Deluca-Hoffman Associates. The
difference between the preconsttuction and
postconstmction phosphorus export represented
the reduction in phosphorus export as a result of
BMP construction. It was found that the BMPs
instaEed under this one project accounted for a
reduction of 14.3 pounds of phosphorus. LEA
will continue to work with the community on a.
long-term program to achieve phosphorus reduc-
tions closer to the 50 pounds per year goal.
LEA, Maine DEP, and EPA New England
are encouraged by the overall results of the High-
land Lake project. In April 2000 EPA New En-
gland presented LEA with an EPA Merit Award
for its 30-year history of exceptional work and its
efforts on the Highland Lake project. Peter Lowell
recapped the project's success: "The project sig-
nificantly raised awareness among all interest
groups in the watershed. The ability to quantify •
the water quality impact of BMPs will continue to
be a powerful tool in encouraging ongoing efforts
to protect this lake and many others."
681
Maine
-------
www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/docwatershed/npsstrategy.pdf
MAINE
•M -"" ; ' • —
Contact:
KathyHoppe
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
Northern Maine Regional
Office
123 5 Central Drive
Presque Isle, ME 04769
207-764-0477
kathy.m.hoppe®state.me.us
„ „ ™m . .' • '- :^. -
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (crops)
• farm access roads
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
- - -
Project Activities:
• erosion control/land use
practices (diversion ditches,
culverts, sediment pond,
ditches/road improvements.
• -,. '. ..:.
Results:
• decreased turbidity
readings
• improved recreational
opportunities
• improved native brook
trout habitat
Silver Spring Brook Watershed Demonstration Project:
Landowners' Cooperation Plus Town's Commitment Equals Success
The Silver Spring Brook watershed encompasses
about 1,400 acres, 42 percent of which are crop-
land. The remaining acreage is either forested or
in the Conservation Reserve Program. Over the
years, the stream's'water quality had become de-
graded to the point of being almost unusable.
Field roads, ditches, stream crossings, and sections.
of some fields were identified as significant con-
tributors to the stream's degradation.
• Silver Spring Brook had threefold value to
the town of Limestone: it was the town's drinking
water supply, a cold-water habitat for native brook
trout, and the feeder for the community swim-
ming area. Heavy sedimentation resulted in high
.raw turbidity readings, exceeding federal drinking
Runoff from farm roads caused excess sediment to enter Silver Spring Brook.
Limestone, Maine
water standards, threatening the cold-water habitat
for native brook trout, and endangering the town's
only recreational swimming area.
Cooperation of landowners
The Town of Limestone formed a partnership with
the Central Aroostook Soil and Water Conservation
District to plan and implement a 319 project,
funded through the Maine Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (MDEP). The U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service, and MDEP were consulted on how
best to solve the problem. There were two key
components to the project's success. One was the
cooperation of adjacent landowners—all farm-
ers—and the other was the town's commitment of
municipal staff and equipment to the installation
of the farm road best management practices
(BMPs).
A variety of erosion controls and land use
practices were installed throughout the project
area. Diversion ditches were constructed to divert
the flow of water away from the brqok, and turn-
outs were built to divert road flow into the woods.
Culverts were replaced and new ones added,
surrounded by riprap, to allow unimpeded stream
flow. A sediment pond was also constructed to
collect runoff from cropland.
The farm access road that crossed the stream
was graded and crowned, and the stream crossing
Maine
169
-------
was repaired and stabilized. Workers installed
drain tile to control the water from a natural
spring that had been causing erosion and deterio-
ration of the farm access road. They reshaped and
stabilized existing road ditches and constructed
new ditches. Grass buffers were also established
along the fields.
Several acres of highly credible cropland
were placed in conservation reserve, thanks to the
cooperation of Glen Beaulieu, whose farm bor-
ders the brook on which most of the BMP? were
constructed. "I couldn't cultivate that acreage
during wet years," he explains, "and I was losing a
lot of topsoil. I was happy to place that land into
the Conservation Reserve Program." Beaulieu says
that since the BMPs were installed, there have not
been any washes, the diversion ditches are work-
ing, and the water looks much cleaner.
Decreased turbidity
Before the project, raw turbidity readings averaged
1.99 nephelometric turbidity units, or NTU (in 1995
and 1996), exceeding the federal drinking water
standard of 1.6 NTU treated turbidity. Raw turbidity
readings for the same period in 1997 and 1998
averaged 1.225 NTU—a'3 8 percent improvement
even before fully establishing all the BMPs. A dry
summer and a very wet fall, along with plantings of a
potato crop (highly erodible), contributed to an
increase in turbidity readings in 1999. Data have
since become unavailable, however, because the
town switched from,a surface water source (using
Silver Spring Brook) to a groundwater source after
the new federal drinking water standard of 0.50
NTU treated turbidity was established.
The native brook trout habitat has significantly
benefited from the decrease in murky conditions.
Lower turbidity readings have also resulted in
improved swimming conditions for the community,
improving recreational opportunities. Although
many seemingly inconsequential unstable land use
practices can add up to water quality degradation,
through the commitment of local people and
agencies and effective teamwork, water pollution
can be prevented and water quality restored.
Farmers cooperated to install BMPs to divert runoff away from the creek and
into the woods.
701
i Maine
-------
www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/nps/npsplan.html
MARYLAND
Contacts:
PhilPannill
Maiyland Department of
Natural Resources
Forestry, Wildlife & Heritage Div.
Regional Watershed Forester
301-791-4010
ppannill®dnr.state.md.us
John McCoy
MD-DNR, Chesapeake & Coastal
Watershed Service
Watershed Restoration Division
410-260-8803
jmccoy®dnr.state.md.us .
Ken Sloate
MD-DNR, Chesapeake & Coastal
Watershed Service
Nonpoint Source Program
410-260-8736
ksloate@dnrstate.md.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• forestry
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
« sediment
Project Activities:
« forestry BMPs
• paired watershed study
Results:
• stabilized stream
temperature
« reduced suspended solid
concentrations .
• • improved benthic
macroinvertebrate
populations
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Maryland's Forestry BMPs:
Paired Watershed Study Tests BMP Performance
Forests cover about 2.7 million acres of Maryland,
representing 40 percent of the state's total land
area. Forest health is inextricably linked to healthy
streams and a robust Chesapeake Bay. But many
forest harvest activities, including poorly designed
haul roads, skid trails, landings (loading areas), and
stream crossings, can lead to significant inputs of
sediment to stream channels, resulting in degrada-
tion of water quality and impacts on living re-
sources. The removal of trees adjacent to streams
can also cause elevated stream temperatures,
reducing habitat quality for fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate populations.
To assist loggers and landowners in meeting
environmental requirements, the Maryland De-
partment of the Environment and the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (DNR) have devel-
oped a number of forestry programs. Sediment
control plans are required before undertaking
major earth-disturbing activity; best management
practices (BMPs) and streamside buffer zones are
required when logging in nontidal wetlands; and a
special 'Timber Harvest Plan" must be approved
before any timber may be harvested within 1,000
feet of the Chesapeake Bay. DNR's aggressive
Frederick County, Maryland
Stream Releaf Program even has a goal of estab-
lishing 600 miles of riparian forest buffer restora-
tion plantings by the year 2010!
Testing BMPs
Although .studies show that most Maryland log-
gers follow timber harvest BMPs, there have been
no studies in the state reporting the effectiveness
of these BMPs in protecting water quality under
local conditions. Using 319 funding, a 4-year
study was designed to test the hypothesis that
forest harvest operations have no long-term
significant impacts on stream benthos, tempera-,
tare, and suspended sediment if forestry BMPs
are implemented.
Two small forested watersheds, located on
Sugarloaf Mountain in Frederick County, Mary-
land, were monitored from August 1995 until July
1999 as part of a paired watershed study to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of Maryland's BMPs for
timber harvest operations. One watershed, desig-
nated the "treatment" watershed, underwent a
controlled level of timber harvesting with strict
adherence to BMPs, while the "control" water-
shed remained unharvested.
Maryland '
| 71
-------
A wide range of BMPs were installed in the
treatment watershed, including a 20-foot-long
portable timber bridge, a 21-inch-diameter
stream-crossing culvert, streamside forest buffer
(streamside management zone), drainage out-
sloping, broad-based dips, rolling dips, grade
breaks and water bars, and the use of geotextile
and stone for haul road stabilization. The logging
contractors also complied with the BMPs by
following marked skid trails and performing
postharvest stabilization of roads, landings, and
skid trails where required. On slopes over 10
percent, roads, main skid trails, and landings were
seeded, limed, fertilized, and mulched.
Timber was harvested in 1997 on. 73 acres of
the treatment watershed, using a variety of silvi-
cultural prescriptions. Monitoring of baseflow and
stormflow suspended sediment samples, tempera-
ture, and benthic macroinvertebrates continued
until July 1999.
Successful results
The results of this study indicate that the BMPs
were effective in preventing significant impacts on
stream water quality, biology, and habitat. There
was no significant difference in total suspended
solid concentrations or yields due to the harvest-
ing activities. The harvesting also, did not signifi-
cantly affect stream habitat, benthic
macroinvertebrate populations, or stream tem-
perature. Most BMPs performed as intended, and
none allowed observable sediment input into •
waterways. Logger awareness and training were .
also critical to effective use of BMPs because
implementation and installation are ultimately
under the loggers' control.
MASSACHUSETTS
www.state.ma. us/dep/brp/wm/wmpubs.htm
Contact:
Jane Pcirce
Massachusetts Department
of Environmental
Protection
627 Main Street
VWxcester, MAOI608
503-767-2792
Jane.Petrce®state,ma,us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• storm water runoff
Primary IMPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• suspended solids • infiltrationstructures.
• fecal coliform bacteria
Results:
• 99.99 percent removal of
fecal coliform bacteria
• 90 percent removal of
fecal streptococcus
bacteria
• 'elimination of petroleum
hydrocarbons and zinc
• shellfish beds reopened
Broad Marsh River Storm Water Remediation Project:
Infiltration Structures Reduce Pollutants, Save Shellfish Beds
Over the past decade, the Town of Wareham,
Massachusetts, has begun one of the
Commonwealth's most complete programs to
address the pollution problems caused by.storm
water discharges along the town's shoreline. Con-
tamination from storm water runoff, particularly
suspended solids and fecal coliform contamina-
tion, has forced many.shellfish beds and public
bathing beaches along Massachusetts' coast to
close. The closures can range from periodic clo-
sure for a few days after heavy rainstorms to
Wareham, Massachusetts
complete year-round closure due to nonpoint
source contamination. Like many coastal commu-
nities, Wareham relies on fishing and tourism for
its economic vitality. Faced with the prospect of
losing its unique and valuable coastal resources,
the town began to search for ways to address the
contamination problem.
Selecting the right alternative
In 1993 the Town of Wareharn and the Buzzards
Bay Project received 319 funding to remediate
72
Massachusetts
-------
storm water discharges along the lower reaches of
the Broad Marsh River. The goal was to reopen 64
acres of adjacent softshell clam and quahog beds.
The project also intended to demonstrate that
leaching catch basins could be an" effective storm
water remediation tool to reduce coliform con-
tamination in the town's -coastal waters.
During consultations with the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conser-
vation Service, several alternatives for treating
storm water discharges were considered. The site
conditions were difficult—a high ratio of impervi-
ous surface and areas of high ground water. Nar-
row roads, existing gas, sewer, and water lines, and
groundwater close to die surface made designing
die system challenging.
Because of land constraints, die final project
design involved installation of "under-die road"
infiltration structures along road rights-of-way.
Two different types of infiltration structures were
installed widi the purpose of storing and treating
the first Vz inch of rainfall. In areas with adequate
separation from groundwater, 4-foot by 4-foot
concrete leaching galleys were installed; in areas
with shallower groundwater, shallower plastic
infiltration chambers were installed. The infiltra-
tion structures were installed at 15 storm water .
discharge points along die banks of die lower
Broad Marsh River. Instead of being discharged
directly into die river dirough storm drainpipes,
the storm water would be directed into infiltration
structures, allowing for filtration of the pollutants.
Reopening the shellfish beds
Initial postconstruction monitoring data indicated
that the infiltration systems were very effective in
removing fecal coliform bacteria (99.99' percent
removal) and fecal streptococcus bacteria (90
percent removal) from die storm water runoff.
The infiltration systems -were also quite effective
in removing petroleum hydrocarbons and zinc.
These pollutants were present at low levels in the
storm water prior to die infiltration treatment;
however, they were not detected during
postconstruction monitoring.
Two and a half years after installation of die •
leaching.catchment basins, Massachusetts Division
of Marine Fisheries (DMF) announced diat the
shellfish beds in the Broad Marsh River would be
reopened on a conditional basis. The beds con-
tinue to be temporarily closed after heavy rainfalls,
but the large softshell clam and quahog resource is
now open to shellfishermen most of the time.
Success inspires additional projects
Odier successful 319 projects have since
followed. A storm water treatment system was
installed in die upper reaches of die Broad Marsh
River, widi the hope that over time water quality
will improve to die point diat the Broad Marsh
River shellfish beds can be reclassified and opened
without restrictions of any kind.
In addition to the continued storm water
remediation work on the Broad Marsh River, town
officials have set tiieir sites on reopening the
larger shellfish beds in Onset Harbor. Onset
Harbor is larger and more open than the Broad
Marsh River, and its watershed area is heavily
developed and quite urban. The town now has
two additional ongoing 319 grants that are being
used to target the storm -water discharges from
diese urbanized areas. In recent correspondence,
Michael Parola, Harbormaster/Shellfish Constable
for Wareham, confirmed that storm water
remediation efforts have exceeded expectations.
The-town's current goal is to remediate "any and
all active storm drains" because of dieir overall
effect on water quality and on die town's shellfish
beds. Parola believes diat storm water remediation
has been largely responsible for allowing die
Massachusetts '
J73
-------
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to
upgrade miles of publicly accessible shoreline.
The current remediation projects in Onset Bay
and its tributary, the East River, have the potential
to allow the DMF to upgrade fully half of Onset
Bay's shellfish beds from their current classifica-
tion, seasonally closed, to open and approved for
shellfish harvesting.
like so many coastal communities that rely
on fishing and tourism for their livelihood,
Wareham faced the loss of the coastal resources
that make die town unique and vital. Wareham
has taken full advantage of the opportunity diat
the 319 Program presented to address nonpoint
source pollution problems and restore coastal
resources for all to enjoy. Given the demon-
strated success of the Marsh River Project in
both reopening shellfish beds and inspiring a
community to institute a phased, long-term storm
water management program, the Massachusetts
319 Program should encourage other communi-
ties to do the same.
www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wm/wmpubs.htm
MASSACHUSETTS
IHH
Contact:
JancPcfrce
i Massachusetts Department
• of Environmental
I Protection
627 Mam Street
; Worcester, MA 01 608
S08-767-2792
Jane,Peiite@state.ma.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• storm water runoff
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• suspended solids
• fecal coliform bacteria
Project Activities:
• 1 2 first flush leaching basins
Results:
• 91 percent decrease in
fecal conforms
• 98 percent decrease in
total conforms
« elimination of oil, grease,
barium, chromium, and .
lead
• shellfish beds remain open
Lake Tashmoo Storm Water Remediation Project:
First Flush Leaching Basins More Effective Than Expected
Contamination from storm water runoff, particu-
larly suspended solids and fecal coliform contami-
nation, has forced many shellfish beds and public
bathing beaches along the Massachusetts coast to
close. The closures can range from a few days to
the summer to the entire year, depending on the
type and level of contamination. The town of
Tisbury on the Island of Martha's Vineyard has
numerous "hotspots" where access to shellfish
beds and public beaches has been restricted be-
cause of storm water contamination. The residents
of Tisbury rely on fishing and tourism for their
livelihood, so it is imperative for the town to find
ways to effectively treat storm water contamination.
At 1 mile in length, Lake Tashmoo is one of
the larger of the saltwater lakes on the island
Town of Tisbury (Island of Martha's Vineyard), Massachusetts
that feed into the sea. It is an ideal habitat and
breeding ground for oysters, scallops, clams,
mussels, crabs, lobsters, and a variety of fish
species that serve as the food source for larger
fish, all of which are commercially harvested as •
the backbone of the island's fishing industry. In
addition, the lake has a major beach area, a town
dock, and boat moorings and is used for swim-
ming, sailing, wind surfing, boating, and
sportsfishing. '
Before 1994 hard shell clam, mussel, and
scallop beds near the storm water oudet were
showing contamination from fecal coliform bacte-
ria, heavy metals, and oil and grease. The Division
of Marine Fisheries routinely closed the beds after
large rainfall events because of fecal coliform
741
Massachusetts
-------
levels in. the water. The contaminant levels •were
consistently high enough that the shellfish beds
were on the verge of seasonal closure, which
would have effectively put the resource off-limits
to the local townspeople and to the large seasonal
population that flocks to Martha's Vineyard dur-
ing the summer months. Recreational use of the
lake is a major tourist attraction, and the town
considered maintaining the lake in a viable and
usable state imperative.
Adding leaching basins
In 1994 Tisbury Waterways, Inc., and the Town of
Tisbury received 319 funding to install a series of
12 "first flush" leaching basins along road drains
to capture and treat the road runoff that was
contributing to the contamination of highly pro-
ductive shellfish beds at one end of Lake
Tashmoo. The first flush basins, installed along a
1.6-mile stretch of road, were designed to treat
the first 1A inch of rainfall, which contains most
of the contaminants.
Each basin consists of a 6-foot by 6-foot
perforated cement vessel filled with limestone,
surrounded by a gravel bed. The limestone in the
basins is covered with hydrophobic, oil-absorbing
pads, which help to separate the hydrocarbons
from the runoff. The limestone in the pits raises
the pH of the runoff, causing heavy metals to
precipitate and accumulate in the pit. Finally, the
first flush basins provide additional residence time
for fecal coliform bacteria to oxidize and decay.
The treated runoff then passes through the gravel
surrounding the pits into the subsurface soil.
Exceeding expectations
Comparison of contaminant concentrations in
Lake Tashmoo before and after installation of the
basins showed significant improvement in water
quality. Samples from Lake Tashmoo during rain-
fall events showed fecal coliform and total
coliform levels going down by 91 percent and 98
percent Oil and grease could not be detected in .
the treated effluent; barium, chromium, and lead,
which had all been present before installing the
basins, could no longer be detected in the efflu-
ent. The project was deemed a success and recom-
mended as a model for other storm water
hotspots around Tisbury.
The system is exceeding the town's initial
expectations. Although it was designed to capture
and treat the first 1A inch of storm water runoff,.
the system appears to be capturing and treating the
• first l/2 inch of runoff. The sandy soils that underlie
the leaching catch basins allow die treated storm
water to percolate into the ground more quickly
than the designers anticipated, thus allowing the
system to capture additional storm water.
As a result, since the basins were installed
there has been no .discharge at all to Lake
Tashmoo during moderate rains. Even during
heavy rainfall, less storm water is discharged into
the lake and the -water continues to be of signifi-
cantly better quality than before the basins were
added/The Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries has continued to monitor water quality
at the shellfish beds. The beds have not been
closed-during the past several years, and there is
no longer any thought of seasonal bed closure.
Massachusetts
-------
MICHIGAN
www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/nps/npshome.htm
IBIBJ
ji Contact:
, Jim LcCurcux
" Michigan State University
; Extension
: Tuscola County
i 982-672-3870
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (cropland)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• nutrients
• pesticides
•
Project Activities: .
« conservation tillage
1U1
Results:
• reduced soil erosion (70
percent less from water
and 60 percent less from
wind)
Innovative Farmers of Michigan:
Blending Farm Profitability and Water Quality Protection
Huron, Tuscola, and Bay Counties, Michigan
The Saginaw Bay watershed is the largest water-
shed in Michigan, covering more than 8,700
square miles. The water quality of the bay is af-
fected by sediment, nutrients, and pesticide inputs
from runoff and wind erosion. Agriculture is the
major land use in the Eastern Coastal Basin of the
watershed (Huron and Tuscola Counties and part
of Bay County), representing 95 percent of the
land area. The major crops are dry beans, sugar
beets, corn, and wheat.
The Innovative Farmers of Michigan is a
group of agricultural producers, supported by more
than 60 partners representing the agricultural in-
dustry, lenders, equipment companies, commodity
groups, and federal, state, and local agencies. The
group's two primary objectives are reducing the ,
amount of sediment entering the Saginaw Bay and
altering farming practices to reduce nutrient and
pesticide runoff while retaining profitability for the
farmer. "AH my fields drain to large ditches, to
The emergence of dry beans is enhanced by using a spoke closing wheel on
the planter.
Crop residue forms a protective layer on the field
that prevents soil from washing away during
rainstorms.
larger ditches, and eventually to Saginaw Bay," says
Pat Sheridan, Tuscola Innovative Farmers, "and I
don't want my soil in the bay."
So Sheridan joined the Innovative Farmers
of Michigan, which was organized in 1994 in
Huron, Tuscola, and Sanilac Counties. Members
. pay a $100 annual fee, entitling them to member-
ship in the Michigan Agricultural Stewardship
Association and subscriptions to No-Till Farmer
and Conservation Digest magazines. In 1996 the
Michigan State University Extension-Huron .
County received a section 319 grant of $71,863
for a 3-year Innovative Farmers project. The
Innovative Farmers aimed to reduce soil erosion,
improve soil health, and increase family farm
income by using reduced tillage, cover crops, and
a totally integrated system.
Confronting traditional farming practices
Before the Innovative Farmers, reduced-tillage
corn and soybean cropping systems had been
successfully used throughout the Midwest. Michi-
76]
Michigan
-------
gan farmers, however, were reluctant to use high-
residue cropping systems for beans and sugar
beets because such high-value crops would still
make fall-spring tillage profitable. In addition,
many farmers in the area assumed that it isn't
possible to warm the soil in the spring, prepare a
good seed bed in heavier soils, and achieve ad-
equate weed control without tilling in the fall and
the following spring.
The key to the Innovative Farmers' success is
that rather than relying on research and informa-
tion provided by other sources, the group de-
signed and conducted the studies themselves. In
one of the first studies undertaken by the group,
14 producers collected 127 water samples from
their tile outlets. Concentrations and flow rates
were used to: determine the extent of nutrients
and the associated dollar loss from their fields.
This activity helped producers better understand
the nutrient and soil interactions, as well as the
impacts on water quality,
Valuable findings
Studies conducted by the Innovative Farmers yielded
many valuable findings for area farmers.'Conserva-
tion tillage.did not reduce yields of sugar beets, corn,
and dry beans when compared to conventional
tillage. In fact, corn yields significantly increased at
one of the demonstration sites. Farmers also learned
that the soil's capacity to supply nitrogen to a grow-
ing crop increases with conservation tillage. Athough
phosphorus applications ceased for 6 years, the soil
fertility levels did not decrease.
At the end of the project, the water holding
capacity and water infiltration rates were also
higher for the limited-tillage sites. Conservation
tillage reduced the potential for soil erosion from
f-
water by up to 70 percent and'from wind by up to
60 percent, as compared to conventional tillage.
These results are making a difference. Several
farmers in the area have converted their operations
to zone till in the past 2 years. (In zone till, only a
small area is tilled at planting. The result is a con-
ventional seedbed in the immediate seed zone while
Clover is inserted into corn crops to provide more
cover and reduce erosion over the winter.
the rest of the field remains untilled and covered
with-residue to promote soil conservation.) Innova-
tive Farmers members also report the increasing
use of the chisel tillage system and cover crops by
their neighbors. As these systems are used on a
wider scalfe^ others will adopt them as they see the
. success of fellow farmers. That is just what the
Innovative Farmers hoped to accomplish.
Michigan '
\~n
-------
MICHIGAN
www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/nps/npshome.htm
MI III
!'
: Contact:
! AnncMarlc Chavez
1 ABegan Conservation
; DtSUKt
[ 616-673-8965
\
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (unrestricted
livestock access, plowing)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
« nutrients
Project Activities:
• agricultural BMPs (fencing,
streambank stabilization,
filter strip, sediment
detention, wetland
restoration)
Results:
• reduction of 1 9,852 tons
of sediment, 19,706
pounds of phosphorus,
and 39,321 pounds of
nitrogen
Little Rabbit River Watershed Project:
One-to-One Approach Wins Landowners' Support
, L
Allegan County, Michigan
The little Rabbit River Watershed Project demon-
strates the effectiveness of community-based
watershed planning in addressing water quality
issues. In 1995, through the efforts of local lead-
ers and a broad conservation partnership, a sec-
tion 319 watershed grant of $380,936 was"
awarded to the Allegan Conservation District.
This grant began a 5-year program that built a
team of proactive stakeholders to direct project
activities, develop a watershed management plan,
and implement best management practices
(BMPs) to protect water quality.
The 30,850-acre Little Rabbit River watershed
is in southwest Michigan, primarily in the northern
section of Allegan County. A small portion lies in
Byron Township in Southern Kent County. The
Little Rabbit River flows southwesterly to the
Rabbit River, a tributary of the Kalamazoo River.
The Uttte Rabbit River watershed project worked to gain the support of local
landowners.
The dominant land use in the watershed is agricul-
ture. Sediment, nutrients, and high flow are ad-
versely affecting the Little Rabbit. Unrestricted
livestock access, plowing up to the edge of the '
watercourse, and conventional fall plowing were
commonly found throughout the watershed.
Partners and funding sources
The project's Steering Committee consisted of a
broad range of active participants, including the
. County Drain Commissioner, County Road Com-
mission, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Farm Service Agency, Michigan State University
Extension, County Board of Commissioners, Dorr
Township Parks and Recreation, other township
officials, West Michigan Regional Planning Agency, '
and local residents and agricultural producers. In
addition to 319 funding, other significant sources
of funding included the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) and Michigan's Groundwater
Stewardship Program.
The objectives of the project were to improve
water quality by reducing the amount of sediment
and nutrients entering surface water and promoting
farmland preservation and controlled development.
The Steering Committee decided that one key to
the project's success would be to engage area land-
owners. The Steering Committee exceeded its goal
of contacting 50 landowners, reaching 64 landown-
ers to discuss their water quality issues.
Michigan
-------
A watershed logo, displayed on this cooperator's sign, created an identity for
the watershed project.
A number of best management practices
(BMPs) were installed as a result of the project,
including
• Implementation of 3,000 acres of mulch-
till and no-till.
• Installation of more than 12,000 linear feet
of exclusion fencing.
• Installation of four stream crossings and a
• watering facility.
• 190 linear feet of streambank stabilization.
• Installation of 18 acres of filter strips.
• Addition of five animal -waste storage
facilities.
• Installation of two sediment detention and
two erosion control structures.
• Restoration of more than 9 acres of -wet-
lands.
Successful reduction of pollutants
The quantity of sediment and nutrients entering
the Little Rabbit River was substantially reduced
with the installation of water quality-protective
BMPs. Pollution reductions were calculated for all
erosion control BMPs. The' total amount of pol-
lutants prevented from entering the Little Rabbit
River during die 3 years of project implementa-
tion was 19,852 tons of sediment, 19,706 pounds
of phosphorus, and 39,321 pounds of nitrogen.
In addition, the awareness of .water quality .
issues in the community increased. The local
residents stated that the project newsletter was a
primary source of conservation information. A
watershed logo was developed for use on T-shirts,
hats, and watershed cooperator signs, which cre-
ated an identity for the watershed project.
The success of the project can be"attributed
largely to the emphasis on one-to-one meetings
that built trust one person at a time. The water-
shed coordinator went to breakfast where the
farmers ate, using the opportunity to interact in a
relaxed social setting. The true partnership of the
agencies involved was also instrumental in the
project's success^ Other agencies that had rapport
with the agricultural community promoted the
Little Rabbit River Watershed Project, too, helping
to build credibility and trust.
Although the section 319 portion of the
Little Rabbit River Watershed Project is com-
plete, -water quality improvement and protection
efforts are continuing. EQIP funds are available
for agricultural BMP implementation. Watershed
planning and protection efforts have expanded
to the Rabbit River -watershed and adjoining
watersheds (Macatawa, Gun River) as a direct
result of the positive response from the local
community.
Michigan
179
-------
MINNESOTA
www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nonpoint/mplan.html
••ill
r
Contact:
! CtlffAlchlngcr
Ramsey/Washtngton Metro
Watershed District
i 65! -704-2069
1 cNfl8rwmwd.org
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• storm water
Primary NPS Pollutants:
« sediment
Project Activities:
• construction- of multicell
wetland treatment system
Results:
. • storm water filtration
• increased wildlife and
plant diversity
• education center, research
site for invasive species .
studies
North St. Paul Urban Ecology Center:
Wetland Improvements Needed to Control Storm Water
Before the restoration effort, the site was a
sod farm located on an area that had once
been a seasonal wetland.
In 1994 the City of North St. Paul identified a
potential wetland restoration project and nature
center, the Urban Ecology Center. The project site
was a 20-acre remnant of an old farm that had last
been a sod farm in 1950. The area had once been
part of a much larger area of seasonally wet wet-
land of approximately 150 acres.
The Ecology Center site
was also identified as a good
location to provide water
quality improvement for the
420-acre watershed, which
had been severely affected by
storm water leaving the site.
In addition, project managers
planned to include the resto-
ration of a diverse wetland
and upland plant and animal
community that could be
studied by students from the
four area schools.
The project involved a
unique partnership of local,
regional, and state govern-
ment that provided funding and technical assis-
tance. The total cost of the 5-year project was
about $397,000. The project was funded in part by
5210,000 in grants from four different agencies.
The remainder of the project funding was sup-
plied by the City of North St. Paul and the
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District.
North St. Paul, Minnesota
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 319
Program provided a $40,400 grant in 1997.
Water quality improvement and environmental
education
The restoration plan included modification to the
existing wetland to construct a multicell wetland
treatment system. The overall objective was not
only to improve the quality of storm water leaving
the site but also to design and develop the site as a
wetland environmental learning center. Environ-
mental changes would be monitored and informa-
tion used.to make future improvements on this
site, as well as on other wetlands in the watershed.
The project would serve as a model for other
metro area communities and school districts.
Using city and District funds, two additional
parcels of private land were acquired as essential
environmental education and water quality ele-
ments of the project. A trailhead parking lot was
constructed on one site, providing convenient
access to the Urban Ecology Center for school-
children and other visitors. A wetland boardwalk,
trails, and an educational display were constructed,-
providing information on the history of the site,
water quality improvement, and habitat manage-
ment. A section of the display was set aside for
school classes to present their environmental
monitoring and research results to the community.
District staff, school classes, and sentenced-
to-serve crews completed restoration of all dis-
Minnesota
-------
turbed areas with native vegetation. Some schools documented a dramatic increase in use of the site
helped by'growing some of the native grasses and by wildlife. Plant diversity also has increased,
wildflowers from seed in their classrooms. reflecting a good water quality condition.
Water quality improvements
Project leaders report a number of improvements
as a result of the project: The first basin is collect-
ing significant sedimentation, and the material is
removed every 2 years. Site observations have
Both plants and wildlife continue to thrive at the site, reflecting good water
conditions.
Continuing benefits
Although completed in 1999, the project continues
to involve several local governments and state
agencies in management, monitoring, and research.
The site is now being used for a research project on
control methods for reed canary grass funded by
the District, the Department of Natural Resources,
the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and
the University of Minnesota. Reed canary grass is
an invasive plant that spreads very quickly in sea-
sonally wet areas and crowds out most deskable
plants. Reed canary grass is the dominant plant in
the Urban Ecology Center. The primary challenge
to increasing vegetative and wildlife diversity will be
controlling the reed canary grass and successfully
reestablishing a native habitat. This project will
continue for several years.
www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nonpoint/mplan.html
MINNESOTA
BH ' " -"". :~- ~~"
Contact:
Paul Nelson
Prior Lake/Spring Lake
Watershed District
16670 Franklin Trail, Suite 110
Prior Lake, MN 55372
952-447-4166
" ' " : ' " -•"" •-.;•• . .• •"
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• urban runoff (new
development)
• agriculture
- '- • / ^ '- •" ";- ' - ' -
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• phosphorus
•— — T : ;-.-;--- .,-
Project Activities:
» wetland restoration
• streambank stabilization
• .storm water treatment
systems
- - •
Results:
• removal of dissolved
phosphorus
Prior Lake/Spring Lake Improvement Project:
Long-Term Implementation Strategy Off to a Good Start
Over the years, a combination of factors had been
compounding, relentlessly contributing to the water
quality problems in the Prior Lake and Spring Lake
Watershed District. In addition to the impacts of
the agricultural community, new development was
taking its toll, along with the constant adverse
effects of failing septic systems in the watershed.
Both Spring Lake and Upper Prior Lake were
found to be hypereutrophic, while Lower Prior
Scott County, Minnesota
Lake was mesotrophic. A reduction in phosphorus
levels was necessary to improve the quality of
Spring and Upper Prior Lakes; phosphorus concen-
trations needed to be maintained at their existing
levels to preserve the quality of Lower Prior Lake.
Based on the recommendations of a Clean
Lakes Study completed in 1993, the Minnesota Clean
Water Partnership Project commenced. The initial
phase was designed to reduce nonpoint source
Minnesota
181
-------
phosphorus loads to the lakes. Funding and imple-
mentation assistance for this 6-year effort were
provided through the section 319 grant program.
Phase 1: A comprehensive approach to
restoration
During the first phase of the project, a number of
projects were successfully completed, •while rela-
tionships were built with other agencies, citizens,
and organizations. Several projects aimed at con-
trolling storm water runoff were accomplished,
including the construction of the Iron (Ferric
Chloride) Runoff Treatment Facility and installa-
tion of storm water treatment devices with road
improvements. Wetland restoration projects also
occurred, including the construction of the High-
way 13 treatment wetland and conversion of the
Sand Point Park dry basin to a water quality pond.
In an effort to control the increasing threat of
sedimentation, several shoreline stabilization
projects were conducted. Among them were
projects to stablize the eroding channel in Fish
Point Park and to improve the desiltation basin
adjacent to Spring Lake. The community was also
involved in septic system education workshops,
yard waste management workshops, and soil testing
programs. No-till farming assistance was provided
to help encourage the adoption of such practices.
A successful first phase
Both citizen observations and monitoring data
indicate that the water quality is improving. Moni-
toring data show that the ferric chloride system is
operating as designed with respect to the removal
of dissolved phosphorus. In recognition of these
successes, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources named the Prior Lake/Spring Lake
Watershed District the 1998 Minnesota Watershed
District of the Year. Most importantly, trust has
improved between the agricultural constituents
and the District.
These successes enabled the District to con-
vene another partnership for the second implemen- .
tation phase. This phase builds on lessons learned
' in the first phase, as well as some new efforts fo-
cusing more specifically on the lakes. Continuing
efforts include providing incentive payments for
conservation tillage and nutrient management, as
well as conducting additional wetland restorations
and constructing more water quality basins. In-lake
efforts will aim to control internal recycling of
phosphorus and manage submerged aquatic plants
with changing water clarity.
i
Additional benefits
The project's initial successes have translated into
water quality management efforts beyond those
initiated by the grant program. These efforts in-
clude regulatory responses, such as the passage of a
"no phosphorus fertilizer" ordinance by the local
city, and revisions or improvements to the Water-
shed District's rules regarding new development
and redevelopment. Agricultural improvements,
participation in the cropland filter strip program
and supplemental payments for participants in the
Conservation Reserve Program and the Conserva-
tion Reserve Enhancement Program, continue.
Wetland restoration efforts are ongoing, and sewer
lines are now expanding into previously unsewered
areas around the lakes. Efforts to sustain the
progress continue, with completion of macrophyte
surveys and whole lake management plans.
In for the long haul
Overall, the District is pleased with the results to
date. Grant assistance allowed much more to be
accomplished than the District could have
achieved on its own. The District would have
preferred more immediate visual improvements
of the lake's water "quality. However, scientists
involved in the Glean Lakes Study had stated that
82 IB Minnesota
-------
although only limited visual improvements -would
occur as a result of the first phase, these efforts
were a necessary first step in achieving benefits in
subsequent phases. The District and its partners
realize that sustainable improvements will come
from a long-term implementation strategy.
www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/homepages.nsf
••r :T: : .:.:::::z:'.;:: ::::::.z.:^i:...:::z:i:
Contact:
Zoffee Dahmash
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
RO. Boxl038S
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
601-961-5137
zoffee_dahmash®deq.slate.rns.us
MISSISSIPPI
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (animal
operations, crops)
• forestry
Primary NFS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment • conservation tillage
• nutrients . » streambank stabilization
Results:
• retention' of more than
3,500 tons of soil
annually
Muddy Creek Watershed Demonstration Project:
BMPs Retain 3,500 Tons of Soil per Year
Winding its way through the northern part of
Tippah County, Mississippi, Muddy Creek eventu-
ally flows into Tennessee. The creek's drainage
area encompasses a total of 67,070 acres, of
which approximately 42'percent is in cropland,
31 percent in pastureland, and 25 percent in for-
est. Four dairy, 300 timber, 100 livestock, and 20
swine operations are also in the watershed. The
main agricultural products are soybeans and corn.
Classified as a Fish and Wildlife area, Muddy
Creek is designated as suitable for secondary
contact recreation, such as wading and occasional
swimming. Qf primary concern to the local popu-
lation and the neighboring population in Tennes-
see was the amount of sediment and nutrients
emptied by this creek into the Hatachie River in
Tennessee, designated as a Wild and Scenic River.
Water quality and land use assessments -were
performed in the watershed, and 3 of the 10
tributaries •were identified as having the most
agricultural operations. The land use assessment
evaluated the average soil erosion rate and the
magnitude of the animal operations in the water-
shed. The average soil loss from cropland and
pastureland in the watershed was estimated at 12.2
tons per acre per year. This amount of sediment
entering the watershed gave it a designation as a
Tippah County, Mississippi
priority watershed on the state's priority watershed
list for agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
, Installing best management practices
To address these concerns, the Muddy Creek
Watershed Demonstration Project was initiated by
establishing demonstration farms and agricultural
best management practices (BMPs). Conservation
tillage was widely promoted and accepted
throughout the watershed. The purpose of con-
servation tillage is to reduce ground disturbance
before crop planting, so that less soil and pollut-
ants leave the field and enter the receiving stream.
Other BMPs included grade stabilization
structures (pipes), a pond, more than 2,500 feet of
diversion (a constructed ridge diverting the flow
of water), fencing, critical area planting (pine
trees), and streambank protection. Streambank
stabilization BMPs included earthwork, vegetative
cover, and rock riprap.
Dramatic reductions in erosion
As a result of the BMPs installed, more than 3,500
tons of soil is being retained on the land each year.
The BMPs dramatically reduced the amount of
annual soil erosion and the subsequent flow of
sediment into the Muddy Creek watershed.
Mississippi ]
I 83
-------
MISSISSIPPI
Contact:
Zoffcc Dahmash
MlssissipfX Department of
Environmental Quality
RO. Box I038S
AXteoa MS 39289-0385
601-961-5137
Mffetdahmash®cteq.state.rns,us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (croplands)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• nutrients
• pesticides . .
Project Activities:
• grade stabilization
structures
Results:
• retention of more than
4,950 tons of topsoil per
year
• decreases in organic
carbon, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, ammonia .
nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite.
and total phosphorus
Roebuck Lake Demonstration Project:
SIotted-Board Risers Installed to Save Topsoil and Improve Water Quality
Roebuck Lake is a 580-acre lake in the Bear Creek
watershed in the central part of LeFlore County,
Mississippi. Its watershed encompasses an area of
11,200 acres. Roebuck Lake has tremendous
potential as a multiple-use recreational lake be-
cause some 101,500 people live within a 25-mile
radius. In the past the lake was well known for
water-skiing, swimming, boating, and fishing, but
currently these uses have decreased.
The water quality in Roebuck Lake is degrad-
ing because of the inflow of pollutants from
cropland fields. Drainage from approximately
8,100 acres of delta cropland flows into the lake,
leaving deposits of silt, pesticides, and fertilizer
*j
and other plant nutrients. Erosion occurring from
these erodible cropland acres is excessive, at an
average rate of 8 tons per acre. Based on available
data, the lake was designated in the state's 305(b)
water quality report as only partially supporting its
fish and wildlife classification because of agricul-
tural nonpoint sources of pollution.
Installing slotted-board risers
A number of partners came together to address
these concerns: the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality; U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation Commis-
sion; Environmental Protection Agency; and
Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service. The
LeFlore County, Mississippi
project included installing grade-stabilization
structures called slotted-board risers (SBRs) on a
selected cotton farm site. The practice involves
placing a pipe at the edge of die field just after
harvesting, with slotted boards placed in -front of
the pipe, and allowing the field to flood. Valuable
topsoil and expensive nutrients are retained on the
field, allowing them to be used during the next
growing season
Significant reductions
During the winters of 1997 and 1998, automated
storm water monitoring equipment was used to
calculate the loading reductions resulting from
the use of the SBRs. Because most of the rainfall
runoff was contained on-site and did not pro-
duce a discharge, reduction percentages were
high. Most of the trapped rainwater evaporated
or was absorbed into the soil. The results in- •
eluded reductions of 99.8 percent total sus-
pended solids, 89.4 percent total organic carbon,
100 percent total Kjeldahl nitrogen, 90.7 percent
ammonia nitrogen, 96.3 percent nitrate/nitrite,
and 97.1 percent total phosphorus. Overall, the
grade stabilization structures are saving 4,950
tons of topsoil per year.
The SBR practice continues to prove that it is
a very cost-effective approach to saving topsoil
while at the same time improving the lake's water
quality.. Many farmers have installed SBRs on
841
Mississippi
-------
their fields since the project .-was initiated. It is still
.too early to determine what long-term effects
these best management practices (BMPs) will have
on Roebuck Lake's water quality. It is hoped that
through this demonstration and through subse-
quent field days, farmers and the public will take
what they have learned and apply it to their lands.
If this occurs, it is possible that Roebuck Lake
could once again support its fish and wildlife
designated use.
www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/wpcnpsmp.htm
MISSOURI
Contacts:
Steve Welker
RC&D Coordinator
steve.welker®mo.usda.gov
John Hester
Team Leader
Bootheel Resource Conservation
and Development Council, Inc.
18450 Ridgeview Lane
Dexter; MO 63841
573-624-5939
john.hester®rno.usda.gov •
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (crap fields)
• poor irrigation efficiency
Primary NPS Pollutants:
» nutrients
• pesticides
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
« pesticides'
Results:
• 20 percent to 50 percent
water savings
• reduction in agricultural
chemicals entering
groundwaterand .
surface water
Mississippi Delta Irrigation Water Management Project:
Irrigation Efficiency Improved
The Mississippi Delta of Missouri encompasses
about 4,000 square miles, or 2.5 million acres, of
prime agricultural land. Forests and swamps origi-
nally covered this region, but it has become inten-
sively developed for agricultural production.
The. Mississippi Delta 319 Irrigation Water
Management Project was implemented in 1995
with the goal of maintaining and enhancing
Missouri's portion of the Mississippi Delta alluvial
aquifer. The project area and demonstration activi-
ties occurred within the 700,000 acres of irrigated
lands in the Delta. The management complexities
of the intensively irrigated lands in the project
emphasize the need in the region for comprehen-
sive nutrient and pesticide management plans and
maximum-efficiency water delivery systems.
Targeting irrigation system efficiency
The projectinvolved field-scale demonstrations of
three best management practices (BMPs) targeting
the improvement of irrigation system efficiency: •
• Side-inlet flood irrigation of rice, which
allows water to be applied to each basin
Six counties in the Missouri Bootheel
independent of the water levels in other
basins. Water is delivered to each basin
through a pipeline or an irrigation canal.
The system can be set so that all basins fill
at the same time.
• Surge-furrow irrigation for crops, which is
used to improve the uniformity of water
entering the soil down a row in a furrow
irrigation system. Water is introduced to
one area of the irrigated field for a certain
duration, then switched to a different irri-
gated area, then returned to the original
area. Surge valves automatically switch the
irrigation water. Switching back and forth is
continued until the entire length of the
furrow is watered. By pulsing, or surging,
the water advances down the furrow faster
than it would with the constant flow in a
- - conventional furrow irrigation system. By
decreasing the time needed to advance to
the end of the furrow, deep percolation is
reduced. This is particularly true in coarse-
textured soils.
Missouri
[85
-------
• Furrow flow rate uniformity improvements
for row crops, which will enable furrow
irrigation systems using lay-flat irrigation
tubing to apply water uniformly to indi-
vidual furrows as needed. In this recently
developed technology, a computer program
calculates the needed gradient of the crown
end of a field to match energy losses within .
the pipeline to equalize furrow flow streams.
The program selects hole sizes to help make
existing systems operate more efficiently.
Uniform furrow flow streams result in water
conservation (from 1 to 10 inches per acre
per year), reduced potential of surface water
contamination through reduced irrigation
tail water (from 1 to 6 inches per acre per
year), and increased yields. Roughly 200,000
acres could be furrow-irrigated each year
using the lay-flat irrigation tubing system.
Improving the efficiency of irrigation sys-
tems would reduce water loss due to deep percola-
tion and runoff. Consequently, it would reduce the
amount of water and agricultural chemicals enter-
ing groundwater and' surface draining systems.
The three methods to be demonstrated were
relatively unknown to Missouri farmers. The ben-
efits of the side-inlet and surge-irrigation methods
are well documented, and both methods are com-
monly used in other irrigated areas of the United
States. The furrow flow uniformity improvement
demonstration used technology recently developed
in Missouri. It is especially important to southeast
Missouri irrigators because it pertains to the use of
lay-flat irrigation tubing A higher percentage of
southeast Missouri irrigators use lay-flat tubing than
irrigators in any other irrigated area of the country.
Water savings and simpler management
For the eight side-inlet rice irrigation sites installed,
the composite water savings consistently ranged
from 30 percent to 50 percent on the fields. An-
other benefit of the side-inlet system expressed by
producers was the simpler management. The pro-
ducers believed that with side-inlet irrigation they
experienced less wear on their levees, used fewer
gates, did not have to adjust gates, and did not have
to guess when to end their irrigation. Consequently,
they had more time to take better care of their
fields. Even without the water savings, producers
felt the management aspect of the side inlet made
it worthwhile to install.
For the six surge-valve/furrow-flow irrigation
improvement sites, the surge systems averaged
between 20 percent and 30 percent reduction in
water use per irrigation, depending on soil type and
system flow rate. The producers indicated they
could also see a definite reduction in the pump
times on their fields using the irrigation water
management plans. In addition, they saw even
application of water across their field as a.benefit.
In the case of soybeans, some farmers noted they '
did not see the damage that had previously oc-
curred in oversaturated portions of their fields.
This project was also successful in transfer-
ring information after the completion of the
demonstrations. At the time the project was pro-
posed, there were few, if any, known producers in
southeast Missouri using the side-inlet method of
irrigating rice, as well as very limited use of
surge/furrow-flow improvement systems. As of
2000 it is estimated that 20,000 to 30,000 acres of
rice are being irrigated using the side-inlet
method. Since the project's inception, an esti-
mated 80,000 acres of irrigation water manage-
ment have been put into practice, including 20,000
to 30,000 acres of surge irrigation. By compari-
son, in 1995 furrow flow improvement plans were
used on fewer than 1,000 acres, surge irrigation
plans were used on fewer than 100 acres, and
there were no side-inlet rice irrigation plans.
86)
Missouri
-------
These field-scale demonstrations were criti-
cal in establishing credibility among area produc-
ers and gaining their acceptance of the applicabil-
ity of the BMPs. Equally important, the concen-
trated efforts of informing and educating pro-
ducers about the successes of the project ensured
continued use of these practices even after die
project was completed.
www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/wpcnpsmp.htm
MISSOURI
Contact:
Rita Mueller
Southwest Missouri Resource
Conservation and
Development (RC&D)
283 U.S. Highway 60 West
Republic, MO 65738
417-732-6485
rita.mueller®mo.usda.gov
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (dairy/beef
operations)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
Project Activities:
• pasture management
practices
• rotational grazing systems -
• farmer education
(workshops, manuals)
Results:
• average savings of
$ 1 /cow/day
• reduced labor
• less erosion and nutrient-
contaminated runoff
Upper Niangua Grazing Demonstration Project:
Counties Unite to Start Demonstration Farms
The Upper Niangua watershed encompasses
217,000 acres in Webster, Dallas, and Laclede
Counties in southwest Missouri. Dairy and beef
operations, .with an emphasis on forage produc-
tion, constitute a large component of the agricul-
ture in the watershed. Through support of section
319 funding obtained through Southwest Missouri
Resource Conservation and Development
(RC&D), 'seven landowners from these three
counties implemented management-intensive
grazing systems to better manage their cattle,
manure, and pastures. The project was funded
from March 1,1994, through December 31, 1999.
The objectives of the Upper Niangua Graz-
ing Demonstration Project included the following:
• Demonstrate best management practices
for pastures and use of animal waste to
prevent nonpoint source pollution.
• Inform local and regional landowners of
the economic and ecological benefits of
proper pasture management.
• Demonstrate riparian corridor protection
as a part of the total farm system.
Webster, Dallas, and Laclede Counties, Missouri
Implementing resource management systems
Seven livestock/dairy operations were selected to
participate as model sites to demonstrate the
effectiveness of grazing best management prac-
tices. Each producer was required to implement a
total resource management system, and incentive
payments were provided for participation.
Management-intensive grazing systems were
installed and customized to each producer's opera-
tion. Management-intensive grazing is a goal-
driven approach to grazing management, charac-
terized by balancing animal demand with forage
supply through the grazing season and allocating
available forage based on the animal's require-
ments. Underlying the approach is a basic under-
standing of how soil, water, plants, and animals
interact •with each other as influenced by climatic
conditions and management decisions. The four
goals used in implementing a management-inten-
sive grazing plan for each participant included
financial or economic considerations, environ-
mental concerns, lifestyle, and production goals.
Workshops were held at these demonstration
farms in the spring and fall to provide training to -
Missouri
187
-------
Recipe for Success in Missouri
ingredient
« Farms
« Cattle
» Fencing
* Watering pipe
* Watering troughs
• Forages
« Manure
* Landowners
Amount
Seven
Match to forages
Enough to split each farm into eight or more
paddocks
Enough to carry water to all paddocks
Enough to supply cool, clean water to cattle in
each paddock
Large variety of dense, palatable, high-quality
grasses and legumes
Distributed evenly in all paddocks
Seven progressive, open-minded farmers
Carefully split each farm into paddocks (pasture subdivisions) with the
fencing. Insert watering troughs into each paddock, and connect them
with pipeline. Keep cattle on one paddock at a time, rotating based on
forage growth and availability- The variety of forages will increase the
longer you cook this mixture. Let it rain on the mixture to moisten .
evenly. Ask the seven farmers to open the meal to anyone interested
and share at "Pasture Walk" gatherings and workshops.
Delicious! (And guess what? Everyone wants the recipe!)
landowners and agency personnel working in the
region. Highlighted were sessions on plant growth,
plant management, soil fertility, species selection,
livestock needs, water development, and other
aspects of the management-intensive grazing
system necessary to derive the economic and .
environmental benefits of participating. In addi-
tion, monthly Pasture Walks proved to the "Show
Me" Missouri farmers the value of these systems.
The University of Missouri Extension Ser-
vice also published a valuable manual for dairy
farmers called the Missouri Gracing
Dairy Manual. The manual covers all
aspects of pasture-based dairying in
Missouri, including managing nutrients
from manure and inorganic sources in
pastures. The manual documents how
the amount of phosphorus added to a
stream when a cow defecates directly
into it—just once—can be the same as
the amount of phosphorus that runs
off an acre of pasture in a single rain
runoff event.
The final chapter in the manual highlights the
economics of the pasture-based dairy. Missouri is
fortunate to have at least 8 months during which
pastures can be grazed. The diversification of
pasture species that results from rotational grazing
provides high-quality forage throughout that long
grazing season. High-quality forages mean greater
milk production, which in turn provides greater
returns to the producer.
Results of pasture management
The producers in this project saved an average of
$1 per cow per day by using pasture management
practices. They also decreased labor because of
the'reduced time needed for harvesting forages
and handling waste. This was evident to the land-
owners frOm Dallas County. The landowners with
the management-intensive grazing systems were
able to extend their grazing season and wait up to
2 months longer before feeding supplemental hay
than some of their neighbors during an extensive
period of drought.
Through this demonstration project, man-
aged grazing strategies and riparian corridor pro-
tection reduced the quantity and improved the
quality of the farmland runoff. As noted in the
dairy manual, dairy cows excrete 70 percent of the
Splitting large fields into smaller fields (called paddocks) with
electric fence allows for more efficient use of the pasture,
healthier plants, and more plant diversity.
881
Missouri
-------
Water in every paddock allows for better manure distribution and nutrient
recycling, reduces stress on animals, and reduces erosion.
nitrogen, 60 percent of the phosphorus, and 80
V
percent of the potassium they consume in their
diets. In grazing systems, the nutrients that have
been consumed are returned to the pasture
through manure and then taken up again by the
forage. .This cycling of nutrients leads to a lower
runoff of nutrients, from pasture systems because
fewer nutrients are imported to die pasture by
heavy, concentrate, or hay feeding. A greater num-
ber of rotations in a grazing system provides for
more evenly distributed manure, so nutrients are
not concentrated in only a few spots.
The demonstration project protected ground
cover and provided more efficient forage produc-
tion. The manual provided information showing
that forages managed in grazing dairy systems in
Missouri •were of very high quality, with an aver-
age crude protein content of 21 percent from
April through December. These forages also
furnish vigorous ground cover, which helps re-
duce erosion and runoff compared to convention-
ally grazed pastures. Legume growth and reseed-
ing are enhanced because of longer recovery
periods for pastures in a rotation. The legumes
can "fix" nitrogen in the soil so diat less nitrogen
. needs to be applied to pastures. Water infiltration
is increased because of improved soil structure,
•which reduces runoff. In addition, die extensive
root system of healthy forages decreases the
potential for leaching by trapping particles and by
taking up water.
The Upper Niangua Grazing Demonstration
was a success. This demonstration project had
numerous partners: funding was provided by an
Environmental Protection Agency grant through
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources; the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service, University of Mis-
souri Outreach and Extension, Dallas County Soil
and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Laclede
SWCD, Webster SWCD, and Missouri Department
of Conservation provided technical assistance.
The ongoing impact of the project in diis
Ozark region of Missouri, known for its clear
lakes and streams, will be felt by all diose who
enjoy this area—visitors and residents alike.
Missouri
189
-------
MONTANA
www.deq.state.mt.us/ppa/nonpoint/NonpointPlan.htm
BUB
Contacts:
ABce Wolff
Lower MusseWie*
Conservation District
•106-323-21 03 (ext 101)
oSce-woWSSnitnacdnetorg
Carafe MacWn
Moncana Department of
Environmental Quality
40M44-742S
cmacWn@state.mtus
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture
Primary NPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment » agricultural BMPs
• nutrients (including fencing,
rangeland management)
• reduced irrigation
discharges
•
Results:
• ! 9 percent increase in
riparian habitat
• 25 percent reduction in
sediment delivery
• fish populations
rebounded
Careless Creek Watershed Project:
Sediment Delivery Reduced by 25 Percent
Careless Creek, Montana
Local initiative and voluntary participation con-
tributed to the success of the Careless Creek
Watershed Project. Careless Creek is a 100-mile-
long tributary to the Musselshell River in central
Montana. Agriculture is the main economic activ-
ity and land use in the 500,000-acre watershed.
About a quarter of the land in the stream corridor
is irrigated; the rest is mostly forest and rangeland.
Lower Careless Creek was classified as "mod-
erately to severely impaired" in the 1988 state water
quality assessment. Sediment and salts from return
irrigation flows and other agricultural activities
were the main pollutants. Artificially high summer
flows were causing severe streambank erosion.
Severe bank cutting and loss of fencing were common on Careless Creek before
streambank restoration.
Broad-based collaboration
Local landowners, working with the Lower
Musselshell Conservation District, began a process
to address local resource concerns. In 1990 a 319-
funded study led to the formation of a local steer-
ing committee. The steering committee brought
together a broad coalition of private landowners
and water users; federal, state, and local agencies;
. and private organizations to address resource con-
cerns in the watershed. Collaborators include the
Lower Musselshell Conservation District;
Musselshell and Golden Valley Courity Commis-
sions; U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resources Conservation Service; Deadman's Basin
Water Users Association; Upper Musselshell Water
. Users Association; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation;
Montana Watercourse; Deadman's Basin Cabin
Owners Association; Montana's Fish, Wildlife and
Parks Department, Department of Natural Re-
sources and Conservation, and Department of
Agriculture; local schools; and the Montana Con- •
servation Corps. ' ,
The steering committee developed a number
of restoration goals for Careless Creek, including
the following:
• Reduce artificial flows down Careless Creek.
• Reduce streambank and channel erosion on
the lower 7 miles of Careless Creek.
Montana
-------
After sloping and revetments, outdoor classes were held and willows were
planted at the site.
• Apply voluntary best management practices
(BMPs) in the watershed above Deadman's
Reservoir.
• Improve native fisheries in the lower water-
shed. -
• Establish weed control plans for the water-
shed.
• Restore Franklin Lake to a wetland.
Remediation approaches
Local buy-in was crucial to the project's success.
Complex resource issues, involving water rights
and allocations, had die potential to create conflict
within the community. The watershed committee
emphasized a nonregulatory, collaborative ap-
proach that attracted the participation of a major-
ity of landowners and interest groups. Irrigation
discharges to Careless Creek were voluntarily
limited to 100 cubic feet per second. This flow
reduction was made possible by infrastructure
improvements to the water delivery system.
A number of agricultural BMPs were also
implemented, including the installation of 56,000
feet of fencing to manage livestock grazing in caizcal
areas and the installation of a 15,195-foot pipe and
two tanks to provide off-stream livestock watering.
Measurable results
At the outset the watershed group established a
tracking program to monitor implementation. As
of summer 2000, the project had resulted in the
restoration of 37,000 feet of streambank and a 19
percent increase in riparian habitat. Fifty-four
percent of the stream corridor is no longer erod-
ing. So far, prescribed grazing practices have
improved rangeland management on 18,000 acres.
These restoration activities have reduced
sediment delivery to the Musselshell River by 25
percent.
The comprehensive monitoring plan uses a
combination of water chemistry analyses, biologi-
cal indicators, and physical habitat evaluations to
measure progress. One indication of progress is
obvious: fish populations have rebounded in the
first 5 years of the project.
Phase II
To further reduce nutrient and sediment delivery in
Careless Creek and the Musselshell River, 319 funds
are being used to restore another 14,632 feet of
degraded streambank by improving livestock waste
.systems, moving corrals off the creek, developing
alternative livestock watering systems (solar pumps),
excluding livestock from damaged riparian areas, and
continuing to plant willows and grass. Other con-
tributors are the Montana Renewable Resources
Grant and Loan Program, the Deadman's Basin
Water Users Association, and the Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation.
Widespread recognition of success
In 1995 the steering committee organized a
"Know Your Watershed" workshop, which
Montana
-------
marked the beginning of the committee's outreach
and education program. The project's bimonthly
newsletter, Careless Creek Country, won a state
award for excellence. Other components of die
outreach program have included outdoor class-
rooms and watershed tours.
Montana's governor and the Montana Water-
shed Coordination Council recognized this col-
laborative effort last summer with a Montana
Watershed Stewardship Award. In November
2001 the project will receive a CF Industries Na-
tional Watershed Award.
MONTANA
www.deq.state.mt.us/ppa/nonpoint/NonpointPlan.htm
•KU
Contacts:
Alan Rollo
Sun River Project
406-727-4437
arotlQaimcn.net
Jim Baucrmelster
Department of
Environmental Quality
406-444-6771
jbauermaster9state.mt.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture
• irrigation return flows
„ , , ^-r,-^-^ " -— -;• ..-,.....-.-.•-. a • :• • ..- • , i .-..._-.,-__-„-,-- ... . . , ...,..,,... „,.„
Primary NPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment • agricultural BMPs
(including grazing
management)
• reestablishing riparian
vegetation
« increased irrigation
efficiency
> .
"- • >...J*.--."' ' • . . . .r.^-~,.,- .-. ...Ml
Results:
« 75 percent reduced -
sediment delivery
« reestablishing habitat
'
Restoration in Muddy Creek:
Will a Name Change Be Needed?
Muddy Creek was aptly named. Until recently, the
small tributary was carrying 200,000 tons of sedi-
ment a year into the Sun River west of Great
Falls, Montana. Irrigation return flows were
increasing the normal seasonal stream flow ten-
fold and scouring a deep, steep-banked gully.
Muddy Creek had the dubious distinction of
being the most polluted stream in Montana. The
creek drains about 314 square miles of farmland, •
and agriculture—both livestock grazing and crop
production—was the primary contributor of
nonpoint source pollutants.
Supported by 319 funding, local landowners,
conservation districts, and other partners formed
the Muddy Creek Task Force in 1994. By 1998 .
the Task Force had achieved three of the four
goals it had established at the outset:
• Goal 1: 'Reestablish riparian vegetation.
Watershed cooperators improved grazing
management on 8 miles of stream corridor,
installed 44,000 feet of riparian fencing,
established six off-stream livestock water-
Muddy Creek, Montana
ing systems, planted more than 8,000 wil- •
lows and other trees and shrubs, and rees-
tablished native grasses in riparian and
upland zones.
Goal 2: Reduce irrigation return flows.
A public education effort that included'
brochures, newsletters, a video and slide
show, a project display board, numerous
watershed tours, and U.S. Bureau of Recla-
mation progress reports contributed to a
35 percent reduction in irrigation return
flows. Most of the reduction was achieved
by increasing irrigation efficiency.
Goal 3: 'Reduce sediment delivery to the Sun
River and Missouri River.
More than 400 barbs were installed to
reduce bank erosion, and 13 drop struc- .
tures were built to slow flows and stop
headcutting. Reduced sedimentation is also
a product of the first two goals—reestab-
lishing riparian vegetation and reducing
irrigation flows. The original goal was to
921
Montana
-------
reduce ;sedimentation by 75 percent in 5
years; the project did it in 4 years.
• Goal 4: Improve fisheries in the Sun River
watershed.
Although it is too soon to adequately docu-
ment an improved fishery, anglers have
noted that the improved water quality is
allowing fish to migrate back to Muddy
Creek.
And there are'other documented improvements—
increased waterfowl and wildlife habitats from
improved riparian areas, reduction of flood po-
tential, reduced cost for maintaining roads and
railroads, and a reduction of land loss by several
landowners along Muddy Creek.
Duplicating success in the Sun River
watershed ,
The Muddy Creek Task Forcels successes were
contagious. Soon groups were working through-
out the Sun River watershed.' In 1996 the Sun
River Project received a 319 grant of $198,140 to
continue work on the Muddy Creek Project, com-
plete a comprehensive resource inventory of the
Sun River watershed, and enhance the water quan-
tity and quality of the Sun River. This project
funded stream work on 8,000 feet of Mill Creek,
4,000 feet of the Sun River, and 4,000 feet of
Duck Creek. Supplemental 319 funding from the
1999 Clean Water Action Plan helped fund resto-
ration work on several segments of Elk Creek, .
another tributary to the Sun. By 1999 the in-kind
contributions of the various partners Lad ex-
ceeded $2 million.
The Sun River Project is now in its third phase.
A $135,480 section 319 grant is targeted at reduc-
ing erosion and irrigation return flows on the Sun
River and its tributaries. The project is continuing
to restore riparian habitat and promote the imple-
mentation of best management practices. . ,
Broad-based partnerships
The Sun River Project is known for its broad-
based cooperation. Participating entities include
Cascade County, Teton County, and Lewis and
Clark County conservation districts; the Muddy
Creek and Willow Creek task forces; U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological
Survey; Montana Departments of Environmental
Quality, Natural Resources and Conservation,
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Agriculture, and
Bureau of Mines and Geology; Greenfields and
Fort Shaw irrigation districts; Medicine River
Canoe Club, Missouri River Flyfishers, Audubon
Chapter, Russell Country Sportsman Association; •
and many others.
The Sun River Project has won numerous
awards, such as the Montana Watershed Coordi-
nating Council's Watershed Stewardship Award,
Clean Water Action Plan's Showcase Award, and
CF Industries' National Watershed Award.
Montana '
193
-------
NEBRASKA
www.deq.state.ne.us/Priority.nsf/Pages/NNSMP
I; Contact:
i ElbcrtTraytor
" Nebraska Department of
1 EnwonrnerWtil Qualiw
f 1200 N Street. Suite 400
I Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
\ 402-471-2585
f Efbert.TrayfOfSndeq.state.ne.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture
• construction site runoff
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
• sediments
Project Activities:
• erosion control
ordinance
• sediment retention
basins
• streambankstabilization
Results:
• low total phosphorus
, concentrations and
sediment delivery
• excellent habitat for
new lake
Walnut Creek Lake Project:
Partnership Drives Watershed Protection
The Walnut Creek Lake and Recreation Area/near
Papillion, Nebraska, represents a new approach to
reservoir development. Walnut Creek Lake plan-
ners, aware that Omaha area lakes suffer from
excess sediment and nutrients, set out to prevent
those problems from die start. The project part-
ners were die Papio-Missouri River Natural Re-
sources District, the City of Papillion, Sarpy
County, University of Nebraska Cooperative
Extension, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Game
and Parks Commission, and Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality (DEQ).
An initial accomplishment was the creation
of a 15-member Clean Lakes Community Council
consisting of area farmers, residents, and other
private citizens. The Council's mission was to
develop management goals for the lake watershed .
that would serve the needs and desires of the
community and protect the lake from polluted
runoff. The Council quickly established itself as
die driving force for the project.
To protect against the high levels of erosion caused
by commercial development around Walnut Creek
Lake, strict erosion control standards were
implemented around the lake.
Papillion, Nebraska
Innovative approaches to protecting watershed
The Walnut Creek watershed was entirely agricul-
tural and enjoyed an unusually high level of land
treatment at the beginning of the project. The
Council and project partners recognized, however,
that creation of a lake would quickly attract resi-
dential and commercial development in the water-
shed and -with it the excessive erosion characteris-
tic of land development. To guard against this
threat, the Council drafted a special ordinance for
the lake watershed that requires a high level of
erosion control on construction sites and provides
for higher penalties dian usual for violators of the
ordinance. The City of Papillion subsequendy
adopted the ordinance widiin its jurisdiction of
the lake's watershed. The practices required by the
ordinance provide the first barrier to keep sedi-
ment on the development site and out of the lake.
Further protections were built into the design
of the lake itself. The DEQ's Nonpoint Source
Pollution Management Program provided funding
through section 319 for outreach and installation
of best management practices to reduce sediment
and nutrient runoff into^the lake. Islands and
jetties dissipate wave action and prevent shoreline
erosion, and sediment retention basins intercept
sediment before it reaches the lake. Shoreline
plantings stabilize soils, break up wave action, and
provide food and habitat for aquatic organisms.
Pallet stacks, tire reefs, and brush piles placed in
941
I Nebraska
-------
the bottom of the lake provide shelter for fish.
Restrictions prevent boaters from generating
destructive wakes that erode shorelines and dis-
turb aquatic wildlife. The cost of installing these
practices as preventive measures is a fraction of
the cost of installing restorative measures after a
lake has suffered degradation.
Water quality improvements ' .
The goal of the project partners and the Commu-
nity Council was to create a model lake designed
to resist the pollutant pressures typical in eastern
Nebraska and to meet or exceed its design life-
time. Early water quality data suggest that goal
will be achieved. The initial water transparency of
61 inches is expected to stabilize in the long term
to about 28 inches, well above the average of 22
inches for other area lakes. In-lake total phospho-
rus concentrations should stabilize at 0.07 milli-
gram per liter (rhg/L) from the current 0.05
mg/L; other area lakes average 0.08 mg/L total
phosphorus. Sediment basins and other erosion
controls will limit lake volume loss to 0.27 percent
per year compared to the average 0.85 percent
loss in other area.lakes.
High water quality and habitat enhancements
are expected to make Walnut Creek Lake the
premier fishery among the Omaha area lakes. An
added bonus of the project is that it leaves behind
an energized group of watershed residents. The
Clean Lakes Community Council is dedicated to
ensuring that protective measures remain in place
to protect the lake from polluted runoff.
- DEQ has adopted a community-based ap-
proach to watershed planning for all nonpoint
source priority watersheds, based on the experience
with the Walnut Creek project. Formation of a
Citizen Watershed Council to advise the agency's
Technical Advisory Committee is a key feature of
the process. A manual is being developed to guide
the project sponsor, Watershed Council, and Tech-
nical Advisory Committee through the planning
process. The process is being initiated or imple-
mented in two watersheds where new reservoirs are
being constructed and in six watersheds where
reservoir renovations are planned or under way.
www.deq.state.ne.us/Priority.nsf/Pages/NNSMP
NEBRASKA
HnM
Contact:
Jackie Stumpff
Nebraska Department pf
Environmental Quality
402-471-3193
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• abandoned wells
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nitrates
Project Activities:
• ». plugging/capping
abandoned wells
Results:
• closure of 37
abandoned wells
• projected decrease in
nitrate levels
Wellhead Protection in Guide Rock:
Village Closes Abandoned Wells to Protect Water Supply
Guide Rock, Nebraska
Guide Rock, like many small towns and villages,
recently found itself facing concerns about the
community's environmental health. The south-
central Nebraska village (1990 population 290)
contacted the Department of Environmental
Quality's (DEQ) Nebraska Environmental Partner-
ships (NEP) program to discuss its problems and
concerns. NEP provided Guide Rock with a grant
so the village could complete a community assess-
ment and identify current or potential problems
with its drinking water and wastewater systems.
The primary concern identified by the assess-
ment was high nitrate levels in the village's public
water wells. The nitrate levels had started to in-
NebrasKa '
195
-------
crease gradually in 1995; by December 1997 they
were above 10 parts per million^ the maximum
level of nitrates in drinking water considered safe
for all consumers of the water. In October 1999
nitrate levels were 10.4 ppm and 9.4 ppm in the
village's two wells.
Source of contamination
Because of concerns about the nitrate levels, the
NEP team assigned to work with Guide Rock dis-
cussed the Wellhead Protection Area program with
the village board. (The Wellhead Protection Area
program assists communities and other public water
suppliers in preventing contamination, of their water
supplies.) The board asked the DEQ's Ground
Water Section to proceed with drawing a wellhead
protection area map for Guide Rock's public water
supply wells. A meeting was held for all village resi-
dents to discuss the proposed wellhead protection
area in 1998, and the village board passed an ordi-
nance to designate the protection area.
"The village board is to be commended, as it
has been very supportive of these efforts and has
been active in undertaking preventive activities,"
says MJ. Rose, Nebraska Environmental Partner-
ships program coordinator. "In particular, the
village board is committed to providing the resi-
dents a good public water supply at the least
possible cost to residents."
Staff of the Wellhead Protection Program
identified abandoned wells as a probable major
source of the contamination of Guide Rock's water
supply wells and recommended closing any unused
wells in the community and the wellhead protection
area. Correctly plugging and capping abandoned
wells can eliminate the risk of contamination of the
groundwater aquifer. In April 1999 the village
board contacted the Lower Republican Natural
Resources District (NRD) regarding the District's
abandoned wells program, which provides up to 60
percent of the cost of properly closing a well.
The village board then sought assistance from
NEP for possible funding sources to assist in
closing -wells. NEP helped the community secure a
section 319 Small Projects Assistance grant to
develop a promotion campaign and pay the re-
maining 40 percent of closure costs. These two
funding sources enabled the village to pursue the
proper closing of abandoned wells at no cost to
Guide Rock's residents.
Successful enrollment in abandoned well
program
Village board members and the village clerk con-
ducted a survey of properties in Guide Rock and
the wellhead protection area to locate abandoned
wells. Residents were given information about the
abandoned well program and were encouraged to
attend a September 1999 public meeting to dis-
cuss the program. The Lower Republican NRD,
DEQ, and a local well driller presented informa-
tion at the meeting. Residents had the opportunity
to ask questions and to sign up for the program.
Thirty-seven wells were signed up and have since
been closed through the program.
"Guide Rock's drinking water'supply will be
much safer," says Rose. "Numerous potential
sources of contamination have been eliminated.
I'm glad that Nebraska Environmental Partner-
ships was able to assist in this process. Since there
are additional abandoned wells in the village in
need of proper closing, I hope that this initial
success will encourage citizens to volunteer other
wells for the program in the future."
96|
Nebraska
-------
http://ndwr.state.nv.us
NEVADA
^^^H •
Contact:
Maty Kay Riedl
Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection
Nonpoint Source
Management Program
775-687-4670 (ext. 3096)
mriedl@ndep.carson-cily.nv.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• urbanization
• agriculture
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
• fecal coliform bacteria
. . • • suspended solids
• metals
Project Activities:
• constructed wetland
ponds
• realignment of slough
downstream
• riparian restoration
Results:
• reductions in fecal
coliform bacteria.
phosphorus, ammonia,
and heavy metals
• improved wildlife
habitat
Martin Slough Water Quality Enhancement Project:
Water Quality Improves In the Upper Carson River Basin
In 1999 the pond at Oilman Avenue crossing was
unhealthy and visually unappealing.
The Carson River in
Western Nevada is a
river .in trouble. Natu-
ral phenomena like
drought and flooding
and human activities
such as agriculture
(irrigation return flows
and livestock grazing),
hydrologic modifica-
tion (water diversion and channelization by the .U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers during the 1960s), habi-
tat modification (removal of riparian vegetation),
and urban runoff have contributed to degraded
water quality, beneficial use impairment, and highly
unstable, easily credible banks. The river is listed on
Nevada's 303(d) list for total phosphorus, sus-
pended sediment, turbidity, and several metals.
During the recent high water years of 1995 and
1997, hundreds of acres of land along the river
•were washed away. Not only were valuable land and
riparian habitat lost, but the eroded material also
degraded fish habitat downstream. •
The towns of Minden and Gardnerville are
located side-by-side in the heart of Carson Valley,
Nevada, where ranching and associated irrigated
agriculture dominate land use. The East and West
Forks of the Carson River meet in the southern
portion of the valley to form the main stem of
the river. Scenic vistas surround the area: the
Upper Carson River Basin, Nevada
Carson Range, of the Sierra Nevada Mountains
rises to the west, and the Pinenut Mountains
border the eastern side of the valley. Through a
public outreach process, Minderi and Gardnerville
have identified the Martin Slough as an important
amenity to their communities.
The Martin Slough is a partially man-made
waterway that flows through both communities
before it joins the East Fork of the Carson River.
Historically the slough was used"to deliver irriga-
tion water and collect return flow. However,
because of rapid urbanization over the past
decade, the Martin Slough has also become a
conduit for increased amounts of urban runoff.
Water quality monitoring has shown elevated
levels of nutrients, fecal coliforms, suspended
solids, and metals.
Joining forces to arrest runoff
In 1995 Minden and Gardnerville joined with the
Douglas County Water Conveyance Advisory
Committee, Douglas County School District, and
local landowners to develop a plan to improve
water quality, restore wetland and wildlife habitat,
provide for ground water recharge and storm
water storage and.treatment, provide for public
education, and preserve an open-space corridor
through both communities.
The entire project consists of six phases.
During Phase 1 of the project, completed in
Nevada \
197
-------
The restoration project improved water quality,
created wildlife habitat, and enhanced the visual
appeal of the pond.
September 1999, two wetland ponds were con-
structed in the upper slough to provide for water •
treatment and sediment capture. Phase 2 was
completed in April 2000 and consisted of realign-
ing the slough downstream of Phase 1 and install-
ing a trash rack and diversion structure. Phase 3
was completed in December 2000 and consisted
of riparian restoration through planting of native
trees and shrubs to provide for cooler water tem-
peratures and further enhance wildlife habitat. In
addition, an access road to provide for mainte-
nance, water quality sampling, and flow monitor-
ing was constructed. A flow-measuring device
was installed downstream of the ponds.
Continued water quality improvement
Water quality monitoring sites were established
upstream and downstream of the constructed
wetland ponds. Preconstruction samples were
collected from April through September 1999 to
establish a baseline from which to measure the
effectiveness of the project. Postconstruction
sampling began in October 1999, and it is ex-
pected to continue for at least 10 years.
Current preliminary data suggest improved
water quality and reductions in the levels of fecal
coliform bacteria, phosphorus, ammonia, and
heavy metals. Other immediate results of the
project have been an increase in wildlife such as
muskrat and deer in the area and a variety of
bkds, including herons, geese, ducks, blackbirds^
and swallows. As indicated in the photo of the
completed project, the results are aesthetically
pleasing. Future phases will occur in the town of
Minden and include plans for public parks, bike
trails, bank stabilization, riparian restoration, and
wildlife habitat enhancement.
Funding to date for Phases 1 and 2 includes
$45,000 of section 319(h) funds and $86,745 in
local matching funds.
http://ndwr.state.nv.us
NEVADA
•mm
. Contact:
I Jean Stone
i Nevada Division of
' Environmental Protection
« Nonpoint Source
Management Program
775-687-4670 fext 3090)
; jstoncSSndep.cafsorKity.nv.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• unstable stream banks
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
Project Activities:
» bank stabilization
through vegetative
treatment and redirection
of flow away from
unstable banks
Results:
• 74 percent average
cover on all vegetative
treatments
• 35 percent regeneration
of willow clumps
Middle Carson River Restoration Project:
Bioengineering Used to Restore Unstable Banks
In 1995 a group of ranchers and other concerned
local citizens living along the Middle Carson River
near Dayton, Nevada, formed the Middle Carson
River Coordinated Resource Management Plan-
Middle Carson River, Nevada
ning Committee to find ways to manage and
restore the river. The effort was spearheaded by
the Dayton Valley Conservation District (DVCD),
with the support and cooperation of numerous
98
Nevada
-------
community groups and agencies, including the
Carson Water Subconservancy District, Western
Nevada Resource Conservation and Develop-
ment, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
and Lyon County. In 1996 the DVCD hired Kevin
Piper as watershed coordinator.
The strength of the Middle Carson group is
their ability to work together to implement "on-the-
ground" projects. Under Piper's leadership, several
bank stabilization projects have been completed,
and the group supports education and outreach
programs in coordination with local schools.
Restoring streambanks with bioengineering
Bioengineering, which uses vegetative techniques in
addition to "hard" structures such as riprap, is the ,
cornerstone of the bank restoration projects. Work
began on the Glancy property near Dayton in 1998,
with the construction of five stream barbs to redi-
rect flow away from the unstable banks. The quies-
cent areas behind the structures collect sediment
and allow natural regeneration of native vegetation.
Several vegetative treatments, including brush
mattress layering, brush trenches, juniper revet-
ments, willow dump planting, and seeding, were
used to provide bank stability, reduce erosion, trap
sediment, provide shading, encourage natural plant
growth,'and restore wildlife habitat.
Monitoring to document improvements
A long-term monitoring program is being imple-
mented to evaluate the effectiveness of the best
management practices. Activities include aerial
photography; annual survey of channel cross
sections to determine the degree of accretion/
degradation; monitoring of vegetation growth to
assess changes in habitat; analysis of soil charac-
teristics to document particle size, credibility, and
sediment transport potential; and hydraulic mod-
eling to determine water surface elevations at
specific recurrence intervals.
Monitoring conducted 9 months, after project
completion showed an average of 74 percent cover
on all vegetative treatments, with about 35 percent
regeneration of the willow clumps. A topographical
survey indicated deposition of about 430 cubic
yards of sediment between the stream barbs. Al-
though sediment buried the lower half of many of
the vegetative treatments, it provided a medium for
.natural cottonwood seeding. Channel cross sections
showed that the low-flow channel has moved away
from the bendway, suggesting the stream barbs are
functioning as designed to deflect higher stream
flow away from the bank.
As part of the public education component,
bimondily water quality monitoring of the Middle
Carson River is conducted with the help of the
River Wranglers. This volunteer group, coordi-
nated by Lyon County teacher Linda Conlin,
works widi local schools to educate students
about river and lake ecology.. Students measure
dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity in the field.
Macroinvertebrate samples are collected and
transported back to school, where students iden-
tify the number of mayflies, caddisflies, stoneflies,
worms, and other aquatic organisms. •
In July 2000 Kevin Piper and the Middle
Carson River Coordinated Resource Management
Group received the Wendell McCurry Excellence
in Water Quality Award. The Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection established this award
to recognize individuals, firms, organizations, and
governmental entities that have made significant
contributions to improving the quality of
Nevada's water resources.
Funding to date includes approximately
$30,000 of section 319(h) funds and |30,000 in
local matching funds.
Nevada ]
I VV
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
www.des.state.nh.us/waterdiv.htm
•••1
Contact:
Rick DcMark
North County RC&D Area
Council
719 North Main Street
Room 220
Laeonta, NH 03246-2772
603-527-2093
rdemarkSSnh.usda.gov
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
» urban storm water runoff
• eroded ditches
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• phosphorus
• sediment
Project Activities;
• installed system of berms
• swales
• settling and filtering
.basins .
Results:
» 82 percent reduction in
phosphorus
Chocorua Lake Project:
BMPs Reduce Phosphorus by 82 Percent
Carroll County, New Hampshire
The Chocorua Lake Association (CLA) has been '
monitoring Chocorua Lake for more than 20
years. Recent trends showing declining water
clarity prompted the CLA to request designation
of the watershed as "Category I," a priority
waterbody in need of restoration. Working with
the Carroll County Conservation District, the
North Country Resource Conservation and De-
velopment Area, Inc., and Natural Resources
Conservation Service, a 319 project was devel-
oped and the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services awarded grant funds in
April 2000.
The Chocorua Lake watershed is 13.2 square
miles in extent and well protected except for a few
vulnerable areas. The U.S. Forest Service manages
the south side of Mount Chocorua as a scenic
view area. This management decision helped
maintain more than half of the watershed as
uncut forest. As a result of work begun in 1969 by
the Chocorua Lake Conservation Foundation,
about 95 percent of the land in the •watershed is
protected by conservation easements written into
the property deeds of about 60 landowners. These
easements have preserved woodland buffers all
around the lake, except for a portion of the Route
16 highway corridor. The easements also require
setbacks for housing and septic systems, beyond
state regulation, and low-density housing. North
of the lake are conservation lands owned by The
Nature Conservancy and the Chocorua Lake
Conservation Foundation. There are also several
large wetlands in the watershed that act as natural
filters to help treat the water before it enters the
lake. Although the lake is protected in most areas
of its watershed, it is a fragile lake. It has a maxi-
mum depth of 29 feet and an average depth of 12
feet. Because the lake is so shallow, sunlight
reaches most of the water column. Even low
concentrations of nutrients are readily available to
algae and other plant life.
The CLA participates in the University of
New Hampshire's Lakes Lay Monitoring Program,
which determined that 15 percent of phosphorus
input to the lake was coming from direct runoff
from Route 16, a heavily traveled tourist road
adjacent to the lake. Watershed surveys found
several eroded ditches adjacent to Route 16 and
across land providing beach access to the lake
owned by the Chocorua Lake Conservation Foun-
dation and the Town of Tamworth. In addition to
the water quality problems, the CLA was inter-
ested in addressing traffic safety and noise prob-
lems caused by the highway.
Route 16 has grown enormously since it began
as a dirt road next to the lake in the 1890s. In the
early 1900s the road was tarred but left very close
to the lake. In the 1950s the road was widened,
straightened, and moved slightly away from the
lake; however, Route 16 still runs dose to the lake
1001
New Hampshire
-------
for about 1 mile. The -width and length of this
impermeable surface next to the lake playa doubly
negative role. First, die road's surface collects
particulates from partially burned gas and diesel
fuel,, oil, and sand and salt. These residues typically
contain high amounts of phosphorus, which are
diluted and flushed into the lake. Second, during
spring runoff and storm events,.runoff from the
impermeable surface creates surges of water,
which flow to the ditches and culverts. High vol-
umes and velocities of runoff scour the soil, add-
ing to the phosphorus loading of the lake. Neither
the highway residues nor the eroded soils have time
to settle and filter before entering the lake..
The groups mentioned previously, along with
the New Hampshire Department of Transporta-
tion (DOT) and the Town of Tamworth, initiated
the "Berms and Swales Project." The best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) installed include a system
of berms, swales, and settling and filtering basins
to control runoff, improve safety, and reduce noise.
BMP performance
Installation of the BMPs was completed on Sep-
tember 5, 2000. Since then the BMPs-have been
performing to design specifications. Water quality
monitoring has shown an 82 percent reduction in
phosphorus entering the lake. The CLA continues
to monitor the BMPs, and the project team is now
beginning Phase II of the Chocorua Lake project,
which will address additional phosphorus sources
in the watershed. The success of the project is
mainly the result of the resources and energy
brought to it by the numerous project partners.
The project team hopes to formalize one aspect
of the project in a Memorandum of Agreement
drafted between the CLA and the New Hamp- .
shire DOT. The CLA will inspect the BMPs and
report on their condition annually to DOT so that
long-term maintenance can be planned. DOT will
invite CLA's participation in planning future high-
way improvements in the Chocorua Lake water-
shed.
www.des.state.nh.us/waterdiv.htm
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Contact: Primary Sources of 1
Amanda Simpson Pollution:
Director • urban storrri water runoff
Planning and Community
Development
City of Laconia '. '.•-.'
45 Beacon Street, E
Laconia, NH 03246
603-527-1264
simpsona®city.laconia.nh.us
'rlmary IMPS Pollutants: 1
sediment
salt
phosphorus
oil and grease
heavy metals
bacteria
nitrogen
'- • " : - -
'reject Activities: Results:
bioengineered wetland • reduced sediment
redesigned boat-launch • monitoring in progress
ramps
vegetated buffers
sediment basins
regraded surface away
from lake
Lake Opechee Watershed Project:
City-State Partnership Takes on Multiple Pollutants
Lake Opechee has a very high use and visibility in
die city of Laconia. The watershed is one of the
city's smallest but most urbanized watersheds,
with die heavily developed Lakeport and Union
Avenue to the southeast, the fringes of downtown
to the south, and residential development sur-
Laconia, New Hampshire
rounding most of the westerly, nordiern, and
easterly sides of the lake. The city's principal
beach and recreation complex, Opechee Park, is
located on die soutii westerly shore of this water
body, and one of the city's best public beaches,
Bond Beach, is located on its. ndrtiieasterly shore.
New Hampshire
1101
-------
Lake Opechee suffered from multiple
nonpoint sources of pollution related to the use
of land in the public domain. Opechee Cove is a
particularly sensitive area in the lake because very
little exchange or flushing takes place. Storm
water discharge from adjacent streets, as well as
several boat launching ramps around Lake
Opechee, had been identified as contributing
significant sediment and urban runoff to the lake.
The city's uncovered sand and salt storage facility,
as well as a nearby private parcel used as a snow
dump site, were also significant contributors of
pollutants to Lake Opechee.
These sources were determined to contribute
significant pollutant loads to the lake and the
connecting Winnipesaukee River system, including
salt, fertilizer, phosphorus, sediment, and the wide
gamut of pollutants contained in urban runoff,
such as oil and grease, heavy metals, bacteria,
phosphorus, and nitrogen. In addition, boat trail-
ers would become mired in the ramps, which-had
inadequate base preparation, thus stirring up large
quantities of bottom sediment.
Multifaceted project
To address these issues, in 1996 the New Hamp-
shire Department of Environmental Services
initiated a 3-year project with the City of Laconia.
To provide overland treatment before storm water
entered the lake, the city implemented diversion
and swale improvements, creating a 0.5-acre wet-
land in Opechee Cove to treat and settle out
pollutants before the storm water entered the lake.
The city also wanted to prevent run off and sedi-
ment from leaving the boat-launching ramps and
discharging into the lake. To accomplish this, the
city selected two boat-launching ramps to test the
construction and maintenance of innovative best
management practices (BMPs). The city installed a
prefabricated mat and cellular block system as -
part of each ramp. Vegetated swales and diver-
sions were also installed along the lake edge of the
boat-launching parking lot to prevent runoff from
discharging directly into the lake.
To prevent the direct overland flow of sand
and salt from the public works yard to the lake,
the city installed a vegetated buffer strip along the
shore, regraded the public works yard surface
away from the lake, installed a sediment basin to
trap salt brine and sediment from the work bays,
and guttered all building outlets to a newly in-
stalled catch basin. To prevent runoff of salt- and
sediment-laden snowmelt from directly entering
Lake Opechee, die city constructed a berm with a
25-foot setback from the lake and regraded the
site such that runoff flows away from the lake at
the city's snow storage facility. The city also con-
structed a 150-foot-long sediment basin along the
toe of the berm to trap any sediment before it
was discharged into the lake.
Successful as project and as learning
experience
Officials from the City of Laconia expressed that
this project has been a great learning experience
for them, from the design issues to the construc-
tion and maintenance of each BMP.* The project
involved five different city departments working
together to meet the water quality goals. The
design and implementation process raised the
city's awareness of the water quality and land use
issues .that face the community. The city has also
expressed how pleased it is with the physical
outcomes of the project, including the
bioengineered wetland in Opechee Cove and the
resulting modern boat ramps.
102)
New Hampshire -
-------
www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/nps_program.htrn
NEW JERSEY
Contact:
Christopher Obropta
Omni Environmental
Corporation
Research Park
32 1 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540-1 51 5
609-924-8821 (ext. 17)
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• urban runoff
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• phosphorus
Project Activities:
• streambank restoration
• construction of biofilter
wetlands
Results:
• more than 4,000 feet of
streambank stabilized .
• monitoring in progress
Restoration of Strawbridge Lake:
Volunteers Assist in Stabilizing Shoreline and Constructing Wetlands
Moorestown (Burlington County), New Jersey
A coconut fiber roll and soil erosion blanket
protected the bank until vegetation was
established.
The Strawbridge Lake
watershed comprises
12.6 square miles and
encompasses portions
of Moorestown,
Mount Laurel, and
Evesham Townships.
. Strawbridge Lake is
surrounded by a park
widely used by resi-
dents of Burlington and Camden Counties for
activities Jike -walking, biking, picnicking, fishing,
and ice-skating. In addition to having a highly
eroded shoreline, the lake receives numerous storm
x water discharges from the surrounding residential
and commercial areas, as well as directly from State
Route 38.
The lake itself has been listed by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) as a water quality-limited water body.
Sedimentation, elevated phosphorus, heavy mac-
rophyte growth, and chlordane in fish tissue were
identified as the water quality impairments at
Strawbridge Lake.
Multiagency cooperation
NJDEP's NFS Grant Program provided 319
funding to help restore Strawbridge Lake in
Moorestown, Burlington County. Additional
funds were secured from the Township of
Moorestown and the Eastgate Mitigation Fund,
under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Natural
Lands Trust. Other cooperating entities in-
cluded Omni Environmental Corporation and
the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. In addition
to the local schools, volunteers from
AmeriCorps, Save the Environment of
Moorestown (STEM), Moorestown Environ-
mental Advisory Committee, and Strawbridge
Lake Association assisted with the rehabilitation.
Because of the efforts of these volunteers,
. about 80 percent of the 319 grant funds re-
sulted in on-the-ground improvements.
More than 4,000 feet of eroding shoreline
were stabilized using soil bioengineering tech-
niques, which created a vegetative buffer, along
with a "no mowing zone," along the lake's edge.
The buffer ranged in width from 10 to 20 feet
Easy access areas, which were interspersed
throughout the project, were created along the
shoreline using red gravel bordered by large, flat
stones. A total of 240 linear feet of shoreline was
treated in this manner.
In addition to the shoreline restoration,
biofilter wetlands (pocket wetlands) were con-
structed in the park area to treat seven storm water
discharges into the lake. Four outfall structures
were discharged into two pocket wetlands retrofit-
ted to filter pollutants from the storm water. The
last of these pocket wetlands was completed in
New jersey
I1O3
-------
November 1999. Three of the discharges to the
wetlands were retrofitted with sedimentation cham-
bers to remove coarse sediment from the runoff
from Route 38 before discharging the runoff to the
lake. Volunteers participated in planting the
biofilter wetland and installing the shoreline stabili-
zation and vegetative buffer.
A model project
The Strawbridge Lake project is believed to be a
great success. Other communities have used this
project as a model. The project not only has en-
hanced the natural beauty of the lake and the sur-
rounding park area for future generations but also has
significantly improved the water quality of the lake.
NEW JERSEY
www.state.nj. us/dep/watershedmgt/nps_p rogram.htm
••• ' '
Contact:
Steven Ycrgcau
Stony-Brook-Millstone
Watershed Association
31 Titus Mill Road
Pcnnlngton, NJ 08534
609-737-3735
sycfgcauSSthewatershed.org
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• urban runoff
u- • •
Primary NPS Pollutants:
•sediment
' • • J '-' •" - ••'•* "• '
Project Activities:
». streambank restoration
(bioengineering
techniques and
reforestation) . .
.~~ • . • r "'-."-. ' • *-.~~. i-
Results:
• more than 800, linear feet
of streambank restored
• more than 1 0 acres of
land reforested
« improved stream habitat
• monitoring in progress
!
'" ]
'i
i
i
The Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Restoration Project:
Streamwatch Volunteers Monitor Success of Restoration Efforts
Mercer, Middlesex, Hunterdon, Somerset, and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey
Large-scale development is occurring at an accel-
erated rate in New Jersey's Stony Brook-Millstone
watershed. As a result, runoff is passing over
more areas of impervious surfaces. The increased
flows during rain events are scouring streambanks,
• contributing sediment downstream, which clogs
New Jersey's waterways, chokes aquatic life, and
restricts plant growth by blocking sunlight.
Recognizing the impacts of urbanization in
their watershed, the Stony Brook-Millstone Water-
shed Association (SBMWA) developed a 4-year
project that involves general watershed restoration
and reforestation projects with the main goal of
stabilizing streambanks for erosion and sediment
pollution control on various tributaries in the
Stony Brook-Millstone watershed. The key to the
SBMWA's current success is stakeholder and
citizen involvement.
tion, bioengineering techniques, and reforestation.
Training sessions in bioengineering and reforesta-
tion methods were offered to the public. The
SBMWA also identified and convened stakehold-
ers to ensure the success of the project. To deter-
mine whether the projects were successful,
StreamWatch, SBWMA's volunteer monitoring
program, will monitor the water quality at the
restoration sites. StreamWatch volunteers'chemi-
cally, biologically, and visually assess the environ-
mental health of streams.
SBMWA also held educational sessions on
what makes a stream healthy, the value of .riparian
corridors, and .the role of trees in maintaining a
healthy ecosystem. After this project, data gath-
ered from Stream Watch will be evaluated and
compared with previously collected data to deter-
mine the effectiveness of all these efforts.
Three major activites
The project primarily focused on three activities
to protect stream corridors: streambank restora-
Exciting results
From 1997 to 2000, more than 800 linear feet of
streambank was restored, some 1,000. .square feet
1041
New Jersey
-------
o£ lakeside hydric soils •were planted, and 10.4
acres of land was reforested. The long-term edu-
cational benefits to the more 'than 1,200 volun-
teers who have participated in these efforts have
been tremendous. Many groups return year after
year to contribute to the project's,success, as well
as to .observe days like Arbor Day, Earth Day, and
Make a Difference Day.
With 2 years left on the project, the
SBMWA is very excited about the.success of
these restorations. Severely eroding banks
were regraded, revegetated, and stabilized to
prevent additional sediment from entering the
waterways. A new forest was planted, creating
habitat and protecting the stream that runs
through the former farm field. More impor-
tant, volunteers and community representa-
tives feel empowered-by their ability to im-
prove their environment.
www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/NPS_Management_Plan-.1999.PDF
NEW MEXICO
HUX •' " : ' " "
Contact:
Michael W. Coleman
New Mexico Environment
Department
RO. Box26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502
505-827-0505
michael coleman®
nmenv.state.nm.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• degraded stream channel .
conditions
• road construction
.. ,. ... -,..„.... .,...,,^.,.-:^....: ..r...v;_,.
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
Project Activities: -
• road drainage
improvements/outlets
• .construction of sediment
retention basins .
Results:
• reduced sediment <
delivery
• improved turbidity
readings
Lower Bitter Creek Restoration Project:
Sediment Loads Reduced by Implementing BMPs
Bitter Creek is a perennial-to-intermittent stream
that flows into the Red River, a major tributary of
the upper Rio Grande system, in northern Taos
County, New Mexico. The Bitter Creek
subwatershed is immediately northeast of the
town of Red River. Nonpoint source pollution,
primarily from heavy sediment delivery, was iden-
tified as a significant contributor to water quality
impairment of the Red River.
An interagency cooperative pollution preven-
tion project was initiated with the Carson National
Forest (CNF) Supervisor's Office, the Questa
Ranger District (QRD), and the Town of Red
River, with participation from local watershed
residents. The project was designed to improve
degraded stream channel conditions, correct road
construction and maintenance practices, remedy
illegal refuse disposal, and arrest the rapidly devel-
Taos County, New Mexico
oping headcut impacts. The project also attempted
to address the area's altered andmineralized vol-
canic geology input by mitigating the effects of
unchecked erosion from a landslide/debris flow
system overlooking the local Forest Service road
and the Bitter Creek channel.
Arresting impacts of sediment delivery
through BMPs
A number of best management practices (BMPs)
were designed to reduce the impacts of turbidity
and sediment delivery (with potential for heavy
metal loading) in the watershed. A series of road
drainage outlets and diversions •were constructed
to modify and improve drainage along the local
forest system road. These outlets reduce the ten-
dency for precipitation or snowmelt runoff to be
confined to channelized road segments before
New Mexico
I 1O5
-------
accessing degraded slopes via deep headcuts.
Highly turbid road and headcut'runoff is there-
fore prevented from delivering sediment directly
to Bitter Creek.
In a particularly erodable stream segment
known as "the Logjam," a set of energy dissipa-
tion and sediment aggradation measures have
provided streambank and bed stability. The Town
of Red River also constructed a series of in-
channel sediment retention basins to slow flow,
settle out suspended sediment, and allow channel
bottom and floodplain aggradation. This ap-
proach aids in the development of a riparian plant ;
community, creating an improved local habitat.
At the suggestion of the local residents, a :
sediment and runoff retention basin was con- |
structed in the Bitter Creek Debris Flow. The ;
Debris Flow is a surface feature formed by the ;
Bitter Creek Turbidity Sampling Before BMP Installation
Location Date
At Red River conflluence 9/13/1988
At Red River conflluence 4/29/1992
Upper Bitter Creek 7/24/1992
Above Two Lakes 8/31/1994
Above Red River 8/31/1994
Below gravel pits 4/6/1999
Below Logjam 4/22/1999
At Red River culvert 4/22/1999
Above Red River confluence 5/10/1999
Above Red River confluence 5/11/1999
Above Red River confluence 5/12/1999
Above Red River confluence 5/13/1999
Turbidity
110 NTU
125 NTU
1.33 NTU
24.7 NTU
1,000 NTU
21.7 NTU
19.5 NTU
42 NTU
231 NTU
85.2 NTU
40.3 NTU
48.3 NTU
Remarks
Headwaters
Turbidity measured above Two Lakes and
debris flow reach
Heavy rain event and runoff mobilizing
abundant sediment
Turbidity sampled during local gravel
sorting/hauling activities
Spring 1999 TMDL
Spring 1999 TMDL
Spring 1999 TMDL
Spring 1999 TMDL
Project Implementation
Location
Below Scar Creek
At Logjam
At Red River confluence
Above Logjam
Above gravel pits
Below gravel pits
Above Red River confluence
Above Red River confluence
Above Red River confluence
Above Red River confluence
Above Red River confluence
Above Red River confluence
Above Town of RR basins
Below Town of RR basins
Begins to
Date
5/21/1999
5/21/1999
5/21/1999
5/26/1 999
5/26/1999
5/26/1999
8/1 7/1 999
8/18/1999
10/25/1999'
1 0/26/1 999
10/27/1999
1 0/27/1 999
5/21/20QO
5/21/2000
Show Effects
Turbidity
15.1 NTU
1 6.8 NTU
11 2. 5 NTU
12 NTU
1 3 NTU
24.7 NTU
1 5.5 NTU
6.91 NTU
15 NTU
1 5.3 NTU
• 8.34 NTU
16 NTU
88.3 NTU .
8.1 NTU
Remarks
High flow (bankfi
High flow (bankft
High, flows ..mobili;
[clean upstream)
Low flow conditic
Gravel operations
stream flow
Summer 1999 TM
Summer 1 999 TM
Fall 1 999 TMDL
Fall 1 999 TMDL
Fall 1999 TMDL
Fall 1 999 TMDL
Flow entering Tov
Settled base flow
Note: RR = Red River; NTU = nephelometric turbidity units
1061
New Mexico
-------
accumulation of landslide debris running off the
Bitter Creek Scar's hydrothermally altered volcanic
breccia that forms a high ridge overlooking the
region. The favorable performance of the basin
minimized the effects of outflow and runout for
four large runoff events during 1999—2000, hold-
ing back most of the materials that would previ-.
ously have affected the local road and restricted
access into the Bitter Creek channel. This BMP
implementation effort represents a temporary fix,
and annual maintenance is necessary for this basin
to continue to function. Convincing an agency or
the local residents to take ownership of the BMP
measure remains a target for this 319 project.
This project succeeded in identifying and
mitigating a variety of nonpoint source impacts
and in demonstrating effective approaches that
land management agencies or local residents can
adopt and maintain as they seek to preserve their
environment and minimize the area's downstream
effects. A series of measures were successfully
implemented to reduce and control runoff from
the roads and slope headcuts. The construction of
in-channel revetments is aimed at long-term re-
duction of sediment loads from the stream sys-
tem. Overall, the targeted decrease in turbidity of
the flow that Bitter Creek delivers to its
confluence with the Red River is being realized
(see table). Lasting success at Bitter Creek, the
Red River, and the Upper Rio Grande will require
at least some level of continued monitoring and
maintenance.
www.nmenv.state.nm. usAwqb/NPS_Management_Plan-l 999. PDF
NEW MEXICO
Contacts:
Jerry Elson
The Conservation Fund
505-473-0526
jelson 1 ©juno.com
Charles Jankiewicz
USDA Forest Service
Santa Fe National Forest
505-438-7828
cjankiewicz®fs.fed.us
Steven Miranda
Carson National Forest
505-587-2255
smiranda®fs.fed.us
Abe Franklin
New Mexico Environment
Department • -
505-827-2793
abraham_ftankl/n®nmenv.state.nm.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• grazing
• fire suppression
• roads
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
Project Activities:
• establishment of public
land grass bank program
• prescribed burning/
thinning
Projected Results:
• reduced erosion
« improved grasslands/
ecological diversity
Valle Grande Grass Bank Water Quality Improvement Project:
Success Breeds More Success
San Miguel County, New Mexico
Grasslands and meadows in northern New
Mexico have been experiencing continued decline '
because of the combined effects of fire suppres-
sion and historical grazing. The loss of grass
communities has diminished ecological diversity in
the regional landscape and has contributed di-
rectly to high rates of soil erosion and consequent
nonpoint source pollution throughout the region.
It has also eroded the viability of northern New
Mexico's small-scale Hispanic ranching commu-
nity, which depends on the use of public lands
throughout the region.
Nearly all of the ecological communities that
support grazing in northern New Mexico depend
on recurrent low-intensity fire to arrest the en-
croachment of trees and shrubs. It follows that a
New Mexico '
|1O7
-------
central challenge in restoring grassland diversity
and productivity is to restore fire to its natural
role in structuring and renewing the regional
landscape. Simply removing cattle from public
lands will not restore environmental diversity and
health because it will not bring the keystone pro-
cess of f]re back into the landscape.
Rise of the grass bank program
In 1996 The Conservation Fund (TCP), with the
assistance of the Forest Service, studied the feasi-
bility of establishing a public land grass bank in
northern New Mexico. In 1997 the study led to the
formation of a steering committee composed of
representatives from the Forest Service, the Coop-
erative Extension Service, the Northern New
Mexico Stockmen's Association, and The Conser-
vation Fund. In August 1997 TCP acquired 240
acres of land on Howe Mesa, south of the town of
Pecos in San Miguel County, renaming it the Valle
Grande Ranch. Purchase of the land qualified TCF
to become the sole grazing permittee of the adja-
cent 36,000-acre Valle Grande grazing allotment
within the Santa Fe National Forest.
The grass bank program allows participants
(selected by the supervisor of the Santa Fe Na-
tional Forest based on the steering committee's
recommendation) to have cattle delivered to the
Valle Grande allotment and placed in the care of a
full-time cowboy and range rider provided by TCP.
By placing their cattle on the grass bank, participat-
ing permittees rest their "home" allotments, allow-
ing their pastures, for instance, to grow a crop of
grass that will fuel a prescribed fire. Participation in
the grass bank usually ksts several growing seasons,
allowing desired vegetation to become resilient
following restoration treatments.
The first cattle arrived on the Valle Grande
Grass Bank in March 1998. By mid-summer, the "•
ranch held 264 cows from four allotments. Gradu-
ally, die reputation of the grass bank grew By Janu-
ary 1999 the steering committee had received appli-
cations from seven allotments requesting three times
the amount of grazing than was actually available.
During the summer of 1999, 346 cows and their
calves, belonging to 19 permittees from three allot-
ments, grazed on the Valle Grande Grass Bank.
Land treatment projects: a significant
component
In fiscal year 2000, funding from the 319 program
helped to support a composite of land treatment
projects involving six grazing allotments and five
New Mexico watersheds throughout the Santa Fe
and Carson National Forests. The unifying pur-
pose is to obtain improved grazing management
and ecological restoration that will produce
healthy watersheds and reduce nonpoint sources
across a wide spectrum of northern New Mexico.
Success on these allotments will ensure that per-
mittees on other allotments .will want to partici-
pate in the Valle Grande Grass Bank program or
similar programs at a future date across a broad
spectrum of watersheds.
Land treatment projects generally involve
burning and thinning to reduce tree and brush
densities and to increase effective vegetation
ground cover, thus reducing soil erosion and off-
site sedimentation and turbidity. Grass bank rest-
ing is also necessary to ensure maximum fine fuels
prior to burns and to provide rest for establishing
seedlings on-projects that involve disturbed soil.
Road projects are also implemented to improve
drainage and appropriate channel crossings, and in
some cases might also include closure. Ultimately,
5,800 acres will be burned; 1,475 acres will be
thinned; 6 miles of fencing will be constructed;
and 5 miles of road will be treated.
1081
New Mexico
-------
www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/index.html . .
Contact:
Lester Travis
District Manager
Yates County Soil and
Water Conservation District
1 1 0 Court Street
Penn Van, NY 1 4527
315-536-5188
ycswcd®linkny.com
Primary-Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (animal
operations, vineyards,
croplands)
-i^..~i^i<.~it— iii_jaijL4uijr.iiii^-.^
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• nutrients
Project Activities:
• revised fertifizer and
. pesticide management
practices
• diversion ditches
• buffer strips
• alternative vineyard
layout
NEW YORK
Results:
•. reduced erosion
• increased crop yields
., • decreased applications
of nutrients and
pesticides
Keuka Lake Watershed:
Grape Growers Implement Soil Conservation Practices
Yates and Steuben Counties, New York
The Agricultural Environmental Management
(ASM) Program has put New York State in the
forefront of a national effort to help farmers iden-
tify and address agricultural nonpoint source pollu-
tion. New York's AEM Program is a statewide
voluntary, incentive-based program. It provides
cost-sharing and educational/technical assistance
for the development and implementation of agri-
'cultural plans that enable farmers to remain good
stewards of the land, maintain economic viability
of the farm operation, and comply with federal,
state, and local regulations relating to water quality
and-other environmental concerns. (Refer to special
feature section on Innovative State Programs for more infor-
mation on New York's AEM Program?)
The New York Department of Agriculture
and Markets selected Keuka Lake as a pilot water-
shed to test some of the new Agricultural Environ-
mental Management (AEM) concepts developed
under "Whole Farm Planning" efforts under way
elsewhere in the state. Keuka Lake is an outstand-
ing natural and cultural resource, as well as a pri-
mary drinking water, source for more than 20,000
people. The surrounding watershed, encompassing
99,700 acres of land that drains into the lake, sup-
ports a diverse and thriving agricultural community
of about 34,000 acres of dairy/livestock, veg-
etable/cash crops, grapes, and fruit trees. Vineyards
occupy one-quarter of this acreage. Grape produc-
tion in the Finger Lakes area directly contributes
$15 million per year to the regional economy, and
associated services and tourism contribute even
more to the local economy.
Soil and water conservation practices for
vineyards
Grape growers have a history of good land stew-
ardship and recognize the benefits of conserva-
tion practices for bodi environmental and eco-
nomic reasons. Through the AEM program, grape
growers are implementing a number of-soil con-
servation practices to prevent contamination of
lake water by soil, fertilizers, and pesticide resi-
dues. Diversion ditches are being constructed to
collect water from slopes and divert it away from
the vineyards and into natural drainageways;
buffer strips are being added around the perim-
eters of vineyards; and alternative vineyard plant-
ing layouts and vineyard floor management op-
tions (including no-till seeding of row middles)
are being implemented.
Grape growers are also adjusting their fertil-
izer and pesticide application practices through
the AEM program. Practices used to manage
fertilizer use with grapes include soil and petiole
(stem) tests (to avoid deficiencies and excesses of
nutrients needed for efficient production) and
split nitrogen applications (with revised timing
New York ]
I 1O9
-------
periods for fertilizer applications). Growers are
also using a variety of techniques under the um-
brella of Integrated Pest Management to effi-
ciently use pesticides only when they are economi-
cally justified: insect scouting is being conducted,
resulting in revised spray schedules; disease fore-
casting is helping to define critical periods for
applying fungicides to control diseases; and
canopy management, which reduces shading, is
resulting in better penetration of spray materials
while enhancing the development of deskable
flavors that contribute to wine quality.
Promising results
Soil conservation practices are yielding both envi-
ronmental and economic benefits for grape grow-
ers. The construction of diversion ditches is reduc-
ing the amount of water running through vineyards
by up to 80 percent. Using an alternative vineyard
layout—planting vineyards so that the rows run
across the slope rather than up and down the
slope—is reducing erosion by up to 50 percent.
Alternative floor management options, such as
applying straw mulch to row middles,1 can directly
increase yields by up to 20 percent on some sites.
Efficient use of fertilizer and pesticide inputs
direcdy improves the bottom line. For a 100-acre
vineyard operation, each spray applied to die
vineyard represents an investment of $2,000 to ,
$3,000—ample motivation for avoiding "recre-
ational spraying." Revised spraying practices are
resulting in documented reductions in the average
number of insecticides applied, from three to four
per year in the 1980s to an average of 1.3 per year
in the most recent U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture survey of New York grape growers.
Continued innovation by area growers and
researchers wiJl be a key factor in maintaining the
• economic viability of die industry and protecting
soil and water quality in the Keuka Lake watershed.
NEW YORK
www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/index.html
^•••K....
Contact:
EdHoxste
Dutchess County So* and
Water Conservation District
845-677-801 1
edSnyrniBbroafsc.usda.gov
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (animal
operations, vineyards,
croplands)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
• sediment
Project Activities:
• nutrient management
practices
« Integrated Pest
Management
Results:
» riparian protection on
3,000 acres
Wappingers Creek Watershed:
AEM Program Plays a Vital Role
In 1996 die Dutchess County Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD) took die lead in
organizing partners at the local level to initiate the
AEM process in die Wappingers Creek watershed.
Contained entirely within Dutchess County, die
Wappingers Creek watershed drains 134,900 acres
into Wappingers Lake. Some 30,000 acres is agri-
cultural land, consisting of 108 agriculture enter-
Dutchess County, New York
Peter Coon prepares to power up the primary pump-
ing station to the farm's new waste storage facility.
110
New'fork
-------
Winner of the 2000 Environmental Stewardship
Award, the Coon brothers' farm was one of the
first in the state to participate in the AEM Program.
prises, primarily con-
centrated in the north-
ern portion of the
watershed. A broad
diversity of agriculture
is represented, ranging
from traditional ani-
mal operations to
•vineyards and specialty
cash crops.
All 108 agricultural operations in the watershed
elected to participate in the AEM Program. The
process involves farm inventory and assessment,
planning, implementation, and evaluation. An array
of nutrient management practices were implemented
on more than 3,000 acres of agricultural land, cover-
ing a diversity of operations including crop farms,
horse operations, and tree farms. Strip cropping
techniques, in which alternating strips of different
crops are planted in the same field, were used to
minimize wind and water erosion.
Soil and manure were tested to assess the
nutrient levels so that proper application rates
could be determined. In partnership with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Conservation Re-
serve Program, fences and alternative watering
systems were constructed to eliminate cattle's
access to surface waters. Stream crossings'were
constructed to prevent damage to the water body
from equipment and cattle, and rotational grazing
systems were tested. Integrated Pest Management
practices were used, providing the dual benefits of
reducing production costs and increasing environ-
mental protection.
Of the 38 farms reaching the planning level,
50 percent have completed implementation of
best management practices, resulting in a signifi-
cant reduction in agriculture-related nonpoint
source pollution entering Wappingers Creek. The
AEM process has provided an inventory that has
enhanced the Dutchess County Farmland Protec-
tion Program, helping to preserve agricultural
enterprises in the headwaters of the creek.
Keeping farms viable is.important for the
environmental health of the watershed. As devel-
opment pressure increases in Dutchess County,
the AEM Program continues to play a vital role in
maintaining the county's agricultural heritage.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps7319updat.pdf
NORTH CAROLINA
^•m
Contacts:
Rodney Johnson
Albemarle RC&D .
41 2 West Queen .Street
Edenton, NC 27932
252-482-7437
Kristopher Bass and
Dr. Robert Evans
University (principal
researchers)
Primary Sources of .
Pollution:
• agriculture
• urban runoff
Primary NPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment • constructed wetlands
• nutrients
Results:
• 60 percent reduction in
nitrate nitrogen
• 33 percent reduction in
ammonia nitrogen
• 9.5 percent reduction in
TKN, 20 percent reduction
in total nitrogen
• 55 percent increase in total
phosphorus
Edenton Storm Water Wetland Project:
Wetland Systems Reduce Nitrogen Concentrations
In northeastern North Carolina, excess rainfall is
typically removed from developed areas by an
existing network of'field ditches and canals,
often bypassing natural riparian areas before
Chowan and Dare Counties, North Carolina
entering creeks and streams. As a result, the
nutrients and sediment in storm water are often
carried directly to the nutrient-sensitive river and
estuarine waters.
North Carolina '
-------
Installing constructed wetlands
In an effort to control water flow and improve
water quality, constructed wedands were installed
to intercept two ditches draining approximately
600 acres of a surrounding agricultural and urban
watershed in die town of Edenton, North Caro-
lina. The drainage area included a hospital, a
shopping center, residential areas, and several
hundred acres of agricultural land. In addition to
the two inlet ditches, one small side ditch, several
tile drains, and possible groundwater movement
also contributed to the wedand.
The wedand systems are considered "con-
structed" wedands because the natural relief or
lack of relief is not conducive to implementing a
traditional riparian system. Wedands were created
in existing drainage canals by installing water
control structures and planting several native
wedand species.
Educational opportunities were also provided
for school groups, scout troops, and civic groups.
Two field days, four educational meetings, and one
training workshop for agency personnel and con-
sultants were held.
Mixed results
The project demonstrated diat wedands with small
wetiand/watershed area ratios can provide signifi-
cant water quality benefits for nitrogen, although
phosphorus increased. Monitoring and data collec-
tion at this site were conducted from 1996 to 1999.
The integration of grab and automatic sampling
schemes resulted in more than 1,000 water quality
samples. Concentrations of all forms of .nitrogen
were reduced significantiy between the inlets and
the wedand oudet over the evaluation period. The
highest drop in concentrations was achieved for
nitrate nitrogen (NO3—N, 60 percent), widi lower
declines for ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N, 33 per-
cent) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN, 9.5 per-
cent) levels. Total nitrogen concentrations were 20
percent lower at the wedand oudet.
Phosphorus levels increased 55 percent
between the inlets and the outiet. The liberation
of phosphorus bound in the •wedand substrate
and organic matter apparentiy negated any sorp-
tion or uptake occurring within the wetiand. At
some point in the future, phosphorus equilib-
rium might be reached, leading to no net increase
at the oudet. Thus far, however,.no decline has
been observed.
Nitrate and ammonium nitrogen concentra-
tions dropped as much through the •wedand dur-
ing the dormant months as during the growing
season. TKN concentrations were lowered only
during the winter months. The observed increase
in phosphorus concentrations between wedand
inlets and the oudet was significantiy larger during
the summer mondis than in the dormant periods.
Public acceptance of the project was'excel-
lent, attributed to the pleasing aesthetics of the
sites. A variety of wildlife continues to flourish in
the wedand.
For more information on the project, go to
www.bae.ncsu.edu/research/evans_web/etd/
klbass.pdf.
112
North Carofina
-------
http-.//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/319updat.pdf
N OR T H C A R O L I N A
^__..... -. ... . ~.~~.-~. - ,-, ... ~,.,.^ .^.,r. -...--. . ,. ....,.-. . ....
Contacts: Primary Sources of
Edward Culberson Pollution:
DistrictAdministrator • degraded channel
Durham Soil and Water
Conservation District
721 Foster Street
Durham, NC 27701
919-560-0558 '
Angela Jessup
USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service
600 West Innes Street
Salisbury, NC 28 11 4
Primary IMPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment • • ecosystem protection
practices (stream
rehabilitation)
Results:
• revegetation of 600-foot •
reach
• decrease in sulfate levels
» flow-reducing structures
installed along 1,584
feetofstreambank
Goose Creek Urban Stream Rehabilitation Project:
Ecosystem Protection Practices Installed in Low-Income Neighborhood
Goose Creek is the major stream draining east-
central Durham, North Carolina. The creek is a
tributary of EUerbe Creek, identified in the 1993
and 1998 Neuse River Basin Management Plans as
not supportive of its intended uses. The watershed
is in an old, well-established low-income neighbor-
hood with little opportunity for landscape modifi-
cation to alter runoff quantity or quality.
The channel was extremely degraded with
hardened channel control structures, including
concrete fiber fill lining and vertical rock-wall
channel banks. The hardened urban flow channels
were extremely conducive to carrying large quanti-
ties of sediment at a very high velocity.
Three-phase creek restoration
Restoration of Goose Creek involved installing
ecosystem protection practices, or EPPs (stream
rehabilitation), to reduce sediment, reduce thermal
fluctuation, and increase dissolved oxygen. Rec-
ommended EPPs •were derived from typical
stream restoration techniques and modified for
the Goose Creek system. The project was de- •
signed to rehabilitate more than 2,100 feet of the
stream, in three continuous treatment phases.
Phase I included the installation of 25 log
structures in an 884-foot-long concrete-lined fiber
fill channel. The concrete-lined channel provided
Durham County, North .Carolina
no •water quality protection or vegetation to re-
duce flow. The log structures provided channels to
break up storm flow energy; variety of flow al-
lows for deposit behind the logs and storage of
sediment. This phase of the project included the
addition of soil and planting of wetland vegeta-
tion to provide shade and some nutrient uptake in
the cement-lined area. A group of volunteers
planted willows and wetland plants along a 600-
foot reach of the project.
Phase II of the project occurred in a public
park but was constrained by vertical rock walls on
both sides. Four rock cross veins were installed
along a 700-foot reach to break up energy and
increase dissolved oxygen in this low-gradient
channel. The cross veins reduce stress on the rock
walls by transferring flow toward the center of the
channel.
. Phase III of the project was to involve a sec-
tion of the stream that runs through an industrial
and commercial area. This phase was not com-
pleted within the scope of the 319 grant primarily
because of the need to perform underground soil
remediation at an industrial site. However, Phase
III has received funding from the North Carolina
Clean Water Management Trust Fund and is pro-
jected to be completed after the soil remediation is
performed, possibly by the end of 2001.
North Carolina }
\ 113
-------
Meeting the challenge
Phases I and II of the project were completed in
February of 1999. The education portion of the
project, which is coordinated through the Durham
Soil and Water Conservation District Office, is
ongoing.
The project is unique in that it has employed
stream restoration techniques in an extremely
constrained situation to create a sustainable creek
ecosystem. The term "ecosystem protection
practice" is appropriate, considering the initial
channel condition. Installation of these practices
through an elementary school and public park
will increase education opportunities in this low-
income neighborhood. The enhancements will
improve public perception about the stream and
potentially reduce litter and other pollutants to
the system.
NORTH DAKOTA
www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ/wq/
^imn
Contact:
Bob Flath
LaMouie County Son
Conservation District
USOA Building
2ft South Main
UMoorai NO 58458-0278
701-883-5344
eonserveffldfseivices.com
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
» agriculture (grazing and
croplands)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus)
« suspended solids
• fecal coliform bacteria
Project Activities:
• agricultural BMPs (waste
management facilities,
grazing practices,
conservation plans, low/
no-till equipment)
Results:
• agricultural practices
implemented on more
than.34,000 acres
• positive trends in total
ammonia and nitrogen
concentrations
Cottonwood Creek. Watershed:
: Project Is a Success in the Works
Lake LaMoure, constructed in 1973, is a 500-acre
reservoir on Cottonwood Creek in southeastern
, North Dakota. The reservok's watershed encom-
passes some 107,000 acres, and agricultural pro-
duction (crops and livestock) is the primary land
use in the watershed. Swimming, boating, and
fishing are the main recreational uses of the reser-
voir. Local residents, however, were becoming
increasingly concerned about the deteriorating
recreational opportunities at the lake. Of particu-
lar concern were the frequent algae blooms in •
mid- to late summer and a fish community domi-
nated by rough fish such as carp and bullheads.
The LaMoure County Soil Conservation
District (SCD) initiated an assessment of the Lake
LaMoure watershed in 1995 to evaluate the rela-
tionship between land management and degrading
water quality. Assessment activities included mea-
suring water quality and quantity in the creek and
LaMoure County, North Dakota
lake and taking an inventory of current land use
practices in the watershed. The SCD was able to ._
determine that the recreational use impairments in
Lake LaMoure were primarily associated with
nonpoint source pollutants from agricultural
lands, including nutrients (nitrogen and phospho-
rus) and suspended solids. Potential pollutant
sources included excessively tilled croplands,
overgrazed rangeland, and livestock winter feeding
areas. Resuspended sediments and nutrients re-
sulting from an excessive carp population were a
possible factor contributing to the declining recre-
ational use of the reservoir.
Improving agricultural land management
practices in the watershed
As a result of the assessment, the SCD identified
targeted conservation planning assistance along ~
with voluntary implementation of best manage-
114
North Dakota
-------
merit practices (BMPs). This approach was initiated
in 1996 with the development of a watershed
project implementation plan (PIP) that identified
beneficial use improvement and pollutant reduction
goals, specific activities for accomplishing the goals,
and a process for evaluating progress. EPA granted
the Cottonwood Creek Watershed PIP section 319
funding approval in January 1997 ($301,071), and
the project was initiated in March 1997. Subsequent
section 319 funding ($617,249) was also awarded to
the project in 1999 to support expanded efforts.
The primary goal of the Cottonwood Creek
watershed project is to improve the fishery and >
recreational use of Lake LaMoure by improving
agricultural land management practices in the
watershed. Land use improvement objectives
include installing 12 livestock waste management
facilities and implementing conservation plans on
more than 50 percent of the acreage in the water-
shed. Target concentrations by the end of the
project include a mean annual phosphorus con-
centration of 0.20 mg/L at the inlet and fecal
coliform bacteria concentrations that remain
below 200 colonies/100 mL.
Early success beyond expectations
During the first 3 years, the project focused on
the promotion and installation of BMPs that
reduce nutrient inputs and maintain crop residue
cover on croplands after spring seeding. Particular
emphasis •was placed on the promotion of annual
soil testing and the use of no-till or minimum
tillage equipment. Through these efforts, the
project has exceeded the SCO's original expecta-
tions and is already well on the way to achieving
its land management goals.
As of October 2000, conservation plans were
being implemented on about one-fourth of the
agricultural lands in the watershed. The main
practice scheduled under these conservation plans
is conservation tillage., -which calls for maintaining
more than 30 percent crop residue cover on crop-
lands after spring seeding. Nutrient and pesticide
management practices are also being implemented
concurrently on many of the conservation acres
to reduce chemical inputs. The factors with the
most influence on the widespread adoption of
conservation tillage, nutrient management, and
other BMPs are a high level of producer partici-
pation, an expanded educational effort, and tar- •
geted one-on-one planning assistance delivered by
skilled project staff. Total conservation tillage
acres and other BMPs applied in the watershed, to
date, are as follows:
Conservation tillage
Nutrient management
16,948.6 acres
9,413.6 acres
Integrated crop management 2,717.0 acres
Crop residue use 2,246.2 acres
Cross fencing/planned grazing 220.0 acres
Hayland planting 874.9 acres
-Tree planting 960.0 linear ft
• (Not included in acreage total)
Pesticide Management 2.454.2 acres
Total Acres Affected 34,874.5 acres
Although the SCD continues to strive toward
improved management on more than 50 percent
of the cropland acres, they have also recently
begun to direct more assistance and attention
toward livestock management to reduce water
quality concerns (fecal coliform concentrations)
associated with livestock manure. To date, the
efforts have resulted in the installation of two
livestock manure management facilities and the
preliminary development of several grazing plans.
In addition, project staff are working with six
other producers interested in installing manure
management facilities in 2001. When diese sys-
tems are installed, the project will be more than
halfway to its goal of installing 12 manure man-
agement facilities after just 2 years of active
implementation.
Norm Datota '
-------
Continued monitoring of water quality
benefits
Project progress and BMP benefits are being evalu-
ated through water quality monitoring at three sites
on the creek. Data collected at these sites include
stream stage and discharge, and pollutant concen-
trations. The water quality variables being moni-
tored are nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), total
suspended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Baseline data collected from 1995 to 1998 and
water quality monitoring have been used to define
baseline conditions and reflect water quality condi-
tions before project implementation. Water quality
data collected after 1999 will be used to document
the cumulative benefits of BMPs applied in the
watershed because 1999 was the first year with a
significant number of BMPs.
Although the project has realized quick progress
toward its land management goals, the nature of the
applied practices and size of the watershed make it
very difficult to accurately measure the water quality
benefits associated with the practices over the short
term. However, a preliminary review of water quality
data collected since 1997 does indicate that water •
quality conditions are beginning to improve at some
sampling sites in the watershed.
The most notable water quality trend has
been detected at the monitoring site for the head-
waters watershed. Although fluctuations in the
concentrations are still within the range of natural
variability, it appears that the project is having a
positive effect on total ammonia and nitrogen
concentrations in the upper portion of the water-
shed. However, examination of other water qual-
ity variables, such as fecal coliform bacteria, shows
mixed results. Consequently, an accurate evalua-
- tion of the Cottonwood Creek project after just 2
years of "targeted implementation"^ cannot be
based on measured water quality .trends.
A more accurate indicator during this early
stage of the project is an evaluation of the num-
ber of BMPs applied in the watershed. Based on
this information, the Cottonwood Creek project is
achieving land management improvements in the
watershed and can truly be recognized as a "suc-
cess in the works." Over the long term, as BMPs
mature and additional practices are installed, the
water quality benefits of these land use changes.
will be tracked through ongoing monitoring ef-
forts and the data will be used to confirm and
quantify the anticipated success of the Cotton-
wood Creek project.
North Dakota
-------
www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ/wq/
NORTH DAKOTA
mi
Contact:
Dave Rush
Riparian Project Manager
701-352-3550
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• streambank erosion
• agriculture (grazing)
• logging
Primary NPS Pollutants:
« sediment
Project Activities:
• bioengineering practices
(slope stabilization,
installation of riprap,
revegetation)
:
Results:
» establishment of riparian
vegetation that
withstands flooding
• reduced sedimentation
Red River Basin Riparian Project:
Turtle River Site Passes the Test
Grand Forks County, North Dakota
Over the past 50 years,
most riparian areas in
eastern North Dakota
watersheds have been
mismanaged and de-
graded by activities like
overgrazing, intensive
The lack of woody vegetation along the river left the streambank vulnerable to
severe erosion.
Willows were planted along the restoration site to
provide long-term stability.
agriculture, and indiscriminate logging. It is esti-
mated that more than 50 percent of the original
forest, cover in many watersheds in eastern North
Dakota has been cleared for agricultural use. In
addition, unmanaged grazing has damaged a
significant portion of .the remaining riparian
forests. Overgrazing, in combination with the
1987 to 1990 drought, left many riparian areas in a
weakened condition and susceptible to insects and
diseases. .
Initiated in, 1994, the Red River Basin Ripar-
ian Project seeks to restore degraded riparian
corridors in the Red
River Basin in North
Dakota. An advisory
committee with repre-
sentatives from several
state and federal agen-
cies advises the project
on behalf of the
project's sponsor, the
Red River Resource
Conservation and Development Council (RC&D).
Healthy riparian corridors offer benefits for water
quality, as well as flood damage reduction and
wildlife habitat.
The project sponsors plan to establish up to
nine demonstration sites in the Red River Basin,
restoring at least 100 river miles during the 5-year
project term. At one demonstration site, the Turtle
River site, the lack of woody vegetation had left the
streambank vulnerable to severe erosion. The
situation was compounded by groundwater seeps
above the baseflow elevation of the river. Between
1978 and 1995, the river migrated approximately
3.5 feet per year to the east until it was only 80 feet
from the county road. When the bioengineering
project was initiated 1995, the site had a vertical
bank about 14 feet high.
Successful bioengineering practices
To stabilize the bank and stop further migration
toward the road, several bioengineering techniques
were implemented. The, first step was to create a
North Dakota
I 117
-------
After the bfoenglneerlng work was complete, the streambank was able to
withstand spring floods and an unusual 17-inch rainstorm in July 2000.
stable slope for the vegetation. The 14-foot vertical
bank was reshaped to a 3:1 slope, using the waste
from the top as fill at the toe. Riprap was then
installed along the toe to the bankroll elevation.
Bioengineering practices were installed as part of a
workshop featuring the Natural Resources Conser-
vation Services' bioengineering team from Michi- .
gan. Willow fascines and a brush mattress were
installed along the 300-foot length to armor the
bank and to begin the revegetation process.
Passing the test
Serendipitously, the Turde River project coincided
with the biggest flood of the century in die Red
River valley, so it has sparked a new appreciation
of river systems. It has also been well positioned
to offer solutions that recognize the characteristics
of a naturally stable river system.
Although some maintenance was required
each spring in 1996 and 1997, the project bioengi-
neering has survived both spring floods and a 17-
inch rainstorm in July 2000. The lessons learned
from experience at the Turde River site include
the following:
• Soil/plant material contact is best provided
by using water to place the soil over brush
mattresses and fascines. Sponsors used a
power washer to wash in the soil placed by
the backhoe.
• The loose fill used at die toe can be suscep-
tible to erosion, especially in the first sea-
son. The site appears to have responded
well to the repair work, but adding rough-
ness to the toe would have helped. The use
of root •wads will be demonstrated at die
Sheyenne River site.
• Deer and beaver find willow sprouts irre-
. sistible. At the Turtle River site, time will
tell whedier animals were detrimental to
die survival of the willows. In the future
die use of repellants might be necessary.
Riparian areas are crucial to die long-term
protection and enhancement of die streams,
rivers, and lakes in eastern North Dakota. Well-
managed riparian zones help provide optimum
food and habitat for stream communities, while at
die same time serve as buffer strips for controlling
nonpoint source pollution. Used as a component
of an integrated management system (including
nutrient management and erosion control), ripar-
ian buffers can gready benefit die quality of die
state's surface water resources.
At a workshop, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service demonstrated the implementation of several
bioengineering techniques.
118
North Dakota
-------
www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/nps.html
OHIO
^^H ' ' •••..-. • ' • . : •..'.• . • . ;.-........, '..'..
Contact:
Nikki Reese
1117 South Towne Court
Greenville, OH 45331
937-548-1752
nikki-reese®oh. nacdnet.org
Primary Sources of Primary NPS Pollutants:
Pollution: . nutrients
• agriculture . sediment
Project Activities:
« agricultural BMPs
(buffers, fencing,
alternate water sources,
conservation tillage,
nutrient management)
• education and outreach
Results:
« increases in conservation
tillage .
• establishment of stream
buffers'and constructed
wetland
Stillwater River Watershed Protection Project:
High Local Interest Helps Launch Watershed Project
Darke and Miami Counties, Ohio
Since its inception in 1992, the StLUwater River
Watershed Protection Project has been a model for
other projects in the development of watershed
planning and implementation for the control of
agricultural nonpoint source pollution. The project
was originally proposed in 1988 as a Hydrologic
Unit project through the Natural Resources Con-
servation Service. Funding for this purpose was not
granted, but local interest in a watershed project
remained very high. With the assistance of 604(b)
funding, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Com-
mission completed a management plan for the
project. The project was then launched with the
support of a joint board of supervisors drawn
from the Darke County and Miami County Soil and
Water Conservation Districts.
To date, more than $2 million has been raised
from external sources to help implement the
watershed plan. The sources include the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency's 319 Program,
as •well as several funding programs through the.
US. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In addi-
tion, the joint board entered into an agreement
with Ohio EPA for a Water Pollution Control
Loan Fund (WPCLF) Program that so far has
provided $1.3 million in loans to 57 participants.
Emphasis on agricultural practices
Much emphasis has been placed on the installation
of best management practices (BMPs), identified in
Education programs, including state fair displays,
emphasize the benefits of BMPs to protect water
quality and increase farm productivity.
the project's management plan as key to success.
Stream buffers of grass and trees were established.
Where necessary, exclusion fencing was'installed
along -with alternative water sources for cattle.
Nutrient management, including soil sampling for
precision farming, has been demonstrated. Addi-
tional cost-share incentives and Ohio EPA's linked
deposit low-interest loan program have resulted in
the purchase of equipment for conservation tillage
.and manure management.
Importance of outreach
Education programs in the watershed have included
two canoe trips each year to acquaint landowners,
local officials, students, and others with the river and
,its environment. In addition to quarterly newsletters,
speaking engagements, and fair displays, two sites
have been established for annual field days. These
sites include demonstrations of BMPs to protect
water quality and increase farm productivity. Addi-
tional annual field days have emphasized conserva-
onio'
1119
-------
The project emphasized establishing
stream buffers of grass and trees to
reduce sediment and nutrients
entering streams.
tion tillage, and a marked
increase inks use has
been documented in the
watershed (see figures).
A wetland was also
constructed at a county park to dem-
onstrate its function and its importance
to water quality and wildlife. Annual
conservation tours also have exposed
people to the BMPs installed as a result
of the project.
Stillwater Tillage Transects
(1995-2000)
Darke County
1995 199S 1937 1998
Y«ar
1999 2000
Leveraging additional funding
An additional benefit is that this project has
stimulated many other sources of funding for use
in the watershed. USDA committed Water Quality
Incentives Project funds to three subwatersheds,
one of •which has a large number of livestock
operations, to improve manure handling and
nutrient management through effective nutrient
management planning. Ohio's Department of
Natural Resources has contributed grants for ..
conservation easements (in cooperation with local
park districts), a manure nutrient management
technician, a wildlife technician, exclusion fencing
for livestock, geographic information system
(GIS) equipment and training, and a watershed
coordinator. To help
Stillwater Tillage Transects
(1995-2000)
.:, Miami County
ensure continuation of
the project, the joint
board is pursuing incor-
poration as a 501 (c) (3)
nonprofit organization.
OHIO
www.epa.state.oh. us/dsw/nps/nps.html
mil
Contact:
, KurtErichsen
; Toledo Metropolitan >Vea
i Council of Governments
419-241-9155 (ext. 126)
kunaimacog.org
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture
« habitat alteration (stream
channelization and removal
of riparian vegetation)
.
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
• sediment
:
Project Activities:
• filter strips
• set-aside floqdpiain areas
• conservation tillage
practices
Results:
• established 142,213
Ijnear feet of buffers
• conservation tillage
farming methods on
1 43 1 .2 1 acres
Toussaint River Incentive Improvement Program:
Buffer Project Becomes a Model of Conservation Partnership
Wood, Sandusky, and Ottawa Counties, Ohio
When the Great Black Swamp was drained in the
late 1800s, northwest Ohio settlers discovered
very fertile Soils that were capable of high-yield
agricultural production. Today, with an extensive
system of artificial drainage in place, the region is
a leader in grain and specialty crop agriculture.
Ohio's western Lake Erie watersheds devote 65 to
87 percent of their land use to farming. Because
of the geologic history of this area and the cur-
rent land use, Lake Erie water quality suffers from
120 BQI Ohio
-------
A grass filter strip,
in combination
with a riparian
buffer, helps
protect the water
quality in this
stream.
A 200-foot-wide floodplain is set aside
along portions of the Toussaint River.
large sediment and
nutrient loadings from
agricultural runoff.
Nationwide initia-
tives and funding
programs to reduce
nonpoint source pollu-
tion are meeting with
success in Ohio. With
the introduction of
the Lake Erie Conser-1
vation Reserve En-
hancement Program
(CREP) in 2000 and ongoing 319 and Conserva-
tion Reserve Programs, landowners have increased
opportunities to receive incentives for implement-
ing agricultural best management practices
(BMPs) that improve or protect water quality. The
Toussaint River Incentive Improvement Program
is a watershed implementation project that has
promoted buffer practices along nearly three-
fourths of the river's main stem.
The .Toussaint River, in northwest Ohio,
flows directly into Lake Erie between Toledo and
Port Clinton. A relatively small watershed, the
Toussaint watershed covers about 90,000 acres
. and comprises portions of Wood, Sandusky, and
Ottawa Counties. The main causes of water qual-
ity impairment are habitat alteration (stream
A 20-foot-wide filter strip maintained along a grass channel helps reduce
sediment entering the Toussaint River.
channelization and removal of riparian vegeta-
tion), siltation, and nutrient enrichment due to the
.large agricultural land use in the watershed.
Providing financial incentives
The Toussaint River project offered landowners
along the 36-mile main stem of the river economic
assistance to implement a range of BMPs. Through
a $275,000 subgrant from Ohio EPA's 319 Pro-
gram, financial incentives were available to establish
filter strips, set aside floodplain areas, and use
conservation tillage practices along the river corri-
dor. The landowners were required to make a 5-
year commitment to maintain these 'conservation
practices. Water quality assessments of the river
were made both before practices were put into
place and after they were established. The goal of
the program was to reduce sediment and nutrient
loadings into the Toussaint River and Lake Erie.
Success in implementation
Landowners along the Toussaint River signed 57
contracts, more than 32.13 acres of filter strips
were established, and 233.25 acres of fioodplains
•were set aside and planted to grass. This means
that'a total of 142,213 linear feet of streamside
land (nearly 27 miles of the 36-mile-long stream
corridor) was converted to conservation buffer
practices that will improve water quality. Along
with these improvements, participating farmers
switched to conservation tillage farming methods
on 1,431.21 acres adjoining the new buffers.
Although the original grant objective was to
install 100. acres of filter strips and to set aside 100
acres of floodplain, there was more landowner
interest in the downstream reach of the river where
there is a lower gradient and a broad, flat flood-
plain. The grant was modified to increase the maxi-
mum filter strip width to 200 feet in floodplain
areas with alluvial soil types. It is believed that the
oniol
1721
-------
wider filter strips in these more extensively flooded
areas -will further control erosion, provide wildlife
habitat, and benefit water quality.
The Agricultural Runoff Action Group of
the Maumee Remedial Action Plan (RAP) spon-
sored this 319 grant. The RAP's objective is to
restore the Lower Maumee River, one of 42 Great
!
Lakes Areas of Concern. The Agricultural Runoff
Action Group is a partnership of more than one
dozen agencies and private organizations that
have contributed some $208,000 in local and state
matching funds to this project. Of particular note
was the strong leadership and the cooperation
between Soil and Water Conservation District
staff in the three counties, as well as the donation
of seed, equipment, and labor by local Pheasants
Eorever chapters to establish the filter strips. The
Agricultural Runoff Action Group was recently
awarded a second 319 grant for $300,000 to con-
tinue promoting these riparian conservation prac-
tices. The objectives of the second phase include
providing incentive payments for similar buffer
and tillage practices along the tributaries through-
out the Toussaint River watershed.
With 22,500 miles of county ditches in Ohio
and enough linear footage of drain tile in north-
west Ohio to reach to the moon, there is plenty of
opportunity for watershed protection groups to
join the effort to establish riparian buffers, reduce
soil erosion, and improve water quality. Neighbor-
ing watersheds can look to the Toussaint River
project for a model of conservation partnership.
OKLAHOMA
www.okcc.state.ok.us/water_quality_web/NPSMP_final_draft.pdf
HUH
Contacts:
Robert W. Nairn, Ph.D.
The University of Oklahoma
40S-32S-33S4
ruwnfitou.edu
Oklahoma Conservation
Commission
Water Quality Division
40S-8 1 0.|(X)2
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« acid mine drainage
» abandoned mines
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• high concentrations of
metals
• acidity
• sulfate
^ '
Project Activities:
• installation of treatment
wetlands systems
" " "
Results:
• improved water quality
(lower concentrations of
metals, acidity removal)
• increased populations of
wildlife, fish, and
macroinvertebrates
Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Wetlands:
A Sustainable Solution for Abandoned Mine Problems
Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a major nonpoint
source pollution concern in many former mining
regions. AMD is formed by the oxidizing action
Wetlands that rely on passive treatment
technologies are a viable treatment for AMD.
Pittsburg and Latimer Counties, Oklahoma
of air and water on exposed sulfidic strata and is
characterized by elevated concentrations of metals
(especially iron and aluminum), acidity, and sul-
fate. In Oklahoma, AMD impacts from aban-
doned coal mining activities are most prevalent in
the Gaines Creek watershed of Pittsburg and
Latimer Counties.
Traditional mine drainage treatment tech-
nologies are not viable options at abandoned
mines because of their laborious and cost-inten-
sive nature. However, passive treatment technolo-
gies that rely on natural biogeochemical and mi-
crobiological processes to ameliorate AMD, such
122
Oklahoma
-------
Dr. Keith Strevett, graduate student Denae Athay,
and Dr. Robert Nairn have sampled substrate for
chemical and microbiological analysis.
Native wetland vegetation, including cattail,
sedges, rushes, willow, and water primrose, lines
the constructed cell.
as treatment -wetlands,
often provide viable
treatment alternatives
if enough land area is
available.
In 1998, with.
support of a section
319 grant provided by
EPA Region 6 and the
Oklahoma Conserva-
tion'Commission, the
University of Okla-
homa initiated a treat-
ment wetlands demonstration project to improve the
quality of contaminated water at the #40 Gowen
site. Of the dozen or more identified discharges in
the watershed, the Gowen site was identified as
having the greatest impact.on the stream due to
AMD. Drainage from the site affects Pitt Creek, a
tributary to Gaines Greek, which drains to Lake
Eufaula. Both creeks are on the state's 303(d) list for
metals and pH violations related to surface mining.
Treatment technology
At the Gowen site, a Successive Alkalinity-Pro-
ducing System wetland treatment process was
implemented. Treatment occurs in a four-cell
system of alternating vertical flow wetlands (VF)
and surface flow aerobic ponds (SF).,AMD is
sequentially treated by charging the waters with
alkalinity in the first
VF, then providing
near-optimum condi-
tions for precipitating
metals in the first SF.
Alkalinity consumed
by metal hydrolysis in
the first SF is re-
charged to the waters
in the subsequent VF,
thus allowing further precipitation of metals in
the final SF.
The size of the AMD and the flow rate into
the treatment cells were calculated based on land
availability, metals loading, and acidity. Because
treatment of the entire discharge with the land
area available was not feasible, the system was
sized to demonstrate effective treatment of only a
portion of the flow. Based on contaminant load-
ings of about 18,000 and 7,000 grams per day of
acidity and iron and anticipated removal rates of
30 to 40 grams per square meter per day of acid-
ity from published data and column studies, the
system was designed with a surface area of ap-
proximately 750 square meters.
All water flows through the treatment wet-
lands are gravity-driven. Only a portion of the
entire discharge (about 20 liters per minute) flows
through the demonstration project. Each VF
includes three vertical sections. The top layer
(standing water) provides water head necessary to
drive water through the underlying substrate. The
middle layer is designed to generate alkalinity by
biotic and abiotic means. It consists of a 1-meter-
thick mixture of spent mushroom substrate, lime-
stone, and hydrated fly ash. The bottom layer is a
gravel underdrain that acts as a highly permeable
zone to transmit -water leaving the system through
a network of drainage pipes. The treatment cells
were planted with native wetland vegetation.
. Improvements in water quality
Chemical water quality and quantity and wildlife
use have been monitored every 2 weeks for 2 years.
Results indicate that the treatment wetlands have
successfully improved water quality to within appli-
cable regulatory guidelines for more than 2 years.
Concentrations of iron, aluminum, and manganese
have decreased significantly, and pH and alkalinity
concentrations have increased significantly. The
Oklahoma
1123
-------
final effluent of the system has maintained a net
alkaline condition (above 150 mg/L) with pH
greater than 6. Concentrations of trace metals were
either near the detection limit at all sampling loca-
tions (barium, cadmium, chromium, copper and
lead) or retained completely by VF1 (nickel and
zinc) to less than the detection limit.
Several species of amphibians, reptiles, birds,
and mammals use the site. Biological assessments in
the summer of 2000 indicated healthy populations
of fish and macroinvertebrates in three of the four
cells. Macroinvertebrate community structure
indicates a trend from tolerant to less-tolerant
species with flow through the wetland system.
Duplication of success
The Gowen treatment wetlands demonstration
project—the first and only successful passive
AMD treatment system in Oklahoma—represents
a sustainable and cost-effective solution for the
devastating impacts of AMD on the environment.
Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the
project is the transferability of this technology to
other mining-impacted watersheds. Already, the
Gowen treatment wetland design is being applied
to problems at the Tar Creek Superfund Site in
Ottawa County, Oklahoma, and is being investi-
gated for application in several other watersheds
nationwide. The Tar Creek site is part of a former
lead and zinc mining area and is ranked number
one on the National Priorities List. Coupled
vertical flow wetland and surface flow pond
designs are applicable to these waters and repre-
sent the only treatment methodology that has
been considered viable for improvement and
restoration of the waters of Tar Creek.
The budget for the Gowen treatment wetlands
demonstration project was $125,000. Partners in
the effort included The University of Oklahoma
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental
Science, Oklahoma Conservation Commission's
Water Quality Division, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Larimer County Conservation
District, and landowners William Battles and
Mindy Ledbetter. Local companies and volunteers
provided in-kind assistance or "donations.
OKLAHOMA
www.okcc.state.o^.us/water_qualiry_web/NPSMP_final_draft.pdf
HHI
Contact:
Shanon Phillips
Oklahoma Conservation
Commission
5225 North Shartel
Suite 102
Oklahoma C»y, OK 73 1 1 8-6035
40S-SJO-I002
Shanonp4Jotec.state.ok. us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (poultry
industry, pasture
maintenance)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
» nutrients
» sediment
Project Activities:
« education
• agricultural BMPs
• watershed model
development
Results:
• improved watershed
model
• sustained partnerships
Poteau River Comprehensive Watershed Management Program:
Local Involvement Ensures Program Sustainability
The Upper Poteau River, including Wister Lake
and its tributaries, is identified among Oklahoma's
top priorities for nonpoint source control imple-
mentation in the state's section 319 Nonpoint
Source Management Program. The river is cited as
having impaired recreational and drinking water
uses; nutrients and sediment are the major
LeFlore County, Oklahoma
nonpoint source concerns. The land in the •water-
shed is primarily agricultural and Forest Service
land. Most of the agricultural land consists of
pastureland and poultry houses.
Using section 319 grant monies from EPA
Region 6, along with state match dollars, the Okla-,
homa Conservation Commission (OCC), Okla-
1241
Oklahoma
-------
homa State Cooperative Extension Service, Okla-
homa State University Department of Biosystems
and Agricultural Engineering, LeFlore County
Conservation District, Natural Resources Conser-
vation Service (NRCS), Blacklands Research
Center, Poteau Valley Improvement Association,
Lake Wister Advisory Association, residents of
the Haw Creek Valley Watershed, Lake Wister/
Poteau River Steering Committee, and U.S. Geo-
logical Survey worked in various capacities to
calibrate and improve watershed models and
implement best management practices (BMPs)
and educational programs to restore and protect
the water resources. The program incorporated all
of the previous work in the Wister Lake/Poteau
River watershed, such as the Clean Lakes Phase I
Project and 7 years' worth of model.development.
One of the greatest successes of the program was
the involvement of local residents and organiza-
tions in implementing the various program com-
ponents and ensuring that the program will con-
tinue.
Lasting watershed-wide participation
Much of the project framework was created at a
local level, making it easier to sustain several
components of the project beyond the original
FY 1994 section 319 funding. The steering com-
mittee was made up of representatives from the
LeFlore County Conservation District, LeFlore
County Cooperative Extension, NRCS, Farm
Service Agency, Oklahoma Forestry Service,
agricultural producers, local government and
homeowners, and recreational interests. The com-
mittee met monthly throughout the project and
continued to meet beyond the end of the project
to discuss details of the program, plan future
efforts, and make decisions regarding demonstra-
tion practices, their locations, and cost-share :
reimbursement percentages. Although practices
•were demonstrated in a subwatershed (the Haw
Creek area of the Black Fork of the Poteau
River), the remainder of the program was water-
shed-wide;
Of particular note are the activities the Con-
servation District has perpetuated beyond the life
of the project. During the project, the Conserva-
tion District and District Conservationist secured
100 percent participation by the poultry producers
• in the demonstration area. They also established
test plots to demonstrate the effectiveness of
various BMPs at reducing, nutrient and sediment
runoff. They have continued to maintain these
plots beyond the life of the project and have
established additional plots from new sources of
funding to sustain the effort. The District also
established a successful education program,
partnering with the Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice and other groups, to inform citizens about
the importance of water quality and methods of
conservation. This education program has contin-
ued and expanded beyond the life of the project
to include regular classes at the local college, a
volunteer monitoring program, and continued
newspaper articles and education programs at
schools. These continued activities are geared
toward expansion of the demonstrated practices
outside the demonstration subwatershed.
Through their continued efforts, the Conser-
vation District, NRCS, and other local partners
have illustrated their commitment towards solving
water quality problems in the watershed. In addi-
tion, the area is an Environmental Quality Incen-
tives Program (EQIP) priority area and the Dis-
trict and NRCS have cooperated to target EQIP
funds toward practices that benefit water quality.
This commitment has led to future projects to
demonstrate BMPs throughout the remainder of
the Poteau River and Wister Lake watershed. An
FY 2000 319(h) grant, along with state cost-share
Oklahoma
-------
monies, is devoted toward demonstrating BMPs
throughout the watershed and achieving the river's
eventual support of beneficial uses and removal
from the state's 303(d) list.
Providing a platform to improve the SWAT
model
Yet another result of the project was a modifica-
tion to the Soil and Water Assessment Tool, or
SWAT. SWAT is a basin-scale hydrologic/water
quality model developed to predict the effects of
alternative river basin land use management deci-
sions on water, sediment, and chemical yields.
SWAT operates on a daily time step and is capable
of simulating 100 or more years. The major com-
ponents of the model are hydr ology, weather,
erosion, soil temperature, crop growth, nutrients,
pesticides, subsurface flow, and agricultural man-
agement. SWAT offers distributed-parameter and
continuous time simulation with flexible water-
shed configuration, automatic irrigation .and fer-
tilization, interbasin water transfer, and lake water
quality simulation capabilities. It is widely used in
the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs). ,
Until now, in-stream nutrient dynamics were
not considered in the SWAT model. This meant
that although the model did a good job predicting
nutrient loading coming off. land surfaces, it ig-
nored the processes that affected the nutrients
once they were in the stream. To simulate the in-
stream dynamics, the kinetic routines from an in-
stream water quality model, QUAL2E, were modi-
fied and incorporated into SWAT. The Blacklands
Research Institute in Temple, Texas, integrated
QUAL2E kinetics into the SWAT model. The
resulting version of SWAT is now widely used in
modeling basins and in TMDL development.
OKLAHOMA
www.okcc.state.ok. us/water_quality_ webXNPSMP_final_draft.pdf
PHI
• Contact:
' Jim Leach *
! Assistant Director
Oklahoma Conservation
i Commission
5225 North Shane), Suite 1 02
j Oklahoma City, OK 73 1 18-6035
, -105-8IO-1039
j; jtmj®okcc.state.ok,us
r
L
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« logging
• grazing
Primary NPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• sediment • Rosgen classification
• streambank stabilization
•
Results:
• 75 percent decrease in
erosion
• improved fish
• improved recreational
• stream meander
migration slowed
The Spring Creek Project:
Streambanks Stabilized Through Stream Restoration
Cherokee County, Oklahoma
Spring Creek, a tributary to Fort Gibson Lake,
spans three northeast Oklahoma counties—Dela-
ware, Mayes, and Cherokee. Over the years, inten-
sive logging, clearing, and grazing in the watershed
have resulted in bank erosion, contributing signifi-
cantly to the gravel load in the stream. Movement
of this gravel (bedload) has accelerated bank
erosion, causing the stream to widen and become
shallow. This channel instability has resulted in
excessive streambank migration, loss of fish habi-
tat, and decreased recreational benefit.
Fluvial geomorphology
Fluvial geomorphology is the study of the form
or shape of stream channels as they flow over the
land. Recent work by Dave Rosgen of Wildlands
Hydrology has resulted in a stream classification
scheme based on eight major variables. Rosgen's
T26
Okiahoma
-------
method is useful in that a stream's stable configu-
ration can be determined and classified so that the
disturbed stream can be restored to this form,
using natural materials on-site. A stream restored
using these techniques is stable and efficient at
transporting bedload and flood flows. It is also
aesthetically pleasing and provides better in-
stream habitat for aquatic life.
The project.
Bank restoration was implemented on two reaches
of Spring Creek (Cherokee County) exhibiting
highly accelerated bank erosion due to clearing for
increased hay production. Rosgen's method •was
used to classify the current state of the segments
and determine the channel configuration necessary
to stabilize the bank. The reaches were reshaped
accordingly, and rock vanes, cross vanes, tree root-
wads, logs, and vegetation were strategically in-
serted to affect stream flow and preserve or supple-
ment habitat. Habitat and fish surveys were con-
ducted before and after implementation to assess
the project's effects in these areas.
Significant improvement
In general, the project sites showed significant,
positive changes from the preimplementation
survey. Physically, water depth through the reaches
almost doubled and total area of eroding bank
decreased by about 75,percent. A visit to the
project site in August 2001 showed the stream
channel modifications still holding effectively.
Rock vanes had successfully diverted flow to the
center of the channel, deepening pools and con-
trolling erosion on the outside of the steam bends.
Stream channel stabilization was apparent from
the abundance of established tree saplings and
other marginal vegetation.
Some of die most notable effects of die
project were exhibited in die fish community.
Bodi project sites exhibited more species and
markedly higher total numbers of fish in the
postimplementation survey (1.5 and 3.5 times the
preimplementation numbers for downstream and
upstream sites, respectively). The total number of
pool species (sunfish, chub, suckers) increased by
at least 2.4 times the previous abundance in both
project reaches, reflecting the deepening and
enlargement of pools and changes in the overall
stream channel shape. The size composition of
this group indicated multiple year classes, and
young of year were found for all three species.
Thus, it appears that the slower flow regimes and
increased habitat resulting from stabilization
efforts combined to affect overall reproduction of
fish in this area of Spring Creek.
Certain beneficial uses also were restored or
preserved in this area of the creek. Bank instabil-
ity and subsequent gravel input had shallowed
many areas, limiting fishing and swimming activi-
ties previously enjoyed. The upstream site has
stabilized into a long pool deep enough for swim-
ming and fishing. Good numbers of catchable
sportfish have been noted in and around the rock
vanes at the site.
An additional benefit has been the near cessa-
tion of channel movement-through the project
reaches. In particular, channel migration that
previously threatened an important road through
the property has been arrested through bank
stabilization efforts* Little to no movement was
discernible during the August visit.
Oklahoma
-------
OREGON
HHIi
Contact:
Bill Gates
Umpqu.1 Sod and Water
: Conservation District
541-271-2611
http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/NPSPIan.htm
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• diked/drained wetlands
« flooding
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
• sediment
Project Activities:
• tide gate installation
• removal of levee and
installation of new dike
• revegetatlon
•
Results:
• 30 acres of restored
wetlands
• decreased flooding and
sedimentation .
80 acres of restored
habitat for wildlife
Dawson Wetland Restoration Project:
Landowners and Wetlands Both Win
Douglas County, Oregon
The Smith River Estuary has been modified over
the years by a number of projects that have diked
and drained wetland areas in the estuary so they
could be used for livestock grazing. Levees, tide
gates, and dredging were all common practices
from the 1900s to the 1960s.
The Dawson property near the mouth of the
Smith River has been diked and used for agricul-
tural purposes since the early 20th century. Since
the floods of 1996-1997, however, the existing
levee has been breached in three places, resulting
in daily tidal inundation of the property.
Wetland restoration and enhancement as the
answer
The Umpqua Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
trict (SWCD) received a 319 grant of $85,000
from the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality in August 1999 to help with the Dawson
Wetland Restoration Project. The landowners
originally contacted the Umpqua SWCD for
assistance in repairing the dike, hoping to halt
the flooding of their property. Eventually, the
project evolved into one that would protect part
of the property and return 30 acres to estuarine
wetlands.
The landowners agreed to .donate 30 acres of
their 100-acre parcel to be restored as wetlands,
along with construction of a new levee to protect
the remaining acreage for their homestead and
agricultural purposes. The Umpqua SWCD par-
ticipated in fundraising for the project and directs
the project inspection and planting of vegetation
on the new levee. Additional partners, such as
Ducks Unlimited, are providing project manage- .
ment and engineering assistance.
In addition to restoring the 30 acres of estua-
rine wetland, the project also involved enhancing
the 50-acre Stowe'Marsh, just upstream from the
Dawson property and managed by the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The marsh
contained a levee with a break in it, and the .
project removed a large portion of the levee so^
that natural floodplain function could be restored.
Project activities
The Dawson Wetland Restoration Project was
divided into three phases. Phase I of the project,
completed in 1999, included installation of a tide
gate, as well as development of engineering plans
and specifications. Phase II, completed in 2000,
included removal of two sections of the Stowe
Marsh levee to enhance 50 acres of estuarine
wetlands, construction of the new Dawson levee,
vegetation of the new levee and adjacent dis-
turbed areas with native plants, revegetation of
borrow area, and improvements to internal drain-
age on farmland inside the new levee.
During 2001 Phase III is removing the old
failed levee on the Dawson property, allowing the
1 28
Oregon
-------
30 acres outside die new levee to be returned to
estuarine wetland status. Title to the restored :
wetlands on the Dawson property, outside the new
levee will be transferred to the Oregon Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife. Old fencing in the
donated wetlands will be removed. Plantings will
be fortified in the borrow area, and all interior
drainage will be routed to the new tide gate. Fenc-
ing will be installed around the new levee to re-
store livestock grazing to the Dawson ranch.
Additional benefits
Erosion Protection. The existing levee will be left in
place for one winter to protect the new structure
from erosion. Plantings with native vegetation will
be part of the bioengineered plan to prevent
erosion, making the use of riprap unnecessary.
This approach will also reduce future sedimenta-
tion into the river.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration. Various
salmonid species use estuaries as incubation areas
for feeding, rearing, and staging before they begin
their ocean migration. The Smith River estuary is
already one of the most important areas in Or-
egon for threatened coastal coho. The addition of
30 acres and the enhancement of 50 acres will
provide 80 acres of the habitat needed for these
species and others. Waterfowl are also expected to
use the restored wetlands.
Restoration of Estuary Floodplain Function. One
result of the extensive diking of the Smith River
system is that the river's transport capacity has
increased, resulting in higher river energy against
the city of Reedsport's levee. This project will
result in more water storage capacity in estuarine
. wetlands, moderating the effects of flooding and
reducing the river's erosive energy.
Public-Private Collaboration..This project repre-
sents a win-win situation in which the landowners
. benefit by increased protection of their home-
steads and the public benefits from the enhanced
ecological functions provided by the restored
wetlands. This collaborative approach respects the
existing land use that provides the family's eco-
nomic base while at the same time recognizing
and protecting the important public, benefits from
returning a portion of the land to its former
wetland status.
http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/NPSPIan.htm
OREGON
HS9 - ' •
Contact:
Bob Kinyon
Umpqua Basin Watershed
Council
541-673-5756
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
» flow modifications
•.,•-...•_.'..
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• high stream temperature '
• • - .
Project Activities:
* removal of diversion dam
and concrete apron
» conversion .from ditch to
sprinkler irrigation
« . revegetation of riparian area
• livestock exclusion
Results:
• additional 2.5 cfs water
in stream
• reduced stream
1 temperature
• improved aquatic life/ •
fish passage
South Myrtle Creek Ditch Project:
Removal of Dam Benefits Aquatic Life
Historically, populations of cutthroat trout arid
coho salmon had journeyed through the •waters of
South Myrtle Creek, which flows into the South
Umpqua River in Douglas County, Oregon. Since
the early 20th century, however, some form of
Douglas County, Oregon
diversion structure has been blocking South
Myrtle Creek. In the 1960s a concrete apron
structure with metal supports for planks was
installed to raise the water level to provide water
for irrigation to adjacent and downstream land-
Oregon '
-------
The concrete apron of the diversion structure spanned the creek with a 2-foot
outfall at summer flows. This barrier prevented fish from reaching 10 miles of
stream habitat.
owners. During the summer, the structure el-
evated water levels by 14 feet, diverting water into
a 2l/2-mile irrigation ditch. As a result, South
Myrtle Creek has been identified as having water
quality problems from flow modifications and
high stream temperatures.
In 1998 one of the landowners initiated a
project to restore flow and improve water quality
in South Myrtle Creek by removing the diversion
dam and concrete apron, converting from ditch
irrigation to sprinkler irrigation to conserve water,
revegetating the denuded riparian area, and ex-
cluding livestock until the seedlings were well
established. That landowner, along with Water
- Resources and the Watershed Council, recruited
all of the other landowners who used water from
the diversion, and they began to plan the various
aspects of the project.
The project was a collaborative effort of all
of the landowners, who donated services and
supplies. In addition to 319 funds, funding was
provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, the
Bureau of Land Management, the Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service's Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program, and two local
foundations, the Joe Merchep Umpqua River
Foundation, and the Douglas Timber Operations'
Fisheries Enhancement Derby. In addition, the
Oregon Water Resources Department and Dou-
glas County Watermaster assisted with the project
by examining water rights and helping to devise a
plan whereby 2.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) of
•water is being returned to the stream.
Project highlights and successes
Using a jack hammer, acetylene torch, excavator,
loader, and dump truck, the structure •was .success-
fully removed. Because ditch irrigation is the least
efficient use of water because of losses from , ,
evaporation and leakage, irrigation was switched
to the more efficient sprinkler type, with indi-
vidual pumps drawing from the stream's surface
water. Water temperature has improved, and flows
have increased by 2.5 cfs during the summer. The
restoration of the streambed to its historical level
allows passage of salmon and trout to the 10
miles of stream above the dam for the first time
in nearly a century, benefiting cutthroat trout,
coho salmon, and steelhead with additional habi-
tat. In the winter of 2000 area landowners con-
firmed the project's success when they identified
several coho upstream of the diversion site. Other
aquatic life will also benefit from the reconnection
of the areas above and below the dam.
Streambank restoration along the 2y2-mile
project site consisted of planting the riparian area,
which had not supported vegetation for a century
because of annual flooding from irrigation. To
protect young seedlings from livestock, the areas
were fenced until the vegetation could become
established. Establishing this vegetation will con-
tribute to the efforts to reduce stream tempera-
ture to levels that better support cold-water fish.
130
Oregon
-------
http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/NPSPIan.htm
OREGON
^•m
Contact:
Mitch Wolgamott
Oregon Department of
Environmental Qualify
Pendleton Office
700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330
Pendleton; OR 97801
541-975-2120
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
» grazing
• channel modifications
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• high stream temperature
Project Activities: .
• channel restoration to
natural meandering
• revegetate riparian areas
Results:
• declining water
temperature
» increased riparian
growth
Wet Meadow Restoration in the Upper Grande Ronde Basin:
Channel Restoration Brings Cooler Waters
The streams of the Grande Ronde Basin have
historically provided a rich habitat for cold-
water fish such as rainbow trout, salmon, sum-
mer steelhead, and bull trout. However, cold-
water fish production has been declining since
1970 as a result pf land'use changes. Those
changes have reduced riparian vegetation by 75
percent and simplified in-stream habitat
through grazing practices and channel modifi-
cations. Stream temperatures have risen as
riparian vegetation that once shaded the
streams has been lost, and higher temperatures
in the stream have resulted in reduced cold-
water fish populations.
Restoring the channel to its natural pattern
In July 1997 the Oregon Department of Environ-
ment Quality used section 319 funds to divert a
half-mile section of lower McCoy Creek from its
channelized segment into the remnants of a his-
torical meandering wet meadow channel. The
stream was treated by stabilizing and revegetating
riparian areas, restoring wet meadow conditions,
and restoring old channels to allow the stream to
meander naturally.
Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon
Dramatic results
Response within the newly restored channel section
was quick and dramatic. Existing vegetation, par-
ticularly willows, grew quickly in the new riparian
area. Beavers moved in and succeeded in building
dams, which created several large, deep pools and
numerous smaller pools for fish and waterfowl.
Following the channel diversion in 1997, cooler
temperatures were measured within the boundaries
of the restored reach. Compared to the tempera-
ture of the water flowing into the restored section,
maximum water temperatures measured in the
middle of the reach were 3.0 °C cooler in 1997 and
4.6 °C cooler in 1998. In 1998 water temperature
measured at the bottom of the reach was 0.9 °C
cooler than the temperature measured at the top.
Cooling within the restored section can be
attributed to the lower gradient and the deeper,
meandering channel, which allows more mixing
with cool subsurface water. The shading of sur-
face waters by riparian vegetation also contributes
to cooler temperatures. Further protection from
solar heating is provided by the increased depth.
and lower width-to-depth ratio in the river. Early
results of cooler water temperatures within the
restored section are encouraging.
Oregon \
I 131
-------
PEN NSYLVAN I A
www.dep.state.pa,us/dep/deputate/watermgtAVC/subjects/NonpointSourcePollution/NPS_Mgmt.htm
nun
Contact:
Drum Sneeringer
Adams Count/
Conservation District
57 North Fifth Street
Gettysburg, mi 7325
m-33«636 (ext, 306)
bsneerfngerOacc. pa.net
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• streambank erosion
Primary NFS Pollutants:
• sediment
Project Activities:
» streambank stabilization
' (root wads, rocks, ,
planting)
Results:
» 800 feet of streambank;
stabilized, deep pools,
enhancement of trout '
populations
Narrows Bioengineering Project:
CoId-Water Fishery Restored Through Bioengineering
Adams County, Pennsylvania
Conewago Creek, just north of Arendtsville in
Adams County, Pennsylvania (commonly referred
to as "The Narrows") is considered one of the
most scenic stream corridors in the county. The
creek is listed as a "high quality cold water fish-
ery" and a wild trout stream by the Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission and is actively stocked
by several local private clubs.
A series of severe rain events in the summer and
early fall of 1996 resulted in Adams County's receiv-
ing more than 90 inches of'rain, nearly 4 feet more
than the county average. As a result, two sections of
Conewago Creek in The Narrows were heavily dam-
aged, resulting in severe streambank erosion. The
damage to the upper of the two sites was exacerbated
by fallen trees, and the erosion on the lower section
The streambank at the McDannel site was severely eroded at the beginning of
the project in February 1999.
was the result of bedload deposit coming primarily
from the upper site. In the past 2 years, it has been
estimated that more than 8,000 tons of soil has fallen
into the creek from these two sites. The eroding .
streambanks were filling up pools, degrading the
conditions necessary for fish to thrive in the creek.
In 1998 the two sites on Conewago Creek
were targeted for a streambank stabilization
project totaling 800 linear feet. Because of aes-
thetics and cost, the standard riprap protection
design was considered undeskable and bioengi-
neering techniques were used instead.
Stabilizing eroding slope
Work began on the project in 1999 and involved
the installation of native rock and root wads along
the streambank. The existing site conditions in-
cluded down or ready-to-fall trees, which were
us^d as root wads to help stabilize the toe of the
bank. The goal was for the root wads and rock to
provide the large, heavy material necessary to
stabilize the toe of the eroding slope and prevent
further undercutting. The steep bank was then
regraded to establish a more stable slope, using
the gravel material removed from the adjacent
streambank. This process "softened" this
streambank, allowing the stream to "move" away
from the newly stabilized banks.
The project also involved planting trees (do-
nated by Adams County Trout Unlimited) and
132IEH ftennsytvana
-------
grass to improve the aesthetics of the site and to
further aid in stabilization. Nine varieties of trees
were planted; .they were chosen based .on the
existing tree species around the sites.
StabilizatiorLsuccess
The project was officially completed on March 27,
1999. Natural succession is occurring at the site as
many seedlings are growing quite well. Deep pools
are beginning to form, particularly at the root wad
structures. The root wads are providing excellent
fish habitat, and dozens of trout can now fre-
quently be seen swimming near the root wads in
the deep pools that were created. Although the
project has not yet been tested by extremely high
water levels, small storm events have clearly not
endangered the integrity of any of the root wad.
structures.
www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/WC/subjects/NonpointSourcePollution/NPS_Mgmt.htm
PENNSYLVAN I A
Contact:
Robert Traver
Associate Professor
Villanova University
610-519-7899
robert.traver@villanova.edu
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« urban runoff
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
1 • metals
• suspended solids
Project Activities:
• conversion of storm
water detention basin to
storm water wetland
Results:
• monitoring in progress
Villanova's Storm Water Wetland Retrofit:
BMP Treats Runoff and Provides Research Site
Along the border between Montgomery and
Delaware Counties in the southeast corner of
Pennsylvania lies a 41-acre urban •watershed. The
watershed consists of more than 16 acres of
impervious surface, including Villanova
. University's parking lots, dormitories, office build-
An existing storm water detention basin was targeted for a 319 retrofit project.
Montgomery and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania
ings, railroads, highways, and housing areas. An
existing storm water detention basin on the
university's property was targeted as an ideal site
for a 319 retrofit project. This basin had the po-
tential to treat the runoff that forms the headwa-
ters of a watershed listed as medium priority on
the state's degraded watershed list and to treat
flows that affect a high-priority stream segment
on the state's section 303 (d) list.
Project goals
The purpose of the 319 project was to make a
storm water wetland out of the existing detention
basin, creating a water quality treatment facility.
Water quality considerations were not part of the
original design. The existing storm water detention
basin was originally designed to reduce the increased
peak flows coming from the university campus. •
Runoff entered the basin through sheet flow from a
large parking lot and through two major pipes. The
Pennsylvania '
I 133
-------
'">"- W*?* .'• VT^*.'•
=. •
A meandering channel was designed to reduce
flow velocity and allow particles to settle out.
site had an existing 12-
inch underdrain that
quickly carried the
water through the
basin, directly connect-
ing the parking lots to
the headwaters of a
small first-order stream.
The site was designed
to remain dry except
during storm events, but there was always some flow
through the underdrain, supporting the concept that
the site was ideal for creating a storm water wetland.
One goal of the project was to prove that
retrofitting could be accomplished easily on an
existing structure without violating the original
design concept. The retrofit of the basin therefore
concentrated on retaining small storms while not
violating the original storm water peak flow con-
trols required by law.
The basin was redesigned by removing the
underground pipes, moving earth to create a
meandering flow path, adding a sediment forebay,
and modifying the structure outlet. Wetland
plantings were conducted; plants •were selected for
diversity and based on their ability to thrive at
different inundation levels.
Low flows would now travel through the
sediment forebay to give particles a chance to
settle out. Flows would continue through a mean-
dering wetland channel, maximizing contact with
the plants, and finally dirough a deeper pool and
the outlet structure. The flow path for larger
storms would provide for the flow to go over a
berm, preventing resuspension of the sediments
collected in the structure, thus using the original
design for peak flow management while avoiding
damage to the low-flow components.
Multiple benefits
Because it is located on the university's property,
this storm water wetland is not only aiding in the
reduction of pollutants for this headwater but also
serving as a permanent research and demonstra-
tion site. To date, hundreds of visitors have
toured the site, and the site is being incorporated
into a demonstration "theme park" of multiple
BMPs (including signage) on Villanova's property.
The wetland project was completed at the
end of 2000, and the current plan is to wait a year
for the wetlands to mature before starting to
collect water quality samples. Hydrologic and
hydraulic monitoring is already under way, and
flowmeters and a rain gauge also have been in-
stalled to collect data. It is projected that total
suspended solids will be reduced by 70 percent,
total phosphorus by 40 percent, total nitrogen by
20 percent, and lead by 75 percent.
134
Pennsylvania
-------
PUERTO J7ICO
Contacts:
Raul Santini
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources
RO. Box 9066600
Puerta de Tierra, PR 00906-6600
787-724-2816
prczmp®caribe.net
Ruben Gonzalez
Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board
RO, Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910-1488
787-767-8181
jcaagua®prtc.net
Coastal Nonpoint Source Controls:
Executive Order Adopts Section 6217(g) Management Measures as Official Policy
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico is one of 29 U.S. states and territories
with special programs and responsibilities for pro-
tecting and managing important coastal resources.
To address more specifically the impacts of
nonpoint source pollution on coastal water quality,
Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Act Reauthori-
zation Amendments of 1990. Section 6217 of the
Act requires that each state with an approved
coastal zone management program (including
Puerto Rico) develop a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program and submit it to EPA and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) for approval. Each program must provide
for the implementation of technical management
measures (section 6217(g) measures) that address
major categories of nonpoint sources that impair
'or threaten coastal waters nationally, including
agricultural runoff; urban runoff; forestry runoff;
marinas and recreational boating; and
channelization and channel modification, dams, and
streambank and shoreline erosion.
Adopting the management measures
On February 8,1999, Puerto Rico's governor
signed an Executive Order (OE-1999-08) adopt-
ing the section 6217(g) management measures as
official public policy throughout the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico. The order requires the
creation of an Interagency Committee of lead
Commonwealth agencies to uphold the mandate
for the implementation of the section 6217 (g)
management measures and to ensure compliance
widi the measures for the major categories of
nonpoint source pollution. The Committee is
charged with developing and implementing a plan
for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution
throughout Puerto Rico, while adopting the sec-
tion 6217 (g) measures as ."the official technical
guidelines of the Plan."
The Committee is composed of representa-
tives from various agencies in Puerto Rico, such as
the Environmental Quality Board, the Department
of Natural and Environmental Resources, the
Regulations and Permits Administration, the De-
partment of Agriculture, the Soil Conservation
Districts, the Planning Board, the Agricultural
Experiment Station and the Agricultural Extension
Service, the Department of Health, the Depart-
ment of Transportation and Public Works, the
Highway and Transportation Authority, the Aque-
duct and Sewer Authority, the Electric Power Au-
thority, the Ports Authority, and any other govern-
ment institution that the Committee identifies as
essential to developing and implementing the plan.
Puerto Rico
1135
-------
The Executive Order calls for all Committee
member agencies to adopt the 6217 (g) measures
and integrate them into their existing decision-
making processes as soon as possible, but not later
than 2 years from the effective date of the order.
This requirement applies to direct agency activities
and authorizations for other public and private
activities. The order also lists several specific legal
and administrative mechanisms that the Common-
wealth agencies must use to demonstrate compli-
ance with the measures. Finally, the order requires
the Committee members to jointly develop and
implement the "public policies, plans, programs, or
organizational structures required" to ensure the
effective implementation of the required manage-
ment measures. The Committee meets every month
to review and coordinate agency efforts and track
plan implementation. The Committee is also re-
sponsible for preparing a plan implementation
status report for the Governor by February 8,2002.
Program approval
The Committee was deeply involved with the
development of Puerto Rico's Coastal Nonpoint
. Pollution Control Program, which contains de-
tailed 5-year plans and a 15-year strategy to imple-
ment the Executive Order. The Executive Order
provides for adequate, enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation of the
section 6217(g) management measures. As a re^
suit, on October 17, 2000, Puerto Rico received
federal approval (from NOAA and EPA) for the
Commonwealth's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program. The program is the first among
U.S. island territories to receive full federal ap-
proval and the fourth overall after Maryland,
Rhode Island, and California. Upon approval of
its plan, Puerto Rico immediately began to imple-
ment the 6217(g) management measures in all
public activities, including the granting of authori-
zations or permits for public or private actions.
RHODE ISLAND
www.state.ri. us/dem/programs/benviron/water/quality/nonpoint/index.htrri
HHf
Contact:
Jim Riordan
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
235 Promenade Street
Providences. Rl 02908
40 1 -222-4700 (ext. 4421)
jriofdan©doa,state.ri.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« urban storm water runoff
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• nutrients
• bacterial contaminants
• siltation
•
Project Activities: Results:
• construction of storm • monitoring in progress
water control system
Curran Brook Sedimentation Pond:
Multiple Partners Construct Storm Water Control System
Cumberland, Rhode Island !
The Pawtucket Water Supply Board (PWSB) reser-
voir system in Rhode Island serves the cities of
Pawtucket and Central Falls and the southern
portion of the town of Cumberland. The system
serves some 110,000 customers. The PWSB's water
resources derive from both surface water and
• groundwater. The four surface water reservoirs—
Diamond Hill Reservoir, Arnold Mills Reservoir,
Robin Hollow Pond, and Happy Hollow Pond—
are the major impoundments controlled by PWSB.
The water treatment plant for PWSB is located at
the southern end of Happy Hollow Pond.
1361
Rhode Island
-------
At the outset of the project, Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management's
(RIDEM's) most recent assessment of Happy
Hollow Pond determined that the reservoir was
only partially supporting its designated use. The
reservoir had high levels of nutrients, bacterial
contaminants, siltation, and organic compounds,
which were most probably conveyed by runoff
from the highly urbanized surroundings.
Robin Hollow Pond, located in the lower
portion of the Pawtucket Water Supply watershed,
feeds directly into Happy Hollow Pond, which is
an EPA-designated community water supply.
Robin Hollow Pond receives runoff from the
most urbanized portion of the watershed. The
urbanized area is to the west of the pond in the
town of Cumberland. The project focused on
removing nutrients, bacterial contaminants, silt-
ation, and inorganic compounds from runoff in
the urbanized watershed, thereby decreasing the.
need for costly.water purification treatments.
State-of-the-art storm water control system
The project consisted of designing, permitting, and
building a state-of-the-art storm water control sys-
tem to replace an undersized and antiquated sedi-
ment pond. The new system includes a. sediment
.forebay, water quality pond, and artificially created
wetland to treat the storm water during wet weather
events. Project partners included the. Northern
Rhode Island Conservation District, PWSB, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation
Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation
Service), RIDEM, and EPA Region 1.
Model project
The system was completed in October 1999. It
has been featured in several field reviews, includ- • -
ing the New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission's 2000 Annual Nonpoint
Source Conference. PWSB has also been monitor-
ing the system to determine its effectiveness in '.
removing the pollutants of concern.
www.state.ri.us/dem/program's/benviron/water/quality/nonpoint/index.htm
RHODE
S L A N D
mm _ ___: ...
Contacts:
Jim Riordan
. RIDEM Office of Water
Resources
40 1 -222-4700 (ext. 4421]
jriordan®doa.state.ri.us
Brian Tefft
RIDEM Division Fish and '
Wildlife
P.O. Box 218
West Kingston, Rl 02892
401-789-0281
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• dredge and fill.of tidal
channel/salt marsh
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment/fill
Project Activities:
• installation of self- .
regulating sluice and tide
gates
-_~~^~-,.L.t>^:M^n^.^.:x-r ^ k^S^^fi
Results:
• 68 percent reduction of
Phragmites
» restoration of 84 acres of
salt marsh habitats and
1 4 acres of tidal creeks
and ponds
Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration:
Undersized Culverts Replaced with Self-Regulating Gates
The coastal features of southern Rhode Island
provide a breathtaking variety of special habitats.
The Galilee Bird Sanctuary is a 128-acre coastal
wetland complex owned and managed by the
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Man-
agement (RIDEM), Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Narragansett, Rhode Island
The sanctuary is east of the port of Galilee and is
bounded by the Galilee Escape Road to the north
and Sand Hill Cove Road to the south.
Unfortunately, much of the Galilee Salt Marsh
has led a fractured existence. During the 1950s
unconfined dredge spoil from the Port of Galilee-
Rhode Island }
I 137
-------
was deposited over portions of the -western side of
the salt marsh where the Galilee Bird Sanctuary is
located. This disposal filled in a tidal channel that
had been present in this location and significantly
altered the natural hydrology of the marsh.
During a 1954 hurricane, the extreme flood-
ing of Sand Hill Cove Road trapped the residents
of Great Island. To prevent this from occurring
again, the State Division of Public Works con-
structed the Galilee Escape Road in 1956. Con-
struction of the Escape Road fragmented the
previously continuous salt marsh, eliminating in
the process about 7 acres of valuable marsh habi-
tat Restriction of tidal flushing transformed the
once-productive salt marsh into dense thickets of
Phragmites and shrubs, causing reduction of natural
coastal wetland habitats for migratory waterfowl,
shorebkds, fish, and shellfish.
Self-regulating gates
The Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration Project was a
multimillion-dollar effort with a number of con-
tributing partners, including the Rhode Island
Department of Transportation, U.S. Army Corp
of Engineers, Ducks Unlimited, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, RIDEM Fish and Wildlife, and
other agencies, under the auspices of the Coastal
America Program.
Section 319 funding contributed to the resto-
ration efforts with d $64,300 grant to replace the
undersized culverts and install self-regulating
sluice and tide gates. The self-regulating gates
allow for minimum intervention and maintenance
and were devised as an alternative to more costly
and operation-intensive electric gates. The gates
operate using a system of floats and balances that
are precisely calibrated to close when water
reaches a preset level.
Impressive results
Marsh restoration was completed and dedicated
October 1997. Results have been strong. Phragmites
was reduced by 68 percent at the completion of
the 1999 growing season, and height was reduced
from 11 feet to 3.5 feet. Fish and wildlife popula-
tions have responded to the restoration in dra-
matic fashion: finfish recolonized the tidal creeks
within days following opening of the tide gates.
Waterfowl (duck and geese), including the Ameri-
can black duck, use the restored marsh extensively
for nesting and feeding and during migration. In
total, approximately 84 acres of salt marsh habi-
tats and 14 acres of tidal creeks and ponds were
restored.
Complete restoration is expected to take 10
years or more. The project has been an enormous
success, and the salt marsh has been designated a
bird sanctuary. The project is an excellent demon-
stration of collaboration among various branchi
of government.
tes
1381
Rhode Island
-------
www.scdhec.net/eqc/water/pubs/nps.pdf
SOUTH CAROLINA
Han •
Contact:
Keith Cain
East Piedmont RCD Council
4 1 4A South Congress
Street
Winnsboro, SC29180
803-635-2757
Keith. Cain®sc. usda.gov
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• failing septic tanks .
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• fecal coliform bacteria
• nutrients
Project Activities:
• constructed wetland
systems
Results:
• reductions of 99 percent
in fecal coliform bacteria,
86 percent in total
suspended solids, 77
percent in BODS, 39
• percent in total .
• phosphorus, 59 percent
in nitrate, 35 percent in
ammonia •
Constructed Wetlands for Failing Septic Tanks:
New Technologies Solve an Old Problem
Sampling is conducted through sampling ports.
Failing septic systems can result in partially treated
or untreated surface wastewater containing fecal
coliform bacteria and nutrients, causing nonpoint
source pollution in drainageways, streams, and
lakes. Current technology resulting from a 3-year
study on nine constructed wetland systems con-
ducted by Dr. Kevin White of the University of
South Alabama is being used in the design of
constructed wetlands in South Carolina to treat
sewage from failing septic systems.
The system consists of two shallow basins
about 1 foot in depth and containing gravel, which
supports emergent vegetation. The first of the
two cells is lined to prevent seepage, while the
second is unlined and acts as a disposal field. The
water level is maintained below the gravel surface,
thus preventing odors, public exposure, and vector
problems. In an alternative design, a standard field
drain system is used in place of the second cell.
Statewide
Encouraging results
Preliminary data collected by the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Con-
trol (SCDHEC) between May 1999 and April
2000 on eight of these systems constructed state-
wide show significant reductions in nutrients and
bacteria as a result of treatment.- The monitoring
shows an average. 99 percent reduction in fecal
coliform bacteria, 86 percent in total suspended
solids, 77 percent in 5-day biological oxygen de-
mand (BODS), 39 percent in total phosphorus, 59
percent in nitrate, and 35 percent in ammonia.
Education component
The East Piedmont Resource Conservation and
Development Council is managing the construc-
tion of 10 of these wetland systems to replace
failing septic tank systems at homes in a water-
shed surrounding Lake Murray. This lake is a large
recreational impoundment in central South Caro-
lina, where poor soil conditions and steep slopes
are causing some conventional systems to fail. A
comprehensive technology transfer program will
complement the project, educating citizens about
the benefits of the management practice. The
Ninety-Six District Resource Conservation and
Development Council is also conducting a similar
project in Greenwood County.
South Carolina '
1139
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
www.scdhec.net/eqc/water/pubs/nps.pdf
•Illllli -- ••:•-- : --• - '»
| Contact:
: DougF.ibcl
i South Carolina
! Department of Health and
! Environmental Control
! 2600 Bull Stre«
Columbia. SC 29201-1 708
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• fecal coliform bacteria
• nutrients
803-898-4222
1 f;jijeldj®coJunib32,dhec.state. sc.us
f
Project Activities: Results:
, • dairy farm BMPs (grazing , • reductions in fecal
management, fencing, coliform bacteria
alternative water sources
for livestock, riparian
vegetation
establishment)
• nutrient management for .
poultry farm (dead bird
composting)
,
Stevens Creek Watershed Project:
Demonstration Sites Show Reductions in Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Edgefield, McCormick, Greenwood, and Saluda Counties, South Carolina
Project partners built a two-cell composter on the
Johnson Poultry Farm to reduce nutrients from
poultry waste runoff.
The Stevens Creek watershed is in Edgefield,
McCormick, Greenwood, and Saluda Counties,
South Carolina. Historical water quality .data indi-
cate increasing trends in fecal coliform bacteria,
turbidity, and total phosphorus and decreasing
trends in dissolved oxygen. Nonpoint source
pollution is degrading the quality of water for
municipal water supply, contributing to deteriora-
tion of fisheries, reducing stream channel capaci-
ties, and lowering the aesthetic values of the area.
About 85 to 90 percent of the water quality im-
pacts in the Stevens Creek watershed are esti-
mated to be caused by agriculture.
Implementing best management practices
The goal of the Stevens Creek Watershed Project
was to reduce sediment, nutrients, and chemical
runoff from' confined and unconfined livestock
operations. The Edgefield Soil and Water Conser-
vation District and
Ninety-Six District
Resource Conserva-
tion and Development
Council, Inc., imple-
mented the project
over a 3-year period
between May 1995 and
July 1998. The project
focused on using
systems of best management practices (BMPs)
and whole farm planning and management as keys
to the sustainability of farming operations. Sec-
tion 319 funds and the farmers on whose farms
the demonstrations were located covered the costs
of the demonstrations.
Two farms in the watershed were selected as
demonstration sites—a dairy operation and a
poultry farm, both in close proximity to flowing
streams. BMPs implemented on the dairy farm
included pasture grazing management, stream
protection by fencing off streambanks and pro-
viding alternative water sources for livestock, and
additional riparian vegetation (field borders and
filter strips). Nutrient management, in the form of
dead bkd composting, was the target BMP for the
chicken farm. A •waste stacking shed was built into
the ground behind the poultry houses, with mini-
mal soil disturbance. Both farms had BMPs imple-
mented in June 1996.
Taking stock of improvements
Three monitoring stations were established for
each farm, one upstream of the project sites, one
downstream, and a control (reference) site.
Baseline data were collected from January 1996
^v
through June 1996, and regular monitoring began
in July 1996 -and continued for 2l/2 years (through
January 1999).
140 KB South Carolina
-------
Testing revealed significant reductions in fecal
coliform at Sleepy Creek downstream from Hickory
Hill Dairy.
Water quality
sampling results indi-
cated significant
reductions in fecal
coliform bacteria at .
both the downstream
poultry and dairy
farm stations after
BMP implementation.
Preimplementation
sampling found fecal
coliform bacteria
levels for all stations
ranging from a low of 5 colonies per 100 mL to a
high of more than 2 million colonies per 100 mL;
postimplementation results for all stations ranged
from 2/100 mL to 58,000/100 mL. Nutrient
management (dead bird composting) on the poul-
try farm significantly reduced fecal coliform bac-
teria and total suspended solids concentrations
(both spatially and temporally). On the dairy farm,
pasture grazing management and animal fencing
did significantly reduce fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations (spatially and temporally), but they
did not reduce total suspended solids concentra-
tions at the downstream station.
www.state.sd.us/denr/watershed
SOUTH DAKOTA
HESU •
BSlm
Contact:
Jason Rehn
Roberts County
RO. Box 1 28
Sisseton, SD 57262-1 523 •
605-698-3923
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture
« urban runoff
• drainage and land use
changes
• • - •• •-"•-•• •-:•
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
. • sediment
« nutrients
: .' :-'• .- -.. .—:;..-. •-
Project Activities:
» agricultural BMPs (animal
waste management
systems, no-till planting,
buffers)
• construction of lake
outlet control structure
and debris barrier
Results:
• change of lake status
from hypereutrophic to
eutrophic
• shorter algal blooms
• increased state park
attendance/recreational
use of lake
Big Stone Lake Restoration Project:
Better Water Quality Improves Fisheries, Recreation
Big Stone Lake is on the border between South
Dakota and Minnesota. The lake occupies the
valley of a glacial river that once drained historic
Lake Aggasiz. The surface area of the lake is
12,610 acres, and the lake extends southward for
26 miles from Browns Valley, Minnesota, to
Ortonville, Minnesota, and Big Stone City,
South Dakota.
Big Stone Lake and its fishery are the primary
feature for Big Stone Lake State Park, Hartford
Beach State Park, and several resorts. The lake is
also an important recreational attraction for
Ortonville, Big Stone City, and surrounding com-
munities. The fishery of the lake has the potential
to contribute substantially to local and state
Big Stone Lake, South Dakota
economies. Historically, the fishery has been
managed primarily for walleye, with a secondary
emphasis on yellow perch, bluegill, black crappie, .
northern pike, largemouth bass, and channel
catfish. In samples taken in 1971 through 1985,
walleye abundance, as measured by average gill net
catch rates, was near the low end of the "normal"
range for lakes with similar physical and. chemical
characteristics. • '. .
Agricultural, domestic, and municipal pollu- -
tion have degraded fish habitat, reduced recre-
ational opportunities, reduced the aesthetic quality
of the lake, and increased the likelihood of more
direct effects on the fisheries in the form of fish
kills. Drainage and land use changes in the lake's
Soutn Dakota '
I 141
-------
watershed have contributed to increased sedimen-
tation, nutrient loading, changes in tributary flows,
increases in water level fluctuations, and direct
destruction of aquatic habitats.
Big Stone Lake partners
In the early 1980s citizens of South Dakota and
Minnesota requested assistance from both states and
EPA to begin an effort to restore Big Stone Lake.
The primary concerns were poor water quality,
excessive algae blooms, sedimentation, rooted._
aquatic vegetation, and reduced recreation potential.
A series of EPA section 314 and section 319
grants, beginning in 1983, have provided funding
for lake and watershed restoration projects; the
most recent 319 funding was awarded in 1996 and
1999. Currently, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and Environmental Quality Incentives
Program funding is also being used to implement
additional conservation practices in Roberts and
Marshall Counties. The key partners in the Big
Stone Lake Restoration Project are watershed
landowners; lake residents; local counties, conserva-
tion districts, and municipalities; Upper Minnesota
River Watershed District; Citizens for Big Stone
Lake; South Dakota Department of Environment
and Natural Resources; Minnesota Pollution Con-
trol Agency; EPA; Natural Resources Conservation
Service; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Attendance at
Year
1986 to 1993 (avg.)
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
State Parks on
Big Stone Lake
State Park (MM)
11, 000 to 13,000
15,500
18,500
25,000
28,500
33,700
36,559
Big Stone Lake
Hartford Beach
State Park (SDJ
57,000 to 59,000
55,000
66,336
61,994
66,375
72,000
77,226
Restoration project
Various conservation and restoration practices ..
have been implemented through the Big Stone ;
Lake Restoration Project. Conservation practices :
in the lake's watershed include the installation of
more than 50 animal waste management systems, '
no-till planting of crops, construction of multiple-
use wetlands, grassed waterways through cropland
fields, stream buffer strips, streambank stabiliza-
tion, and implementation of the USDA Conserva- ;
tion Reserve Program. In addition, six municipal
wastewater treatment facilities in the watershed
have been upgraded.
Restoration practices implemented at the lake l,
include access road erosion control, shoreline :
stabilization, and upgraded wastewater treatment.
In addition, a new lake outlet control structure ;
and debris barrier were constructed at the south
end of the lake. The main purpose of the struc-
ture is to divert the majority of flow from the ,
Whetstone River away from Big Stone Lake. The .
Whetstone River was diverted into the lake in the '
1930s to augment lake levels, but the diversion ,
resulted in excessive nutrients and sediment being :
deposited in the lake. The new control structure
diverts these contaminants away from the lake in ;
accordance with the original river, flow pattern. !_
Improved water quality and recreational use ;
The results of the Big Stone Lake Restoration ;
Project are beginning to be realized in improved
water quality. Water sampling results have shown a ;
gradual but steady improvement in recent years. ;
The trophic status of the lake has changed from |
hypereutrophic (extremely nutrient-rich) to ;
eutrophic (nutrient-rich). As a result, algae blooms .
are less extensive and shorter in duration. ;
The fisheries of the lake also have improved
to the point that a national walleye circuit fishing
1421
i Soyth Datota
-------
tournament is held annually at Big Stone Lake.
Attendance records at Big Stone Lake State Park
on the Minnesota side and Hartford Beach State
Park on the South Dakota side have documented
substantial increases in recreational use of the
lake, which correlate with improvements in water
quality (see table on previous page). Comments
made by lake residents indicate appreciation of
the water quality improvement that has occurred
to date.
www.state.sd.us/denr/watershed
SOUTH DAKOTA
HH
Contact:
John Deppe
Coordinator
Lower James RC&D
1820 North Kimball
Mitchell, SD 57301
605-996-1031
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« cattle grazing
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• nutrients
. • . - • • : -•. •
Project Activities:
• management-intensive
grazing
.
Results:
• reduced erosion
(decreases sediment/
nutrients into water]
• increased farm profit
Management-Intensive Grazing Project:
Rotational Grazing Reduces Erosion, Increases Profits
Farmers, ranchers, and all landowners who manage
grasslands in South Dakota face the dual challenges
of running a profitable business and sustaining a
quality grassland environment. Through the Man-
agement-Intensive Grazing Systems Project, initi-
ated in July 1999 with support of 319 funding,
South Dakota grassland managers, grassland and
livestock organizations, and local, state, and federal
agencies are working together to design, imple-
ment, and monitor six "management-intensive"
grazing systems in South Dakota.
The "management-intensive" grazing method
focuses on a high (intensive) level of manage- -
ment; the term does not mean that the grassland
vegetation is grazed intensely (short). Manage-
ment-intensive grazing systems often involve 15
or more pastures and short 2- or 3--day grazing
periods. Information learned from the on-ranch
demonstrations and from other producers using
this method is shared with other grassland manag-
ers, researchers, agency specialists, and the public.
Geddes, South Dakota
Site example
In 2000 Mark Sip of Geddes, South Dakota,
began to use a 205-acre management-intensive
grazing system for his pastures. The pastures were
divided into 10 paddocks, ranging from 17 to 27
acres in size, with a stocking rate of. 1.0 animal
unit months per acre. This is a safe stocking rate
under normal conditions using continuous season-
long stocking.
Livestock water is supplied to the pastures by
a buried pipeline using rural water as the water
source. An aboveground pipeline serves as a
distribution system to the 10 paddocks. All divi-
sion fences consist of polywire and temporary
fiberglass posts. Several of the paddocks use a
narrow lane to access the water tank. The fences
are moved,as the cattle are rotated to fresh grass.
The entire area supports a plant community
composed of a mixture of cool season and •warm
season native plants. Cool-.season plants dominate
the pastures. It is projected that the warm season
South Dakota
114.3
-------
native plants will benefit from the rests provided
and will begin to increase. This would provide a
higher-quality diet to the livestock during the hot
summer months.
Benefits realized
The environmental benefits offered by manage-
ment-intensive grazing include improved grass-
land vegetation and streambank protection, result-
ing in significant reductions of water runoff that
carries nutrients and sediment.
Increased farm or ranch profit also results
from management-intensive grazing. Sip estimates
that although the initial cost of establishing a
rotational grazing program in his pastures was
approximately $1,560, the rotational grazing theo-
• retically increased his revenue by $4,680. Not only
are farms capable of increasing their stocking
rates but they also can better stockpile grass for
winter grazing, which reduces the need to feed.
hay and lowers total feed costs.
TENNESSEE
www.state.tn. us/agriculture/nps/index.html
mil
Contact:
Reggie Reeves
Tennessee Department of
Environment and
Conservation
Division of Natural
Heritage
8th Floor. L&C Tower
Nashville, TN 37024
6I5-S32-0434
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture
• logging
• channelization
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• nutrients
Project Activities:
• riparian reforestation
. • wetland restoration
• cattle exclusion
" • :""""~ "' """" '• " '
Results:
• acquisition of more than
1 ,500 acres for long-
term protection of
riparian and wetland
habitats
Ghost River Land Acquisition Project:
River Protected by Restoring Forested Wetlands
Grand Junction, Tennessee
The Ghost River region of the Wolf River is part
of the larger Wolf River Conservation Initiative.
The Wolf River is an unchannelized river in west
Tennessee extending from the Mississippi-Tennes-
see state line in Fayette County to Memphis,
where it becomes channeled in Shelby County.
The Ghost River section begins at the bridge at
LaGrange and continues to Bateman's bridge
approximately 10 miles to the west. This section
of the Wolf River features a meandering river
channel, a swamp forest where the river channel is
braided, and an open swamp lake. The banks and
parts of the river are forested, which provides
significant wildlife value. The overall water quality
is considered good because the river supports
many species of filter-feeding mussels.
The significance of the Ghost River region
relates to its unaltered channel, -which supports
important forest communities in need of protec-
tion. These communities are bald cypress, -water
tupelo, and bottomland hardwood forests. The
Wolf River has numerous recreational uses that
are compatible with natural area, preservation.
They include hunting, fishing, canoeing, birding,
and other nature appreciation activities. Education
and research are encouraged and might be impor-
tant parts of the management to restore bottom-
land hardwood forests and buffer areas.
Increasingly, land along the Wolf River is
being cleared of natural bottomland hardwoods
and other -wetland vegetation. Much of the water-
shed is under agricultural production, which con-
144
Tennessee
-------
tributes significantly to increased sedimentation in
the river and loss of riparian and wetland habitats.
In many places along the Wolf River, cattle access
the river and associated wetlands, causing addi-
tional erosion. Primary threats to the river include
forest fragmentation and erosion from logging,
channelization, contamination and erosion from
agricultural use, pollution caused by dumping, and
urban sprawl. There are also other threats, such as
noise and toxic pollution from motorboat use in
the swamp lake, off-road vehicle use, and the
introduction and spread of invasive exotic species.
Any use of invasive exotic plant species in food
plots in the adjacent Wildlife Management Area
could pose a threat.
A three-phase project
The Ghost River Initiative sought to prevent these
threats to the Ghost River section of the Wolf
River by acquiring land and establishing conserva-
tion easements to protect and enhance water .
quality. The tracts identified for acquisition flood
annually and have a.high potential for wetland and
riparian habitat restoration with associated water
quality improvement.
To accomplish riparian habitat conservation
and wetland habitat restoration on the Ghost
River, a three-phase project was developed. First,
property would be purchased. Second, with coop-
erating organizations, a plan would be developed
for thorough restoration of the tracts, including
riparian reforestation, wetland restoration, and
cattle exclusion. The third phase would involve
implementation of the restoration work in asso-
ciation with cooperating organizations. Support
for this project included 1250,000 in section 319
funding, plus $284,755 in match.
Results and other efforts
More than 1,500 acres have been purchased in the
Ghost River section for long-term conservation
of the riparian and wetland habitats. These prop-
erties are, for the most part, adjacent to one an-
other. The Ghost River Initiative represents one
of many conservation projects under way to
protect the Wolf River. Other efforts continue to
protect the area through acquisition, conservation
easements, registry agreements, or other forms of
cooperative management agreements.
Management and restoration plans for the
area are under development. Subject to other
funding, the Tennessee Department of Environ-
ment and Conservation, Division of Natural
Heritage, will complete a biodiversity, field review
of the properties for use in the development of a
comprehensive management and restoration plan.
The restoration of bottomland hardwood
forested wetlands is important in Tennessee be-
cause of the decline in this category of wetland
habitats. Efforts will continue to ensure that this
unique river system is preserved in its natural state
for future generations of Tennesseans to enjoy.
Tennessee 1
I 1*5
-------
TENNESSEE
www.state.tn. us/agriculture/nps/index.html
Contact:
Dr. Kim Stcarman
Tennessee Technological
University, Water Resources
Box 5033
Cookeville. TN 38505
931-372.3528
gkstearmanatntech.edu
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• container nurseries
Primary NPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• pesticides • constructed wetland
• nutrients
Results:
• removal rates greater
than 80 percent for
herbicide, 90 percent for
nitrogen, and 85
percent for phosphate
Using Constructed Wetlands to Clean Up Pesticides:
Container Nurseries Will Benefit from Successful Pilot-Scale Study
Baxtec Tennessee
Container nurseries account for an increasing
share of total nurseries in Middle -Tennessee.
The nursery industry is concentrated in that
part of Tennessee and ranks in the top 10 agri-
cultural industries in the state each year. Con-
tainer nurseries traditionally apply large
amounts of pesticides and nutrients to the
nursery crops, which are susceptible to runoff
into surface waters. Collection ponds have been
used with some limited success, but pesticide or
nutrient residues can concentrate in the ponds
because litde if any treatment to remove harm-
ful substances is used.
Although constructed wetlands have not been '
evaluated for use in container nurseries, Tennessee
Technology University's Water Center has used
such wetlands to treat the town of Baxter's waste-
water, and the wedands have been operating suc-
cessfully for several years. This site was ideal for
incorporation of a container nursery to demon-
strate constructed wedand treatments because the
nursery was in place and operational.
Project goals
The primary goal of the project was to demon-
strate constructed wedands as a cost-effective best
management practice to reduce pesticide and nutri-
ent runoff and to purify water in. container nurser-
ies. The specific objectives were to (1) determine
removal rates of simazine, metolachlor, nitrogen,
and phosphorus from container nursery runoff
using constructed wetland cells; (2) determine die
effect of vegetation (soft-stem bulrush), flow,
depth, and aspect of constructed wetlands on
herbicide and nutrient removal; and (3) design and
install a pilot-scale, subsurface-flow gravel con-
structed wedand at a container nursery grower's site
for removal of herbicides and nutrients and for
demonstration to growers and odier interested
parties.
In the spring and summer of 1998 and 1999,
a field study was conducted at the Baxter, Tennes-
see, wastewater treatment plant, where con-
structed wetland cells have been studied since
1992. A 450-square-meter container nursery widi
overhead irrigation was built on-site. Water runoff
from the, container nursery was pumped into 14
gravel subsurface-flow constructed wedand cells.
Bulrush (Scirpus validus) was grown in seven of die
cells, and seven cells had no plants. The wedand
cells were either 30 or 45 centimeters in depth.
Three loading rates of runoff water containing
herbicides and nutrients were added, correspond-
ing to hydraulic retention times of 2 to 21 days.
The removal of herbicides (simazine and
metolachlor) and nutrients (nitrogen and phos-
phorus) in each of the constructed wedand cells
•was calculated and correlated with bulrush vegeta-
tion, loading rates, depdi of cell, and hydraulic
retention time.
1461
I Tennessee
-------
Promising results
Constructed wetland cells with plants removed
significantly more simazine, nitrogen, and phospho-
rus than cells widiout plants. Cells with plants
removed more metolachlor at 2- to 8-day retention
times, but at higher water retention times there was
no difference. Nitrogen removal was greater in the
cells 45 cm deep (89 percent) than in the cells 30
cm deep (76 percent). Depth did not affect herbi-
cide or phosphorus removal. Removal of simazine
ranged from 57 to 96 percent, and metolachlor
removal ranged from 18 to 95 percent of that
applied; no significant difference in removal was
seen between the 'first year and second year of the
project. In constructed wetland cells with plants,
about 60 to 65 percent of herbicides were removed
at the high loading rate, which was equivalent to a
2- or 3-day hydraulic retention time. Increasing the
retention time to 8 or more days improved herbi-
www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/nps/index.html
cide removals to above 80 percent in the cells with
plants. Nitrogen removal was greater than 90 per-
cent in all vegetated cells. Phosphate removal was
greater than 85 percent in all vegetated cells except
one cell, which had the shortest retention time.
A newly constructed wetland might require
some time for plants to become established, thus
affecting removal efficiencies. The system at Baxter
was a mature system, with wetland bulrush plants
established since 1992 and plant densities greater
than 300 stems per square meter. A pilot, subsurface-
flow gravel constructed wetland has been installed at
a nursery in Smithville, Tennessee, and is being
, evaluated for operation, maintenance, and removal
efficiencies. A workshop and demonstration of the
constructed wetland took place on October 24,
2000, at the Pirtle's Nursery site. There was a good
turnout of nursery growers, and many of the grow-
ers showed a high interest in the technology.
TEXAS
Kil" "•" " • -
Contact:
Donna Long
Texas State Soil and Water
Conservation Board
311 North 5th, P.O. Box 658
Temple, TX 76503
254-774-6044
•• ; '""-. " :'
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« agricultural runoff •
• :"' • -
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• atrazine
. -. .. _ _.. ._ .. ,_ .
Project Activities:
• agricultural BMPs (setbacks,
soil incorporation)
• information and education
on pesticide application
• well-water testing
-
Results:
• atrazine levels below
MCLinLakeAquilla
Atrazine Problems in the Lake Aquilla and Marlin City
Lake System:
Farmers Take a Proactive Stance
Hillsboro and Marlin, Texas
Increasing levels of atrazine, a herbicide, in the water
supply caused concern among local citizens in the
Lake Aquilla and Marlin City Lake system area of
Texas. Atrazine levels exceeded the maximum con-
taminant level (MCL) at Lake Aquilla, and the devel-
opment of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
was imminent. The presence of atrazine in the water
supply was attributed to storm water runoff from
agricultural areas in the rural community.
Response of the locals
Local farmers took a proactive stance in response
to this water quality issue by forming the Produc-
ers' Atrazine Action Committee. The primary goal
of the Committee was to reduce the presence of
atrazine in water supplies by encouraging produc-
ers to use the most economically feasible manage-
ment practices conducive to the reduction of
atrazine-contaminated runoff. They developed a
Texas i
I 147
-------
list of recommended best management practices
(BMPs) for the watershed and had meetings with
pesticide dealerships to increase awareness at the
chemical supply level. The Committee developed
a questionaire to document adoption of BMPs
over time and administered it randomly in the
watershed.
The Stakeholders Group and Producers' Atra-
zine Action Committee sponsored a public meeting
in December, featuring different speakers on water
quality topics and pesticide applicator training. Farm-
ers began to implement various BMPs from the list
developed and recommended by the Committee,
some of which included observing more setback
area and incorporating atrazine into the soil to re-
duce herbicide runoff. Adoption of incorporation
has been estimated at 33 percent for this year, and
full adoption is expected within the next 3 years.
Role of education and outreach
Success could Hot have been achieved without
strong, locally organized education and outreach
efforts. As a result of such efforts, Lake Aquilla
has had eight consecutive quarters without a
violation of the atrazine MCL;
The Producers Atrazine Action Committee
also targeted groundwater quality awareness,
secondary to atrazine reduction, in their public
outreach and education campaign. The committee
promoted weE-water testing through the
TEX*A*Syst program and recommended that
wells be tested for atrazine, bacteria, and nutrients.
Many well owners were able to learn about well ,
water disinfection processes, testing, filters, and
protection of groundwater quality. As a result, 28
wells in the county have been tested for bacteria,
nitrates, nitrites, sulfates, phosphates, and atrazine.
TEXAS
www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/nps/index.html.
. ..
contact:
Donna Long
Ttexas State Soil and Water
Conservation Board
31 1 North 50% RO. Box 658
Temple, TX 76503
254-774-6044
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (dairy)
: . - •
Primary NPS Pollutants: Project Activities:
• nutrients : • on-farm composting of
solid waste
: . - . ' " . • : " ^
Results:
• exporting pollutants off-
site to low-risk areas
• economic gains
On-Farm Composting of Dairy Cattle Solid Waste:
Protecting Water Quality While Producing a Salable Product
Commerce, Texas (composting); Anderson/Houston SWCD, Palestine, Texas (marketing)
A section 319 grant was awarded to Texas A&M
University—Commerce to initiate a cattle solid waste
composting demonstration project on a 400-cow
freestall dairy. The outcome of this demonstration
resulted in the conversion of solid animal waste into
a value-added product suitable for high-end whole-
sale or retail markets. This product could be mar-
keted in bulk for use in field, landscape, or nursery
applications or could be bagged for retail sales to the
homeowner market. Potential buyers of the compost
include landscapers, commercial nurseries, home and
garden centers, greenhouses, homeowners, farmers,
golf courses, cemeteries, public water works depart-
ments, road and highway contractors, schools, parks,
turf growers, and developers.
Advantages of in-vessel techniques
In-vessel composting has many advantages over
other composting techniques. The need to trans-
port raw materials on public roads to a centralized
composting facility is eliminated when animal waste
is retained for on-farm composting. Rapid comple-
tion of the composting process, through in-vessel
composting, results in product stabilization and
1481
Texas
-------
sanitation 'within 3 to 4 days during any season of
the year. Raw waste material remains isolated from
the environment until the process is complete, and
the site manager has precise control of moisture,
temperature, and aeration during the composting
process, regardless of ambient weather conditions.
Another advantage is that raw waste loses all offen-
sive odors within 12 hours of start-up..The result-
ing composted product is of superior quality and
suitable for high-end wholesale or retail markets.
Water quality and economic advantages
Water quality advantages followed as a result
of 8,000 pounds of nitrogen and 3,000 pounds
each of phosphorus and potassium being an-
nually relocated and beneficially used in low-
risk areas. This demonstration project also
yielded a market price of $20.00 per cubic yard
(bulk) for the compost. Sale of the compost
provided the dairyman a total income of
$43,800, which resulted in an annual net in-
come of $20,150.
Demonstrations have also shown that this
product can be substituted unilaterally for im-
ported Canadian sphagnum peat moss in many
applications, including use as an alternative plant-
growing medium in greenhouses and as an organic
soil amendment in the landscape.
http://ag.utah.gov/mktcons/nps4.htm
UTAH
• •
Contact:
Jon Hardman
Natural Resources
-Conservation Service
1 860 North 1 00 East
North Logan, UT 84341
435-753-56 1 6 (ext. 25)
jhardman®
utnorthlog.fsc.usda.gov
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« agriculture (croplands,
pasture, animal feeding
operations)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
' « sediments
« nutrients
Project Activities:
• stream channel and bank
restoration
• grazing land improvements
• animal waste management
systems
Results:
• reduced concentrations
of total phosphorus
• improved habitat for fish
and other aquatic
organisms
The Little Bear River watershed in Cache County,
Utah, is listed as a high-priority watershed that is
being adversely affected by nonpoint source
pollution. The watershed covers 196,432 acres.
Land use is approximately 70 percent range/
forest, 19 percent irrigated cropland, 7 percent
dry cropland, and 4 percent other. Land owner-
ship is 85 percent private, 11 percent national
forests, and 4 percent state lands.
In 1990 the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) provided funding through the Hydro-
logic Unit Area Water Quality Program, giving
birth to the Little Bear River Project. The Little
Bear River Steering Committee was formed to
Little Bear River Project:
Voluntary Approaches Yield Success
Cache County, Utah
provide local leadership and oversight of the
watershed planning project. A technical advisory
committee consisting of local, state, and federal
resource agencies and representatives from Utah
. State University was formed to assist the Little
Bear River Steering Committee with the watershed
assessment. The technical advisory committee
completed a watershed assessment in 1992.
The watershed assessment identified high
sediment loads from eroded stream banks, as well
as high nutrient and coliform loads from numer-
ous animal feeding operations. Cropland and
pastures were also found to be significant sources
of nutrients in the Little Bear River watershed.
Utah
[149
-------
Having identified the major causes of nonpoint
source pollution in the watershed, the local steer-
ing and technical advisory committees developed .
the following project objectives:
• Reduce erosion from streambanks and
rangeland in critical areas.
• Reduce nutrient and sediment loading from
cropland, pasture, animal feeding opera-
tions, and rangeland.
• Inform and educate landowners within the
project boundary and the public of the
need to improve and maintain water quality
in the Little Bear River watershed.
• Monitor the effectiveness of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) and evaluate the
benefits of water quality improvements.
Promoting voluntary approaches in the
watershed
The overall project goal was to encourage land-
owners to implement conservation practices and
BMPs voluntarily to improve the quality of water
in the Little Bear River watershed. To make the
voluntary approach successful, a diverse group of
partners were invited to provide guidance and
input into project priorities and activities. To date,
more than 100 landowners have participated in
the project. An important component of the
project is the citizen volunteers. Local community
groups have donated more than 3,000 hours to
various projects.
In the early stages, watershed restoration
focused on stream channel and bank restoration
and on grazing land improvements. In 1994 more
emphasis was placed on improving animal waste
management systems. By 1998, 36 animal waste
management systems had been designed, and they
are currently in various stages of completion and
implementation. From 1991 to 1996, $1,507,000 in
section 319 funding was allocated to the watershed
effort.
Measurable improvements in water quality
Currently, 6 years after the initial watershed resto-
ration efforts, measurable improvements in water
quality are being documented. There is a down-
ward trend in total phosphorus concentrations in
the watershed. As more animal waste management
systems and BMPs are implemented, the down-
ward trend is expected to continue. A Total Maxi-
mum Daily Load (TMDL) plan has been devel-
oped, and further reductions in nutrient loadings
will continue once the plan is implemented. The
TMDL will target and reduce point source loads
of phosphorus. By measuring the reduction of
total phosphorus from point sources, the reduc-
tion of nonpoint source pollution can be deter-
mined to assess the success of the 319-funded
projects.
Implementing BMPs throughout the water-
shed is also benefiting the aquatic community. In
some reaches of the watershed, meanders have
been restored in the stream channel. This work,
and other structural work to control bank erosion,
has improved habitat for fish and other aquatic
organisms. Angler use has increased in the water-
shed, and this success has piqued the interest of
other landowners in participating in the program.
150
Utah
-------
http://ag.utah.gov/mktcons/nps4.htm
UTAH
HRHI ' ~
Contact:
Shane Green
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
435-336-5853
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture
,..'.'. ; . •
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediments
• nutrients
Project Activities:
• fencing
• prescribed grazing
• revegetation
• stream channel stabilization
• sprinkler irrigation systems
~" •" ~ ' ; " ~ ~ ~~ -<
Results:
• reduced concentrations
of total phosphorus
• enhanced aquatic
community
Success in the Chalk Creek Watershed:
Reduced Phosphorus, Enhanced Habitat Result
Summit County, Utah
. The Chalk Creek watershed in Summit County,
Utah, encompasses 173,000 acres. Roughly 123,500
acres is rangeland, 2,000 acres is used as cropland,
and 44,000 acres is forested. The watershed is 100
percent privately owned. Chalk Creek is a major
tributary and source of sediment and nutrients to
the Weber River, which supplies drinking water to
Ogden, Utah, and other Wasatch Front communities.
Because Chalk Creek is an important water
source and a recreational fishery, an intensive water
quality assessment was conducted in 1990 to identify
sediment and nutrient .sources in the Chalk Creek
watershed. The results of the watershed assessment
indicated that the creek was impaired because of
habitat alteration and sediment. The total phospho-
rus level was also above the Utah State Division of
Water Quality Standards' indicator value for the
beneficial use designation of a cold-water fishery.
Utah officially placed the stream on its 303 (d) list of
impaired waters. EPA approved the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) plan in 1997. Between 1991
and 1999, $1,673,000 in section 319 funding was
allocated to the watershed effort.
High local support for restoring watershed
In 1991 the local soil conservation district, landown-
ers, water users, and resource managers initiated the
Chalk Creek Nonpoint Source Water Quality Project
to address the water quality impairment of Chalk
Creek By 1994 a coordinated watershed resource
plan had been developed and a technical advisory
committee, composed of local, state, and federal
agencies, private individuals, and groups, had been
formed to assist the local steering committee.
The primary goal of the Chalk Creek
Nonpoint Source Water Quality Project was to
reduce erosion and sedimentation entering the
creek. Methods identified to reduce erosion in
Chalk Creek were stabilization of streambanks,
restoration of riparian vegetation, and improved
rangeland vegetation to reduce overland runoff.
There was a high level of landowner support
in the Chalk Creek watershed. By 1997 many of the
. 100 major watershed landowners, working with the
Natural Resources Conservation Service and other
agencies, had begun designing resource manage-
ment system plans and restoration projects. A
typical Chalk Creek restoration project consists of
fencing off the riparian zone on one or both sides
of the.creek, followed by implementing a rotational
grazing management plan. Some projects address
eroding banks by installing stream barbs or mean-
ders in stream reaches that were historically
straightened. Most restoration projects on Chalk
Creek include planting willows at degraded sites.
The most successful projects have natural willow
regeneration on newly created floodplain deposi-
tion zones. The table summarizes the BMPs that
Utah
-------
have been implemented in various projects in the
Chalk Creek watershed.
The payoff: reduced phosphorus in watershed
The landowners' cooperation and implementation
of restoration projects have reduced the concen-
trations of total phosphorus in Chalk Creek.
Results from water quality monitoring indicate
that total phosphorus concentrations in Chalk
Creek are lower for the time period of 1990 to
1999 than for the time period of 1978 to 1989
(see figure). It is expected that total phosphorus
concentrations will further decrease as more
restoration projects are
completed and land-
owner resource manage-
ment systems are imple-
mented.
Implementing best
management practices
(BMPs) throughout the
watershed has enhanced
the aquatic community,
with emphasis on the
fishery populations. Reduced sediment from
eroding banks and riparian areas has improved
fish spawning and macroinvertebrate habitat.
Placing willow plantings and adding in-stream log
and rock features as flow-directing structures have
provided fish resting.habitat in addition to bank
stability. As more BMPs are implemented
throughout the watershed, the benefits to water
quality and the aquatic community will continue
to increase. A noteworthy indicator of success is
the presence of a population of pure strain
Bonneville cutthroat trout in the watershed.
Best Management Practices Implemented in the
Chalk Creek Watershed
Best management practice
Brush management
Riparian fencing
Rangeland fencing
Stock watering
Streambank protection
Streambank vegetation
Stream channel stabilization
Prescribed grazing
Sprinkler irrigation systems
Amount completed
1,479 acres
13,128 feet
8,842 feet
3 units
3,801 feet
3,652 feet
8,655 feet
15,443 acres
1,118 acres
Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Chalk Creek (at Highway 189 in
Coalville)
1.4-
1.2
0.8
o
•§. 0.6
8
Q. 0.4
0.2
0.0
©1978-1989
1990-1999"
1978-1989
= 0.037x + 0.0813
R =0.5294, n=75
• m
1990-1999
•y = 0,0327x + 0.0385
R2 = 0.513, n=103
'5
10 15
Discharge (m3/sec)
20
25
30
152]
Utah
-------
www.anr.state.vt. us/dec/waterq/wqdhome.htm
VERMONT
^^__ ^. „- , ~ ~..,~~~ ~, . ^~~~ ~«~. r~~^~~~~*~ • ,~~. ...*»,^*~~r-.~^-. w_^~~
Contact: Primary Sources of Primary NPS Pollutants:
JeffCueto' Pollution: ' -sediment
Vermont Agency of Natural « hydroelectric development
Resources
Water Quality Division
Building 1 0 North
1 03 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671
802-241-3770
jeffc®dec.anr.state.vt.us - . .
~ r~r*-~ -i j, -n.., . -^~~~re-r.T-^,. ,. .^.^.:+':-..'". r*>-^-, '. . . -• ••; *!~~T!,. J. .-' .". ' J-1 •:*!
Project Activities: Results:
» reviewing/commenting on • improved aquatic habitat
relicensmg applications . increased wastewater
assimilative capacity
* enhanced recreational
use for swimming,
fishing, and boating
• elevated dissolved
oxygen levels
« reduced turbidity and
suspended sediment
Flow Restoration Below Hydroelectric Facilities:
Relicensing Offers Opportunity to Increase Stream Flows
Statewide
The impacts of hydroelectric development on
Vermont streams were documented in a 1988
report titled Hydnpoiver in Vermont: An Assessment •
of Environmental Problems and Opportunities, the first
comprehensive environmental study of Vermont's
62 older hydroelectric projects. Artificial regula-
tion of natural stream flows and the lack of ad-
equate minimum stream flows at these sites were
found to have reduced to a large extent the suc-
cess of the state's initiatives to restore the benefi-
cial uses and values for which the affected waters
are managed. Slightly more than three-fourths of
the hydroelectric projects studied were found to
be adversely affecting die streams on which they
were located. The substantial advances being
made to clean up Vermont's rivers were being
stymied by this flow regulation problem.
The project '
Since 1991 Vermont has used section 319 funding
to support the Department of Environmental
Conservation's (DEC) participation in the process
of relicensing hydroelectric projects (under Clean
Water Act section 401 authority). In doing so,
DEC has developed positions on relicensing
applications, influencing the preparation of condi-
tions for future operation of the facilities to sup-
port desked multiple uses of the affected waters.
Activities have also included evaluating the regula-
tion of reservoir levels and downstream flows as
related to the support of recreational uses, aquatic
habitat, and aesthetics, as well as .erosion of reser-
vok/impoundment shorelines and downstream
riverbanks.
Site-specific successes
Given the technical and social complexities of
relicensing, and in spite of several appeal proceed-
ings, numerous accomplishments are a dkect
result of the focus provided by section 319. A few
key examples illustrate these accomplishments:
• The Clyde River Project was denied certifi-
cation because of a project dam that de-
grades habitat and impedes migration of
landlocked salmon from Lake
Memphremagog. DEC subsequently
worked with several parties to complete
dam removal and restore this reach of the
river, which was accomplished in 1996.
• Projects occurring in the Passumpsic,
Black, and Ottauquechee Rivers (Connecti-
cut River Drainage) were relicensed subject
to a "run-of-river conversion," requiring
inclusion of special recreation and land-
scaping plans, bypass flows, and down-
stream fish passage.
Vermont
1153
-------
The Center Rutland Project (Otter Creek,
Lake Champlain Drainage) was relicensed
after issuance of a water quality certification.
The project is now being operated under a
new flow management plan that includes
spillage to improve bypass habitat, aesthetics,
and dissolved oxygen concentrations in •
Rutland's wastewater management zone.
Expected results
Expected benefits from this nonpoint
source implementation strategy include improved
aquatic habitat; increased wastewater assimilative
capacity; enhanced recreational uses for swim-
ming, fishing, and boating; elevated dissolved
oxygen levels; and reduced turbidity and sus-
pended sediment.
VERMONT
www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/wqdhome.htm
•B
r "" ""
Contact:
Rick Hopkins
Vfermont Agency of Natural
Resources
Water Quality Division
Building 10 North
103 South Main Street
WStertiury. VT 05671
802-241-3770
nckh@c)cc,anr.state,vtus
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« agriculture (dairy)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
* nutrients
• bacteria
" - -
Project Activities:
• livestock exclusion fencing
• alternative water supplies
• armored or bridged livestock
stream crossings
• bioengineering streambank
stabilization practices
Results:
• reductions in
phosphorus, nitrogen,
suspended solids, and
indicator bacteria
* improved
macroinvertebrate
community
Lake Champlain Basin Watershed Project:
Significant Pollutant Reductions Achieved
Lake Champlain, the nation's sixdi-largest fresh-
water lake, is undergoing cultural euttophication
due to excessive phosphorus loads. About 71
percent of the lake's average annual phosphorus
load of 647 metric tons comes from nonpoint
sources, and two-thirds of this load is estimated to
come from agricultural land in the basin.
Over the past several decades, efforts to
reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution in
Vermont have focused on improving animal waste
management in the state's predominantly dairy
agriculture. Construction of manure storage
structures, barnyard runoff management, and
adoption of waste utilization plans to avoid winter
spreading of manure have been widely encour-
aged under a variety of federal and state cost-
share and technical assistance programs. However,
dairy cows traditionally spend half of the year
away from .the barn on pasture, and impacts on
water quality from livestock grazing have not been
addressed in previous nonpoint source reduction
Franklin County, Vermont
programs. Free access to streams and strearnbanks
by livestock is commonplace in Vermont. Direct .
deposition of waste into streams, destruction of
riparian vegetation, and trampling of strearnbanks
and streambeds all represent important sources of
sediment, nutrients, and bacteria to surface waters
in Vermont.
Paired watershed study
The Lake Champlain Basin Watershed Project was
initiated in 1994, as one of the projects composing
the Section 319 Nonpoint Source National Moni-
A bridge was constructed to allow cows to cross
the stream without contributing to streambank
erosion.
1541
[ Veimonc
-------
Exclusion fencing, requiring only normal
fence maintenance, is a simple way to keep
livestock from degrading streambanks.
toring Program (http://
h2ospa±c.wq.ncsu.edu/
319index.html), to evaluate the
effectiveness of grazing manage- •
ment, livestock exclusion, and •
streambank protection as tools for
controlling nonpoint source pollu-
tion in small agricultural water-
sheds. The project used a paired
watershed design, using two treatment watersheds
and a control watershed, to track changes over a 7-
year period. Contributing partners included the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and.Wildlife Ser-
vice, Franklin County Natural Resource Conserva-
tion District, and participating watershed agricul-
tural landowners.
In 1997, following a
3-year monitoring/
calibration period, a
number of land treat-
ments were applied
throughout the
Samsonville Brook and
Godin Brook water-
sheds. The treatments
included livestock exclu-
sion fencing, alternative
Healthy vegetation along streambanks protects water water supplies, armored
quality by preventing erosion and filtering nutrients."
or bridged livestock
stream crossings, and bioengineering streambank
stabilization practices (with brushrolls, tree revet-
ments, and willow plantings).
Maintenance was not a major problem for the
treatments; only normal fence maintenance was
required. Water supply was an obvious concern
following livestock exclusion from stream reaches,
but the project was fortunate in that alternative
supplies could be exploited relatively simply at all
sites. In a limited way, the project demonstrated
some success in using pasture pumps to provide
water for beef cattle, but water for dairy'cows is a
serious operational issue to be considered in future
applications.
The bioengineering installations appeared to
work well, as demonstrated by rapid and strong
growth of planted willows and native riparian
zone vegetation throughout the treatment period.
Brushrolls survived high flows very weE and
appeared to perform their function of trapping
sediment, supporting new vegetation growth, and
protecting streambanks.
Confirmed pollutant reduction
Three years of'post-treatment monitoring was com-
pleted in November 2000. The final results confirm
significant reductions in phosphorus, nitrogen,
suspended solids, and indicator bacteria in response
to treatment (see table). Biomonitoring data also
suggested improvements in the macroinvertebrate
community, particularly due to riparian zone protec-
tion. Although no significant improvements in fish
assemblages were observed, physical habitat im-
provements were noted in the treated sections of
both Samsonville Brook and Godin Brook. Overall,
the project was successful in demonstrating that
practical, low-technology, low-cost practices can yield
significant improvements in water quality.
Average Documented Pollutant
Reductions Over Three Post-
treatment Years in Samsonvilie
Brook
Total phosphorus -15%
Total KjeldahJ nitrogen -12%
Total suspended solids -34%
Total phosphorus export . -49%
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen export -38% ._
Total suspended solids export -28%
£ coli -2.9%
Fecal coliform bacteria -38%
Fecal streptococcus ^ -40% ^
Conductance -11%
Temperature . -6%
Vermont
1155
-------
VIRGINIA
www. dcr. state, va. us/sw/npsupdt. htm
••••
Contact:
Carol Pollfo
Chief, Division of Resource
Management
18100 Park Headquarters Rd,
Trklngle,V/\22l72
703-221-4322
Caro),polRo®nps,gov
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• acid mine drainage
» overfarming
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• heavy metal
concentrations
• lowpH
» sediment
. . n , , , • -
Project Activities: .
• storm water diversion from
mine site
• dredging spoil materials
• sealing shafts
• covering mine spoil
• revegetatFon
. ^ ~ * , ~,
Results:
• decrease in heavy metals
(copper, zinc, and iron)
» decrease in sulfate levels
• improvements in fish
community (taxa and
individual numbers)
Cabin Branch Mine Orphaned Land Project:
Flora and Fauna Benefit from Mine Reclamation
Prince William County, Virginia
Virginia's Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Man-
agement Program has long recognized the need to
improve surface and ground water quality by reduc-
ing nonpoint source pollution associated with
abandoned and orphaned mineral mines. Vkginia's
Department of Conservation and Recreation's
Division of Soil and Water, which administers the
NPS Management Program, recently had the
unique opportunity to partner with the Virginia
Department of Mining, Minerals and Energy's
Orphaned Lands Program to support several inno-
vative reclamation projects to achieve improved
surface and ground water quality.
From 1890 to the early 1920s, Cabin Branch
Mine operated at a site along Quantico Creek, a
tributary of the Potomac River, in Prince William
County, Virginia. Large by Virginia standards, the
mine had 200 to 300 people working aboveground
and up to 2,400 feet belowground at any given
time, excavating pytite for use in the production
of sulfuric acid. •
In 1933 the Civilian Conservation Corps ob-
tained the abandoned mine and its surrounding land,
and it is now part of Prince William Forest Park.
The park's 18,633 acres cover a major portion of the
Quantico Creek watershed and contain one of the
few remaining piedmont forest ecosystems in the
National Park System. The area had been heavily
farmed for tobacco since colonial times, leaving the
soil degraded and subject to intense erosion. Since
the area was acquired by the National Park Service,
-the native forest has been allowed to reclaim the
overfarmed and exhausted landscape. However, the
area incorporating the mine site was not able to
revegetate naturally because highly acidic mine
tailings were inhibiting growth.
Water quality in Quantico Creek just down-
stream was severely compromised because of the
acid mine drainage and heavy metal contamina-
tion. During rain and storm events, surface water
mobilized and carried oxidized sulphur com-
pounds and acidic material into the creek. The
resulting impacts on the water quality of the creek
were low pH, high conductivity, and significant
sediment loading.
Multiple funding sources
After years of coordination between the National
Park Service, Geologic Resources Division and
Water Resources Division; Virginia Department
of Mines, Minerals and Energy; and the natural
resources staff at Prince William Forest Park, the
Cabin Branch Mine site was reclaimed in 1995. In
addition to section 319 funding, support was
provided through a grant from the National Park
Service's Water Resources Division, and the bal-
ance was covered by Virginia's Orphaned Land
Program administered by the Virginia Department
of Mines, Minerals and Energy's Division of
Mineral Mining.
156|
Virginia
-------
The primary goal of the Cabin Branch Mine
Orphaned Land Project was to improve the water
quality of, the downstream reach of Quantico
Creek contaminated by acid drainage and heavy
metals. Additional goals included making the site
safer for park visitors and restoring native vegeta-
tion. Reclamation plans included diverting storm
water away from the mine site to "limit acidifica-
tion of off-site storm waters, sealing all shafts so
' surface water would not enter mine workings or
groundwater, covering mine spoil materials with a
good soil medium, and revegetating all disturbed
areas with tolerant grasses and legume species. All
of these actions were designed to reduce acid
mine drainage discharges, thereby reducing heavy
metal concentrations in the surface waters.
Benefits to water quality and aquatic life
Water chemistry monitoring of Quantico Creek
was conducted before and after reclamation of
the Cabin Branch Mine site to quantify the success
of the reclamation project. Initial -water sampling
taken after reclamation activities were completed
showed a marked decrease in the presence of
heavy metal contamination in Quantico Creek. A
2-year monitoring program conducted by George
Mason University (see table) recently confirmed
that levels of copper, zinc, and iron in the stream
Water Quality Data Before and After Reclamation,
Cabin Branch Mine
Element
Copper
Iron
Sulfate
Zinc
Pre-Recfamation
Concentration
0,06 mg/L
0.49 mg/L
590.0 mg/L
0.32 mg/L
Post-Reclamation
Concentration
0,0010-0.012 mg/L
0.18-1.20 mg/L
10.0-30.0 mg/L
0.05-0.12 mg/L
have been appreciably reduced since project
completion; sulfate levels and conductance have
also improved. In addition, remotely sensed im-'
ages taken by the US Army Corps of Engineers
before and after reclamation visually illustrate the
elimination of acid materials from the creek itself.
The George Mason study also included fish and
invertebrate sampling of the stream. The fish
community in the downstream reach has increased
in both number of taxa and number of individu-
als since the project was completed. Results of
invertebrate monitoring are inconclusive because
of large population fluctuations during the moni-
toring period.
The park's resource management staff also
teamed up with U.S. Geological Survey staff to
initiate.a monitoring and research study to investi-
gate the effects of storm water retention ponds,
created during the reclamation project to mini-
mize acid mine drainage from the site, on breed-
ing amphibians. Although low pH levels and heavy
metal concentrations in the surface water reten-
tion ponds have been shown to negatively affect
amphibian reproduction, results of this study
confirm that the ponds are doing what they were
designed to do—trap contaminants from surface
mine drainage and keep it from reaching Quantico
Creek.
The public outreach activities integral to the
project continue to be a success. Community
involvement was high, and at the end of the
project 150 volunteers gathered at the reclamation
site to plant 5,000 native trees and shrubs. This
effort will help further stabilize the streambank
and assist in restoring native forest to previously
bare ground.
Virginia
1157
-------
VIRGINIA
www. dcr.state. va. us/sw/npsupdt. htm
PPI
i Contact:
; Allen Bishop
i Department of Mines,
' Minerals, and Energy
PCX Box 3727
CrariouesvBte,VA 22903
804-951-6317
! dobOmmcsutevaus
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• acid mine drainage
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• heavy metal
concentrations (copper)
Project Activities:
• diversion of water from
mine site
• sealing of all.mine shafts
• regrading mine spoil
materials
• constructed wetlands
. . ^
Results:
• reduced copper levels
• improved invertebrate
community •
• reestablishment of native
brook trout
Toncrae Mine Orphaned Land Project:
Mine Site Reclamation Increases Species Diversity
Floyd County, Virginia
The Toncrae Mine in southern Floyd County oper-
ated as a copper mine intermittently from the late
1700s to 1947. The abandoned mine had severely
degraded East Prong Creek with acid mine drain-
age and heavy metal contamination. Barren mine
tailings, underground seeps, open mine shafts, and
old ore processing areas contributed to the deposi-
tion of large concentrations of heavy metals into
the creek, a tributary of the Little River. At one bog
site, copper was measured at levels thousands of
times greater than the limits set by EPA. In addi-
tion, upland areas surrounding the mine were
barren of vegetation because of contaminated and
inhospitable soil conditions. Reclamation of the
Toncrae Mine site was considered a high priority
because of the excessive pollutant levels, the nu-
merous open mine shafts, and perhaps most impor-
tant, the high potential for successful recovery of
the site.
Innovative solutions
Beginning in 1993, Phase I of the reclamation
included diverting unpolluted waters away from the
mine site to limit effluent discharge, sealing all mine
shafts, regrading mine spoil materials, constructing
wetlands to treat mine seepage, and revegetating all
disturbed areas with tolerant grasses and legume
species. Sixteen shafts were capped and sealed, and
mine markers were installed.
An innovative wetland system was also de-
signed to naturally filter out the heavy metals
before they reached the surface waters of East
Prong Creek. Contaminated discharge from 16
shafts and 6 spoils dumps is routed through 6 cells
of constructed wetland, 5 of which filter the
drainage through bark and straw mulch, and then
litnestone, before discharging into the next cell.
Within the cells anaerobic sulfate-reducing bacte-
ria remove toxic heavy metals, while cattails, reeds,
and other wetland plant species also contribute to
metal uptake, providing a future source of nutri-
ents for the bacteria. The treated water is finally,
discharged into East Prong Creek.
Phase II of the Toncrae Mine Orphaned
Land Project was initiated in 1997 in response to
continued chemical monitoring of the constructed
•wetlands. Monitoring results indicated that two of
the wetland cells were not functioning as well as .
desired in the winter months. The goal of Phase
II was to reconfigure the wetland design to in-
crease detention time and improve performance.
This phase of the project also included continued
• chemical monitoring to quantify success.
The reconfiguration of the constructed wet-
lands was required because the drainage was being
oxygenated too rapidly in the winter months be-
cause of higher-than-expected flows, combined
with cooler temperatures. Because of the rapid
1581
Virginia
-------
,
oxygenation., the system •was unable to maintain the
anaerobic conditions that the sulfate-reducing
bacteria required to adequately break down the
metals in solution. The first step of Phase II in-
volved increasing the size of the two problem cells.
The effect was to create one large wetland cell from
the previous two, thereby increasing detention time
and the overall time the drainage remains in an
anaerobic state. Next, another much larger wetland
cell was constructed below the existing cells to
further increase detention time. Finally, an anoxic
drain was installed to reduce oxygen levels entering
the system and assist the wetlands in functioning in
an anaerobic state.
Successful results
Invertebrate sampling conducted before reclama-
tion showed the invertebrate population of East
Prong Creek to be severely affected below the
Toncrae Mine site. Both the number of species and
the total number of organisms were significantly
lower than those recorded at a reference site lo-
cated upstream from the mine and its toxic effluent
(see figure). After project completion, copper levels
Apr-94
May-94
Sampling Date
Total number of organisms collected at five sites in East Prong Creek before (March 1994 and May 1994) and
after (July 1994 and September 1994) reclamation activities were complete. Site 1 (SI) is a reference site
upstream -of the Toncrae mine site; S2 to S5 are downstream of the mine. Before the wetlands became
operational, the sites downstream of the mine showed an appreciable decrease in number of organisms
compared to the upstream site.,After the wetlands became operational, however, the invertebrate communities
appeared to have recovered quite well, becoming very similar to those of the upstream reference site.
•were appreciably reduced: copper concentrations
ranged from 9 to 32 micrograms per liter (mg/L)
before the project .and between 0.1 and 14 mg/L
after the project The invertebrate community
showed signs of a rapid recovery. Within months
of project completion, both the number of inverte-
brate taxa and the number of individuals were
approaching reference site conditions.
Monitoring for Phase II continued through
1998. Chemical monitoring of the wetlands indi- •
cated that since reconfiguration, the wetlands are
successfully removing metals, even in the cool
temperatures of fall and winter.
The success of this project led the Virginia
Wildlife Federation to award its 1995 Mineral
Conservationist of the Year Award to the Virginia
Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy's
Division of Mineral Mining. The award was
granted for the successful rehabilitation of the
Toncrae Mine site and East Prong Creek. The
nomination for the award notes that "the creek
now has a healthy animal life with growing diver-
sity, and the revegetated land surface is now a
camping and-picnic ground."
The long-range goal of the Toncrae
Mine Orphaned Land Project was a return of
the native brook trout to the contaminated
stream section below the mine site. Accord-
ing to residents, no fish had been seen in the
contaminated section of East Prong stream
in years. Biologists with the Virginia Depart-
ment of Game and Inland Fisheries con-
firmed that although brook trout did inhabit
the stream above the Toncrae Mine site, they
did not occur downstream of the site. How-
ever, recent surveys conducted by the
Department's fisheries biologists verify that
since reclamation was completed, brook trout
have successfully moved into East Prong
Creek below the abandoned mine site.
I ISO
-------
VIRGIN ISLANDS
www.viczmp.com/czmprograms.html
HUI
Contact:
SycdA-Syedali
Environmental Engineer
Department of Planning
, and Natural Resources
45 Mars Hill
Fredertoied. VI 00840-4474
340778-2994
ssyedaSSvtaccess.net
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• failing septic systems
Primary NPS Pollutants:
« nutrients
• pathogens
Project Activities:
• alternative treatment
systems installed
Results:
• effectively controlled
discharge of residential
wastewater
Virgin Islands Partnership:
Alternative Treatment Systems Prevent Contamination of Coastal Waters
Preservation of coastal water quality is critical in the
U.S. Virgin Islands, where tourism is the main indus-
try. Public sewer systems do not extend throughout
the islands, and there is a large dependency on con-
ventional septic tank/seepage pit-systems. Unfortu-
nately, the hilly terrain of the islands, the shallow
soils, and in many instances the dense residential
development are factors that contribute to the failure
of conventional systems and subsequent discharge
of improperly treated waste.
The Virgin Islands Department of Planning
and Natural Resources (DPNR), through a study
conducted by Kimball-Chase, documented that a
major source of contamination of beaches and
other coastal areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands is
failing septic systems. These widely used units are
failing because they lack the 2 to 3 feet of pervi-
ous soil through which effluent should pass to be
properly treated.
An innovative solution
To remedy this problem, DPNR and the University
of the Virgin Islands (UVT) entered into a partner-
ship. DPNR asked the public for proposals for the
design and installation of affordable alternative
systems that would treat residential wastewater
using nonmechanical means and would require
minimal maintenance. Two of the designs submit-
ted were selected, and the systems were installed at
two residences where conventional systems had
U.S. virgin Islands
failed to meet treatment needs. The new systems
used a series of closed cells filled with gravel and
soil in which plants with high water uptake rates
were planted. In addition, the systems blended in
with the topography of the sites and were installed
in such a way that they enhanced the appearance of
the properties.
DPNR observed the installation of the sys-
tems, and UVI closely monitored their perfor-
mance" for a 6-month period following their instal-
lation. Plants thrived in the systems, and it was
interesting to note that at one site exotic flowers
fared better than anywhere else on the island. No
discharge of effluent from the systems, odor, or
any other unpleasant effects were recognized at
either site. Effluent quality was found to improve
as it passed through the systems. Most signifi-
cantly, because no discharge was ever noted, the
surrounding environment was never threatened.
The pilot alternative systems for treatment of
residential wastewater have a high potential for
reducing the pollution threat to the fragile coastal
ecosystems of the Virgin Islands. Thus far, they
have proven to be affordable to install, effective,
and easy to maintain. The systems are being
closely monitored to assess their performance
over an extended period.
Because of the high public interest in these
systems, DPNR has developed a handbook avail-
able to the public to guide in their design, con- .
160
Virgin Islands
-------
struction, and use. DPNR is also proposing
regulations that would permit use of these sys-
tems in areas where sensitive environmental
factors preclude the installation of conventional
septic tank systems. The innovative systems have
the potential to maintain high environmental
quality for present and future generations in the
U.S. Virgin Islands.
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/index.html
WASHINGTON
Hfil . - •. • . •
Contact:
Heidi Wachter
King County Department of
Natural Resources
Water and Land
Development Division
hwachter@uwashington.edu
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
« horse farms
• - - . . . • ....•'.:•
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• nutrients
Project Activities:
• farm plan management
(pasture management,
manure management,
mud management, wildlife
enhancement, stream
corridor management)
Results:
• 84 percent decrease in
" TSS from grass filter strips
.• 35 to 85 percent
pollutant reductions
from paddocks
Best Management Practices on Model Horse Farms:
Farm Plan Management Reduces Nutrients and Sediment
King County, Washington
"Implementation and Evaluation of Livestock
Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs)
on Model Horse Farms" was a joint project be-
tween the King County Water and Land Resources
Division (formerly Surface Water Management)
and the King County Conservation District. King
County has nearly 9,000 farms, housing between
30,000 and 40,000 horses. Some 600 of those
farms are near Class 1 and 2 streams, and even
more have drainage systems that flow to nearby.
streams, lakes, or wetlands. The primary goal of-the
project, which received $85,000 in 319 grant fund-
ing for the years 1995 to 1998, was to promote
education and technical assistance to horse and
farm owners with the Model Farm Project.
Model farms were selected in 11 watersheds
throughout the county, and farm plans -were
implemented on 12 different sites. Farms were
selected based in part on their ability to function
as an education site and the owner's experience
and interest in providing a role model for other
horse and farm owners. Also, geographic location,
potential for improvement, and the owner's will-
ingness to implement and maintain the elements
of the farm plan were important factors.
Education and technical assistance on model
farms
For the 12 farms selected, costs for materials and
labor associated with implementation were funded
through a cost share, and the farm plan expenses
•were covered by funds from the farm owner and
the 319 grant. Cost-shared farm plan elements
included materials for composting facilities, fenc-
ing, pasture and hay land planting, and paddock
areas.
Education concentrated on encouraging
implementation of four BMPs—pasture manage-
ment, manure management, mud management,
and wildlife enhancement, including stream corri-
dor management. Between 1995 and 1998, a series
of education and outreach activities took place,
including 10 tours, 13 education sessions, 12
outreach events, farm-related events, and presen- .
tations. They reached more than 5,000 horse and
small farm owners in King County.
wasnington '
I 161
-------
Real results
Support, encouragement, and a sustainable conT
nection with the farmers were critical and resulted
in full implementation of the farm plan BMPs on
each of the 12 farms. The education activities not
only promoted proper management practices but
also encouraged a sense of stewardship for
aquatic resources in the respective basins. But the
clear results stem from the post-BMP implemen-
tation assessment.
The two BMPs chosen for assessment pur-
poses were use of wood waste as a winter pad-
dock footing material and use of grass filter strips
for the treatment of surface runoff from winter
paddocks. There was a reduction in pollutant
concentrations after BMP implementation for all
nutrients monitored except nitrite/nitrate/nitro-
gen. Despite this increase, consideration of the
dissolved oxygen concentration after BMP imple-
mentation indicates that toxic nitrite levels would
be unlikely because nitrite is rapidly broken down
to nontoxic nitrate when a high dissolved oxygen
content is present. Reductions in all other mea-
sured pollutants ranged from. 35 to 85 percent.
WASHINGTON
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/index.html
HH
Contact:
Mak Kaufman
Beltingham Reid Office
Department of Ecology
360-738-6248
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• dairy farms
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• fecal conform bacteria
Project Activities:
• dairy farmer outreach/
education
• BMPs to control manure
• fencing
• ' "•
Results:
• fecal coliform loads
down 2 1 percent
A Moo-vlng Approach to Dairy Waste Management:
Fecal Coliform Pollution Reduced in Whatcom County
Whatcom County, Washington
The goal of the "Watershed-Based Approach to
Dairy Waste Management" is to lower dairy-
related levels of fecal coUform bacteria and other
manure-associated contaminants in a watershed
without alienating the dairy industry. The project,
which is coordinated by the Washington State
Department of Ecology, has received $90,000 in
319 funding for the past 3 years to improve water
quality. The project has focused on Whatcom
County in the northwest corner of Washington
State, which borders British Columbia. To fully
grasp the nature of the problem, consider that
every adult milk cow produces the equivalent
waste of 22 humans. There are some 69,000 cows
(or the equivalent of 1.5 million people) in
Whatcom County. This figure does not even
account for the stock (about 30,000 cows) used to
replace older, non-milk-producing cows.
Monitoring to target priorities
The Department of Ecology partnered with the
Northwest Indian College to monitor fecal
coliform levels bimonthly. In addition to the .
inspections of the state's dairy farms that are
required by law, the consistent monitoring data
collected by the college for this and other 319-
funded projects have helped determine which
subbasin tributaries have the highest levels of
fecal coliform loading. Subsequently, reinspections
are being conducted in those areas to determine
-------
'whether the pollution is related to nearby dairies.
Then the detected problems can be corrected.
The fecal data collected by the Northwest Indian .
College are posted on the college's web site and
cover all of the subbasin tributaries of the
Nooksack River, as well as sites in the Drayton
Harbor/Portage Bay areas. The web site is at
www.nwic.edu.
Farm plans and agreements
Once the basins with the highest loading have
been identified, the Department of Ecology
inspects the area farmers' milking facilities, as well
as all of the off-site replacement stock operations.
Most of the problems have been found at the off-
site locations because farmers typically do not
invest as much time, attention, or. money in those
locations as they do in their primary milking facili-
ties. Outreach and education are vital, and farmers
are referred to the Whatcom County Conserva-
tion District for farm planning and technical
assistance. These referrals, together with educa-
tion and outreach, have encouraged farmers all
over the county to implement best management
practices (BMPs) such as long-term waste storage
facilities, manure solids separators, rainwater
gutters and downspouts, agronomic manure field
applicator schedules, and fencing to keep livestock
out of streams.
Although the Department of Ecology's goal
is to increase compliance rather than to impose
penalties, about $200,000 in fines have been
imposed on roughly 4 percent of the dairy farm-
ers in the county. Notices of Correction, an
informal non-penalty means of enforcement for
potential discharge problems, are used amply.
The Department of Ecology issued about 75
notices as preventive solutions between July 1998
and June 2000.
As an additional measure, the Department of
Ecology has recently signed an agreement with
the Governor's office. This hew agreement calls
.for a reduction of 15 percent per year in the fecal
coliform loads as compared with the loads re-
ported by the Department of Ecology's 1996 to
1998 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) fecal
coliform monitoring study.
Real results
Although much work remains to be completed in
terms of controlling nonpoint sources of con-
tamination on dairy farms in Whatcom County,
the current dairy inspection program has brought
unprecedented change in the way dairy farmers
operate their farms. The Department of Ecology's
new approach to working with dairy farmers,
particularly with respect to implementing BMPs, is
still enforcement-oriented but also has struck a
good balance with education and outreach. Fair
but firm enforcement, both formal and informal,
has helped break down the image of the enforcing
agency as an enemy.
Upgrades to control pollution to date have been
completed through partnerships established between
the Department of Ecology, the Whatcom Conser-
vation District, and the Whatcom County office of
the Natural Resources Conservation Service. By
working together, the partners have achieved impres-
sive results. As of the last quarter of 1999, fecal
coliform loads in the Bertrand/Fishtrap Creek
subbasin were.down 21 percent, and they are ex-
pected to drop further during the fall.
Washington
-------
WASHINGTON
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/index.html
HUH
^•MBH . ....
i Contact:
> Marie Zuroskc
: South %Wma Conservation
. Dstrtet
i SOT-837-79U
i.
~
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• furrow irrigation in
agricultural fields
1
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
• - '
Project Activities:
» conversion to sprinklers
and drip irrigation
• other sediment reduction
practices (RAM application)
' • . • ' *
Results:
• 30 percent reduction in
sediment load in the
Moxee Drain
• decrease in total
suspended solids (86
percent in subbasin 1 0 and
56 percent in subbasin 5)
Sediment Reduction in Yakima River Basin:
People Become Stewards of Their Own Watershed
Sulphur Creek is
a tributary of the
Yakima River and
receives runoff
from about
41,500 acres of
agricultural land.
Since 1994 the Yakima
Conservation District
and Department of
Ecology, along with
many other groups,
have been working to
reduce sediment in the
Yakima River Basin in
eastern Washington
State, including the
Moxee Drain, Granger
Drain, and Sulphur
Creek Drain. The
primary problem has
been furrow irrigation,
most notably on hops
farms. This method of
irrigation is notorious
for causing sediment flow and also for introducing
poisonous pesticides like DDT into the water. In
1994 furrowed irrigation was delivering 100 tons of
sediment and pesticides per acre per year into the
water. There are about 19,000 acres of irrigated
land in the watershed.
In late 1993 the North Yakima Conservation
District received 319 funding, and in 1996-1997,
the South Yakima Conservation District also
received 319 funding to work on the problem
from the south. In the past several years, the
Department of Ecology has begun to work on
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) on the
After the installation of BMPs,
subbasins reported decreases in TSS
of as much as 86 percent.
Yakima River Basin, Washington
Yakima River watershed in its entirety. By 1997 a
30 percent reduction in sediment load had been
achieved in the Moxee Drain alone, and drip
irrigation had been implemented on more than
2,000 acres of farmland.
Sulphur Creek progress
Sulphur Creek is a tributary of the Yakima River.
and one of the three major irrigation return flows
in the Yakima Valley. It receives runoff from
about 41,500 acres of irrigated agricultural land in
the Sulphur Creek Basin. In 1997 the South
Yakima Conservation District received 319 fund-
ing to implement best management practices
(BMPs) in two subbasins of the watershed. Thirty
farmers applied for technical and financial assis-
tance in implementing these practices, and 16 of
the proposals (covering 679 acres) were accepted.
The primary method used to reduce sediment
loads due to furrow irrigation is implementing
more efficient drip irrigation methods, such as
sprinklers. Site-specific BMPs were designed with
the individual landowners. In one case, the dem-
onstration included application of polyacrylamide
(PAM) through a central pivot irrigation system.
PAM is a coagulating agent that when used in
irrigation causes better soil saturation and less
runoff in the fields. The combination of these
two management practices was new in this area.
Monitoring was conducted to measure the
effects of installing die BMPs. Samples were
164 BUI VKasrungton
-------
collected at about 15 sites in the two subbasins
from June 1997 through October 1999. One
subbasin registered a decrease in total suspended
solids of 86. percent, and the other subbasin
showed a decrease of 56 percent.
The big picture
One of the primary goals of these combined 319-
funded projects was to provide education and out-
reach to local groups and individual farmers to
inspire people to become involved in their water-
shed. When people become stewards of their water-
shed, they begin to take responsibility for restoring
and protecting it. In the past few years, stewardship
of this watershed has become a vital interest of local
irrigation districts and individual farmers.
In fact, education and outreach using demon-
strated BMPs funded by 319 grants have been so
successful that the irrigation districts have joined
together on their own, forming a joint interest
group called Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Con-
trol (RSBOJQ. Taking responsibility for water quality
themselves, they have applied for State Revolving
Fund loan money. As an indirect result of 319 out-
reach and education, the RSBOJC succeeded in
obtaining $10 million in loans to improve water •
quality in the watershed. Because of the RSBOJC's
outstanding efforts, in 1998 Washington's Governor
presented the Board an award for Environmental
Excellence.
This phenomenal stewardship shows in the recov-
ery effort. The Department of Ecology recently
initiated its TMDL program to reduce pollutant loads
in waters across Washington. For example, one of the
Yakima TMDL goals was to reduce turbidity to.below
25 ntu (turbidity units) by the end of 2002. Thanks to
earlier 319 projects and to RSBOJC's current efforts,
that goal has already been reached this year in most
drains. Additionally, the Department of Ecology
reports that as a result of RSBOJC's stewardship
efforts, there has been no need to write an enforce-
ment order in more than a year.
http://www.dep.state.wv.us/wr/
WEST VIRGINIA
Contact:
Lyle Bennett
NFS Program Manager.
Office of Water Resources
120! Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 253 1 1
304-558-2108
lbennett®mail.state.wv.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• timbering ;
• streambank erosion
• agriculture
• roads
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• fecal coliform bacteria
• sediment .
Project Activities:
• critical area planting
• streambank fencing
• feedlot relocation
• nutrient management plans
Results:
« 340 acres under nutrient
management plans
• 85 percent agricultural
landowner participation
rate
The North Fork Project:
Farmers' Cooperation Leads to Proposed Delisting of Degraded River
The North Fork Project illustrates a successful •
multiagency partnership approach to solving a
water quality problem on a scenic high-quality trout
stream" in the rural Potomac Headwaters area. As a
result of the implementation of numerous best
management practices.(BMPs) funded under sev-
eral federal and state programs, the West Virginia
Department of Agriculture is now proposing that
Pendleton and Grant Counties, West Virginia
the North Fork River be removed (delisted) from
the list of impaired water bodies in West Virginia.
The North Fork of the South Branch Potomac
River watershed is in Pendleton and Grant Coun-
ties in West Virginia; a portion of the watershed is
in Highland County, Virginia. The area within the
watershed is predominantly forested, with agricul-
ture as the second dominant land use. Beef and
West Virginia
1165
-------
poultry enterprises are the main agricultural activi-
ties. Because of the rugged nature of the terrain,
many of the concentrated livestock feeding areas
and poultry operations were located on the narrow
valley bottoms and floodplains adjacent to the
streams. High levels of bacteria and sediment
loading were adversely affecting both the North
Fork and South Branch watersheds. A U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey surface water study found that the num-
bers of feedlots and poultry houses per square mile
had a positive correlation with concentrations of
fecal coliform bacteria in surface streams. Based on
the South Branch Potomac watershed Total Maxi-
mum Daily Load (IMDL) allocations, the North
Fork required a 35 percent reduction in fecal
coliform bacteria loading from agricultural land to
meet West Virginia's.water quality standards.
The Potomac Headwaters area historically has
produced beef cattle, forages, timber, and some
corn and apples; since the early 1990s, however, the
area has seen a significant increase in the poultry
industry. In .1993 this area became a component of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Water Quality Initiative, a cooperative effort of
federal, state, and local agencies to address water
quality issues. In January 1997 a Public Law 534
Land Treatment Watershed cost-share program was
initiated in the upper Potomac River Basin to ad-
dress the structural and technical needs of the area
farmers in order to improve water quality and
protect the associated natural resources of the area.
In March 2000 the North Fork Watershed
Association launched a section 319 project to
address bacteria and sediment problems associated
with agricultural activities, past timbering opera-
tions, streambank erosion, and road maintenance
activities. Partners in developing the plan included
the Potomac Valley Soil Conservation District,
West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency, West
Virginia University Extension Service, West Vir-
ginia Division of Environmental Protection (DEP),
West Virginia Division of Forestry, West Virginia
Division of Highways, USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and Trout Unlimited. The
West Virginia Agriculture Water Quality Loan
Program, funded through the DEP Clean Water
Act State Revolving Fund, also provided comple-
mentary low-interest loans (2 percent) to landown-
ers to help finance BMP installation.
Implementing multiple BMPs
To date, 12 agricultural 319 projects, one forestry
319 project, and 19 PL-534 projects/contracts have
been implemented in the North Fork watershed to
control nonpoint source pollution. A range of BMPs
have been established to control runoff from feed-
lots and to eliminate or reduce cattle's access to the
streams. These BMPs include installing streambank
fencing, relocating feedlots away from streams,
constructing roofs over concentrated feeding areas,
controlling roof runoff, establishing filter strips,
establishing riparian buffers, developing alternative
livestock watering facilities, drilling livestock water
wells, and stabilizing critical eroding areas.
. Rotational grazing systems with intra-pasture
fencing systems and alternative watering facilities
have been established to improve the conditions of
pastures, reduce runoff, and control bacterial, sedi-
ment, and nutrient pollution. To control or eliminate
runoff from the poultry operations, poultry litter
storage sheds, waste composting facilities, and mor-
tality composters have been constructed and buffer/
filter strips have been established. In addition, nutri-
ent management plans have been developed and
implemented for more than 340 acres of cropland
and pastureland receiving animal manure.
In cooperation with West Virginia Division
of Forestry, educational workshops are being held
1661
I West Virginia
-------
to educate landowners and people in the forestry
industry on conservation practices. West Virginia
foresters are developing forestry plans to promote
logging conservation,and BMPs. One severely
eroded, steep hillside site has been planted with
trees and fenced for livestock exclusion as part of
a reforestation project.
Another component of the North Fork
Project has included working with the West Vir-
ginia Division of Highways (DOH) to implement
a variety of conservation practices, including a
seeding demonstration using poultry litter as a
fertilizer, a sediment erosion control workshop for
DOH employees, and the selection of a site on
DOH property for the construction of a poultry
mortality composting facility.
A West Virginia University research project
associated with the North Fork project has selected
a site to test whether acid mine drainage (AMD)
sludge, high in iron oxides, can be applied in buffer
strips to absorb soluble phosphorus before it enters
•waterways. If results are favorable, AMD waste
from the nearby coal mining region can be used to
reduce phosphorus pollution from excessive ma-
nure in the poultry-producing region of the state.
Receptive agricultural community
The agricultural community within the watershed
has been extremely receptive: 85 percent of the
farmers have participated in BMP implementation.
Based on recent water quality monitoring results
and the extent of BMPs installed, it is being pro-
posed that the North Fork River be delisted from
the 303(d) list of impaired waters in West Virginia.
Ongoing and future projects and activities
Future projects will emphasize wetland and ripar-
ian corridor restoration. Working in cooperation
with Trout Unlimited, stream channel restoration
projects using natural stream channel design tech-
nology are being planned to address stream ero-
sion and sedimentation problems. One site for a
stream.restoration project has been selected near
the Seneca Rocks scenic area, and design plans are
being developed. An educational display about the
watershed is planned for the Seneca Rocks Visi-
tors Center in the Monongahela National Forest.
Educational programs for landowners on stream
channel protection and maintenance are planned,
and water quality monitoring by the West Virginia
Department of Agriculture is continuing.
WesiVirginia '
-------
WISCONSIN
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps
•111
Contact:
Russell Rasmusscn
Department of Natural
Resources
1 0 1 South Webster Street
Madison. Wl 53707
608-267-7651
rasmurSdnr.state.wius
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture (cropland, dairy
farms)
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• phosphorus
« sediment
• fecal coliforrn bacteria
- -• • — L-- - •
Project Activities:
• BMPs to control barnyard
runoff and manure
• nutrient management and
reduced tillage on
cropland
• shoreline and streambank
' . • '" IL '• - **
Results:
• more than 8, 1 00 feet of
streambank fencing
» reductions in suspended
solids (81 percent), total
phosphorus (88 percent).
ammonia nitrogen (97
percent), biological oxygen
demand (80 percent), and
fecal coliform bacteria (84
percent)
Otter Creek Project:
319 National Monitoring Program Goals Met
The largely agricultural, 7,040-acre Otter Creek
watershed drains to Lake Michigan via the
Sheboygan River. Biological monitoring in the
watershed has shown that the fish community
lacks fishable numbers of warm-water sport fish,
largely because of inadequate fish habitat and
polluted water. Dissolved oxygen concentrations
occasionally drop below Wisconsin's state stan-
dard of 5.0 milligrams per liter. In addition, bacte-
ria levels exceed the state's recreational standard
of 400'fecal coliforms per 100 milHliters in many
samples.
Achieving program goals
Modeling and field inventories have identified critical
areas needing treatment to achieve the project goals
of the National.Monitoring Program (http://
h2osparcwq.ncsu.edu/319index.html)—improving
the fishery, restoring the endangered striped shiner in
Otter Creek, improving recreational uses by reducing
bacteria levels, reducing pollutant loadings to the
Sheboygan River and Lake Michigan, and restoring
riparian vegetation.
Improved management of barnyard runoff
and manure, nutrient management and reduced
tillage on cropland, and shoreline and streambank
stabilization are all being'implemented to control
sources of phosphorus, sediment, bacteria, and
streambank erosion in the watershed. Best man-
otter Creek Watershed, Wisconsin
agement practices (BMPs) installed on dairy farms
include rainwater diversions, concrete loafing
areas, filter screens to trap large solids in runoff,
and grassed filter strips for treating runoff.
Paired watershed and upstream/downstream
monitoring studies covering eight monitoring sites
are used to evaluate the benefits of the BMPs.
Monitoring sites are located above and below a
dairy with barnyard and streambank stabilization
BMPs. Habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrates are
being sampled each year during the summer. Water
chemistry is tracked through analysis of 30 weekly
samples collected each year from April to October
at the paired watershed and upstream/downstream
sites. Runoff events are also sampled at the up-
stream/downstream sites and at the single down-
. stream station site at the outlet of Otter Creek.
Key successes .
To reduce upland soil erosion, more than 8,1.00
- feet of streambank fencing was installed and a
significant change in cropping practices was made.
In the treatment watershed, 2 years of post-BMP
monitoring data indicate that the system of BMPs
was responsible for reductions in suspended solids
(81 percent), total phosphorus (88 percent), am-
monia nitrogen (97 percent), biological oxygen
demand (80 percent), and fecal coliform bacteria
(84 percent).
168|
Wisconsin
-------
www.dnr.state.wi. us/org/water/wm/nps
WISCONSIN
HHM ' '
Contact:
NormTadt
Rock County Land
Conservation Department ,
440 North U.S. Highway 1 4
Janesville, Wl 53546
608-754-6617
ntadt®co.rock.wi.us
• •
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• agriculture [crop farming,
heavily pastured areas,
manure runoff)
' • .• . : : " . - • • •
Primary NPS Pollutants:
« sediment
• nutrients
• bacteria [
Project Activities:
• agricultural BMPs (barnyard
runoff management
shoreline fencing, contour
farming, reduced tillage,
conservation crop
sequence, strip crop, and
critical area stabilization]
Results:
• improved stream habitat,
bank stability, in-stream
cover, and fish
communities, including
' natural reproduction of
trout
Success in Spring Creek Watershed:
Natural Reproduction of Trout Confirms Water Quality Improvement
A medium-gradient (16 feet/mile) trout stream,
Spring Creek drains about 6 square miles (3,500 •
acres) of Rock County farmland in the southeastern
Wisconsin Till Plains Eco-region. Spring Creek is
one of only three managed cold-water fisheries in
Rock County. Although the creek had been capable
of supporting stocked trout during the fishing sea-
sons, it had been unable to provide habitat or water
quality suitable for trout survival throughout the
year. Because the waters of Spring Creek did not
support natural trout reproduction, annual stocking
of legal-size fish was required to provide a sport
fishery.
The major land use in the Spring Creek wa-
tershed is cropland (83 percent), but land uses also
include grass and wood (6 percent), wetlands (5
percent), development (3 percent), and some
pasture (3 percent). Excessive amounts of sedi-
ment, nutrients, and bacteria degrade the creek's
water quality, causing unbalanced fish communi-
ties with depressed populations and limited diver-
sity. The upland sediment delivery in the water-
shed is 3,241 tons per year, or 92 percent of the
entire watershed load, and cropland is the major
sediment source in the watershed. Manure runoff
from five animal lots created additional problems
by contributing more than 500 pounds of phos-
phorus annually to the watershed. The headwaters
of the stream had also lost much of their original
habitat to channelization.
Union Township (Rock County), Wisconsin
In 1991 Wisconsin's Department of Natural
Resources selected Spring Creek as a "priority
watershed management area" to restore stream
habitat so that trout could reproduce naturally in
its -waters. Spring Creek was selected as one of
five evaluation watersheds for a 7-year study to
examine the responses of stream physical habitat,
fish, and macroinvertebrates to watershed-scale
best management practices (BMPs).
Watershed-scale response
Between 1994 and 1999, Wisconsin implemented
a number of watershed-scale .BMPs to help
reduce nonpoint source pollution in the Spring
Creek watershed. By 1999 implemented BMPs
included barnyard runoff and roof runoff man-
agement practices (diverting runoff away from
animal waste); 1,600 feet of shoreline fencing;
289 acres of contour farming; reduced tillage
(297 acres long rotation, 1,486 acres short rota-
tion); 513 acres using conservation crop se- •
quence; 24 acres of strip crop; critical area stabi-
lization of 2 acres; and wetland preservation
easements on 1.6 acres.
Confirming success
Wisconsin assessed stream habitat, fish and
macroinvertebrates, and streambank erosion
throughout Spring Creek at various times from
1993 through 1999, using two reference streams to
Wisconsin '
1169
-------
effectively determine the effects of BMPs applied
in the watershed. Sampling results indicated that
upland and riparian BMP installations have signifi-
cantly improved overall stream habitat quality, bank
stability, in-stream cover for fish, and catch of all
fishes. These improvements were more apparent at
stream segments with streambank fencing than at
segments without such fencing.
Trout populations in Spring Creek improved
after BMP installation. The first-ever catch of
young-of-the-year trout in 1999 indicated that
Spring Creek has gained the ability to partially
sustain its trout population through natural repro-
duction. Fish abundance also increased after BMP
implementation, including a significant increase in '
the number of cool- and cold-water fishes.
WYOMING
http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/00712-DOC.pdf
Contact:
Brian Lovctt
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
122 West 25" Street
Hot settler Building, 4" Floor
Cheyenne, VW 82002
307-777-5622
btovet0state,wy.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• urban storm water runoff
• runoff from snow storage
Primary IMPS Pollutants:
• heavy metals
• oils
» suspended solids
Project Activities:
« installation of storm water
filtration system
Results:
• successful removal of
storm water particulates
Jackson Hole Rodeo Grounds Snow Storage Site:
Filtration System Reduces Urban Storm Water Runoff
Flat Creek is in the Upper Snake River watershed.
Upstream of the town of Jackson, within the
National Elk Refuge, the creek is a Class 1 trout
stream. Historically, Flat Creek has provided
diverse recreational opportunities and aesthetic
value to the residents and visitors of Jackson as it
meanders through the community. For many
years, however, it has become increasingly appar-
ent that once the creek enters the town, fish habi-
tat quality is significantly diminished.
In response to these concerns, the Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality and
Jorgensen Engineering completed a water quality
assessment of Flat Creek in 1982. The study
revealed a number of factors affecting water
quality, including increased impervious surface
area, increased traffic volume, and land uses re-
sulting in concentrations of heavy metals, oils, and
suspended solids. The study also found that urban
storm water was adversely affecting Flat Creek.
Jackson,. Wyoming
In 1994 the Teton County Conservation
District (TCCD), in cooperation with the Town of
Jackson, conducted a thorough investigation of
nonpoint source pollutants affecting Flat Creek.
This comprehensive program, which included
establishing permanent monitoring stations in key
areas, identified the snow storage area at the ro-
deo grounds as a significant source of nonpoint
source pollutants.
The TCDD, Town of Jackson, and Nelson
Engineering prepared a grant proposal for installa-
tion of a commercially available storm water
, filtration system and submitted the proposal to
the Wyoming Nonpoint Source Task Force. The
project was approved for funding in the amount
of $32,735 in the fall of 1997.
In the course of determining the necessary
sizing of the filtration unit, snowmelt runoff
samples were collected and analyzed. This analysis
revealed that the sediment load in the runoff
170
-------
•would exceed die capacity of existing commercial
unite and require excessive maintenance. Given
these findings, die Town Engineer and Nelson
Engineering designed a surrogate filtration sys-
tem. The new design lowered the project cost to
$14,824, resulting in a savings of 50 percent over
the cost of the commercial unit. Because of die
experimental nature of the new design, an amend-
ment to die grant proposal was sought and ap-
proved. The project was completed in the fall of
1998 and evaluated for effectiveness in the spring
of 1999.
Project details
The Jackson Hole Rodeo Grounds cover 6.2
acres, widi a 1-percent southwesterly slope. Snow
removed from die streets of Jackson is stored on
the western half of die lot. To improve drainage
to die soudiwest corner of die site, where the
filtration system is installed, the snow storage area
was graded. In die immediate area surrounding
the filtration system, a shallow detention basin -was
cut to provide a setding area for particulates prior
to entering the filtration system.
The primary filter installed by die Town of
Jackson is composed of 2-inch-diameter washed
rock and a nonwoven geotextile fabric. Particles
from runoff, 0.0059 inch or greater, are trapped
and held in die top surface of the fabric in die
gravels. The filtered runoff is collected in a 6-foot-
diameter perforated manhole and dien conveyed to
a catch basin sediment trap that provides additional
sediment removal and storage in a sump-type
facility. Runoff dien passes to the storm water
collection system. The perforated manhole has
4 feet of effective depdi widi 1.5-inch perforations
on 8-inch centers; the immediate filtering surface is
484 square feet (22 feet by 22 feet).
A winning combination
During the winter of 1998-1999, roughly 120,000
cubic yards of snow from die streets of Jackson
was stockpiled at the rodeo grounds. The results
of storm water runoff sampling collected during
the spring runoff period were inconclusive, so
Nelson Engineering was contracted to evaluate
die system's effectiveness. The investigation found
diat the three-phase rodeo ground filtration sys-
tem was effective in removing gross pollutants
0.0059 inch and larger. There was no evidence of
sediment in the bypass, so the geotextile fabric
was not replaced for the 2000 runoff season.
The design combination of sediment basin,
geofabric, washed rock filtration, and sump for bypass
flows .was successful in removing particuktes and can
be used in areas of limited space. This application can
be used widi favorable results in urban areas where
sediments are a storm water concern. The only modi-
fication to the system being considered is die use of
filter fabric with a smaller sieve size.
Wyoming
J17K
-------
WYOMING
http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/00712-DOC.pdf
Contact:
Brian Lovctt
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
1 22 Wfest 25th Street
Herschler Building. 4th Floor
Cheyenne, WV 82002
307-777-5622
btovet9state.vyy.us
Primary Sources of
Pollution:
• erosion from heavy
grazing
-
Primary NPS Pollutants:
• sediment
Project Activities:
• revised grazing management
practices (short-duration
grazing rotation)
• livestock management (off-
site watering, electric
fencing, vegetation
management)
» prescribed burning
Results:
• increase in plant cover
trends on streambanks
(documented from
5 percent in 1 989 to more
than 90 percent in 1 995
in the Sulphur Springs
Allotment)
• easier cattle management
• increased beef production
Muddy Creek Coordinated Resource Management Project:
Cattle Ranches and Trout Streams Can Coexist
Carbon County, Wyoming
Many conservation and land management
tools have been implemented to restore, enhance,
and maintain the abundant natural resources in the -
area while maintaining the economic stability and
cultural heritage of the people on the land; The
ecosystem management philosophy dictates that
before any action is taken or management practice
implemented, all impacts and users of the area
must be addressed. It is because of this philosophy
and spirit of cooperation that the wildlife, livestock,
and all the associated natural resources in the wa-
tershed have shown improvement since the project
began. A comment from Millicent Sanger, whose
family has been in the area since the 1930s, sums
up the progress made: "I have never seen the water
as clear and clean as it is now."
The CRM project contains several grazing
allotments established when the Bureau of Land
Management first began to permit grazing on
federal lands. The following are some examples of.
the cooperation among people and the coordina-
tion of management practices implemented on
grazing allotments that have contributed to the
success of the Muddy Creek CRM project.
Doty Mountain Allotment
"Getting to know the land, building relationships
through communication, earning the trust so that
people can identify their common ground and
In 1989 vegetation cover on the banks of Muddy Creek was only about 5
percent.
The Muddy Creek Coordinated Resource Manage-
ment (CRM) project is one of the original national
"Seeking Common Ground" demonstration
projects. It encompasses nearly 300,000 acres of
mixed federal, state, and private lands in Carbon
County, Wyoming. Using the philosophy of ecosys-
tem management on a watershed basis, the local
conservation district initiated the CRM process to
get all affected interests in the watershed working
on consensus management of the natural resources
in the project area. To date, more than 25 members
representing private landowners; federal, state, and
local agencies; environmental and conservation
organizations; industry; and the public at large have
worked on the project.
1721
[ wyomtng
-------
•work together to achieve success" is -what the
CRM process means to Ray Weber of the Doty
Mountain Allotment, Weber believes that "it takes
commitment to not just work hard but to deal
with the many diverse people and their interests"
to make successful improvements on the land. In
this case, just a simple change from spring to fall
grazing was the solution. "What this CRM group
and many others have found out is that our 'com-
mon ground' is 'much greater than our differ-
ences," Weber says, "so let's set our differences
aside for the moment and work together to be
successful."
By installing pasture fencing and using managed grazing rotations, ranchers
were able to increase vegetative cover by 85 percent from 1989 conditions.
Grizzly and Daly Allotments
Other types of changes in grazing practices have
been implemented throughout the project area.
For example, the Wyoming Game and Fish De-
partment (WGFD) purchased the base property
of the Grizzly and Daly Allotments and desig-
nated it as part of a wildlife and livestock demon-
stration project. Historical use of these allotments
allowed for season-long grazing by cattle and
sheep. Once the WGFD took ownership of the
Grizzly Allotment, it implemented a short-dura-
tion grazing season. Each of the eight pastures
was grazed for 7 to 21 days rather than the usual
60 to 90 days. This type of management promotes
recovery of healthy riparian areas by giving plants
plenty of time to grow.
But simply moving to. a short-duration graz-
ing rotation wasn't good enough for Jim Chant of
the Desert Cattle Company. As the lessee of the
Grizzly and Daly Allotments, Chant has shown a
strong commitment to improving the resources
and proving that wildlife and cattle can coexist
beneficially. He and two full-time cowboys imple-
ment the WGFD's short-duration grazing season
by herding the cattle out of the riparian areas and
onto the uplands each afternoon. Not only does
this approach improve utilization within each
pasture, but it also reduces time spent in the lush
riparian zones. In addition, improvements to
facilitate livestock management such as spring
developments, off-site watering, electric fencing
(much of it solar-powered), high-tension fencing,
and vegetation management are ongoing. A pri-
mary goal of the CRM group is to reintroduce
the Colorado River cutthroat trout into Muddy
Creek, whose headwaters are in the Grizzly Allot-
ment. Once these upper portions of the water-
shed are in proper condition, trout will thrive.
Chant says he wants to be the first rancher to run
cattle next to a Colorado cutthroat trout stream,
"to show it can be done."
Prescribed burning has proved extremely
beneficial for livestock, wildlife, and vegetation
communities in the Muddy Creek drainage.
Burning upland areas allows sagebrush seedlings
to sprout, thereby creating a more diverse age
class of sagebrush. Also, the livestock are enticed
away from the riparian areas to graze on the
more desirable grasses produced by the burning.
Fire removes the sagebrush competition so that
aspen can expand its area in both riparian and
Wyoming '
-------
upland sites. After burning, regrowth occurs
quickly, and within a few years a larger, healthier
community emerges.
Sulphur Springs Allotment
The Sulphur Springs Allotment is managed by •
Millicent and Kathryn Sanger, a mother and daugh-
ter whose family has used this area since the 1930s.
It was one of the first allotments for which man-
agement plans were developed in conjunction with
the Bureau of Land Management during the 1960s.
The various pastures in the allotment are used to
control grazing time and use. This approach allows
the Sangers to congregate the cattle in smaller
areas, resulting in improved conception rates, easier
management of the cattle, and overall increased
beef production. Plant cover on the streambanks
increased from only 5 percent in 1989 to more man
90 percent in 1995. Most of this change occurred
after pasture fencing and managed grazing rotation
were implemented. The Sangers appreciate how the
land looks when they leave in the fall, knowing
there is plenty of forage left for the elk and mule
deer indigenous to the area.
Working together to be successful
Using various conservation and land management
tools, a coalition of government agencies, private
organizations, and individuals are making a differ-
ence in Carbon County. Their cooperative effort
has resulted in benefits for waters, wildlife, and
cattle ranches alike.
174 BEi Wyoming
-------
A.II states recognise that strong information and education programs are critical to achieving their
nonpoint source program goals. This special feature section highlights nine especially innovative state
information and education programs. It focuses on programs that provide technical assistance tailored to
the locality (e.g., RJiode Island's onsite wastewater training center, Florida's Yards & Neighborhood
program, California's voluntary range land management program, and Connecticut's NEMO program)
and programs that incorporate an education component geared toward kids (e.g., Wyoming's stream
monitoring program, Illinois's Salt Creek Wilderness, and North Dakota's ULco-Camp). It also includes
the more "traditional" information and education programs (e.g., Wisconsin's Water Action Volunteers
and Colorado's media campaign). "These programs all have in common a wide network of partners and
funding sources, as well as a creatively packaged approach.
Ranch Water Quality Planning: Voluntary Rangeland Management
Eases Impacts on California Watersheds
1 here are more than 40 million acres of rangeland in California, half of which is in private •
ownership and provides 90 percent of the forage base. Most of this acreage is located at strategic
mid-level elevations, between California's upper elevations and urban and agricultural uses in valley and
coastal areas. More than 9,000 miles of waterways drain the area. California's major'water supply reser-
voirs are located_bn rangeland, and eight of the state's major drainage basins are dominated by com-
monly grazed vegetation. '
Streams that once could depend on riparian vegetation to keep them cool and clean have become
degraded. Their riparian vegetation has been stripped, their trampled banks are collapsing, and their
temperatures are rising. The water quality problems include nutrients and pathogens, erosion, and sedi-
mentation. Some' of the more serious impacts have threatened the state's drinking water supply.with
bacterial contamination and caused significant declines in the state's cold-water salmon and steelhead
trout fishery. .
With partial funding through 319 grants, the University of California Cooperative Extension, in
cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association and others, has developed and is presenting a
voluntary Ranch Water Quality Planning Short Course. In the course, ranchers receive information to
assist them in making an assessment of nonpoint source pollution on their land and to help them deter-
mine the extent to which their operation might be causing the problem, The program is voluntary, and
individual ranchers, at their own discretion, may or may not use outside technical assistance.
Information and Education Programs
-------
Various materials are provided to help the ranchers: aerial photographs and maps of their lands;
monitoring strategies, including photo-point monitoring and residual ground covering monitoring; and
informative, easy-to-understand, one-page information sheets on a variety of pertinent topics that pro-
vide the basic kinds of information needed to understand the ecological relationships among rain, soil,
plants, grazing animals, and water quality.
If a rancher decides that few or no changes need to be made in the ranch operation, a short Letter
of Intent declaring die finding is to be written to become a part of the personal ranch record. If prob-
lems are identified that the rancher determines result from the operation, the rancher is encouraged to
complete a Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan. The plan is done at the discretion of the
rancher. If done, the plan indicates the structural and operational changes the rancher intends to imple-
ment to eliminate polluted runoff from the land. The plan becomes a part of the personal ranch record,
and local Natural Resources Conservation Service representatives are available to offer technical and
financial assistance if the rancher chooses to use their services.
In die first year of program operation, about 100 ranchers, who own or manage some 400,000 acres
of ranchland, enrolled for Ranch Water Quality Planning Short Courses. Since September 1997 plans
have been completed for approximately 475,000 acres along the coast and in the San Joaquin Valley and
foothills. The State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards are
committed to this approach and continue to support the program with section 319 funds and staff par-
ticipation. Cooperative Extension routinely schedules additional courses throughout California.
Contact Intofmation: Chris Chatoupka, Nonpoint Source Agriculture Unit, State Water Resources Control Board, 916-657-0703,
ehak@dwq,swrcb.ca,gov; Mel George, University of California Cooperative Extension-Davis, 530-752-1720, mrgeorge®ucdavis.edu
Colorado Water Protection Project: League of Women
Voters Guides Extensive Urban NPS Campaign
rystal clear" and "sparkling blue" are common media references to Colorado's waters. Citizens
throughout the state have been hearing another water message, though, through a special
outreach crusade. The message shares how an average homeowner can actively protect and avoid pollut-
ing Colorado's waters.
The League of Women Voters' Colorado Education Fund is reaching the state with this message
through the Colorado Water Protection Project, supported in part through 319 funding. The project
seeks to raise citizens' awareness of the need for more preventative approaches for emerging water is-
sues. Because most of Colorado's population is urban, three information areas were identified for em-
phasis: home fertilizer and pesticide use, pet waste, and do-it-yourself auto maintenance.
The media campaign kicked off with a 30-second television message that aired statewide for a 10-
day period in spring 1999. About 90 percent of potential Colorado viewers were reached with the televi-
sion products. The campaign was broadened with the concurrent release of information through news-
paper articles, eye-catching local bus advertisements, and pollution prevention pamphlets that were dis-
1 76 t_J Information and Etfucation Programs • • ' .•
-------
tributed statewide.Project partners include a diverse representation of private and government entities.
Nearly 40 representatives serve on the project's technical committee, and 16 organizations have contrib-
uted funds and services. - , .
Surveys conducted before implementing the project found that less than 50 percent of the respon-
dents knew that storm water runs into local rivers, streams, and lakes untreated by municipal treatment
facilities. A majority did not realize household-generated polluted runoff was a significant contributor to
water pollution. More than 25 percent did not think household-generated polluted runoff was a local
community concern or had an impact on their quality of life. Twenty percent did not think a person
could make a difference by preventing pollution in his or her household.
Lack of information and inconvenience were noted as barriers to changing behavior. Television and news-
papers were found to be best means to convey needed information. Health concerns, drinking water protection,
and environmental quality for future generations were the main motivation factors for changing behavior.
Post-project survey results showed that respondents have been affected by the project's efforts. Two
project goals were met—greater awareness of what household-generated polluted runoff is and in-
creased understanding that individuals can make a difference. Less success was realized in meeting the
goal of increasing people's understanding of how polluted runoff enters local rivers, lakes, and streams.
Contact Information: Cynthia Petersen, Project Manager, Colorado Water Protection Project, 303-861-5195
Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO):
Successful Connecticut Project Used as Model Nationwide
jEMO is an educational program for land use decision makers that addresses the relationship be-
I tween land use and natural resource protection, with a focus on water resources. The NEMO
project was created in 1991 by the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service (Uconn/
CES), in partnership with the Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering and the
Connecticut Sea Grant Program. NEMO receives funding from a number of federal and state agencies;
major funding is provided by the USDA/Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension Service Water
Quality Program, the University of Connecticut, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
NEMO helps communities to better protect their natural resources while charting the future course
of their towns. The project uses advanced technologies—geographic information systems (GIS), remote
sensing, and the Internet—to create effective education programs. NEMO presentations, publications,
and Web-based services form an integrated package of information centered around the theme of natu-
ral resource-based planning. The presentations help explain the links between land use, water quality, and
community character. The project also offers follow-up .presentations and materials to help communities
move forward on the two major aspects of natural resource-based planning, namely, planning for areas
to be preserved and planning for developed or developing areas.
Information and Education Programs
-------
A Connecticut success story
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) estimates that about one-third of
the state's rivers and streams and three-quarters -of the state's portion of Long Island Sound are im-
paired, primarily because of nonpoint source pollution from urban and suburban areas and construction
sites. Nonpoint source pollution is generated by land use, and most land use decisions in Connecticut are
made at the local level by municipal officials and private landowners. Federal and state nonpoint source
laws and programs established over the past 30 years have created a growing need for local officials to be
more knowledgeable about the causes, effects, and management of polluted runoff. With 169 municipali-
ties in Connecticut, die large number of local officials and the continual turnover of volunteer commis-
sioners present a challenge to those who want to educate land use decision-makers.
In 1997 CT DEP awarded section 319 grant funds to NEMO to expand its program to provide techni-
cal assistance for local officials. During the first year, NEMO delivered its basic presentation through a
series of 10 regional workshops. More dian 120 of the state's 169 municipalities were, represented at the
workshops, and many participants contacted NEMO to schedule follow-up meetings on specific issues or
concerns. Each municipality also received a map set (watersheds and land cover) to help educate local offi-
cials and facilitate nonpoint source management at the local level. In 1998 and 1999 NEMO conducted
regional workshops to teach local officials how to manage nonpoint source pollution by addressing imper-
%'iousness through their land use planning and regulatory authorities. Over the past 2 years, although still
conducting regional workshops dial focus on new land use commissioners, the project has moved to a
more intensive approach, selecting on a competitive basis five communities per year to enter the "Municipal
Program." In this educational model, each community is charged with listing specific goals, creating a
NEMO committee made up of representatives from all the land use boards and commissions and other
interested parties, and designating a chief NEMO contact to facilitate the progress.
Proven results
After 8 years of the NEMO Project, there is concrete evidence that Connecticut municipalities are giving
greater consideration to water quality in their land use planning and regulatory programs than in years
past. Two such examples are highlighted below.
As a result of NEMO's Eightmile River Watershed Project, the towns of Lyme, East Saddam, and
Salem signed the "Eightmile River Watershed Conservation Compact," which commits the towns to
work together to protect natural resources from new development. Since the signing, the three towns,
local land trusts, and The Nature Conservancy have protected more than 1,800 acres of open space in
the watershed. In addition, UConn/CES foresters have worked with landowners to develop forest stew-
ardship plans on almost 500 acres and provided information that is being used to manage another 2,500
acres of foresdand. The project was also instrumental in helping to-build a fish ladder to restore access
to upstream habitat for alewives and blueback herring for the first tirne since the early 1,700s.,, , , ,
As one of NEMO's original pilot projects, the suburban coastal municipality of Old Saybrook has a
long-term relationship with the project that has resulted in a progression of positive impacts that contin-
178 •• Information and Education Programs
-------
ues to broaden in scope. The Zoning Commission reduced the number of required parking spaces in
several site plans to reduce the amount of impervious surface where it could be demonstrated that fewer
cars were likely. Associated landscaping regulations were revised to require the breaking up of "seas of
asphalt" through the use of landscaped islands and buffers. The Conservation Commission revised the
town's Conservation Plan to include a recommendation on controlling nonpoint source pollution and
recently completed a natural resources inventory for the town. The Board of Selectmen prepared a
Policy Statement that includes alternative design and construction standards and vegetative storm water
management practices that were incorporated directly from NEMO Project design principles and are in
keeping with Phase II storm water permit requirements.
Future of NEMO
Based on the success of the first several years of this partnership, CT DEP anticipates continuing its
section 319 funding support for NEMO and now considers NEMO an integral part of the state's
Nonpoint Source Management Program. In 2001 NEMO is continuing its Municipal Program, as well as
impervious surface research.
The UConn NEMO Project is the coordinating center for the National NEMO Network, a growing
network of projects around the country adapted from the Connecticut project. As a result of NEMO's
success in Connecticut, 34 other states have established or are planning to establish technical assistance
programs based on the NEMO model. For more information about the NEMO Project, visit http://
nemo.ucon.edu. •
Contact Information: Laurie Giannotti, Connecticut NEMO Coordinator, Middlesex County Extension Center, 1066 Saybrook Road,
RO. Box 70, Haddam, CT 06438-0070, 860-345-4511; John Rbzum, NEMO National Network Coordinator, 860-345-4511,
jrozum@canr.uconn.edu ,
Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program:
More Than 1.2 Million People Reached
The Florida Yards & Neighborhoods (FY&N) Program was developed to
address the serious problems of pollution and disappearing habitats by
enlisting homeowners in the battle to save the natural environment. The pro-
gram provides educational and outreach activities directed at the community to
help residents reduce pollution and enhance their environment by improving
home and landscape management. The program is being implemented state-
wide, using the University of Florida County Extension Service and other local,
regional, state, federal, and nongovernmental agencies as partners.
• FY&N encourages "Florida Friendly" yards and landscapes by promoting basic landscaping prin-
ciples to homeowners: water efficiently; mulch; recycle; select the least.toxic pest control measures; put
the right plant in the right spot; fertilize only when necessary; provide food, water, and shelter for wild-
Putting the right plant in the right spot, as
demonstrated in this award-winning yard, reduces
the need for water and toxic pest control measures.
information and Education Programs
1179
-------
Water efficiency was achieved in this award-winning lawn by replacing a
traditional grass lawn with native plants and mulch.
life; protect surface water bodies; and minimize
Storm water runoff. Other stakeholders targeted
by this program include the landscape, turf, and
nursery industry; property developers and build-
ers; water resource managers; and youth.
An FY&N project in a neighborhood near the
Indian River Lagoon was the basis for initiating the
statewide FY&N Program. Residents in neighbor-
hoods near the lagoon were provided educational
information through pamphlets, presentations,
workshops, and on-site workdays on how house-
hold activities might affect the water quality of the
lagoon. Each household received information on,
methods for reducing nonpoint source pollutants such as fertilizers, pesticides, solid waste, freshwater flow,
and on-site water retention. The program focused on alternative pesticide/fertilizer use and frequency of
application, and on landscape.maintenance and design. Demonstration landscapes were placed at highly
visible locations throughout the six-county area to promote the program's concepts.
The project resulted in the training of 128 volunteer Florida Yard Advisors through the Master Gar-
dener program; the advisors provide technical assistance to area property owners. More than 10,000 resi-
dents were reached directly at 830 workshops. It is estimated that more than 1.2 million people were in-
formed about the program through radio and television broadcasts, newspaper articles, and exhibits. Thir-
teen demonstration landscapes were installed throughout the region as examples of FY&N practices. More'.
than 600 homeowners participated in the program, and 404 completed pre/post surveys that helped mea-
sure the project's effectiveness.. For adopting a sufficient number of recommended practices, 330 properties
were certified as Florida Yards. Efficient watering and irrigation practices were adopted by 45 percent of
die program participants, and 32 percent adopted Florida Friendly landscape management practices.
The FY&N program is active in 21 different counties, and expansion plans have .been developed to
include all the other counties in Florida. To find out more about the FY&N program, visit the FY&N
web site at http://hort.ufl.edu/fyn.
Contact Information: Christine Kelfy-Begazo, State Coordinator, FY&N Program, ckelly@mail.ifas.ufl.edu; or contact the statewide office
at 352-392-7938
The Salt Creek Wilderness: Illinois Zoo Offers Interactive
Environmental Learning Experience
he western section of Brookfield Zoo is called Salt Creek Wilderness. It includes a quarter-mile
hiking trail, the 4-acre Indian Lake, and a new 1-acre demonstration wetland called Dragonfly
180
Information and Education Programs
-------
Marsh. This 10-acre wooded area focuses on native Illinois plants and animals and provides naturalistic
experiences for many of the zoo's 2 million annual visitors.
Staff from Brookfield Zoo, Illinois EPA, U.S. EPA Region 5, and the Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission created the unique educational interpretive experience. The first goal was to develop a "big
idea" that would serve as the underlying.theme for all of the experiences in the Salt Creek Wilderness.
The big idea is "Healthy urban watersheds must be managed to provide clean water resources essential
for diverse plant and animal habitat."
Key concepts were developed to support the big idea, including the role people must play in managing
natural systems, the definition and importance of biodiversity, the impacts of nonpoint source pollution, and
appreciation and conservation of natural areas. Next came the development of statements and interactive
mechanisms for conveying these ideas, especially concepts like nonpoint.source pollution and watersheds.
These concepts were translated into graphic signs and interactive devices. The zoo plans to do a summational
evaluation to quantify the effectiveness of the messages and the usage of each element.
Dragonfly Marsh consists of two deep pools, an emergent aquatic area, sedge meadow, wet prairie,
and prairie. In addition, more dian 12,000 individual plants, including flowers, grasses, sedges, and bul-
rushes, have been planted in the marsh. To create the wetland, two soil scientists, from the Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service surveyed the area to determine die soil, suitability and design the wetland.
The area was excavated and graded. Water is pumped from Indian LaTce into the pools and then allowed
to flow and percolate through the soils back to the lake.
An 85-foot boardwalk, constructed of wood from tropical ipe trees, overlooks the wetland. Lining
die boardwalk's railing are about 250 color illustrations that identify the plants, mammals, fishes, inverte-
brates, reptiles, and amphibians that can be found in northeastern Illinois's woodlands, prairies, and
wedands. At the end of the boardwalk is the Biodiversity Gallery, a 30-foot by 30-foot covered shelter. A
collage of signs communicates the importance of biodiversity and explains .why people should work to
protect it. In die gallery, children-can. also learn about biodiversity by reading the giant storybook The
Adventures of Duncan the Dragonfly. The children's story details the life cycle of a. dragonfly and introduces a
number of the animals that share the dragonfly's habitat.
Several strategies are necessary to manage the wetiand and allow new growth to develop fully; Sur-
rounding the wetland, 850 feet of .YVi-foot-high fencing prevents deer from trampling and eating the
plants. In addition, a grid of black nylon rope widi white flags is stretched across the entire site to dis-
courage geese from landing and destroying the vegetation.
This project began in July 1996 and culminated with a celebration on August 14 and 15, 1999, high-
lighting die Indian Lake and Dragonfly Marsh interactive exhibits. Salt Creek Wilderness is a tremendous
educational tool that encourages zoo guests to explore and understand the complex relationships among
water, plants, and wildlife. It also gives people knowledge of nonpoint source pollution and how to
reduce it in their local environments.
Contact Information: Barb Lieberoff, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL 62794-9276, 217-782-
3362, epal 103®epa.state.il.us
Information and Education Programs
1181
-------
North Dakota Eco-Ed Camps: Thousands of Students
Have Fun While Learning
' an you imagine taking 100 sixth-grade students camping overnight and having no problems finding
' adult volunteers to come along? Students are expected to play in the mud, chew on wildflower roots,
canoe in die creek, locate and identify- things like deer and bird droppings, and get utterly dirty and wet.
And diey love id
Nine years ago, the Barnes County Soil Conservation District (SCD) in North Dakota began a pro-
gram using an EPA section 319 grant as the basis for improving the format of the county's conservation
tour. Five topics of study were identified, and every Eco-Ed Camp must address them—prairie/grass- .
lands, soils, wedands, woodlands, and water quality. All of the subjects are covered in relation to water
and its importance. A session on water safety is also required before die students may canoe.
In addition to die required material, the camps feature scavenger hunts, canoeing, Native American
presentations, live birds like eagles and falcons, Eve bugs (cockroaches, spiders, and others), characters
like Teddy Roosevelt and Sam Ting, artifacts, mountain men, campfires and guitar sing-a-longs; nature
walks, flint fires, water relays, recycling demonstrations, and more.
The schedule has been revised to accommodate 1-day tours; however, most students, teachers, and
chaperones prefer die 2-day format if facilities are available. The longer format provides students with a
diversified, hands-on learning experience. Students are immediately able to relate the five topics to the
environment as diey function in it. Teachers use the material and experiences as a basis for their earth
science classes when they return to their classrooms.
In 1997 the Barnes County SCD received additional section 319 funding to develop Eco-Ed Camps
in coordination with any SCD in Nordi Dakota. This effort is referred to as die Statewide Eco-Ed Pro-
gram. It was projected that 20 to 25 camps would be developed within the first 5 years of the grant. In
the first season (fall 1997), 11 new counties joined the program (conducting eight 1-day tours and three
2-day camps). A total of 1,418 students, about 200 parents and chaperones, and 65 classroom teachers
participated. In die 9 years Barnes County has conducted the Eco-Ed Camps, more than 2,000 Barnes
Count}' students have attended the camps. Those first alumni are now 20 years old and living in all parts
of the country. It is gratifying to know that these young adults have the education to understand ecology
and the importance of water quality.
To date some 12,000 students have attended an Eco-Ed tour or camp in North Dakota. As one former
Student put it, "I had so much fun at camp that I was surprised that I actually learned something!"
Contact Information; Greg Sandness. North Dakota NPS Pollution Management Coordinator, 701-328-5232
182
Information and Education Programs
-------
University of Rhode Island Onsite Wastewater Training
Center: Pioneering Agency Teaches, Demonstrates
Innovative Systems
pproximately one-third of Rhode Island's population is served by some 150,000 on-site wastewater
i. treatment systems, which discharge about 7 billion gallons of wastewater annually. Failed and
substandard systems are considered to be one of the greatest contributors of pathogens to Rhode Island's
waters. For many years,, on-site systems have been considered temporary infrastructure to be abandoned as
soon as centralized sewer systems became available. Neither government nor individual owners gave opera-
tion and maintenance of these systems much drought. Over the past few years, thinking has changed as the
reality has set in that suburban economies cannot support ubiquitous central sewers.
In light of this realization, Rhode Island has become active in promoting improved on-site wastewa-
ter treatment technology and development of management infrastructure for these systems. One of the
pioneering agencies of the decentralized wastewater management paradigm is the University of Rhode
Island's (URI) Onsite Wastewater Training Center.
In 1994 and 1995 URI received 319 funding to help establish the training center.-The 319 grant seed
money helped fund the aboveground installation of several innovative technologies, as well as develop-
ment of several training modules. The .319 funds were used in combination with Rhode Island Coopera-
tive Extension funds, other outside grants, substantial private-sector donations, and class training fees.
In addition' to providing a wide variety of training activities, the training center has spearheaded, under
the auspices of several federal and state-funded demonstration projects, the installation of several dozen
innovative demonstration systems throughout the state to remediate failed septic systems. Training center
personnel work with municipalities to assist them in developing on-site wastewater management programs,
assessing risks, and drafting zoning ordinances based on treatment standards and performance-based waste-
water protection zones. Demonstration systems and training systems ,at the center are used to educate audi-
ences that range from homeowners to septic system design and installation professionals.
The training center supports regulatory programs in Rhode Island by monitoring alternative and
innovative system treatment performance, developing numerous licensing program courses for wastewa-
ter practitioners, assessing standards and regulations, and developing guidance documents. In short,
URI's Onsite Wastewater Training Center has become a major focal point for helping to promote change
and for demonstrating innovation in the field of on-site wastewater treatment.
For more information about individual demonstration projects, see wwwedc.uri.edu/cewq/
owtc.html.
Contact Information: David Dow, Program Manager, 401-874-5950; George Loomis, Director, 401-874-4558
Information and Education Programs
1183
-------
Water Action Volunteers: WAV and Its Partners Make a
Difference in Wisconsin
Wisconsin's Water Action Volunteers (WAV) program has continued to grow and flourish since it
was last highlighted in Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II. This statewide program, funded by a
combination of 319 and University of Wisconsin Extension money, provides educational opportunities,
materials, and assistance to individuals and groups interested in caring for streams and rivers. Three major
WAV activities are storm drain stenciling, river cleanup, and river and stream monitoring.
Storm drain stenciling .
Painting a message next to storm drain inlets has become the water quality hallmark for about 100 Wis-
consin communities. In the past 5 years, more than 3,400 volunteers, armed with spray paint and a lot of
enthusiasm, have stenciled nearly 9,000 storm drains with die message "Dump No Waste—Drains to
River [or Lake or Stream]." The volunteers announce their event with educational door hangers that
describe storm water pollution and ways to curb its effects. The stencils and door hangers are also avail-
able in Spanish. The success of this effort is the result of the many county, University of Wisconsin-
Estension, and Department of Natural Resources local offices that have worked closely with the WAV
program to distribute or loan supplies to local volunteers.
WAV conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of storm drain stenciling. The results show diat
the stenciled messages do leave an impression on people who have seen them, successfully influencing
their awareness of basic storm water facts such as storm drain destinations. The degree of influence of a
Stenciled message on a person's behavior is less apparent. The brief message might be too general; it
does not contain specific information to connect specific actions to storm water concerns. The strength
of this message is that it can be a catalyst, or an additive to reinforce .existing storm water educational
programs. Stenciling storm drains might best be used as a positive message for those already using envi-
ronmentally friendly practices. • .
River cleanups
Each war, WAV coordinates a statewide river cleanup program. In the past 5 years, more than 11,000
volunteers have collected 2,550 bags of trash plus another 80 tons of garbage from nearly 500 miles of
shoreline. The cooperative efforts between WAV and several environmental and outdoor groups and
county land conservation departments made the great success of this effort possible.
River and stream monitoring
WAV has also launched a program to allow citizens to monitor the health of their local rivers and streams.
The program supports data sharing for educational purposes; provides a-network for volunteer groups,
individuals, and schools to interact; provides support to civic, conservation, and environmental groups; and
helps increase linkages between volunteer monitoring efforts and public resource protection programs. The
program was designed so that sampling parameters would be common among sampling groups, easy to
184BUB Information and Education Programs . , ,, .
-------
measure, and would well represent stream health over time. The monitoring protocols require,equipment
that is easily obtained and affordable, and the parameters are those safe to monitor.
Five parameters that are currently part of the program are temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen,
habitat, and biotic community health (assessed using a macroinvertebrate bibtic index). A sixth param-
eter, flow, will be added in the coming months.
At least. 10 groups are using WAV protocols, and several groups are considering beginning monitor-
ing programs. The current groups are monitoring between 1 and 25 sites and in most cases have 1 to 20
volunteers. The groups are generally citizen-based, but some schools use WAV protocols to sample dur-
ing the spring and fall months. Local monitoring groups are working with DNR biologists, interest .
groups (such as Trout Unlimited), watershed associations, county and municipal offices, and local
schools. Most groups hold training sessions during the spring for new monitors, and some offer trouble-
shooting/support meetings during the sampling season.
s Many of the monitoring groups interact with Watershed Education
Resource Centers. There are 13 such centers across the state. The centers are
designed to make watershed-focused resources available to civic organiza-
tions, clubs, schools, and individuals at little or no cost. Monitoring and sten-
ciling equipment, as well as instructional guides, videos, and keys, are available
to be borrowed. .
The newest addition to the WAV monitoring program is a Web-based
database. The database will provide an opportunity for volunteers to .view
and subsequently analyze data from their stream or other streams in the state
that are being monitored by WAV volunteers. Two volunteer groups are
testing the database, and it should be ready for use in spring 2002. .
In the meantime, look for information about stenciling and monitoring
(including access to the database, downloadable fact and data sheets for
monitoring, and reporting forms for stenciling of cleanup projects) to appear
soon at the WAV web site at http://clean-water.uwex.edu.
Contact Information: Kris Stepenuck, Water Action Volunteer Coordinator, DNR, WT/2, JO! South
Webster, RO.'Bpx 7921, Madison, Wl 53707, 608-264-8948, stepek®dnr.state.wi.us
^Publications and Educational
psMaterials " ••
^^---- ' - - , .
'•Wafer Action , Volunteers.' Make-vyAVes
r: for Action: Jntrpductory Activity Packet.
ttiBands-pn stream and -river action
||™pr6jects forWisconsiri. 1.998, updated
2001; "•' ......
feM .Community Water Education and Action .
'Opportunities for Ybutri and Adult.
pnline,at.-,
g*='-wvvw.drir.state.wi.us/or'g7caer/ce/
isi-tr foureau/educgtjon/reslst.htm, , ; ' ,
£r « Storm Drain Stenciling. Impacts on Urban
«^:--•''•''"---•- Quality (Winter 1999)/
-T.r Monitoring Fact Sheet Series
(6).'] 9987*updated 2001 .
:-:Trie..WAV web site: http.V/clean-
"~ wafer.uwex.edu/wav/. "
llpviQnitorirTg data"sheets~ , ,",'., ^. ". .'!".. ".,"...
* Vi/acky. Wonderful. Water Critters.
:,. Booklet. ... ,. ....... ..... .
to Macroinvertebrate^ Life "in the
' '* " "" ' ' '
to pfe in the Pond.
-«- Biobc Index poster.
Stream Monitoring Network with Wyoming Schools:
Trained Teams Initiate, Expand School Monitoring
Programs
| eginning in March 1993, .the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality used a 319 grant to
fund Teton Science School to conduct a 3-year statewide education and monitoring program with
secondary school teachers and Conservation District personnel teams. The program used the Monitoring
Wyoming's Water Quality curriculum developed by Teton Science School to train the teams on water quality
Information and Education Programs
1185
-------
Tan
monitoring and also distributed an extensive water quality monitoring kit to .each of the teams. By De-
cember 1995, 22 teacher/Conservation District teams had been trained and had established annual, test-
ing sites throughout Wyoming.
In the summers of 1993,1994, and 1995, the Teton Science School conducted training workshops in
monitoring protocol, reporting guidelines, and use of the water quality monitoring kits. The three week-
long workshops trained 47 teachers and 23 Conservation District personnel. By spring 1996, 56 rivers or
streams were being monitored annually on 109 sites. The school estimates diat 1,175 students are in-
volved in the monitoring programs.
The real success of the program is demonstrated where teams participating in the monitoring work-
shop have enhanced or expanded the monitoring programs in their communities. Teams working on die
Tongue River in Sheridan and on the Upper North Platte River in Saratoga, for example, have expanded
their monitoring efforts to include long-term intensive watershed assessment projects. Students and
teachers from Lander High School have adopted a site on Squaw Creek and are now involved in a long-
term habitat improvement project. The monitoring training has allowed Pinedale Middle School to estab-
lish several long-term monitoring projects, which they have integrated into their science curriculum,"
Teachers from the Jackson School District are working with the local Conservation District to create a
monitoring program for elementary school students, and their efforts have already reached more, than 75
elementary school children.
The success of the 3-year education and monitoring program is evident in die commitment of
participants, the data submitted, and die positive feedback from all those involved in the project. Teton
Science School has recendy received numerous requests from educators throughout the state to conduct
more workshops on water quality issues. To meet the demand and continue die success of die program,
Teton Science School applied for and received a 319 grant for 2001 to conduct two week-long work-
shops for Wyoming teachers on nonpoint source pollution.
Contaa Information; Brian Lovett Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 122 West 25"1 Street, Herschler Building, 4th Floor,
Cheyenne, WY 82002, 307-777-5622, blovetOstate.wy.us
information and Education Programs
-------
States are implementing a wide variety of innovative programs to help them achieve their nonpoint source
program goals. This special feature section highlights six especially 'innovative state programs. Some pro-
grams feature regulatory components (e.g., Hawaii's erosion and sediment control project, Massachusetts'
storm water utility program, and Idaho's dairy pollution initiative), whereas, others highlight the
nonregulatory, voluntary adoption of nonpoint source best management practices (e.g., New York's Agri-
cultural Environmental Management Program, California's BIOS Program, and South Carolina's
forestry. "Rest Management Practice Compliance Program). These programs all have in common a wide
network of partners and funding sources, some beyond 319 entirely (e.g., Idaho's dairy pollution initia-
tive). This section also highlights a compilation of statewide Clean Marinas Programs that are fast be-
coming a popular way of promoting environmentally responsible marina and boating practices across the
is:
California's BIOS Program: Growers Adopt Whole-System
Management Approach to Reduce Pesticide Use
ae Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems (BIOS) project is a community-based pollution preven-
tion program that uses biological methods to replace chemical farming practices. It was started in
1993 to help California almond growers and other farmers reduce their reliance on synthetic pesticides.
Already reported as a success in Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II (1997), the program continues to
expand and attract new funding sources in addition, to 319 funding.
The program was designed to address the problems caused by the pesticide diazinon, which is ap-
plied as a dormant spray during the winter as a routine almond production practice. During heavy rain-
storms, the pesticide flows into surface irrigation systems, creeks, and streams and eventually into the
major rivers of the San Joaquin Valley, the Delta, and San Francisco Bay. Diazinon is an organophos-
phate that the National Academy of Science has recommended be present only at concentrations below
9 nanograms per liter. It was being found at more than 1,000 ng/L in some runoff pulses;
How the program works
In 1995 the Central Valley Regional Board and the State Boafd joined the University of California, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, EPA, and numerous private foundations (which were already
supporting the BIOS program) to expand the program in Merced and Stanislaus Counties, where
diazinon was causing water quality problems.
BIOS participation begins with a customized management plan for each farmer who enrolls a new
block of acreage (typically 20 to 30 acres) under BIOS management. Participating growers adopt a
Innovative State Programs
1187
-------
whole-system management approach that considers all aspects of production: tillage practices; nutrient, water, and pest manage-
ment; and soil and water issues in the larger landscape. For example, BIOS uses cover crops, compost, and other natural fertilizers to
decrease soil-borne pest problems and promote soil health. It uses biological controls (cover crops, natural areas, and hedgerows) to
provide habitat for predators and beneficial insects and to reduce or even eliminate plant diseases and pests. Finally, it relies on
monitoring and observation to determine if and when the least harmful chemical should be applied.
The plan is developed with the help of a BIOS Management Team that includes a local farm advisor, university researchers,
local experienced participant farmers, and a Pesticide Control Advisor with extensive experience in helping almond farmers reduce
their reliance on diazinon and other farm chemicals. Follow-up support continues with technical support, consultation with mem-
bers of the management team, local educational events like field days and workshops, and technical publications. A comprehensive
monitoring program is also integral to each BIOS project.
Encouraging results
According to the Community of Alliance with Family Farmers Foundation (CAFF), 98 percent of the growers who joined the ex-
pansion program completely eliminated the use of diazinon. The pollution prevention methods BIOS teaches have influenced not
only the 90 growers officially enrolled in the program but also many.more growers who have introduced at least some of the BIOS
practices in their orchards. A long-time Pesticide Control Advisor in Merced County estimates that at least 60 percent of the
county's almond growers are cutting back on pesticides and using some form of biological management that they weren't using
before the BIOS program began.
Looking toward the future
As with all innovative programs, the time comes when subsidized start-up funds- are no longer available and programs must continue
on their own. Direct BIOS management is provided for 3 years; then a transition period begins. From the outset of the BIOS pro-
gram, die concept was to develop the capability of local organizations to lead BIOS activities and to create a structure that sustains
the BIOS presence even after CAFF no longer plays the coordinating role.
In Merced and Stanislaus Counties, the BIOS program is successfully making that transition with the help of two local Resource
Conservation Districts (RCDs). The current work with the East Merced RCD and the East Stanislaus RCD is designed not only to
transfer BIOS outreach and activities to local control but also to create and document a model for other BIOS projects.
East Merced RCD has already hired a coordinator to take over the BIOS project in that area. Coordinating a BIOS project takes
an array of skills—event planning and production, project planning, and group facilitation—and a background in agriculture, includ-
ing knowledge of agronomy and pest management. Also necessary are skills in database management, newsletter publication, and
media outreach. To facilitate the transition, a Transition Coordinator from the BIOS program is mentoring the new East Merced
RCD coordinator. As part of the mentor training, the RCD coordinator will meet the network of growers, researchers, extensionists,
government representatives (including State and Regional Board representatives), and industry leaders with whom CAFF has estab-
lished relationships dirough the BIOS program.
In addition, a Transition Advisory Team (TAT) has been established to guide the RCD program much as the current manage-
ment teams now do for BIOS projects. Through the TAT, the RCD program will remain connected to the communities of growers,
educators, agency personnel, and agricultural consultants that team members represent. Over the coming year, new possibilities for
program activities and funding sources will be identified and prioritized and BIOS activities will continue to evolve. Growers are
188BB Innovative State Programs • , • '
-------
being consulted regarding the activities most important to them—the activities they most want to see
continued and the new subject areas into which they would like to see BIOS activities expand.
Contact Information: Claire Murray, 530-756-8518 (ext. 15)
Maui County Erosion and Sediment Control Training Project:
Workshops Explain Ordinance, Teach BMP Installation
if awaii's Maui, County includes the islands of Maui, Mplokai, and Lanai and dius many different
watersheds that are diverse in geophysical features, soil types, rainfall, and coastal water uses. The
State Department of Health lists the waters of West Maui, Kahului Harbor, and the South Molokai
shoreline as water quality-limited segments because they'often-exceed nutrient and turbidity standards.
Construction and grading projects were identified as the primary source of water quality problems.
Maui County's grading ordinance, last revised in 1975, did not specifically require the installation of
best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion and sedimentation and did not require the posting
of performance bonds for large projects. In addition, much grading work was unregulated because of
exemptions in the grading ordinance for certain types of grading activities. Thus, construction and grad-
ing activities resulted in soil erosion, causing sediment and other pollutants to enter receiving water bod-
ies, The Maui County grading ordinance needed to be revised.
Revising Maui County's grading ordinance
With support of 319 funding, a revised grading ordinance was developed to require erosion and sediment
control BMPs for all construction projects, including minor work that does not require a permit. The
County Council adopted this revised grading ordinance on August 10, 1998.
The revised ordinance met federal guidance under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amend-
ments of 1990. The provisions of the grading ordinance before and after the revision are summarized in
the table. The major changes are the following:
• All projects, even those that do not require grading permits, must use BMPs to control erosion,
sedimentation, and dust to the maximum extent practicable. •
•. Projects that aren't in the Special Management Area (SMA) and that have excavation or fill
quantities of 100 cubic yards or more or exceed 4 feet in height require grading permits.
• Projects in the SMA have stricter requirements. Grading permits are required when excavation
or fill quantities are 50 cubic yards or more or when excavation or fill exceeds 2 feet in height.
In addition, grading or mining a coastal dune is prohibited, as is importing soil for fill material
in the shoreline setback area. Filling with sand is acceptable.
• An erosion control plan showing BMPs to control erosion, sedimentation, and dust to the
maximum extent practicable must be submitted with the grading permit application.
• Grubbing and grading permit fees are revised in the annual budget.
Innovaflve State Programs
189
-------
Purpose
Exdu&ns
Grading Permits
Sea Management
firacttei
Shoreline
Provisions
Permit (^pptation
Drainage and
erosion control
psans
Permit Fees
Penaiiies
Bonding
Existing Ordinance
To protect public health, sa/ety, and welfare
-Single-family residences < 4 acres
-Regulated mining or quarrying
-Aorfcufture, ranching, recreation, forestry, conservation in
conformance with local Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Required if grading > 5 feet in height
No mWmum standards or controls required
No shoreline grading provisions
-Ta< Map Key (TMK) or street address
-Start and end dates for grading
-Responsible party
-Plot plan
Required for projects > 1 acre or grading > 15 feet height
Use of HESi erosion formula
S 1 per 100 cubic yards (0 to 1 000 cubic yards)
520 p!us S2 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards (1,001 to
10,000 cubic yards)
No penalty for grading without a permit
Bonding required at the discretion of the director
Revised Ordinance
To protect/preserve the natural environment and protect waterqualfty, and
public health, safety, and welfare . •_ ,
-Subsurface excavations for buildings and structures ;
-Excavation, fill, stockpiling '< 100 cubic yards and < 4 feet in height , ' :,
-Grubbing < J acre vyhich does not affect drainage , , , , ,;.
-Underground utility trenching . ,
-Required if grading > 100 cubic yards or > 4 feet in height .
-In Special Management Area: permit required if grading > 50 cubic yardj,,qr
> 2 feet in height
Required for all grading, grubbing, and stockpiling to maximum extent ;
practicable [including limited .exclusion activities), .- ."...' 'I
-Use of soil as fill is prohibited in shoreline area
-No grading or mining of coastal dune ., ,
Also required; . . . , .
-Grading plan
-Photographs
-BMPs to prevent erosion and sedimentation to the maxlmym extent practicable,
Required if grading > 1 acre or. > 15 feet height. Engineers, spils, report,
required if grading > 1 5 feet. Emphasis on BMPs to prevent, or reduce pollutant
discharge. Hydraulic calculations per county drainage facility design standards.,, , _
Pending proposed.revisions to permit fee schedule (fees to be increased)
Penalties for grading without, a permit (doubling of permit fees or an additional , ;
S200, whichever is greater) arid requirements to correctfrestbre on-site and off- _.
site damages. Performance, bond, may be required, ' ,
Required for cut, fill, or stockpiling > ,500 cubic yards or excavations of fill > 1 5
feet height, and for increments which are part: of larger development
SI per 100 cubic yards (0 to lOOp cubic yards)
S 10,000 plus S.50 for each cubic yard over 10,000 (10,001 to
100,000 cubic yards)
$55,000 plus S.20 for each cubic yard over 100,000 cubic yards
Bond amount determined by.director based on costs for completion of grading,
drainage improvements,,and, erosion control measures ,
• New provisions require corrections for unpermitted earthwork and impose penalties when
earthwork is started before a permit is issued. -
• A performance bond is required for all earthwork involving, more than 50Q cubic yards.
Raising awareness of the new ordinance
Another goal of the project is to train engineers, contractors, inspectors, and the public in planning and
installing effective BMPs. Workshops were held on Maui, Molokai, and Lanai to explain the new grading
ordinance, teach the procedures for deriving an effective erosion control plan, show the latest BMP
technology, and discuss the proper methods for installing BMPs. More than 100 people attended the
workshops and found them to be very informative and useful. The success of this project has inspired
Other counties in the state (Honolulu, Kauai) to revise or consider revising dieir erosion control stan-
dards to match Maui's efforts.
Contaa Information; Charles Jencks, Director of Public Works and Waste Management,, County of Maui, 2000 South High Street,
, HI 96793
1901
innovative State Programs
-------
Idaho's Dairy Pollution Prevention Initiative: Unique
Program Eliminates Direct Dairy Discharges
'he Idaho Dairy Pollution Prevention Initiative is an unusual public-private partnership formed to
resolve major environmental problems not adequately addressed by the federal and state environ-
mental agencies that traditionally regulate such problems. The partnership is an alliance among two fed- ,
eral and two state agencies, an industry group, and a state university.
In 1995 it was determined that 280 Idaho dairies (about one-fourth of the total number) were dis-
charging untreated animal and dairy process •waste to roadside ditches, streams, and ground water. Dairy
waste discharges are typically high in levels of Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Cryptosporidium. When in-
gested, these microorganisms can cause illness and death. Some water bodies that had been receiving
dairy waste discharges were also used for human contact sport's and as drinking water sources. No.'
known outbreaks of disease can be attributed directly to discharges from Idaho dairies; however, fish
kills have been recorded on several occasions.
Before the Dairy Initiative, dairy waste control efforts by EPA and the Idaho Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality (IDEQ) were somewhat misdirected and only marginally effective. EPA regulations
generally restrict coverage to only those dairies with more than 200 cows. Most (approximately 70 per-
cent) of the 280 dairies discovered discharging fell beneath this 200-cow cutoff. Unless a complaint was
filed, it was quite possible for discharges from the smaller dairies to go undetected by EPA and IDEQ.
Daily MOU partners
The Idaho Dairy Pollution Prevention Memorandum of Understanding (Dairy MOU) -was signed in
October 1995.lt assigned the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) the lead role of interacting
directly with the dairy industry to address the concerns of IDEQ and EPA. A set of guidelines and
f
criteria were jointly conceived. :
Under the Dairy MOU, EPA and IDEQ agreed to train ISDA inspectors and support the ISDA in
circumstances of major environmental or public health risk and the Idaho Dairy Association (IDA)
agreed to contact and inform the industry, promote the program, and educate IDA members about the
values of environmental stewardship along with production capacity. To establish this innovative
program's credibility and to build public confidence, all parties decided to review the program annually in
a public forum and make the results available to interested parties.
Though not signatory parties to the Dairy MOU, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and
the University of Idaho Extension Service are considered partners in that they played key roles in devel-
oping and implementing the Idaho Dairy Initiative. .
Dairy MOU components
All Idaho dairies are required to obtain a license to sell milk for human consumption. The ISDA had
administered a comprehensive inspection program focusing on milk sanitation for all dairies but had not
Innovative State Programs
H91
-------
addressed the waste problem. The Daky MOU capitalized on the frequent presence of ISDA inspectors
and provided for dieir expanded role to ensure that all dairies could contain and properly handle their
waste. Each dairy and its waste storage and handling system would now be inspected for compliance at
least annually. (Inspections averaged 2.5 times per year in 2000.) In early 1996 state legislation and rules
were developed, providing ISDA with authority to require full containment of dairy waste. Under the
new ISDA rules, dairies found to be in noncompliance cannot sell milk until they agree to implement a
pLin for corrective action.
The new ISDA rules also require all dairies to construct large-capacity waste containment ponds that
are less prone to leakage than older ponds. These restrictions are more protective of surface and ground
water than the former IDEQ and EPA requirements. In addition, the new ISDA rules h,ave been modi-
fied to require that dairy waste be land applied only in accordance with an approved nutrient manage-
ment plan. These plans are required on all dairies by July 2001 and will ensure that the waste will be
balanced against the crop uptake and not be lost to groundwater or surface waters.
Measures of success
Although the earlier EPA penalties were significant, their deterrence ability was diminished by recogni-
tion that fewer than 5 percent of the dairies would be inspected in any one year. Since the program's
inception, ISDA has conducted more than 14,000 inspections of dairy farms, resulting in an increase in
inspections from an average of 40 per year to 2,800 per year. The dairies now understand that they will
be inspected frequendy, and this level of certainty has caused dairies with marginal facilities to be much
more proactive in installing and managing proper waste handling facilities.
Improvement in compliance has resulted in the virtual elimination of direct discharges to the envi-
ronment. In 1996, 25 percent of the dairies had some type of discharge violation. This percentage has
dropped to less than 0.5 percent of the dairies. In addition, violations not related to discharges have
dropped by 76 percent (ISDA 2000 Annual Report).
The number of dairy waste handling facilities put into place since 1996 also represents a strong
measure of program success. The new program has-directly resulted in more than $10 million worth of
construction for more than 500 dairy waste containment ponds and handling facilities. This significant
increase in environmental protection would not have been possible without the innovative partnerships
formed as a result of die Dairy Initiative.
A model for other states
Because of the success of the Idaho Dairy Initiative, several states and industry groups are considering
adopting similar approaches. States considering the Initiative as a model include Oregon, Georgia, Ohio,
Minnesota, and Florida. .•'.'.
In August 1998 Vice President Al Gore's "Hammer Award" for reinventing government was pre-
sented to each of the signatory parties of the Idaho Daky MOU, to the University of Idaho Extension
Service, and to nine individuals who were key contributors to the successful negotiation of the MOU. In.
192BS9 Innovative State Rograms
-------
early 1999 EPA awarded Silver Medals to the EPA employees who had contributed significantly to the
development and implementation of the MOU. Most recently, the Dairy Initiative has been named as a
sernifinalist in the Innovations in American Government Award, sponsored 'by die Institute for Govern-
ment Innovation at Harvard University's John E Kennedy School of Government.
Contact Information: Marv Patten, Dairy Bureau Chief, Department of Agriculture (ISDA), 2270 Old Penitentiary Road, Boise, ID
83701, 208-332:8550, mpatten@agri.state.id.us; Bub Loiselle, Manager, NPDES Compliance Unit, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, 206-553-6901, loiselle.bub®epa.gov
Creating a Storm Water Utility in Chicopee, Massachusetts:
Project Praised as Outstanding Planning Project
She importance of storm water management in Massachusetts will undoubtedly increase in die com-
ing years as Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm
water management program goes into effect, requiring communities to take action to reduce pollution
coming from storm water. The number of Massachusetts communities covered by NPDES storm water
permits will dramatically increase from 2 to 191 when Phase II becomes effective.
In 1997 the Massachusetts Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and the City of Chicopee, Massa-
chusetts, received 319 funding to investigate the feasibility of creating a storm water utility. Like electric
and water utilities, storm water utilities collect fees from residents to.pay for a "product." The product
offered by storm water utilities is storm water management to control or eliminate water pollution, ero-
sion, and flooding. • . . . ,
Researching the legal framework
One of .the,first steps was to research existing utilities -around the country to identify key issues. To effec-
tively present the information developed to the public^ it was neatly packaged into a "how-to" kit. The kit
includes the research on storm water utilities across the country, summarized in an easy-to-read format
for both a professional audience (briefing papers) and die public (graphical summaries). The first 500
copies of the how-to kit were in high demand.- The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Pro-
tection is now producing 1,000 additional copies in anticipation of the interest in storm water manage-
ment techniques that will accompany Phase II of the NPDES storm water permit program.
A critical part of the project also included reviewing Massachusetts' laws to'determine the legality of
creating storm water utilities. All Massachusetts laws and regulations pertaining to stoirm water manage-
ment were reviewed and summarized in die how-to kit. A model storm water management ordinance was
also developed and included in the kit.
Altiiough it was determined that municipalities may create storm water utilities, the legal framework
is weak and would be strengthened by state enabling legislation. Draft state enabling legislation, devel-
oped as part of the project, is being sponsored for the 2001 Massachusetts legislative session. When
enacted, it will strengthen' communities' audiority to put storm water management utilities in place.
Innovative State Programs
I 193
-------
Chicopee pilot program
The project also involved implementing a pilot storm water utility ,or fee-based management program in
Chicopee, Massachusetts. Chicopee is an old industrial city of 56,000 people. It occupies 24 square miles
in western Massachusetts at the confluence of die Connecticut and Chicopee Rivers. Urban runoff and '
combined sewer overflows are the most significant pollution problems on die lower Connecticut River in
Massachusetts, Chicopee straddles die two segments of die lower Connecticut River that do not support
their use classifications.
Although the City of Chicopee did not establish a storm water utility per se, the city opted to incor-
porate Storm water management into die existing Wastewater Department to save on administrative costs
and take advantage of die expertise of die Wastewater Department's staff. Chicopee also passed an
ordinance to collect fees from residents specifically for die purpose of managing storm water. The city
conducted extensive research before instituting the storm water ordinance. Residents said that they
would be willing to pay a new fee for storm water management if they were sure that die money would
be used to address the problems direcdy affecting them, such as sewer back-ups during wet weather. The
ordinance was therefore designed to address such concerns.
Instituting a specific storm water fee rather tiian increasing sewer fees to cover die costs of storm
\vatcr management had two advantages. Fkst, it meant that Chicopee could assess fees based on the
•imtmnt of storm water generated by each property tied into the sewer system. Second, die city expects
Hint over time, large storm water generators will begin to invest in best management practices and
remediation measures to treat their storm water in order to reduce their storm water management fee,
thus reducing die amount of storm water pollution being generated.
Chicopee's storm water management fee has been in place since December 1998. In the first year,
Hit* city raised some $400,000 for storm water management; by die third year, revenues had increased to
§550,000. To date, the money has been used for activities such as stepping up cleaning of catch basins,
purchasing a catch basin cleaning truck, grouting joints in the sewer system to stop leakage and inflow,
stenciling storm drains, and cleaning sewer lines. Chicopee has also used the funds to leverage additional
state loan funding for a $5 million sewer separation project.
A model of success
Jn fall 2000 the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and die City of Chicopee were joindy awarded the
Massachusetts Chapter of the American Planning Association's Outstanding Planning Project Award.
The how-to kit and Chicopee's storm water management pilot have been widely presented as successful
models, and interest in replicating these concepts in otiier municipalities has been high. The City of
Holyoke, another old industrial community in western Massachusetts, is now actively working to develop
a similar storm water management program. > '
The most obvious short-term results of this project are the production of a successful model to
create storm water utilities (or, at a minimum, a fee-based storm water management program) and
19* KE3 Innovative State Programs
-------
Chicopee's successful piloting of this type of program in Massachusetts. The fully researched, piloted
example of how a municipal storm water management program can be developed and funded within the
context of Massachusetts' laws, climate, and geography is a valuable tool that the Massachusetts Depart-
.ment of Environmental Protection can now present as an option for Phase II communities.
Contact Information: Jane Peirce, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 627 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01608,
508-767-2792; Jane.Peirce®state.ma.us
New York's Agricultural Environmental Management Program:
Incentive-based Program Helps Farmers Meet Tough Standards
fhe Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) Program has put New York State in the fore-
front of a national effort to help farmers identify and address agricultural nonpoint source pollu-
tion. New York's AEM Program is a statewide voluntary, incentive-based program that helps all- farmers
operate environmentally sound and economically viable businesses. The AEM Program provides cost-
sharing and educational and technical assistance for developing and implementing agricultural plans. The
plans enable farmers of operations of all sizes to remain good stewards of the land, maintain the eco-
nomic viability of the farm operation, and comply with federal, state, and local regulations relating to
water quality and other environmental concerns. •
The AEM partnership of state, federal, and local agencies, conservation representatives, private
sector businesses, and farmers has been recognized and bolstered by AEM legislation proposed by New
York's governor and passed by the state's Senate.and Assembly in June 2000. On August 24, 2000, the
governor signed the AEM Bill into law, codifying die program to help New York's agricultural commu-
nity in its stewardship of die state's soil and water resources.
The partnership operates at both the state and local levels. The New York State Department of
Agriculture and Markets and the New York-State Soil and Water Conservation Committee provide lead-
ership at the state level, while Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) provide local leadership.
The flexibility of the AEM Program allows the partners to address both statewide and specific local
water quality needs. The local delivery of AEM, along with state funding support, has resulted in partici-
pation approaching 8000 farms statewide.
AEM funding
The AEM Program is funded by a mix of section 319 money and grants from the state's 1996 Clean
Water/Clean Air Bond Act and the State Environmental Protection Fund. The ability of farmers to
access funding through SWCDs has been a driving factor in farmers' acceptance of and participation in
the AEM Program. The governor, with die assistance of the state's Soil and Water Conservation Com-
mittee, awarded about $6.3 million in 2000 from the state's Environmental Protection Fund and Clean
Innovative State Programs
L1O5
-------
Water/Clean Air Bond Act for planning and implementing best management practices (BMPs) to pre-
vent or reduce nonpoint source pollution to water bodies. Through fiscal year 1998, a total of $1,863,660
in section 319 money had been used to develop and promote die program in New York's agricultural
community. In 2000 the total allocation from state funding sources stood at $20.4 million, with annual
funding showing a consistent trend upward.
New York's response to tougher standards
AEM offers farmers a way to comply with stricter regulatory requirements, advance die state's water
quality objectives, and meet business objectives on the farm at die same time. The concepts, partnerships,
ant! materials that constitute AEM grew from'many sources, including watershed projects and die na-
tional Farm*A*Syst program. •
The AEM program begins widi die farmer's expressing an interest in the program. After diat, diere
are five tiers to be completed. Under Tier I, a short questionnaire surveys the farmer's current activities
and future plans and begins to identify potential environmental concerns. Tier II involves completing
worksheets diat document current environmental stewardship while identifying and prioritizing environ-
mentjil concerns. Tier III involves die development of a conservation plan diat is directiy tailored toward
the goals for the individual farm. This plan is mutually developed by the AEM Coordinator, die farmer,
and several members of the cooperating agency staff. Under Tier TV, agricultural agencies and consult-
ants provide die farmer widi technical, educational, and financial assistance to implement BMPs on die
farm, using Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) standards and guidance from professional
engineers. The last tier includes ongoing evaluations to ensure diat AEM helps protect bodi die environ-
ment and the viability of farm businesses.
AEM provides a mechanism for all sizes and types of farms to meet the requirements of various state '
and federal environmental laws and regulations witiiin the unique limitations of each farm's resource base.
For example, the AEM Program is helping farmers meet New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) permit requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). As a re-
Sfionse to federal requirements, die state has developed a general permit for certain large livestock farms. As
a result, more than 600 CAFOs have filed Notices of Intent to comply widi the DEC permit requirements.
To meet an increasing workload, die AEM Steering Committee adopted a certification process in
conjunction widi NRCS to get qualified AEM planners into die field. Certification assures environmental
regulators, producers, and die public of quality work in AEM. The program has now trained 104 persons
from the public and private sectors in the development of comprehensive nutrient management plans
*
(CNMPs). To date, seven planners have been certified, resulting in the completion of CNMPs for 33 farms.
Looking ahead
Agriculture is a multibillion-dollar business in New York State, and the AEM Program works to keep all
of the state's farms environmentally sound and economically viable. Every farm is valuable for what it
contributes to die economy, die environment, and the beauty of New York State, and AEM is strength-
196IF1 innovative State Programs
-------
ening this legacy for the future. We all depend on clean drinking water and •wholesome food for our
existence. With sufficient support and assistance, through Agricultural Environmental Management, New
York State's farm families will provide both of these.
Contact Information: Barbara Silvestri, New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, ! Winners Circle, Albany, NY 12235,
518-457-3738, silvestrb@nysnet.net
South Carolina Forestry BMP Compliance Program:
Proactive Strategy Raises BMP Compliance Rate
In South Carolina, as well as in most other states widi large tracts of forested land where timber is
harvested, nonpoint source runoff due to the lack of proper practices can be a threat to water qual-
ity. To address this situation, the South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC) adopted a set of silvicul-
tural best management practices (BMPs) and published South Carolina's'Best Management Practices for Forestry
in 1994. To ensure compliance with the BMPs, the Commission focuses on a proactive strategy for pre- •
venting nonpoint source pollution, using a multipronged approach.
One component of the program provides voluntary courtesy BMP exams to forest landowners, foresters,
and forestry operators. Specially trained Forestry BMP Specialists, located in each of the SCFC's three regions,
conduct these exams/About 500 harvesting operations were evaluated during fiscal year 2000. Ongoing for-
estry operations are located through regular flights over high-priority watersheds, through voluntary notifica-.
tion, and through response to complaints. Courtesy BMP exams are then offered to the landowner, forester,
and logging contractor. Based on the exam results, site-specific recommendations regarding BMP implementa-
tion are provided. Recommendations may include streamside management zones, forest road construction,
stream crossing design arid location, harvesting systems, and site preparation techniques. Where damage has
already occurred, recommendations for mitigating the damage are offered,
After the harvesting operation is completed, a final on-site inspection is conducted to determine whether
the appropriate BMPs •were implemented. BMP compliance is significantly higher—98 percent according to a
1999 statistical survey—on sites where a courtesy BMP exam has been conducted. A monthly summary report
of completed courtesy BMP exams is provided to the state water quality agency and to timber buyers. The
report identifies loggers who failed to implement the appropriate water quality BMPs. Failure to implement
BMPs might negatively influence a forest industry company's decision to purchase forest products and ser-
vices from the logger. The threat of .being on "the list" has proven to be a real incentive to loggers to imple-
ment appropriate BMPs. In addition, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control,
the state's water quality agency, may initiate enforcement action based on the referral.
Another component of the prog-tam is education. Forestry BMP Specialists conduct BMP training
throughout the state. Educational programs are tailored to the unique operating conditions in each physi-
ographic region. More than 1,800 loggers, landowners, foresters, and forestry operators have attended
the Timber Operating Professional (TOP) Logger course since its inception in 1995. The program is
innovaflve State Programs
I 197
-------
produced in cooperation with the South Carolina Forestry Association. In addition, short courses on site
prcparadon, forest road construction, and other topics are offered annually. BMP educational presenta-
tions arc given throughout die year to forest landowner associations, forestry clubs, civic groups, envi-
ronmental groups, and other interested parties.
This innovative program has proven to be very effective in increasing the BMP compliance rate
Statewide. Surveys conducted over the past 10 years show that a statistically valid increase in forestry-
rckted BMP compliance on harvesting sites has occurred. In fact, the compliance rate rose from 84.5
percent in 1989 to 91.5 percent in 1999. Compliance with site preparation BMPs was 86.4 percent in
1996 and rose to 98 percent in the second evaluation, completed in the spring of 1999..
BMP compliance monitoring continues. During FY 2000, the SCFC initiated an additional monitor-
ing cycle of harvesting and site preparation BMP compliance, consisting of (1) initial site location and
harvest monitoring and (2) die initial site preparation compliance evaluation.
Contact Information: Daryl Jones, South Carolina Forestry Commission, 803-896-8817, djones®forestry.state.sc.us
Statewide Clean Marina Programs: BMPs, Recognition,
and Outreach Help Protect Coastal Resources
! any states across the nation are designing voluntary programs to address a broad range of
issues related to the environmental impacts of marina operations. These "Clean Marina Pro-
grams" provide information, guidance, and technical assistance to marinas, local governments, and recre-
ational boaters on how to minimize their impacts on water quality and coastal resources. To reduce ad-
verse impacts, states are promoting voluntary adoption of best management practices (BMPs) cited in
the states' clean marina guidebooks. They also are establishing some type of recognition or awards pro-
gram for participation in the program and adoption of these practices and are providing outreach activi-
ties to further promote environmentally responsible marina and boating practices. A few examples of
such programs follow.
Maryland's Clean Marina Initiative
The Man-land Department of Natural Resources developed the s.tate's Clean Marina Initiative, and EPA,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the state of Maryland provided financial
support. The Initiative distributes a comprehensive pollution prevention guidebook for marinas with
advice on topics like marina design and maintenance, storm water management, vessel maintenance and
repair, sewage handling, waste containment and disposal, and more. The guidebook is written for manag-
ers of full-service marinas with boatyards, but it is equally applicable to marinas with limited services,
independent boatyards, and marine contractors.
198
Innovative State fiograms
-------
Marinas, boatyards, and yacht clubs that adopt a significant proportion of the BMPs suggested in
the guidebook will be recognized as "Maryland Clean Marinas." They will receive a certificate acknowl-
edging their environmentally responsible actions, authorization to use the Maryland Clean Marina logo
on their letterhead and in their advertising, a flag to fly from their property, and promotion by the Clean
Marina Initiative in publications, on the World Wide Web, and at public events.
For more information on Maryland's Clean Marina Initiative, see www.dnr.state.md.us/boating/
cleanmarina.
Virginia's Clean Marina Program
On January 12, 2001, Virginia's Clean Marina Program was launched as an implementation element of
the Virginia Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, supporting compliance with section 6217 of
the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Virginia has established a Marina Technical
Advisory Program to work with marinas to achieve voluntary designation as a "Virginia Clean Marina"
by following a series of steps. The first step involves a pledge by a marina operator to work toward be-
coming a Virginia Clean Marina. Second, the marina operator conducts a self-assessment using an evalua-
tion checklist that contain criteria taken directly from Virginia's Clean Marina Guidebook of marina BMPs.
After the checklist is complete, the operator requests a formal site visit from the Marina Technical and
Environmental Advisory Committee to confirm the adequate assessment scores. Once scores are con-
firmed, the Committee recommends a Clean Marina designation. Designated facilities report annually to
retain their designation, and .they are encouraged to consider additional projects that prevent pollution.
For more information on Virginia's Clean Marina Program, see www.deq.state.va.us/vacleanmarina.
North Carolina's Clean Marina Program
The National Marine Environmental Education Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works to clean
up waterways for better recreational boating, developed North Carolina's Clean Marina Program. The
program was initiated in July 2000 as a joint project between the North Carolina Marine Trades Services
and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, As in the Maryland and Virginia programs,
marina owners are asked to voluntarily complete an evaluation form to determine their use of specific
BMPs. If a marina meets the criteria, it is eligible to fly the Clean Marina flag and use the logo in its
advertisements. Through the promotion, boaters are able to identify marinas that care about the cleanli-
ness of area waterways.
For more information on North Carolina's Clean Marina Program, see www.ncmta.com/Regula-
tory/CleanMarinelndex.htm. ...
Other state marina programs
Many other states are also developing their own Clean Marina Programs. Other programs include the
Clean Texas Marina Program (see www.cleanmarinas.org); Florida's Clean Marina Program (see'
www.dep.state.fl.us/law/bosp/grants/clean_marina); and the Tennessee Valley Authority's Clean Marina
Initiative (see www.tva.gov/environment/water/boating.htm). .
Innovative State.Prograrre
I 199
-------
200)
fnnovacive State Rrograms
-------
States are increasingly dedicating substantial funding above and beyond the federal funding under section
3 19 and the required 40 percent state -match to support and sustain expanded nonpoint source manage-
ment programs. States are using many different mechanisms to fund their nonpoint source activities,
including bond initiatives, low-interest loan programs, grants, and land acquisition programs. States are
also incre'asingprivate sector involvement in program implementation so that they can progressively
decrease their current reliance on government funds to support implementation of nonpoint source best
management practices. This section highlights a variety of such programs that states are administering,
beyond the 319 match, to address the effects of nonpoint source pollution.
States With Significant Funding Beyond 319 Match
California's Water Bond Program
In March 2000 California voters approved Proposition 13, the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 (2000
Water Bond), authorizing the state to sell $1.97 billion in general obligation bonds to support safe
drinking water, flood protection, and water reliability projects throughout the state. The budget autho-
rizes $468 million specifically for watershed protection, dedicating $90 million of this amount to imple-
menting watershed management plans (to reduce flooding, control erosion, improve water quality, im-
prove.aquatic and terrestrial species habitats, restore native vegetation and riparian zones, and restore
beneficial uses of water) and $95 million of this to river parkway acquisition and riparian habitat restora-
tion. The budget authorizes $30.5 million specifically to the State Revolving Fund Loan Subaccount for
the purposes of providing loans pursuant to the Clean Water Act. In addition, the budget specifically
authorizes $100 million for nonpoint source pollution control activities and $90 million for coastal
nonpoint control activities over the next several years.
For the money specifically authorized for nonpoint source activities, grants of up to $5 million (per
project) may be awarded to local public agencies or nonprofit organizations formed by landowners to
prepare and implement local nonpoint source plans. Projects must use best management practices (BMPs)
or management measures and must demonstrate a capability to sustain water quality benefits for a period of
20 years. Categories of nonpoint source pollution addressed by projects may include, but are not limited to,
silviculture, agriculture, urban runoff, mining, hydromodification, grazing, on-site disposal systems,
boatyards and marinas, and animal feeding operations. Projects to address nonpoint source pollution may
include, but are not limited to, wildfire management, installation of vegetative systems to filter or retard
pollutant loading, incentive programs or large-scale demonstration programs to reduce commercial reliance
State Funding Programs
1201
-------
•Bill
on polluting substances or to increase acceptance of alternative methods and materials, and engineered
features to minimize impacts of nonpoint source pollution. Projects must have defined water quality or
beneficial use goals.
For more information on California's Water Bond Program, see www.swrcb.ca.gov/propl3/
indcx.html.
California's Loan Programs
;hc California State Board administers two funds that provide loans to help private parties control
lonpoint sources of pollution: the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program and the more recent
Agricultural Drain Management Program (ADMP) created by Proposition 204 in 1996. Most of the SRF
dollars (up to $100 million) come from the federal government. The state matches the federal contribu-
tion on an 80 percent federal/20 percent state basis. In addition to the SRF, $27.5 million was made
available to the ADMP with the passage of Proposition 204 in 1996. Of this amount, $5 million has been
obligated for dairy waste management. Dollars from previous SRF loans that have been repaid are also
available to make new loans.
Merced Count}- is an example of the local beneficiaries of California's loan programs. The county
has borrowed $10 million from the SRF Loan Program and $5 million from the ADMP to make loans to
Merced County dairies through a county-administered mini-loan program. The loans may be used to
reduce drainage runoff, which is high in nitrates and salinity and currently threatens the quality of the
county's groundwater and surface waters. Most of the money is expected to be used to install structural
improvements for animal waste source control. The county will also use a portion of the funds to pro-
vide a public education and outreach program to educate dairymen, as well as to establish criteria for
evaluating problem dairies and to develop solutions to control animal waste. The dairy industry is grow-
ing in Merced County, and the county's goal is to ensure that dairies under its jurisdiction are properly
operated so that they comply with county, state, and federal laws.
Florida Forever Program
'he 2-year effort to enact a successor to the Preservation 2000 Program, which had acquired 1 million
acres and was successful in saving many of Florida's beaches, rivers, bays, forests, coral reefs, and
estuaries, culminated in the passage of the Florida Forever bill on April 30,1999. While devoting major
resources toward land acquisition, Florida Forever also recognizes and refocuses on Florida's water re-
source needs. The bill devotes 24 percent of funds to urban efforts, recognizing both the need for
greater environmental protection and the need for more recreation space in urban areas. A significant
feature is the creation of Florida's first-ever land acquisition advisory committee. This committee will
202 BUI State Rinding Ftograms
-------
clearly focus on measurable goals and invest taxpayer funds wisely to develop measurable statewide
objectives for Florida Forever. • '
Florida Forever created a 10-year, $3 billion program. The state will receive about $300 million each
year through a bond program. The funds will be apportioned among the Department of Environmental
Protection (with 35 percent of the funds for acquisition programs, 1.5 percent for recreation and parks,
and 1.5 percent for greenways and trails); the Water Management Districts (35 percent); the Department
of Community Affairs, Florida Communities Trust (24 percent); the new Florida Fish and Wildlife Con-
servation Commission (1.5 percent); and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Divi-
sion of Forestry (1.5 percent). . . • ' • . .
For more information on the Florida Forever program, see www.dca.state.fl.us/ffct/
florida_forever_program.htm. •
Georgia's Greenspace Program
i eorgia's governor signed the Greenspace Program into law on April 16, 20QO. The program is a
I voluntary, noncompetitive, county-based program. It provides for awards of formula grants to
eligible counties if they develop and implement plans to permanently protect at least 20 percent of the
county's geographic area as natural, undeveloped greenspace that furthers one or more of the nine stated
goals of the program. Five of the goals address water-quality protection, including flood protection;
wetland protection; reduction of erosion; protection of riparian buffers; and water quality protection for
rivers, streams, and lakes.
For fiscal year 2001, |30 million has been appropriated for the program. Counties are not required
to provide matching funds, but they must commit to providing adequate stewardship of the lands once
acquired. . • '
For more information on Georgia's Greenspace Program, see www.ganet.org/dnr/greenspace/
index.html.
Iowa's Water Quality Initiative
Iowa's new Water Quality Initiative (2000) provides $11.2 million per year for a number of water quality
improvement projects throughout the state. Highlights of the Initiative include financial incentives to
install conservation buffers, conduct water quality monitoring, and support local watershed protection
projects. .....-.• ' -
The Initiative provides $1.5 million to accelerate the implementation of the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) through soil and water conservation district field offices. Through the CRP program,
farmers receive payments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish riparian buffers,
State Funding Programs
IZO3
-------
grassed waterways, contour buffer strips, field, borders, and odier buffers on private farmlands. The
buffer initiative will provide funding for additional field office staff to prepare materials, contact pro-
spective participants, and process applications. Local government and private, nonprofit organizations
arc being challenged to provide matching funds to further leverage the initiative. Funds are also being
used to provide $100/acre sign-up bonus payments for eligible practices of contour buffer strips, shal-
low water areas for wildlife, and cross-wind trap strips. The first-year goal is to enroll an additional
100,000 acres in the continuous-sign-up Conservation Reserve Program.
The Initiative also provides $1.9 million to conduct an ongoing assessment of Iowa's rivers and
Streams, lakes, groundwater, beaches, wetlands, and precipitation. In addition, the program focuses on
public education on water quality issues and encourages participation in volunteer water quality monitor-
ing, Two years ago, only §120,000 from federal sources •was being spent on water monitoring in Iowa.
The Initiative provides $2.7 million to develop and encourage integrated approaches to address
multiobjective water quality protection, flood control, erosion control, recreation, wildlife habitat, and
other resource protection issues. Funding is provided for watershed solutions to water quality and water
management problems that affect local communities, the state, and the country. The first year goal is to
financially support more than 20 local watershed protection projects that are providing improved flood
protection and erosion control and are beginning to address the water quality problems of the state's
impaired waters. Assistance will be provided to local communities and Soil and Water Conservation
Districts for the development of water quality projects and funding applications. The Watershed Task
Force will complete its study of Iowa watershed protection efforts and will report (with recommenda-
tions) on the status of watershed protection needs, program capacity, and local initiatives.
The Initiative provides financial incentives for many other programs, including $600,000 for septic
system renovations (to match $2.4 million from the State Revolving Fund); $2 million in financial incen-
tives to install soil conservation practices on private farmlands (with 5 percent directed to lands in the
watersheds of high-priority, publicly owned lakes in the state); $372,000 to develop new or improved
water quality standards and assessment techniques; $1.5 million to restore or construct wetlands to inter-
cept tile runoff from agricultural lands; $153,000 to develop an efficient Total Maximum Daily Load
program; $200,000 to educate local floodplain managers; $250,000 to review and issue National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits; $850,000 for demonstrations of integrated farm and livestock
management; §70,000 to Support the Department of Natural Resources' volunteer programs; and
§195,000 to provide geographic information system data to local watershed groups.
204E—3 State Funding Rograms
-------
Maine's Funding Programs
In 2000 the Maine Department of Agriculture used a $2.5 million state general fund appropriation to
establish the Nutrient Management Grant Program, a cost share program to help producers con-
struct manure-handling facilities to comply with the state's Nutrient Management Law.
Maine also established the Watershed Improvement Financial Assistance Partnership in 2000. It
provides financial assistance to help state Soil and Water Conservation Districts conduct nonpoint
source pollution control projects to restore or protect lakes, streams, or .coastal waters -that are polluted •
or considered threatened. The funding is from the Environmental Protection Agency ($240,000), admin-
istered "by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP), and the State of'Maine general
fund ($160,000), administered by the Maine Department of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Resources.
EPA-New England and the Maine Association of Conservation Districts are cooperating partners.
Maine's 16 Districts joined together to form four watershed regions for this program. Annually each
region is eligible to receive a grant of $100,000.
MDEP and Agriculture established the Nutrient Management Loan program in 1999. Loans are
available through the Financial Authority of Maine. These loans have an effective interest rate of 4 per-
cent the first year and 3 percent each year thereafter for up to 20 years. They may.be used for building
storage and handling facilities for manure and milk room wastes, including equipment that is used solely
for handling waste. In 1999 MDEP also issued $500,000 grants of state bond funds for watershed
projects under the Priority Watershed Protection Grants Program.
In 1998 the Maine Department of Transportation established the Surface Water Quality Protection
Program to help reduce polluted runoff from highways. The program uses federal Transportation Equity
Act funds (about $200,000 per year). The projects funded usually involve reconstruction of highway
drainage systems to reduce sediment discharges to wafers.
The state legislature initiated the Maine Overboard Discharge Program in 1989 to help fund replace-
ment systems that would eliminate licensed overboard discharges in certain areas. licensed overboard
discharges are treated discharges, to surface bodies of water, of domestic pollutants not conveyed to a
municipal or quasi-municipal wastewater treatment facility. High priority is .given to shellfish areas that
could be opened for harvesting if the licensed overboard discharges were eliminated. The state share of
funding for projects in this grant program comes from bond issues approved by the voters. Since 1989,
$4.5 million hag been used. . . . • ' '
The Small Community Grant Program is a water pollution control program administered by MDEP.
Funding levels range from $500,000 to $1 million per year, and a state bond is used to fund the program. •
The goals are to improve water quality, protect public health, and reopen shellfishing areas that are af-
fected by wastewater discharges. The program may provide financial and technical assistance in solving
wastewater disposal problems in unsewered areas. For qualifying systems, grants for 25 to 100 percent of
the replacement costs for a year-round residence, 25 to 50 percent for a business, and 25 to 50 percent
for a seasonal or second home are available.
State Funding Programs
S2O5
-------
Clean Michigan Initiative
f n 1998 Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved the Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI), authorizing
I $675 million in state bonds to finance environmental and natural resources protection programs.
A large portion of the CMI (f 50 million) has been earmarked for Nonpoint Source Pollution Con-
trol grants. These grant funds, can be used to implement the physical improvements, such as structural
and vegetative BMPs, recommended in approved watershed management plans. The Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control grants are budgeted at $7 million per year through 2006. An additional $90 million has
been allocated'to the Clean Water Fund to implement a comprehensive water quality monitoring program
in the state. That fund will also be used to protect high-quality waters, eliminate illicit connections to ;
storm drains, address failing on-site septic systems, plug abandoned wells, implement storm water man-
agement activities, implement recommendations found in Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Manage-
ment Plans, and implement agricultural BMPs in targeted watersheds.
For example, $5 million of the Clean Water Fund will be used to provide funding as state match for
the federal Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which will implement practices on
agricultural lands to improve water quality and wildlife habitat. The state of Michigan applied to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for a CREP grant of $126 million, with a total state match of $25.75 million.
The practices to be implemented include 60,000 acres of riparian buffer strips, filter strips, field wind-
breaks, and wetland restoration, as well as 20,000 acres of wetland restoration, shallow water areas for
wildlife, permanent native grasses, and permanent introduced grasses and legumes.
The CMI grants are available to local units of government and nonprofit organizations. Watershed
management plans are approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and are often
developed by local agencies with federal Clean Water Act support.
For more information on the Clean Michigan Initiative, see wwwdeq.state.mi.us/exec/crni/cmiimp.html.
Minnesota's Clean Water Partnership Program
Iinnesota's Clean Water Partnership was created in 1987 to address pollution associated with run
off from agricultural and urban areas. The program provides local governments with resources
to protect and improve lakes, streams, and groundwater. Financial assistance available through the pro-
gram falls into two categories: grants and low-interest loans. Grants are available for up tq ,50 percent of
project costs; loans may be used for only the project implementation phase and may cover the entire cost
of implementation or supplement a grant. The implementation phase involves putting in place BMPs
Such as sedimentation ponds, manure management, conservation tillage, terraces, new ordinances, wet-
land restoration, fertilizer management, education, or other methods.designed to reduce nonpoint.source
pollution.
206 |E3 State Rinding Programs
-------
During the 1999 application cycle for financial assistance, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
awarded $2,370,107 in grants and $5,778,524 in loans. Through 11 application cycles, more than
$30 million of state, federal, and local funds have been allocated to protect and improve lakes,- streams,
groundwater, wellhead areas, and wetlands.
For more information on Minnesota's Clean Water Partnership Program, see www.pca.state.mn.us/
water/ cwpartner.html.
Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Program
'he Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Program, created in 1986, has two primary components: RIM and
RIM Reserve. The RIM Program focuses on improving fish and wildlife habitat on public lands,
and the RIM Reserve Program focuses on acquiring easements on private land.
The RIM Reserve Program protects water quality, reduces soil erosion, and enhances fish and wild-
life habitat by retiring marginal lands from agricultural production and restoring previously drained wet-
lands. The owners of these lands are paid a percentage of die assessed value of their land to voluntarily
enroll it in a conservation easement. A variety of land types are eligible, including drained wetlands,
riparian agricultural lands, credible cropland, pastured hillsides, and sensitive groundwater areas. Since
the program began in 1986, landowners have enrolled about 2,400 easements, covering 83,000 acres.
The RIM Reserve Program has helped to leverage significant outside doEars for conservation in
Minnesota. Under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), the federal government
will provide Minnesota landowners with -up to $163 million to retire land in the Minnesota River valley. ,
This money must be matched by $70 million in state funding. By combining a federal Conservation
Reserve Program contract with a RIM Reserve easement, this funding will retire approximately 100,000
acres and more than double the amount of acreage currently enrolled in RIM Reserve.
The RIM Reserve/Wedand Reserve Program (WRP) partnership is another state/federal/local
partnership that provides Minnesota with an opportunity to leverage federal dollars to increase conserva-
tion easement enrollment. Under the partnership, drained wetlands are enrolled and restored by combin-
ing WRP's 30-year easement option with a perpetual RIM Reserve easement. About 6,208 acres of RIM
Reserve/WRP easements have been enrolled since the program began in 1997, costing about $5 million
in federal dollars and $2.8 million in state dollars. ' • •
For more information on Minnesota's RIM Reserve Program, see www.bwsr.state.mn.us/programs/
major/rim.html. . . . • .
, State Funding Programs fl^B ZO7
-------
New Hampshire's Water Supply Land Conservation Grant
Program
In spring 2000 the New Hampshire legislature created the Water Supply Land Conservation Grant
Program. Under the program, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DBS),
provides grants to municipal or nonprofit water suppliers for the purchase of land or conservation ease-
ments critical to the quality of their water. These water supply lands must be within the source water
protection areas for existing or planned public drinking water sources. DBS has $1.5 million available for
grants during the first year of the program.
The state grants must be matched by 75 percent from local sources. These match sources can in-
clude donated land or easements that also lie within the source water protection area, public funds,
transaction expenses, or private funds. A low-interest loan fund is also available from DBS to help com-
munities finance some or all of the match.
For more information on New Hampshire's Water Supply Land Conservation Grant Program, see
wmv.des,state,nh.us/dwspp/ws_landgrant.htm.
New Jersey's Funding Programs
i ver the past several years, the New Jersey legislature has appropriated $5.3 million' to the state's
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Department of Agriculture for technical
and financial assistance grants to farmers who develpp and implement conservation plans that incorpo-
r,iie agricultural BMPs to control nonpoint source pollution. Dkect state cost-share funding assistance is
pooled with federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program cost-share funds and made available to
formers based on potential environmental benefit.
•
In June 1999 New Jersey's governor signed the Garden State Preservation Trust Act, which will
enable the state to preserve 1 million acres of open space over the next 10 years (by 2010). In 1998 New
Jersey residents voted to amend the New Jersey constitution to provide a stable source of funding to
acquire and preserve open space, farmland, and historic sites around the state. The amendment dedicates
$98 million annually for 10 years to preservation efforts and authorizes the issuance of up to $1 billion in
revenue bonds. For more information on the Garden State Preservation Trust Act, see www.state.nj.us/
dep/greenacres/preservation.htm.
Mew Jersey's DEP has received $5 million each fiscal year from State Corporate Business Tax re-
ceipts to implement watershed management and nonpoint source pollution control. Funds for nonpoint
source and \vatershed activities have been increased to include $600,000 for each of the 20 Watershed
Management Areas for a 4-year watershed planning process. For more information on New Jersey's
Corporate Business Tax, see www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/financial.htm.
208
State Funding Programs
-------
New Jersey's DEP awarded $1.8 million in grant funds on April 17, 2001, for the development of
regional storm water management planning in four counties. Storm water plans to improve streams and
water quality will be developed for five priority watersheds: die Upper Maurice River in Gloucester .
County; the Smithville Drainage in Atiantic County; part of the Rancocas .watershed in Burlington
County; and Masons Creek and Little Creek, both tributaries to die Copper River. Additional grants
totaling $740,000 are being awarded for storm water planning in the Shrewsbury and Cohansey water-
sheds. These funds are from the 1989 Stormwate'r and Combined Sewer Overflow Bond Act.
New York's Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
| ew York's 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act devoted $1.75 billion to protect and restore the
state's environment. Of that amount, $790 million in funding is devoted to clean water projects
to help carry out existing management plans for major water resources. Funds are available for municipal
wastewater treatment improvement, pollution prevention, agricultural and nonagricultural nonpoint
source abatement and control, and aquatic habitat restoration. Significant support is available to acquire
open space that protects water resources, acquire public parklands, and protect farmland. Funding is also
available to help small businesses protect the environment, help small municipalities address flood con-
trol, and improve die safety of dams throughout New York.
The Bond Act also specifically devotes $355 million for safe drinking water projects. These funds
include $265 million for a revolving loan fund and $90 million for state assistance payments to economi-
cally distressed water systems upgrading their drinking •water facilities. .
For more information on New York's Clean Water Bond Act, see www.dec.state.ny.us/website/
bondact/index.html.
North Carolina's Clean Water Management Trust Fund
In 1996 Nordi Carolina's General Assembly established the Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) to help finance projects that specifically address water pollution problems and focus on
upgrading surface waters, eliminating pollution, and protecting and conserving unpolluted surface •waters,
including urban drinking water supplies. Moneys from the CWMTF may be used to acquire land or ease-
ments for riparian buffers and watersheds; to restore wedarids, buffers, and •watershed lands; to repair
failing wastewater treatment systems; and to improve storm water controls and management practices.
At the end of each fiscal year, 6.5 percent of the unreserved credit balance in North Carolina's
General Fund (or a minimum of $30 million) will go into the CWMTF. In 2000 the Board of Trustees
approved 59 grants for a total of $49.8 million. The Board has approved 234 grants for a total of $211
million since 1997. CWMTF grants have leveraged at least $60 million in other private and public funds.
State Funding Programs
J2O?
-------
The CWMTF's 540 million investment in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program will leverage
f 22! million in U.S. Department of Agriculture funds and $10 million in other funds over.the next
6 years, The 2000 session of the General Assembly committed to appropriate $40 million to CWMTF in
FV 2001-2002, $70 million in FY 2002-2003, and $100 million in FY 2003-2004 and subsequent years.
The CWMTF has helped to protect 1,560 miles of riparian buffers and preserve 134,673 acres of
Lwd, Tile CWMTF has assisted 60 local governments with wastewater improvements, funded 45 restora-
tion projects, and funded 16 storm water projects.
For more information on North Carolina's Clean Water Management Trust Fund, see wwwicwmtf.net.
Clean Ohio Fund
. n November 7,2000, Ohio voters passed Issue 1, a $400 million statewide ballot initiative that will
help support brownfields restoration, farmland preservation, stream and watershed restoration
and protection, open space conservation, and outdoor recreation.
In January 2001 Ohio's governor released the Clean Ohio Fund Implementation White Paper, detail-
ing his vision regarding the administration of the fund. The administration proposes to set aside $25
million for a pilot program to purchase agricultural easements on valuable .agricultural land. A total of
$50 million will be available over the program's initial 4 years to protect high-quality streams and restore
impaired water resources through protection of habitat along Ohio streams. Eligible projects will include
the purchase of easements or fee^ simple interest in land to protect and restore streams and forested
riparian corridors. Funding will also support projects that protect or restore natural stream channel func-
tions, floodpkins, and riparian corridors (for example, removal of dams that are no longer needed, pro-
visions for fish passage, protection and restoration of natural flow regimes, or restoration of floodplains
and associated wetlands).
In addition, die Clean Ohio Fund will set aside $175 million for .brownfields restoration, $100 mil-
lion for grcenspaces, and $25 million each for developing recreational trails and cleaning up threats to
public health.
For more information on the Clean Ohio Fund, see www.dnr.state.oh.us/cleanohiofund.
Oregon's Watershed Restoration Grants
i reaon's Watershed Enhancement Board administers Watershed Restoration Grants for numerous
activities, including watershed restoration and enhancement, watershed assessment and monitor-
ing, watershed education and outreach, land and water acquisition, and watershed council support.
Grants arc used to fund on-the-ground watershed management projects such as planting along
210 JFl State Funding Programs
-------
streambanks to slow erosion, developing off-stream livestock watering facilities or fencing stream areas
to restore riparian function, controlling upland vegetation to encourage the growth of native grasses,
reseeding old logging roads/restoring or enhancing natural wetlands, improving fish habitat, removing or
replacing ineffective culverts, and purchasing conservation easements or leasing water rights.
The funds for these'grants come from a voter-approved ballot measure that designates 7.5 percent
of lottery proceeds for watershed restoration and protection! In January 2001 alone, the Watershed
Enhancement Board awarded nearly $10 million in watershed improvement grants to watershed action
groups around the state.
For more information on Oregon's Watershed Restoration Grants, see www.oweb.state.or.us.
Pennsylvania's Growing Greener Program
In December 1999 the governor signed Pennsylvania's Growing Greener program into law, providing
nearly $650 million over 5 years to address the state's most pressing environmental challenges. Funds
provided by Growing Greener will be split among four state agencies on' an annual tasis: Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agri- -
culture, and Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority. These agencies will direct Growing
Greener funding to protect open space, clean up abandoned mines, restore watersheds, and provide new
and upgraded water and sewer systems, among other projects.
The first year of Pennsylvania's Growing Greener grant program has been very successful. Growing
Greener grants have led to 55 watershed assessment and protection plans and 85 restoration/demonstra-
tion projects being implemented. Projects facilitating 58 environmental education projects and the orga-
nization of 21 watershed groups have also been set in motion.
With the help of Growing Greener funds, 3,603 acres of wetlands and 117 miles of riparian buffers
are being restored. In addition, 279 miles of streams affected by acid mine drainage are being cleaned up,
nearly 800 acres of abandoned mine lands are being reclaimed, and 43 miles of stream improvement
structures are being built. Growing Greener has also enabled Pennsylvania to eliminate its backlog of
mine reclamation and oil and gas well plugging projects. As a result, an additional 612 acres of aban-
doned mine lands are being reclaimed and more than 134 abandoned oil and gas wells are being plugged.-
Grant recipients took the initiative to seek out other sources of funding to build on their Growing
Greener grants. Nearly $45 million in matching funds supplemented the Commonwealth's investment.
Match money was received in the form of cash, volunteer time, or donations of equipment or materials.
For more information on Pennsylvania's Growing Greener program, see www.dep.state.pa.us/growgreen.
State Funding Programs |^B 211
-------
Vermont's Funding Programs
Agricultural BMP cost-share program
In 1996 die Vermont legislature created a program that provides financial assistance to Vermont farmers in
support of voluntary implementation of BMPs on farms. This program has provided a unique opportu-
nity to combine state funds with federal USDA funds on many projects, thereby reducing the farmer's
share of project costs to as little as 15 percent. Since the program's inception, the legislature has gradu-
ally increased annual funding levels from $250,000 to the current $1.2 million. In total, $3.9 million has
now been earmarked for this program, with $2.7 million committed to build 737 BMP projects on 388
farms. This year's fiscal year 2001 allocation of $1.2 million is currently being committed to farm
projects. The most common BMPs funded through the program to date have been systems to store
manure, manage barnyard runoff, and treat milkhouse effluent. Using a phosphorus crediting procedure
for each BMP, the state estimates that the practices funded thus far will reduce annual phosphorus load-
ing to watercourses by about 31,900 pounds. The loading estimates provide one means for the state to
track progress toward phosphorus reduction goals in key water bodies such as Lake Champlain.
The Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets administers the program in close coor-
dination with USDA cost-share programs. BMP systems eligible for state cost-share dollars must meet
design standards and specifications established by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service.
A system must be operated and maintained for its design life (typically at least 10 years) according to a
plan that includes strict provisions for nutrient management and system upkeep.
Contact information; Phil Benedict [phil®agr.state.vt.usl or Jeff Cook (cookie®agr.state.vt.us) at the Vermont Department of.
Agriculture, Food and Markets, 802-828-2431.
Vermont Better Backroads Program
The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation initiated a small grants program for cor-
recting erosion and drainage problems along the state's backroads in 1997 using a small amount (about
$20,000) of section 319 funding. Approximately 81 percent of Vermont's road miles are maintained by
municipalities, and most of these roads are gravel roads. The goal of Vermont's Better Backroads Pro-
gram is to promote the use of erosion control and maintenance techniques that save money while pro-
tecting and enhancing Vermont's lakes and streams. The program has been so successful that the Ver-
mont General Assembly voted to more than triple its size in 1999 by adding $48,000 in state appropria-
tions. Grants are awarded to towns and local organizations for erosion control measures not already
required by town, state, or federal regulations. The 20 projects funded this year range from the installa-
tion of rock-lined ditches and diversion berms to culvert repairs and streambank stabilization. A portion
of the funds is made available for road inventories, problem prioritizing, and capital budget planning to
incorporate erosion control into ongoing town road maintenance.
Contact information: Susan Warren. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 802-241-3794, susan.warren@anrmail.anr.state.vt.us.
212 pra State Rinding ftograms
-------
Vermont Watershed Fund
The Vermont Watershed Fund was established with funds from the sale of a special conservation license
'plate, authorized by the state legislature in 1996. The plates first became available in April 1997, and more
than 9,000 were sold by fall 1999. Revenues for projects supported by the fund are raised by an addi-
tional $20 per year motor vehicle registration fee for each plate. The proceeds from plate sales are di-
vided between the Vermont Watershed Management Fund and the Nongame Wildlife Fund.
The Watershed Fund, administered by Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources, supports watershed
projects that protect, restore, or enhance Vermont's watershed resources. The funds are granted to com-
munity-based watershed organizations through die Vermont Watershed Grants Program. A wide range
of projects are eligible for funding, including monitoring, outreach, land acquisition, recreational en-
hancement, and pollution prevention. A wide range of projects were funded in 1998 and 1999, including
mine remediation, lake watershed surveys, river stabilization, and integrated crop management in a small
watershed. Funds available for the watershed grants program have grown steadily from $16,000 in 1998
to $45,000 in 2000. Although modest in size, the program already has produced many successful results.
It fills a critical gap in statewide funding sources for watershed-based projects. '
Contact information: Susan Warren, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 802-241-3794, susan.warren®anrmail.anr.state.vt.us. •
Virginia's Water Quality Improvement Act
p*he purpose of the' Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997 is to restore and improve the
quality of state waters and protect them from impairment and destruction for the benefit of current
and future citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Because this responsibility is shared among state and
local governments and individuals, the Water Quality Improvement Fund (WQIF) was created.
The purpose of the fund is to provide water quality improvement grants to local governments, Soil and
Water Conservation Districts, and individuals for point and nonpoint source pollution prevention, reduc-
tion, and control programs. A primary objective of the WQIF is to fund grants that will reduce the flow of
excess nitrogen and phosphorus into the Chesapeake Bay through the implementation of Tributary Strate-
gies prepared in accordance with the multistate/EPA/DC Chesapeake Bay Program and with state law.
Fund appropriations for fiscal year 1998 included $15 million (with $10 million for point sources
and $5 million for nonpoint sources), and appropriations for 1999—2000 included more than $50 million
(including $27 million for nonpoint sources), Most of the grants from the fund will be provided as '
matching fundss usually on a 50/50 cost-share basis.
For more information on Virginia's Water Quality Improvement Act, see www.dcr.state.va.us/sw/
wqia.htm. ' ,
State Funding Programs
1213
-------
Washington's Water Quality Funding Programs
fashington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Program administers three major funding
programs (managed as one) that provide low-interest loans and grants for projects that protect
and improve water quality. The three programs that share guidelines, application, and funding cycles are
i 1) the Centennial Clean Water Fund, which provides low-interest loans and grants for wastewater treat-
ment facilities and fund-related activities to reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution; (2) the State
Revolving Fund (SRF), which provides low-interest loans for wastewater treatment facilities and related
activities, or to reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution; and (3) the section 319 grants program.
During fiscal year; 2001, 82 projects will receive funding in the form of grants and loans totaling
S93.7 million. Projects will address water quality improvement and protection initiatives, including waste-
water collection, treatment, reuse, and reclamation; salmon habitat and riparian corridor improvements;
sediment control; agricultural BMPs; watershed action plans; wellhead protection; storm water treatment;
environmental education; and water quality monitoring
Each year Washington reserves 20 percent of its lendable funds (through the SRF and Centennial
Clean Water Fund programs) for nonpoint source and estuary projects. In state fiscal year 2001, that
20 percent (more than $12 million) was fully committed to these types of projects.
For more information on Washington's water quality funding programs, see www.ecy.wa.gov/
programs/wq/funding. ^
Wisconsin: Grant Programs for Runoff Management
lit III JPlsconsin's Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program provides grants averaging
Hf llSf 520 million per year in both urban and rural watersheds selected for priority watershed
projects. In 1997 and 1998 the Wisconsin legislature created two new grant programs to address the
effects of polluted runoff. The Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) Grant Program provides up to
S150,000 to rural and urban governmental units to control polluted runoff from urban and rural sites.
The Urban Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Grant Program focuses on financial assistance for projects
in urban areas, providing up to 70 percent of technical assistance.
For more information on Wisconsin's grant programs for polluted runoff management, see
w\vw.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps/npsprogram.html.
State Funding Programs
-------
State Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs
I tate Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs (CREP) address important local conservation
concerns by combining USDA's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) with state technical and
funding assistance. CRP is administered by the USDA's Farm Service Agency, which protects fragile
farmland by assisting owners and operators in conserving and improving soil, water, and wildlife re-
sources. This is done by converting highly credible and other environmentally sensitive acreage normally
devoted to the production of agricultural commodities to a long-term approved cover. Participants enroll
in contracts for 10 to 15 years and, in some cases, easements, in exchange for annual rental payments and
cost-share assistance for installing certain conservation practices.
At least 14 states have approved CREP agreements in place, and at least an additional 8 states have
CREP proposals under review. Many states are contributing significant amounts of funding to CREP. For
example, Oregon provides $50 million (along with $200 million from USDA); Nordi Carolina,
$54 million (with $221 million from USDA); and Pennsylvania, f 77 million (with |137 million from USDA).
States are also enrolling large tracts of land in the CREP. For example, Illinois's $250 million CREP
may have up to 232,000 acres continuously enroEed in the CRP through 2002. Goals of the program
include reducing total sediment loading to the Illinois River by 20 percent; reducing phosphorus, and
nitrogen loading to the Illinois River by 10 percent; increasing populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and
state and federally listed species by 15 percent within the project area; and increasing native fish and
mussel stocks by 10 percent in the lower reaches of the Illinois River.
For more information on State Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs, see
www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep/crepstates.htm.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs
I nder the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, EPA provides grants or "seed
money" to all 50 states and Puerto Rico to capitalize state loan funds. The states, in turn, make
loans to communities, individuals, and others for high-priority water quality activities. As money is paid
back into the revolving fund, new loans are made to other recipients that need help in maintaining the
quality of their Water. Currendy, the program has more than $27 billion in assets.
The CWSRF program allows states the flexibility to provide funding for projects that will address
their highest-priority needs. Although the CWSRF has traditionally been used to build or improve waste-
water treatment plants, eligible nonpoint source projects include virtually any activity that a state has
identified in its nonpoint source management plan. Loans can be used for control of agricultural runoff,
conservation tillage and other projects to address soil erosion, development of streambank buffer zones,
and wetland protection and restoration. Twenty-eight states have funded more than $1 billion of such
nonpoint source and estuary projects through 2000. . •
For more information on the CWSRF program," see www.epa.gov/owm/cwsrf.htm.
State Funding Programs
1215
-------
216 IB State Finding Programs
-------
In 1987 Congress added sections 3 19 and 518 to the Clean Water Act to enable states, territories, .
tribes to address the problems caused by nonpoint source pollution. Section 319 established baseline
funding to support implementation of approved management programs. Section 518 authorised EPA to
treat federally recognised Indian tribes in the same manner as states and to grant up to one-third of
1 percent of national 31 9 grant funds to tribes. . ,
In FY 2000 and FY 2001, Congress authorised EPA to award grants to Indian tribes under
section 319 in an amount that exceeds the statutory cap. recognising. that Indian tribes need and deserve
^x j ' O V) O
increased financial support to implement their nonpoint source programs. As a result, in FY 2000 and
FY 2001 ' , $2.5 million and $6 million (respectively) were made available to tribes — the first time that
total national 31 9 grants to tribes had .exceeded $1 million. EPA's long-term goal 'is for the cap 'on
tribal nonpoint source grants to be permanently eliminated.
EPA annually awards section 3 19 grants to tribes that submit approved nonpoint source assessments
• and management plans. Each grant awarded under section 3 19 requires a 40 percent nonfederal match. If
a tribe demonstrates a special financial need, however, EPA may (and frequently does) approve a 10 percent
nonfederal match. As of September 2001 more than 70 tribes (representing more than 70 percent of
Indian Country) have EPA-approved nonpoint source assessments and management programs.
Despite very limited resources, a number of tribes have been able to implement some good-quality projects
designed to achieve water quality improvements on tribal lands. Several examples of these projects are
highlighted in this special feature section.
fe;
Restoring Watersheds by Decommissioning Forest Roads:
Karulc Tribe and Forest Service Form Successful Partnership
'or years the tribal lands of the Kar.uk Tribe of California, located in Northern California near the
Oregon state line, have been honeycombed with roads for mining (gold, gravel, and quartz) and
timber harvesting. Today, however, the watersheds are in imminent danger of environmental .crisis be-
cause of sedimentation resulting from those past activities, threatening the habitat of coho and chinook
salmon and steelhead trout. A 72 percent decline in timber harvesting between 1989 and 1997 has also
devastated the region's economy. Many tribal members who orice worked for logging or mining opera-
tions are now unemployed.
Today, 95 percent of tribal ancestral lands are located in the Klamath and Six Rivers National For-
ests. In 1994 a government-to-government protocol agreement emerged from this overlap to help pro-
Tribal Section 3l9_Prqjects
1217
-------
tect and restore the region. The Steinacher Road, once serving as the region's main corridor, was soon
identified as the largest contributor of sediment to Steinacher and Wooley Creeks, which eventually lead
to the Lower Salmon River. It is estimated that since the road's construction in 1971, more than 10,600
cubic yards of sediment has entered stream channels from cutbanks and the road surface; annual delivery
is more than three times background levels. . .
Securing funding
In 1998 the Karuk Tribe entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with'the Klamath Na-
tional Forest calling for the sharing of resources, funding, and staff to help with decommissioning
Steinacher Road. The Karuk Trib'e secured 319 funding to help provide "storm-proofing" and prescrip-
tion planning until significant restoration funds could be secured for the remainder of the decommis-
sioning. Over the next 2 years, the Karuk Tribe and the Northern California Indian Development Coun-
cil secured more than §1 million of funding from seven different funding sources to help with the
project. In January 2000 an MOU was signed between the Karuk Tribe and the Six Rivers National For-
est to continue completion of the Steinacher Road project as funding becomes available. Organizers of
the project estimate that it will cost $1.9 million and take one project team 3 years to complete.
Building tribal capability
With assistance from the Northern California Indian Development Council, the Karuk Tribe initiated a
Comprehensive Watershed RestorationTraining and Implementation Program for tribal members and
staff. The goal is to prepare the members of a Tribal Restoration Division for careers as watershed resto-
ration specialists while supplying an on-the-job apprenticeship completing critical restoration work on
projects available throughout the tribe's ancestral territory.
Since the Tribal Restoration Division was established, at least 16 tribe members have undergone training
in heavy equipment application, prescription planning and surveying, and supervision of project sites. The
new watershed restoration specialists have also removed about 94,800 qubic yards of sediment to stable loca-
tions and reestablished the natural drainage for five major streams that cross the abandoned Steinacher Road.
Improved water quality and fisheries are seen as a significant component of rebuilding the economy
of the region. Watershed restoration represents an opportunity for long-term, stable employment based
on non-resource-extraction ecosystem management and a stable, fully functioning ecosystem. Building
the tribe's capability to play an appropriate role in ecosystem management is the only means by which
ecosystem restoration, cultural survival, and community prosperity will.be achieved.
Looking ahead
Over the long term, more than 2,000 miles of road throughout the Karuk's ancestral territory will need
decommissioning or significant upgrading and remediation of mining impacts. These projects will take
12 project teams 25 to 30 years to complete. At a minimum, continuing this program requires $3 million
218H53 Tribal Section 319 Ftojects
-------
per year above the current forest watershed budget for planning, inspection, administration, and logisti-
cal support. If funding can be secured, the partnership created between the Karuk Tribe and the Forest
Service will continue to serve as a model for a systematic approach to long-term salmon recovery efforts
on the Klamath River. .. -
Winchester Lake Watershed Project: Local Partners Join
in Implementing TMDL Plan
Winchester Lake is located within the exterior boundaries of the Nez Perce Reservation, about
30 miles southeast of Lewiston, Idaho. Originally, the lake served as a mill pond from'1910 to
1963. The 100-acre body of water is now the central focus of a 218-acre State Park that surrounds the lake.
In the late 1980s, local residents and visitors increasingly complained about the lake's nuisance algae
blooms and poor water clarity. In 1990, through EPA's Clean Lakes Program, high levels of nutrients and
low levels of dissolved oxygen were identified as adversely affecting water quality in the lake. In 1996
Idaho's 303(d) list of impaired waters identified Winchester Lake as not meeting state water quality stan- .
dards, requiring the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
A local Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) was formed in 1998 to develop recommendations for
improvements that they wanted to see installed in the area. The WAG members are local residents from
all sectors, including stakeholders from the agriculture and grazing communities, forestry, the Nez Perce
Tribe, the Road District, city government, and recreation. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
was developed between the state of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, and EPA with die intent to work coEectiyely
on the development of the TMDL. In February 1999 die TMDL was completed and approved, repre-
senting the success -of the collaborative approach of the many agencies and the WAG.
Following die completion of the TMDL, the Nez Perce Tribe received 319 funding to help imple-
ment water quality projects in die watershed, as an integral piece of the TMDL's phased implementation
plan. Funds were used to restore two forest road segments noted as high sediment producers in the
TMDL. Gates for seasonal closure were also installed to restrict travel during die wet season.
Using 319 funds, the tribe collaborated with private landowners along die stream corridor.to en-
hance riparian shading'and stabilize streambanks. In spring 2000, volunteers and personnel from Nez
Perce Tribe Water Resources, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Soil Conservation
Commission planted 150 trees and shrubs. A larger planting effort for 2,500 shrubs was planned for die
remainder of the corridor. •
These ongoing improvements are possible because of the collaborative efforts among the many Nez
Perce tribal departments, state and federal agencies, private landowners, and members of the watershed
group. Restoration efforts in this watershed will continue widi additional 319 funding for agricultural
practices, livestock best management practices, riparian plantings, culvert replacements for fish passage.
and maintenance, and road rehabilitation. ' ',
Tribal Section 319 Projects .
121Q
-------
Water Quality Best Management Practices Plan: Choctaw
Tribe Addresses Soil Erosion
The Mississippi Choctaw trust lands consist of eight individual communities in eight counties of
east-central Mississippi and encompass more than 24,000 acres. Land ownership in these eight
communities is like a checkerboard, adjoined and fragmented by non-Indian lands. The tribe is currently
acquiring additional land parcels as they become available to consolidate the Choctaw ownership pattern
to facilitate access and management capabilities and the delivery of services to its members. The
Choctaw population is more than 8,100. Siltation resulting from various silviculture, construction, and
resource extraction activities has been identified as the primary nonpoint source pollutant affecting water
quality on the Choctaw lands. Soil losses to erosion in some upland (hilly) areas might be as high as 40 to
50 tons per acre per year. In some places the land is devoid of adequate tree, brush, or grass cover; in
others, skid trails, fire lanes, and roads have created gullies that cause annual soil losses in excess of 100
tons per acre per year. . .
To address these problems, the Choctaw Tribe has developed a Water Quality Best Management
Practices Plan for tribal lands. A Natural Resource Conservation Committee will oversee the implementa-
tion of best management practices (BMPs) to address erosion and siltation problems. Various BMPs will
be used, including the use of both vegetative and structural measures during construction in residential
areas to control erosion and sedimentation. '
The plan also calls for the development and passing of tribal ordinances adopting erosion and sedi-
ment controls for disturbed areas and enforcement of selected BMPs. There are plans to hold meetings
with stakeholders to discuss and implement the plan.
Monitoring activities will be conducted to identify discharge points, drainage patterns, direction of
flow, water quality at surface water bodies affected by discharges, locations of significant materials exposed
to Storm water, and structural measures to control erosion and siltation. The data will also indicate the
tstYect that recent changes in construction management activities have on water quality in the watershed.
Contact Information; Bernadette Hudnell, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, P.O. Box 6013, Choctaw Branch, Philadelphia, MS
39350, 601-656-5251
2201Q Tnbal Section 319 Rejects
-------
Restoring Little Porcupine Creek: Alternative Water
Sources and Grazing Rotation Help to Restore Stream
1 everal years ago Little Porcupine Creek .was listed as the most impaired water body on-the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation in northeastern Montana. The area was broken into two pastures, and the
stream was being used as the only source of water. It was heavily used by cattle, which congregated along
this source of water and shade.
In 1998 the Assinjboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation received 319 funding to
embark on a 13,000-acre restoration effort in the watershed. The tribes also collaborated with the Natu-
ral Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to obtain technical assistance, as well as financial support
through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
Part of the project focused on helping vegetation to recover through increased fencing to promote
better rotation of cattle grazing. Where only 2 pastures had previously been, extensive fencing broke the
area into 17 pastures, allowing the tribal ranch manager to use a deferred rotation grazing system to move
cattle through each pasture twice, a year.
NRCS engineers helped to design new pipeline routes to provide alternative sources of drinking
water for the cattle to decrease the cattle's visits (and ensuing damage) to the stream. Indian contractors
then installed more than 14 miles of water pipeline, allowing access to watering tanks in each pasture.
The project was recently completed, and monitoring will provide information on its effects within a
year. Studies of the vegetative growth in the project area will be conducted, as well as continued
macroinvertebrate monitoring and studies of the physical characteristics of the stream itself.
Contact information: Debi Madison, Environmental Director, Fort Peck Tribes, 406-768-5155 (ext. 399)
Streambank Restoration at Bradley and Standingdeer Campgrounds:
An Innovative Solution Solves a Common Problem
The Cherokee Indian Reservation in the southern Appalachian Mountains of western North Carolina
comprises some 56,000 acres. The topography of much of the reservation land consists of very
steep slopes and narrow valleys. In this area, soils are thin and generally highly erodible. Siltation is the.
primary cause of impairment of tribal waters. Major sources of siltation have resulted from past logging
practices, gravel mining, road construction, housing construction, landfill; and other development activi-
ties. The rock/gravel mined area of Soco Creek has been designated a priority area fo_r streambank resto-
ration and reduction of nonpoint source pollution. •
Sites on Soco Creek and the Oconaluftee River have undergone streambank restoration by stabiliza-
tion techniques. Two sites where streambank restorations have been completed, are Bradley Campground
Tribal Section 319 Projects.
LZZt
-------
and Standingdeer Campground. At these sites, erosion from overland flow had resulted from land distur-
bance due to the high level of foot traffic by campers. A large part of the problem was campers creating
footpaths and removing riparian vegetation on streambanks, leaving the banks vulnerable to erosion
during storm events. ' •
The objective of the project was to reduce erosion from overland flow and from streambank failure
as the streams undercut their banks at both Bradley and Standingdeer Campgrounds. Components of the
project were designed to restrict campers' access down credible streambanks and redirect their access
down nonerodible steps.
An Innovative solution
To reduce erosion, native riparian trees and shrubs were planted, along with grass seeding, and coconut
erosion control fabric was installed to hold the soil in place until the vegetation was established. In addi-
tion to the benefits of holding soil in place, the vegetation will eventually grow into a barrier that restricts
campers' movement down the streambanks. Using a method developed by Dave Rosgen of Wildland
Hydrology (Pagosa Springs, Colorado), access to the stream was provided by making a modification to
rock vanes. Without compromising the hydraulic design of the rock vanes, they were extended approxi-
mately 3 feet above their normal design elevation to the top of the streambank, which is the level of the
rest of the campground. The purpose of extending the vanes was to make solid rock (boulder) stair steps
that serve as access points for campers to enter the stream corridor.
In this project, reVegetation and rock vane 'construction were successfully employed for streambank
restoration. Revegetation solved the erosion problem from overland storm flow, while construction of
rock vanes addressed undercutting of the streambanks. The constructed vanes slow floodwater velocities
near the banks and deflect high-velocity water toward the channel center to replicate conditions in
healthy natural channels.
Contact Information; Dannie Childers, Environmental Planner, Tribal Environmental Office, P.O. Box 455, Cherokee, NC 28719,
828497-3814
222
Tnbal Section 319 Projects
-------
Appendix
Success Story Index and Sources
State
Success Story
Page
Source
Alabama
Flint Creek Watershed
Project: Multiagency
Effort Results in Water
Quality Improvements
Submitted by Norm Blakely, Alabama Department
of Environmental Management.
Alabama
Tuscumbia-Fort Payne
Aquifer Protection
Program: Multiagency,
Cooperative Approach
Protects Aquifer
Information for this success story was gleaned
from "A Multi-Agency Cooperative Approach to
Aquifer Protection: Program Completion," by Enid
Probst, Ph.D., Alabama Department of
Environmental Management. Submitted by Norm
Blakey, Alabama Department of Environmental
Management.
Alaska
Restoration Work on the
Kenai: Section 3T9
Funds Are Key to Youth
Restoration Corps's
Success
10
Submitted by Kent Patrick-Riley, Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Alaska
Road and Stream
Crossing Project in
Tongass National Forest:
New Data Help Identify
Needed Fish Habitat
Restoration
11
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Tongass Road Condition Survey Report
(Technical Report No. 00-7) by Linda Shea
Flanders and Jim Cariello, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division,
June 2000. Submitted by Kent Patrick-Riley, Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
American Samoa
Nu'uuli Pala Lagoon
Restoration Project:
Efforts Spread to Other
Island Villages
12
Submitted by Carl Goldstein, EPA Region 9.'
Arizona
Restoration in Nutrioso
Creek: Successful Results
Beginning to Show
13
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Nutrioso Creek Turbidity TMDL, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (July 2000),
and James Crosswhite, EC Bar Ranch web site at
www.ecbarranch.com. Submitted by Ephraim
Leon-Guerrero, EPA Region 9..
Arizona
Sediment Reduction at
Hackberry Ranch:
Reduction of 4 Tons Per
Acre Realized
16
Submitted by'Kris Randall, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
Arkansas
Buffalo National River
Watershed Partnerships:
Partners Improve Swine
Waste Management
17
Submitted by Sandi Formica, Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality.- Project
summary authors also include John Giese, Tim
Kresse, Tony Morris, Matt Van Eps, and McRee
Anderson of ADEQ and Dr. Tommy Daniel, of the
University of Arkansas.. *
Appendix
IA-1
-------
Appendix (cent.)
State
Arkansas
California
California
Colorado
Colorado
Connecticut
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
District of
Columbia
Success Story
A Community Approach
to Managing Manure in
the Buffalo River
Watershed: Local
Watershed Assistance
Program Helps Dairy
Farmers
Grassland Bypass Project:
Economic Incentives
Program Helps to
Improve Water Quality
Turning History Around:
Stream Restoration
Reclaims a Meadow While
Helping to Control Floods
Mining Remediation in
the Chalk Creek
Watershed: Project
Demonstrates Exciting
Possibilities
Rio Blanco Restoration:
Adopted Rocks and
Homemade Jelly Help
Fund Demonstration
Project
Center Springs Pond
Restoration Project:
Skaters and Fish Return
to Pond
Lake Waramaug
Watershed Agricultural
Waste Management
System: One Farm Can
Make a Difference
Partners Upgrade Septic
Systems in Coverdale
Crossroads: Quality of Life
Improved for Residents
Marsh Restoration and
Island Enhancement
Projects at Kingman Lake:
tidal Wetland Habitats
Re-created
The Watts Branch
Initiative: Community
Involvement Key to
Success
Page
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
34
36
Source
Submitted by Sandi Formica, Arkansas Department
of Environmental Quality. Information for this
success story was gleaned from Proceedings of
Dairy Manure Systems, Equipment and Technology:
A Conference for Producers and Their Advisors, by
Sandi J. Formica, McRee Anderson, Matthew Van
Eps, Tony Morris, and Puneet Srivastava; Rochester,
New York, March 20-22, 2001.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Grassland Bypass "Project Description and
Update." Submitted by Katherine Domeny,
California Environmental Protection Agency, and
Joe McGahan, Drainage Coordinator for the
Grassland Area Farmers.
Submitted by Katherine Domeny, California State
Water Resources Control Board.
Submitted by Laurie Fisher, Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment.
Submitted by Laurie Fisher, Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment.
.Submitted by Mel Cote, EPA Region
Submitted by Mel Cote, EPA Region
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Delaware's l^onpoint Source Program
Annual Report (January 1, 1999, 'to December 31,
1999).
Submitted by Sheila Besse, D.C. Department of
Health.
Submitted by Sheila Besse, D.C Department of
Health.
A-2|
I Appendix
-------
Appendix fcont.)
State
Florida
Florida
Georgia
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Hawaii
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Success Story
Blackwater River
Restoration: Project
Demonstrates Mechanics
of Erosion and
Effectiveness of BMPs
Brevard County's Urban
Storm Water Retrofitting
Projects: Lessons Learned
About Design, Location,
and Monitoring
Broad River Streambank
Stabilization Project: Tree
Revetments Rescue
Eroding Banks
North Griffin Storm Water
Detention Pond Project:
Constructed Wetland
System Protects Water,
Wins Award
Ugum Watershed Project:
Students Plant Acacia
Seedlings to Help Restore
Watershed
He'eia Coastal
Restoration Project:
Thousands of Volunteers
Replace Alien Plants with
Native Species
Integration of
Aquaculture with Taro
Production: Nonpoint
Source Pollutants
Reduced in
Demonstration Project
Conservation in Hatwai
Creek: Partners Work
Together on Four
Successful Projects
Restoring the Paradise
Creek Watershed: Phased
Approach Implemented
to Address Pollution and
Flooding
Streambank Stabilization
in the Thomas Fork
Watershed: Photo
Monitoring Sells
Landowners on Bank
Stabilization
Page
37
38
40
41
42
43
44
45
47
49
Source
Submitted by Eric Livingston, Florida Department
of Environmental Protection.
Submitted by Eric Livingston, Florida Department
of Environmental Protection.
Information for this success story was gleaned.
from the project brochure Protecting &
Enhancing Streambanks in the Broad River
Watershed, Chestatee-Chattahoochee Resource
Conservation & Development Council, Inc.
Submitted by Jim Wren, Oconee River RC&D.
Information for this success story was gleaned
.from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program
web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/
projects/index.htm. . . .
Submitted by Michael Lee, EPA Region 9, Pacific
Insular Area Programs, Guam Water Program
Lead.
Submitted by Denis Lau, RE., Chief, Clean Water
Branch, State of Hawaii, Department of Health.
Submitted by Denis Lau, RE., Chief, Clean Water
Branch, State of Hawaii, Department of Health.
Submitted by Gary Dailey Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality.
Submitted by Gary Dailey, Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality.
Submitted by Craig Thomas, Bear Lake Regional
Commission.
Appendix
|A-3
-------
Appendix (cont,,)
State
Illinois
Illinois
Indiana
Indiana
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Kansas
Kansas
Kentucky
Success Story
Lake Pittsfield Project:
Ninety Percent Reduction
in Sediment Loading
Achieved
Restoration of the Flint
Creek Watershed:
Restoration Partnership
Completes Multiple
Projects
Blue River Riparian
Reforestation: The Nature
Conservancy Gets
Landowners Involved .
Little Pine Creek and
Indian Watersheds:
Constructed Wetland
System Averts Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Bigalk Creek Watershed
Project: Rainbow Trout
Population Rebounds
The Lake Fisher Water
Quality Project: Chipped
Tires Help Protect Public
Water Supply
Pine Creek Water Quality
Project: Life Expectancy
of Pine Lakes Extended
Braeburn Golf Course
Project: Nitrates Reduced
by More Than 80 Percent
On-site Sewage Disposal
on Difficult Sites: Special
Conditions Demand
Alternative Response
Elkhorn Creek BMP
Demonstration Project:
Farmers See Water
Supply Alternatives in
Action.
Page
50
52
53
55
56
57
59
60
62
63
Source
Submitted by Barb Lieberoff, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency.
Submitted by Barb Lieberoff, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency.
'Submitted by Jill Reinhar, Indiana Department of
Environmental Management, .
jreinhar@dem.state.in. us.
Submitted by Jill Reinhar, Indiana Department of
Environmental Management,
jreinhar@dem.state. in. us.
Submitted by Kevin Baskins, Iowa Department of
Natural Resources.
information for this success story was gleaned
from Iowa's nonpoint source brochures at
www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/epd/wtrq/
npsource/nptbro.htm. Submitted by Kevin
Baskins, Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Information for'this success story was gleaned
from Iowa's nonpoint source brochures at
www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/epd/wtrq/
npsource/nptbro.htm. Submitted by Kevin
Baskins, Iowa Department of Natural Resources:
Information for this success story was gleaned'
from the Wichita State University web site on the
Braeburn Golf Course Project at http://
webs.wichita.edu/biology/319Web/
Braeburn_Golf_Course_Project.htm. Submitted
by Lisa Duncan, Kansas Department of Health
and Environment, and Nate Davis, Wichita State
University. : '.
Submitted by Lisa Duncan, Kansas Department of
Health and Environment.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program
web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/
projects/ihdex.htm.
A-4 BEEI Appendix
-------
Appendix (cont.)
State
Louisiana
Louisiana
Maine
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Michigan
Michigan
Minnesota
Success Story
Bayou Plaquemine Bruie:
Louisiana Applies Satellite
Imagery to Watershed
Planning and
Management
Flat River and Red Chute
Bayou Watersheds: BMPs
Reduce Soil Loss
Highland Lake Water-
shed Project: Hotspots
Model Links Land Use
and Water Quality
Silver Spring Brook
Watershed
Demonstration Project-
Landowners' Cooperation
Pius Town's Commitment
Equals Success
Evaluating the
Effectiveness of
Maryland's Forestry
BMPs: Paired Watershed
Study Tests BMP
Performance
Broad Marsh River Storm
Water Remediation
Project: Infiltration
Structures Reduce
Pollutants, Save Shellfish
Beds
Lake Tashmoo Storm
Water Remediation
Project: First Flush
Leaching Basins More
Effective Than Expected
Innovative Farmers of
Michigan: Blending Farm
Profitability and Water
Quality Protection
Little Rabbit River
Watershed Project: One-
to-One Approach Wins
Landowners' Support
North St. Paul Urban
Ecology Center: Wetland
Improvements Needed to
Control Storm Water
Page
64
66
67
69
7\
72
74
76
78
80
Source
Submitted by Jan Boydstun, Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Louisiana's Noripoint Source Management
Programs Annual Report (2000). Submitted by Jan
Boydstun, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality.
Submitted by Norm Marcotte, Maine Department
of Environmental Protection.
Submitted by Norm Marcotte, Maine Department
of Environmental Protection.
N/A .
Submitted, by Elizabeth McCann, Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection.
Submitted by Elizabeth McCann, Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection.
Submitted by Karol Smith, Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the Allegan Conservation District report The
Gateway to Natural Resources Management: Little
Rabbit Watershed Project. Submitted by Karol
Smith, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality.
Submitted by Sarah Lehmann,. EPA Region 5.
Appendix
IA-5
-------
Appendix (cont.)
State
Minnesota
Mississippi
Mississippi
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Montana
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nevada
Nevada
New Hampshire
Success Story
Prior Lake/Spring Lake
Improvement Project:
Long-Term
Implementation Strategy
Off to a Good Start
Muddy Creek Watershed
Demonstration Project:
BMPs Retain 3,500 Tons
of Soil per Year
Roebuck Lake
Demonstration Project:
Slotted-Board Risers
Installed to Save Topsoil
and Improve Water
Quality
Mississippi Delta Irrigation
Water Management
Project: Irrigation
Efficiency Improved
Upper Niangua Grazing
Demonstration Project-
Counties Unite to Start
Demonstration Farms
Careless Creek Watershed
Project: Sediment Delivery
Reduced by 25 Percent
Restoration in Muddy
Creek: Will a Name
Change Be Needed?
Walnut Creek Lake
Project: Partnership Drives
Watershed Protection
Wellhead Protection in
Guide Rock: Village Closes
Abandoned Wells to
Protect Water Supply
Martin Slough Water
Quality Enhancement
Project: Water Quality
Improves in the Upper
Carson River Basin
Middle Carson River
Restoration Project:
Bioengineering Used to
Restore Unstable Banks
Chocorua Lake Project: '
BMPs Reduce Phosphorus
by 82 Percent
Page
81
83
84
85
87
90
92
94
95
97
98
TOO
Source ;
Submitted by Sarah Lehmann, EPA Region 5.
Information for this success story was gleaned .
from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program
web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/ ,
projects/index, htm.
N/A
Submitted 'by Becky Shannon and Tod Hudson,
Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
Submitted by Becky Shannon and Colleen
Meredith, Missouri Department of Natural
Resources.
Submitted by Jim Bauermeister, Montana
Department of Environmental Quality.
Submitted by Jim Bauermeister, Montana
Department of Environmental Quality.
Submitted by Elbert Traylor, Nebraska Department
. of Environmental Quality.
Submitted by Eibert Traylor and Tom Malmstrom,
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
Submitted by: Mary Kay Riedl, Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection.
Submitted by Mary Kay Riedl, Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection.
Submitted by Eric Williams, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services,
A 6|
i .Appendix
-------
Appendix (cent.)
State
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Mexico
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Dakota
Success Story
Lake Opechee Watershed
Project: City-State
Partnership Takes on
Multiple Pollutants
Restoration of Strawbridge
Lake: Volunteers Assist in
Stabilizing Shoreline and
Constructing Wetlands
The Stony Brook-Millstone
Watershed Restoration
Project: Streamwatch
Volunteers Monitor
Success of Restoration
Efforts
Lower Bitter Creek
Restoration Project:
Sediment Loads Reduced
by Implementing BMPs
Valle Grande Grass Bank
Water Quality
Improvement Project:
Success Breeds More
Success
Keuka Lake Watershed:
Grape Growers
Implement Soil
Conservation Practices
Wappingers Creek
Watershed: AEM Plays a
Vital Role
Edenton Storm Water
Wetland Project: Wetland
Systems Reduce Nitrogen
Concentrations
Goose Creek Urban Stream
Rehabilitation Project:
Ecosystem Protection
Practices Installed in Low-
Income Neighborhood
Cottonwood Creek
Watershed: Project Is a
Success in the Works
Page
101
103
104
105
ro?
109
1.10
111
113
114
Source
Submitted by Eric Williams, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services.
Information for this success story was gleaned .
from New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protections Watershed Focus (Summer 2000).
Submitted by Liz Semple, New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection.
Information for this success story was gleaned __
from New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection's Watershed Focus (Summer 2000).
Submitted by Liz Semple and Mike Haberland,
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. •
Submitted by Peter Monahan, New Mexico
Environment Department.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from FY 2000 Work Plan, Valle Grande Grass Bank
Water Quality Improvement Projects: A Composite
of Projects Within the Valle Grande Grass Bank
Program. Submitted by Peter Monahan, New
'Mexico Environment Department.
Information for this success story'was. gleaned from
- Agricultural Environmental Management Report
(2000) and the Keuka Lake Association web site at:
www.keukalakeassoc.org/. Submitted by Lester
Travis, Yates County Soil and Water Conservation
District, and Barbara Silvestri, New York State Soil
and Water. Conservation Committee.
information for this success story was gleaned
from the draft Agricultural Environmental
Management Report (2001). Submitted by
Barbara Silvestri, NewYork State Soil and Water
Conservation Committee.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program
web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/
projects/index.htm. For more information on the
project, go to www.bae.ncsu.edu/research/
evans_web/etd/kibass.pdf. Submitted by Alan
Clark, North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
, Information for this success story was gleaned
from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program
web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/
projects/index.htm. Submitted by Alan Clark,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Submitted by Greg Sandness, North Dakota
Department of Health.
Appendix
kA-7
-------
Appendix (com.)
State
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Success Story
Red River Basin Riparian
Project: Turtle River Site
Passes the Test
Stillwater River Watershed
Protection Project: High
Local Interest Helps
Launch Watershed Project
Toussaint River Incentive
Improvement Program:
Buffer Project Becomes a
Model of Conservation
Partnership
Acid Mine Drainage
Treatment Wetlands: A
Sustainable Solution for
Abandoned Mine
Problems
Poteau River
Comprehensive Watershed
Management Program:
Local Involvement Ensures
Program Sustainability
The Spring Creek Project:
Streambanks Stabilized
Through Stream
Restoration
Dawson Wetland
Restoration Project:
Landowners and
Wetlands Both Win
South Myrtle Creek Ditch
Project: Removal of Dam
Benefits Aquatic Life
Wet Meadow Restoration
in the Upper Grande
Ronde Basin: Channel
Restoration Brings Cooler
Waters
Page
117
119
120
122
124
126
128
129
131
Source '
Information for this success story was gleaned .
from Quality Water Newsletter [Spring 1997),
www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/pubs/wq/qw/
v8n2/v8n2.htm. Submitted by Linda Kingery,
Riparian Project Manager, and Greg Sandness,
North Dakota Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management Coordinator.
Submitted by Alicia Brown, EPA Region 5.
Submitted by Alicia Brown, EPA Region 5.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Use of Staged Wetlands for Mitigation of
Acid Mine Drainage, Oklahoma's FY 1 995 3 1 9(h)
Task Report No. 800 (OCC Task No. 7 1 ), C9-
996 1 00-03-0. Submitted by Scott Stoodley
Oklahoma Conservation Commission.
Submitted by Shanon Phillips, Oklahoma
Conservation Commission, and Nikole Witt, EPA
Region 6.
Submitted by Greg Kloxin, Oklahoma
Conservation Commission.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the Oregon Department of Environmental
Qualitys Watershed Improvement Project Bulletin:
Dawson Wet/and Restoratipn Project, Douglas ,
County, Oregon. Submitted by Ivan Camacho,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the Oregon Department of Environmental
Qualitys Watershed Improvement Project Bulletin:
South Myrtle Creek Ditch Project, Douglas County,
Oregon. Project Completion Report by Bob
Kinyon, Umpqua Basin Watershed Council,
February 200 1 . Submitted by Ivan Camacho,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Grande Ronde Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Project, Temperature
Monitoring Summary Report, 1 993- 1 998 by Larry
Whitney, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality.
A-8|
I Appendix
-------
Appendix (cont.)
State
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode island
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Dakota
South Dakota
Tennessee
Success Story
Narrows Bioengineering
Project: Cold-Water
Fishery Restored Through
Bioengineering
Villanova's Storm Water
Wetland Retrofit: BMP
Treats Runoff and
Provides Research Site
Coastal Nonpoint Source
Controls: Executive Order
Adopts Section 62 1 7(g)
Management Measures as
Official Policy
Curran Brook
Sedimentation Pond:
Multiple Partners
Construct Storm Water
Control System
Galilee Salt Marsh
Restoration: Undersized
Culverts Replaced with
Self-Regulating Gates
Constructed Wetlands for
Failing Septic Tanks: New
Technologies Solve an Old
Problem
Stevens Creek Watershed
Project: Demonstration
Sites Show Reductions in
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Big Stone Lake
Restoration Project: Better
Water Quality Improves
Fisheries, Recreation
Management-Intensive
Grazing Project: Rotational
Grazing Reduces Erosion,
Increases Profits
Ghost River Land
Acquisition Project: River
Protected by Restoring
Forested Wetlands
Page
132
133
135
136
137
139
140
141
143
144
.Source
Information for this success story was gleaned from
The Narrows Bioengineering Section 3 1 9 Grant
Project Proposal and The Narrows Bioengineering
Section 319 Grant Project Final Report. Submitted
by Russell Wagner, Pennsylvania Department of
.Environmental Protection. ,
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Conversion of an Urban Stormwater
Detention Basin to a Wetland Best Management
Practice, Final Report (December 2000), and the
project web page at www8 7. homepage,
villanova.edu/robert.traver (select "3 1 9
Stormwater Wetland Retrofit"). Submitted by
Russell Wagner, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection.
Submitted by Katie Lynch, EPA Region 2.
•Submitted by Jim Riordan, Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management.
Submitted by Jim Riordan, Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management..
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program
. web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/
projects/index, htm.
Information for this success story was gleaned (in
part) from The Stevens Creek Watershed Project
(Technical Report No. 010-99), December 1999.
Submitted by Doug Fabel, South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Submitted by Duane Murphy, South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the South Dakota Association of
Conservation Districts' web site at
www.sd.nacdnet.org/grazing/index.html.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program
web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/
projects/index, htm.
Appendix
IA-9
-------
Appendix (coni,,)
State
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Utah
Vermont
Vermont
Virginia
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Success Story
Using Constructed
Wetlands to Clean Up
Pesticides: Container
Nurseries Will Benefit
from Successful Pilot-Scale
Study
Atrazine Problems in the
Lake Aquilla and Marlin
City Lake System: Farmers
Take a Proactive Stance
On-Farm Composting of
Dairy Cattle Solid Waste:
Protecting Water Quality
While Producing a
Salable Product
Little Bear River Project-
Voluntary Approaches
Yield Success
Success in the Chalk
Creek Watershed:
Reduced Phosphorus,
Enhanced Habitat Result
Flow Restoration Below
Hydroelectric Facilities:
Relicensing Offers
Opportunity to Increase
Stream Flows
Lake Champlain Basin
Watershed Project-
Significant Pollutant
Reductions Achieved ,
Cabin Branch Mine
Orphaned Land Project:
Flora and Fauna Benefit
from A/line Reclamation
Toncrae Mine Orphaned
Land Project: Mine Site
Reclamation Increases
Species Diversity
Virgin Islands
Partnership: Alternative
Treatment Systems
Prevent Contamination of
Coastal Waters
Best Management
Practices on Model Horse
Farms: Farm Plan
Management Reduces
Nutrients and Sediment
Page
146
147
148
149
151
153
154
156
158
160
161
f . , /, • • • • r r • • ' , -; f i
Source
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program
websiteatwww.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/
projects/index, htm. , '
N/A
N/A
Submitted by Jack Wilbur, Utah Department of
Agriculture and Food. ,
Submitted by Jack Wilbur, Utah Department of
Agriculture and Food.
Submitted by Rick Hopkins,. Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources.
Submitted by Rick Hopkins, Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources. •
Submitted by Rick Hill, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation.
Submitted by Rick Hill, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation. ,
Submitted by Donna Somboonlakana, EPA
Region 2.
Information for this success story was gleaned .
from Year 2000 Report on Activities to Implement
Washington State's Water Quality Plan to Control
Nonpoint Source Pollution, March 200 1 .
Submitted by Gabrielle Kirouac, Washington State
Department of Ecology.
A-TOI
.Appendix
-------
Appendix (cont.)
State
Washington
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Wyoming
Success Story
A Moo-ving Approach to
Dairy Waste Management:
Fecaf Coliform Pollution
Reduced in Whatcom
County
Sediment Reduction in
Yakima River Basin:
People Become Stewards
of Their Own Watershed
The North Fork Project:
Farmers' Cooperation
Leads to Proposed
Delisting of Degraded
River
Otter Creek Project: 319
National Monitoring
Program Goals Met
Success in Spring Creek
Watershed: Natural
Reproduction of Trout
Confirms Water Quality
Improvement
Jackson Hole Rodeo
Grounds Snow Storage
Site: Filtration System
Reduces Urban Storm
Water Runoff
Muddy Creek
Coordinated Resource
Management Project:
Cattle Ranches and Trout
Streams Can Coexist
Page
162
164
165
168
169
170
172
Source
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Year 2000 Report on Activities to Implement
Washington State's Water Quality Plan to Control
Nonpo'int Source Pollution, March 2001 .
Submitted by Gabrielle Kirouac, Washington 'State
Department of Ecology.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Year 2000 Report on Activities to Implement
Washington States Water Quality Plan to Control
Nonpoint Source Pollution, March 2001 .
Submitted by Gabrielle Kirouac, Washington State
Department of Ecology.
Submitted by Leo Essenthier, EPA Region 3.
, Information for this success story was gleaned
from Section 3 ! 9 Nonpoint Source National
Monitoring Program Successes and
Recommendations by LA. Lombardo, G.L
Grabos, J, Spooner, D.E. Line, D.L Osmond, and
G.D. Jennings, NCSU Water Quality Group,
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh. Submitted by Tom Davenport, EPA
Regions.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Responses of Stream Habitat,
Macroinvertebrate, and Fish to Watershed BMPs:
Lessons From Wisconsin, by Lizhu Wang, John
Lyons, Paul Kanehl, David Marshall, and Michael
Sorge, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Watershed Management 2000'
Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada. Also. see the EPA Region 5 web site at
www.epa.gov/r5water/wshednps/
sc_watershed,htm. Submitted by Russ
Rassmussen, Chief, Runoff Management Section,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Submitted by Brian Lovett and Steve Bubnick,
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.
Submitted by Steve Bubnick, Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality.
Appendix
-------
Appendix (con!;.)
State
Success Story
Page
Source
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
North Dakota
Rhode Island
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Ranch Water Quality
Planning: Voluntary
Rangeland Management
Eases Impacts on
California Watershed
Colorado Water
Protection Project:
League of Women Voters
Guides Extensive Urban
NPS Campaign
Nonpoint Education for
Municipal Officials
(NEMO): Successful
Connecticut Project Used
as a Model Nationwide
Florida Yards &
Neighborhoods Program:
More than 1.2 Million
People Reached
The Salt Creek Wilderness:
Illinois Zoo Offers
Interactive Environmental
Learning Experience
North Dakota Eco-Ed
Camps: Thousands of
Students Have Fun While
Learning
University of Rhode
Island Onsite Wastewater
Training Center:
Pioneering Agency
Teaches, Demonstrates
Innovative Systems
Water Action Volunteers:
WAV and Its Partners
Make a Difference in
Wisconsin
Stream Monitoring
Network with Wyoming
Schools: Trained Teams
Initiate, Expand School
Monitoring Programs
175
176
177
179
180
182
183
184
185
Information for this success story was gleaned
from "Opportunity, Responsibility, Accountability,"
California Environmental Protection Agency, State
Water Resources Control Board.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Colorado Extensive Urban Nonpoint Source
Pollution Campaign, by Randy Ristau, Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment,
EPA Region 8 Natural News (EPA 908-F-00-009),
Fall 2000. Submitted by Laurie Fisher, Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment .
Information for this success story was gleaned (in
part) from Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection web site at http://
dep.state.ct.us/wtr. Submitted by Mel Cote, EPA
Region 1 , and Laurie Giannotti, University of
Connecticut Cooperative Extension System.
N/A
Submitted by Barb Lieberoff, Illinois Environmental'
Protection Agency.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from North Dakota Department of Health, Quality
Water Newsletter, Vol 8, No. 4 (Fall 1 997).
Submitted by Jim Riordan, Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management.
Submitted by Carol Holden, NPS Education
Coordinator, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.
Submitted by Steve Bubnick, Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality.
A-121
Appendix
-------
Appendix (cont.)
State
Success Story
Page
Source
INNOVATIVE STATE PROGRAMS
California
Hawaii
Idaho
Massachusetts
New York
South Carolina
National
California's BIOS Program:
Growers Adopt Whole-
System Management
Approach to Reduce
Pesticide Use
Maui County Erosion and
Sediment Control Training
Project: Workshops
Explain Ordinance, Teach
BMP Installation
Idaho's Dairy Pollution
Prevention Initiative:
Unique Program
Eliminates Direct Dairy
Discharges
Creating a Storm Water
Utility in Chicopee,
Massachusetts: Project
Praised as Outstanding
Planning Project
New York's Agricultural
Environmental
Management Program:
Incentive-based Program
Helps Farmers Meet
Tough Standards
South Carolina Forestry
BMP Compliance Program:
Proactive Strategy Raises
BMP Compliance Rate
Statewide Clean Marina
Programs: BMPs,
Recognition, and
Outreach Help Protect
Coastal Resources
187
189
191
193
195
197
198
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Opportunity, Responsibility, Accountability,
California Environmental Protection Agency, State
Water Resources Control Board.
Submitted by Denis Lau, RE., Chief, Clean Water
Branch, State of Hawaii, Department of Health.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from The Idaho Dairy Pollution Prevention
Initiative, Innovations in American Government
200 1 Semifinalist Application, April 200 1 .
Submitted by Gary Voerman and Warren McFall,
EPA Region 1.0.
Submitted by Elizabeth McCann, Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Agricultural Environmental Management
Report.(2000 and 200 1 ). Submitted by Gerard
Chartier, New York State Department of
• Environmental Conservation, and Barbara '
Silvestri, New York State Soil and Water
Conservation Committee.
Submitted by Doug Fabel, South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control.
N/A
STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS
California
California
Florida
Georgia
California's Water Bond
Program
California's Loan
Programs
Florida Forever Program
Georgia's Greenspace
Program
201
202
202
203
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.swrcb.ca.gov/prop13/
Information for this success story was gleaned
from Opportunity, Responsibility, Accountability,
California Environmental Protection Agency, State
Water Resources Control Board.
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.dca.state.fl.us/ffct/
florida_forever_program.html
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.ganet.org/dnr/greenspace/index.html
Appendix
-------
Appendix (cent.)
•• in
-.State
Iowa
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
National
National
Success Story
Iowa's Water Quality
Initiative
Maine's Funding
Programs
Clean Michigan Initiative
Minnesota's Clean Water
Partnership Program
Reinvest in Minnesota
(RIM) Program
New Hampshire'sWater
Supply Land Conservation
Grant Program
New Jersey's Funding
Programs
New York's Clean Water/
Clean Air Bond Act
North Carolina's Clean
Water Management Trust
Fund
Clean Ohio Fund
Oregon's Watershed
Restoration Grants
Pennsylvania's Growing
Greener Program
Vermont's Funding
Programs
Virginia's Water Quality
Improvement Act
Washington's Water
Quality Funding Programs
Wisconsin's Grant
Programs for Runoff
Management
State Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Programs
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Programs
Page
203
205
206
206
207
208
208
209
209
210
210
211
212
213
214
214
215
215
Source
Information for this success story was gleaned
from The Iowa Water Quality Initiative: Better
Water for a Better Iowa, Department of Natural
Resources and the Department of Agriculture and
Land Stewardship (August 2000).
Submitted by Norm Marcotte, Maine Department
of Environmental Protection.
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.state. mi. us/exec/cmi/cmiimp/html.
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.pca.state.mn.us/water/cwpartnerhtml.
Information for this success story was gleaned from
The RIM Program Annual Report (January 2000) .
Submitted by Carol Holden, NFS Education
Coordinator, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.
Submitted by Steve Bubnick, Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality.
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.dec.state.ny.us/website/bondact/index.html.
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.cwmtf.net.
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.dnr.state.oh.us/cleanohiofund.
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.oweb.state.or.us.
Submitted by Russ Wagner, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection.
Submitted by Eric Perkins, EPA Region 1 .
Information for this story was gleaned. from
www.dcr.state.va. us/sw/wqia.htm.
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding.
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps/
npsprogram.html.
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep/crepstates.htm
Information for this story was gleaned from
www.epa.gov/owm/cwsrf.htm.
A-141
I .Appendix
-------
Appendix (conf.)
State
TRIBAL SECTION 3
California Tribal
Idaho Tribal
Mississippi Tribal
Montana Tribal
North Carolina
Tribal
Success Story
19 PROJECTS
Restoring Watersheds by
Decommissioning Forest
Roads: Karuk Tribe and
Forest Service Form
Successful Partnership
Winchester Lake
Watershed Project: Local
Partners Join in
Implementing TMDL Plan
Water Quality Best
Management Practices
Plan: Choctaw Tribe
Addresses Soil Erosion
Restoring Little Porcupine
Creek: Alternative Water
Sources and Grazing
Rotation Help to Restore
Stream
Streambank Restoration
at Bradley and
Standingdeer
Campgrounds: An
Innovative Solution
Solves a Common
Problem
Page
217
219
220
221
221
Source
Information for this success story was gleaned (in
part) from A Watershed Restoration Partnership,
Karuk Tribe of California/Six Rivers and Klamath
National Forest. Submitted by Jenee Gavette, EPA
Region 9.
Submitted by Gary Dailey, Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program
web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/
projects/index, htm.
Submitted by Barbara Burkland, EPA Region 8.
Information for this success story was gleaned
from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program
web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/
projects/index.htm.
Appendix
-------
-------
Glossary
Acid mine drainage—Mine leachate, or drainage, that contains free acidic sulfates
(usually, ferrous acid). Sulfide minerals generally break down in the presence of
oxygen and water.
Animal feeding operations (AFOs)— Facilities where animals have been, are, or
will be stabled or confined for a total of 45 or more days in any 12-month period
and crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in
the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.
Aquifer—A groundwater supply that is able to release water in quantities sufficient
to supply reasonable amounts to wells.
Best management practice (BMP)—A practice or combination of practices that
are determined to control point and nonpoint pollutants at levels compatible with
environmental quality goals.
Channelization and channel modification—Engineering activities or techniques
undertaken to change stream and river channels for certain reasons, including
flood control, navigation, and drainage improvement. These activities include
straightening, widening, deepening, relocating, and clearing or snagging
operations that generally result in more uniform channel cross sections.
Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)—Facilities that (1) confine
more than 1,000 animal units or (2) confine 301 to 1,000 animal units and
discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.
Constructed wetland—An engineered system designed to simulate natural.
wetlands to exploit the water purification, functional value for human use and
benefits. Constructed wetlands consist of former upland environments that have
been modified to create poorly drained soils and wetland flora and fauna for the
primary purpose of removing contaminants or pollutants from wastewater runoff.
Dissolved oxygen—The concentration of free molecular oxygen in the water
column. Although oxygen makes up about 90 percent of water; its concentration in
water is higher near the surface and declines to almost zero at the lowest depths.
An absence of dissolved oxygen causes fish kills and the condition known as
hypoxia, or dead water.
Effluent—Solid, liquid, or gaseous wastes that enter the environment as a by-
product of human activities. "'''..
Erosion—Wearing away of the land surface by running water, glaciers, wind, and
waves. " '
Estuary—The part of the river that is affected by tides; the region near a rivers
mouth in which the fresh water in the river mixes with the salt water of the sea.
Eutrophication—The alteration of lake ecology through excessive nutrient input,
characterized by excessive growth of aquatic plants and algae and low levels of
dissolved oxygen. . -
Fecal coliform bacteria—Bacteria normally found in the intestinal tracts of warm-'
blooded animals. These bacteria are normally harmless to humans but are used as
indicators of the presence of sewage that might contain other bacteria and viruses. .
Feedlots—See Animal feeding operations and Concentrated animal feeding
operations.
Glossary
G-1
-------
Glossary (conit.)
Floodplains—Land areas adjacent to rivers and streams that are subject to
recurring flooding.
Groundwater—Underground water supplies stored in aquifers; the source of
groundwater is rain, which soaks into the ground and flows down until it is
collected at a point where the ground is not permeable.
Habitat—The place where a biological species naturally lives or grows.
Heavy metals—Elements with a large atomic number, including copper, cadmium,
lead, selenium, arsenic, mercury, and chromium. These elements accumulate in the
tissues of organisms that come into contact with them (especially in aquatic
settings) and are passed through the food chain. Heavy metals can be harmful or
fatal in high concentrations.
Hydrocarbons—Organic compounds containing hydrogen and carbon atoms '
that are found in petroleum products. These compounds have adverse affects on
human and animal health and might be linked to some forms of cancer.
Impaired waters—Lakes, streams, or rivers where pollutant concentrations exceed
those set by the water quality standards for the waterways' designated uses.
Integrated pest management [IPMJ—A pest population management system
that uses cultural practices to anticipate and prevent pests from reaching damaging
levels. IPM uses all suitable tactics, including natural enemies, pest-resistant plants,
cultural management, and pesticides, leading to economically sound and
environmentally safe agriculture.
Invasive species—A species that does not naturally inhabit an area and whose
introduction is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or adversely affect
human health.
Karst—A type of topography characterized by closed depressions, sinkholes,
underground caverns, and solution channels.
Leachate—Liquid that has percolated through a soil and contains substances in
solution or suspension. '
Leaching basins—A method of capturing and treating urban runoff from
roadways. These basins are designed to catch runoff water and remove pollutants
such as hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Load—The quantity of material that enters a water body over a given time interval.
No-till farming—Farming practices that reduce the need for tilling and the
number of times soil is tilled each year. By reducing the frequency of tilling, soil is
left undisturbed, resulting in less sediment runoff into nearby waterways.
Nonpoint source pollution—Water pollution that comes from many.diffuse
sources rather than from a specific point, such as an outfall pipe; often the
unintended result of human activities. .
Nutrients—Elements, or compounds, essential as raw materials for organism
growth and development, such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus;
On-site sewage treatment systems—Means of treating human or animal wastes
for properties that are not connected to a central sewage treatment system. On-site
systems, or septic systems, break down wastewater and disperse it into the ground
to be recycled.
G-2
Giossaiy
-------
Glossary (cent.)
Organic enrichments-Amounts of organic material that exceed a waterway's
capacity to maintain high levels of dissolved oxygen: Decaying organic material,
such as aquatic plants or organic material in nonpoint runoff wastewater, depletes
oxygen levels in a waterway and sometimes results in impairment or death in
aquatic life.
Pathogens—Disease-causing agents, including viruses, microorganisms, and
bacteria.
Point source pollution—Water pollution that comes from a specific, definable
source. .
Pollutant—Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage,
sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive
materials, .heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock sand, cellar dirt, and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged info water (Section 502(6)
of the Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law
100-4).
Retrofitting—The creation or modification of an urban runoff management system
in a previously developed area. Such systems include wet ponds, infiltration
systems, wetland plantings, streambank stabilization, and other best management
practices for improving water quality and creating aquatic habitat.
Riparian areas—Vegetated ecosystems along 'a water body through which
energy, materials, and water pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high
water table and are subject to periodic flooding and influence from the adjacent
water body.
Runoff—The part of precipitation, snowmelt, or irrigation water that runs off the
land into streams or other surface water. It can carry pollutants from the air and
land into the receiving waters. .
Section 303(d)—The section of the Clean Water Act that requires states to identify
impaired waters and prepare the Total Maximum Daily Load required to ensure .
protection of the impaired waters.
Sediment—Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being
transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice.
Sedimentation—The process or act of depositing sediment.
Sewage lagoon—A reservoir or pond built to contain water and animal wastes
until they can be decomposed by aerobic or anaerobic action.
Storm water—Water generated by rainfall.
Surface water—All water whose surface is exposed to the atmosphere.
Suspended sediment—The very fine soil particles that' remain in suspension in
water for a considerable period of time.
Tailings—Rock residue from the mining process.
Glossary
G-3
-------
Glossary (cont.)
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLJ Program—This program, established by
Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act, provides for the protection of waters in areas
where pollution control is not stringent enough to achieve water quality standards.
The program authorizes states to assess water quality and to allocate the total
maximum allowable daily load(s) of pollutant discharges to those waters, regardless
of the pollutants source. Future TMDLs are expected to emphasize wet-weather
storm water discharges and nonpoint source pollution problems.
Turbidity—A cloudy condition in water due to suspended sediment or organic
matter. •
Water quality—A term that reflects the condition of water that has been affected
by natural processes and human activities; good water quality may mean that the
water meets its designated uses; that is, it is fishable and swimmable.
Watershed—A drainage area or basin in which all land and water areas drain of
flow toward a central collector such as a stream, river, or lake at a lower elevation.
Wetlands—Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs.
G-4 Gtassay
------- |